The Song of Lunch

Trailer—The Song of Lunch

The Song of Lunch_720p(480P)

source: The Song of Lunch

The Song of Lunch (2010 TV Movie) was written and directed by Niall MacCormick. It's a short film (adapted from a poem) about two former lovers who meet for lunch in London after 15 years. Alan Rickman works in a publishing house and is angry and misanthropic. Emma Thompson now lives in Paris and is married to a highly successful author. Rickman looks old and acts angry. Thompson looks young and acts happy. One of the reasons Rickman is unhappy is that he realizes what his life with Thompson could have been, but never will be. It's an unusual movie, and it's wonderful in it's very sad way. Of course, Rickman was very skilled, and Dame Emma is a so talented that her ability defies description. It's no surprise that this movie has a strong IMDb rating of 7.5. I thought that it was even better than that, and rated it 9.

If this is stream of consciousness, working in real time, this mind/brain must have an awesome editor because, no matter how drunk the guy gets, he's remarkably clear in his production of words. To call it poetry is a misnomer. It's heavily worked over, dull prose, superficial and predictable. It looks like they knocked this thing out in a few hours, not much effort involved.

An existential parable of a wistful journey to ones heady youth with the excitement and bitterness of the time trapped in the mind. A former romance is re-evaluated by the rose coloured filter of time but confronted by the present. Time has moved on but the past has trapped the author. This is wonderfully written and played. Apparently not one word was added or removed from the book/poem of the same name. The words and style encapsulated an era, a culture and a place. From my perspective it was authentic but for a North American audience the language may not travel as well. To enjoy, ignore the characters they are not important, the moment you root for one character over the other the poem will fail (they are called He and She). What is important is the story of the words they are saying to each other. For me I strongly identified with the nostalgic myopia. However I wonder how a younger audience would embrace it? My only criticism was that the colour grading was a little cute. I was captivated by it.

I sat down to watch this for a second time in years and was immediately pulled in again by the clever vitriol of the male character with his witty and brutally honest musings. He is wasted potential personified, recognizing many of his own failings - right up to the point of changing anything, which he refuses to do. It's just easier to curl up around a bitter glass of restaurant chianti and bleat on about how all change is for the worse. Joining him at the restaurant, the woman breezes into the picture, all lightness and controlled gladness - the picture of elegance and change personified. She is genuinely happy to see him and ready to scoop him into a reminiscence of nostalgic affection but he won't let go of his anger at her leaving him. He refuses to truly see himself and twists their reunion into an internal pity party that manifests in leers and snide comments. And still, he is somehow a sympathetic character (oh thank you, Alan Rickman). You understand her affectionate regard, but also her healthy detachment. The poem is fascinating and the screenplay adaptation is practically perfect in every way. The beautiful photography and luscious sound editing propels this poem into an incarnate, omnisensory, and very human experience.

Less than an hour long, this is an interesting type of "different" film. It is actually a poem, recited by the protagonist, as we see the lunch meeting acted out. Alan Rickman, one of the fine underrated actors of our time is the man, the protagonist. He has arranged a lunch date with his old flame, Emma Thompson as the lady. They had not seen each other in quite a long time. In the film they are only known as 'He' and 'She'. I happen to like both Rickman and Thompson and here they are good together, but actually separate. It is clear that She has let their relationship go a long time ago but He hasn't. She comes across as happy and interesting, He comes across as bitter and tense. She politely takes a glass of wine, and 'nurses' it, while He drinks too much and has to order a second bottle. Frankly I don't recall the text of the poem, but it fit as I watched the film. Interesting short film, less than one hour, a contrast of personalities.

This film is not going to be for everyone. I knew that just five minutes in. But I loved it. The poem, the dialogue, the acting. Any lesser actors than these two could not have pulled it off. It is heartbreaking, because fairly early in, it becomes clear that someone has a problem and it is this issue, along with other feelings of inadequacy that is the true root of their relationship's demise. What is especially interesting is the fact that the viewer doesn't despise Rickman's character--rather, feels his humiliation and loss. I gave the film eight stars rather than 10, because unresolved for me is the "WHY" of it. Why does he ask her to meet him for lunch to begin with? Is it to punish her? To rekindle something? Is the scene outside the apartment in Paris meant to illustrate obsession? Why does she agree to meet? Is she just being kind? If so--then why is she so cruel in her assessment of his book? The motivation/impetus for this lunch feels unclear to me.

He came close to his fantasy, a renewal. But shortly let his mind take him down a trail of various sorts of negativity. He was on that line a bit, a line where he could have been witty and upbeat and challenging, a line he crossed into torpor and, well, annoyance, and more. Or perhaps He knew something the other reviewers here (and they are a very solid group of reviewers) did not know: That She too wanted a renewal. Though her words bely that possibility, well into the film, she touches his hand in a way that is personal and perhaps a bit erotic. Perhaps in her wonderful life with a successful author and two nondescript kids, she would like to recoup her past with He. Perhaps He knew this, and sabotaged it. If so, Why? The subject that screenwriters love to chat about, subtext, comes up. I thought the Mamet fiasco, PHIL SPECTOR, had the characters all delivering subtext as dialogue. Thus there was no mystery. Here, however, the subtext was given us in his unspoken words, his thoughts, as voice-over dialogue in his own head. Perambulating in his skull. It worked. For Rickman, I find this his second most compelling work, the first being CLOSET LAND (which I saw on a Saturday night in a popular movie theater, but only me in the room for that film). Both works exploit his rich voice.