Lunch Hour is an early '60s hidden British gem; an overlooked work of cinematic art.
This phenomenal piece of British cinematic art is like a time-capsule of the pre-swinging London early 1960s, and shoots straight to the top of one of my all-time favourite motion pictures, without thinking too deeply, up there with the likes of Casablanca, Singing in the Rain, Black Narcissus, The Red Shoes and Persona.
The cinematography not only captures London superbly, but the lighting reflects Shirley Anne Field's every nuance and inner emotion perfectly. Her performance is sensitive and sensual. Apparently, she really enjoyed making this piece, with a small and tight-knit crew getting it in the can in just 4 weeks. In the movie, the "man", played by Robert Stephens asks her how old she is (after being promoted by Shirley, who is simply "girl"), and she replies that she's 24 - which was her real age as it happened. Not a coincidence, really, because the entire film and script fits the players like a glove.
This is New Wave British cinema at its best, with restrained, unobtrusive camera work which just always seems to capture the action flawlessly in frame - in this respect, equalling the best of European cinema. Without going back and analysing every shot, I don't recall a single zoom shot - thank goodness.
What I don't understand is how Talking Pictures TV and non-other than the BFI list the picture as a comedy. It's first rate drama that probes the usually hidden and dark inner workings of relationships, yes, peppered with comedic elements for sure - just like as in real life. But the film is saying something timeless and the direction never plays just for laughs, and is a profound social document of the early 1960s, avoiding the typical British "beat generation" cliches and prefiguring the hippy generation. It's hard to release that Beatlemania was still off in the future when the film was being made, and were still under contract playing in Hamburg.
Having scanned through some reviews here on IMDb and print reviews, I'm amazed that some feel it is "very dated" and there is a lot of ambivalence toward the plot twist that reveals itself in the second half. Maybe it's because a younger generation find it impossible to identify with British life in the 1950s and '60s. That is not the fault of the film, but it may indicate that today's youth are more out of touch with the past than might be imagined.
Of course with a run-time of just over 60 minutes, it had general release challenges. It's not a B picture, and to bill it as such is to sideline the massive artistic talent that comes alive on screen. It has it's place in art-house cinemas, and I'm going to wild-guess that it was shown a the Curzon when first released.
It is interesting to compare "Interlude", a main stream 1968 British film with an almost identical plot line to "Lunch Hour". Oh boy, what a lot can happen in the six year interval between the two (unrelated) films and society in general! Despite garnering a BAFTA award and featuring Oskar Werner in the male lead, (who ironically appeared in Truaffaut's French New Wave, "Jules et Jim"), "Interlude" falls down heavily and is stylistically quite dated in comparison to this much overlooked black and white early '60s hidden British gem, "Lunch Hour", which still has a fresh crispness that I believe future generations will learn to appreciate and value. Truly, an overlooked work of cinematic art.
Rating: 10/10
John E. Ruffle, January 14, 2019. 585 words.
