The lunchbox
Film Synopsis
The Lunchbox is the story of two complete strangers who are brought together by a a mistaken delivery system, an appreciation of traditional Indian cuisine and a desire to figure out what a better future might look like, how to get there and what company to keep.
Climate LENS
Anchored by the infrastructure of India’s lunchbox delivery system and the various styles and backgrounds of the country’s food, this film is a deeply contemplative exploration of how difficult it can be to step out of our current realities, yet how ultimately rewarding such paths can be.
Climate Discussion & Reflection Prompts
Infrastructure and complex systems permeate the movie.
The film opens with a little girl being told by her mother to be careful of falling trees and bridges collapsing. One generation telling the next to be careful of the infrastructure the former has provided for the latter.
The bicycles whose riders move massive numbers of hot lunches to specific individuals throughout the city. The trains carrying those riders - and others - to their jobs.
The basket from Ila’s aunt upstairs.
Think about the lunch box delivery system in India and about how America has “advanced” to the point of Uber Eats and fast food drive throughs. Which system provides better food? Which one is more efficient? Which one has a larger carbon footprint?
This film from 2013 centers around India’s lunchbox system which is so intricately designed and executed that “the Queen of England came to see it” and it has been “studied by the people of Harvard.” As a result, it cannot possibly be flawed.
What energy systems are we reliant on today that “cannot possibly be flawed?”
What other “they can’t possibly be wrong” institutions or systems are we naïvely giving false credit to the way the delivery man gives false credit to Harvard for a system that “can’t be wrong?”
What institutions involved in the climate crisis - on either side - do we find ourselves defaulting to, and why?
Ila says (or writes, really): “My husband stares at his phone as if nothing exists. Maybe nothing does . . . “ Then, not included in her note to Saajan, but spoken aloud to herself, “What do we live for?”
How does each generation shown in the film answer this question?
When discussing Bhutan, Ila writes, “They don’t have gross domestic product, they have gross domestic happiness. What if we had that here?”
In addition to being addicted to oil, are we also addicted to being unhappy?
Does being unhappy make it impossible for us to solve the climate crisis?
If we are chronically unhappy how likely are we to solve any of the big problems we face?
What about the obvious difference between the struggles of men and women in the movie?
Women in the movie are caring for men (one in diapers and a coma, one cooking for her husband and caring for their child, the woman who kills herself and her daughter…). In this film women are generally considerably more adaptive than men. In context of this movie, are men or are women better at adapting? What does that say about the importance of women to climate change adaptation?
Consider the generational conflict/tension that leads to Saajan’s decision NOT to meet Ila (perhaps even compare to the Dunaway/Holden relationship in Network). What does one generation owe another? Can one individual take responsibility for that debt?
“Sometimes the wrong train will get you to the right station.”
Can you think of any examples of progress on the climate front resulting from efforts meant for something else entirely?