An admirable if wearyingly muddled attempt to throw a spotlight on one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century, documentary Men at Lunch loses sight of its lede and fumbles away viewer interest.
“Lunch Atop a Skyscraper” was first published on October 2, 1932, during the throes of the Great Depression. Its photographer was unknown, as were its 11 subjects — anonymous figures against a misty Manhattan skyline, inclusive of Central Park, stretching out behind them. The picture was taken during the construction of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 57 stories up in the air.
To this day the photo, which could only have been taken during this era, remains striking for a variety of reasons: the composition itself, the view from 850 feet up in the air, and of course the casual indifference of laborers for whom this habitat, and its inherent dangers, is second nature. The picture seems to capture and deeply embody something unique about the American spirit and work ethic, about steadfast, punch-the-clock commitment and reliability even during times of considerable hardship.
Director Sean O Cualain’s film coughs up a few definitive nuggets of information — debunking rumors of the photo being a fraud, but confirming it was very much a posed shot — and then chronicles in fitful fashion a 2003 New York Post contest and other some subsequent efforts to identify the subjects. Men at Lunch tries to thread a needle in too fine a fashion, being both an investigation and a homage to the ethnic immigrant class who would fundamentally change the face of New York City and the nation over the first three decades of the 20th century.
Some of the information about iron welding and construction at the time (developers would factor in a loss rate of one worker per every 10 floors) is interesting. But it’s not very well developed, and O Cualain and editor Daithi Connaughton have little sense of how to smoothly interweave their parallel narrative tracks, simply tossing out investigatory dead ends as random facts here and there, rather than involving viewers in the process. Men at Lunch would be better served solely pursuing one function, no matter its lack of conclusivity. As is, it feels like a mystery that its makers got halfway into examining, found out some other folks had done work, and ceased or modified their own efforts. It’s not a movie worthy of “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper.” The picture itself says more than Men at Lunch. (First Run, unrated, 66 minutes)
