Our Daily Bread (1934) watch online HD

OUR DAILY BREAD (United Artists, 1934), directed by King Vidor, is a follow-up/sequel to Vidor's own 1928 silent drama, THE CROWD (MGM, 1928) starring James Murray and Eleanor Boardman as the typical American couple, John and Mary Sims. In this sound go-round production, Tom Keene and Karen Morley, who somewhat resemble the original portrayers, step in as John and Mary Sims.

This time the setting takes place during the hard times of the Great Depression. John and Mary live in an apartment (possibly New York City) struggling to survive their daily existence. John searches high and low for any kind of job while Mary manages to talk the landlord into giving them a little more time to come up with the rent money. Hoping that their visiting Uncle Anthony (Lloyd Ingraham) can submit them a loan until John can obtain work, it is learned after a dinner that Uncle Anthony hasn't the funds to help them nor himself. The Stock Market had gotten to him, too. However, he offers the couple an old farm in the country that he doesn't want. Although John and Mary know nothing about farming, they accept his offer. It's only after John comes upon Chris (John Qualen), a destitute Swedish farmer whose truck has broken down, that John hires him as his farmhand. John then comes up with a great idea starting a commune for other depression victims to lend a helping hand, ranging from carpenters to blacksmiths. The farming community, with John as their leader, becomes a thriving success. Of the residents in the community, Louie (Addison Richards), helpful as a tractor driver, is very mysterious, especially when keeping only to himself. After the arrival of Sally (Barbara Pepper), a blonde floozy, she not only plays her radio music loud enough to hear in the next town, but arouses enough attention from John to go away with her. Situations arise when farm animals and crops of corn are dying due to a serious drought.

OUR DAILY BREAD is an interesting look of an American people of the Depression era striving together, uniting as one, with a positive outlook in life regardless of how dark things become. A forerunner to the now famous John Steinbeck novel, THE GRAPES OF WRATH (which later became a classic 1940 motion picture starring Henry Fonda, with John Qualen playing a strong supporting role, minus his Swedish accent), in a story about farmers losing their land and driving cross-country to fight unemployment. Steinbeck's book and movie adaptation goes more into darker detail than Vidor's production. There's drama, but plays on the lighter side, with moments of comedy "relief" usually by the supporting players of farmers. There's a memorable scene where farmers gather together for prayer, kneeling on the earth of soil, accompanied by a choir sounding music soundtrack. This religious-style musical soundtrack would be repeated again not only in the film's conclusion, but in fragments of other films as THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO (UA, 1934) with Robert Donat, and LES MISERABLES (20th Century, 1935) with Fredric March. While OUR DAILY BREAD is essentially an American film, there are times it has the outlook of an European production.

Karen Morley, formerly of MGM (1931 to 1934), stands out as a self-sacrificing and devoted housewife in one of her rare leading roles. Her confrontation with Sally (Barbara Pepper) doesn't comes off as strong as it should have been. Tom Keene, who found brief stardom in "B" westerns at RKO Radio (1931-1933), does what he can as the central character. He simply fails to live up James Murray's powerful performance in THE CROWD. Since the movie consists of a majority of unknown actors, from the leading actors down to the co-stars, including Nellie V. Nichols as Martha, Chris's wife; Henry Hall as The Carpenter; Bud Rae as the Stone Mason; and Bob Reaves as George Washington Hannibal, OUR DAILY BREAD could obtain an audience today only by word of mouth. Clips regarding the history and background of this production were profiled in the King Vidor segment from "The Men Who Made the Movies" (produced for PBS in 1973). As in "The Crowd," "Our Daily Bread," is highlighted by a memorable and compelling conclusion that makes up for some of the weaknesses found in both the plot and acting.

Broadcast history for OUR DAILY BREAD consisted mostly those on public television, first on the May 13, 1972, showing of the weekly series, "Film Odyssey" (WNET, Channel 13, New York), decades before turning up on classic cinema late show presentations during the after midnight hours, and finally on Turner Classic Movies cable channel where it premiered January 7, 2007. Since it's a public domain title, video distributions consist of various editions, including a slightly shorter print with inferior picture quality and/or sound reproduction, with the opening credit distribution by Astor Pictures (from 1940s reissue) rather than the original United Artists/ Viking Productions. The best video/DVD copies to obtain are the ones from either KINO Video or by locating an old 1980s copy by Embassy Home Video, that features a 10 minute segment that precedes the movie on how OUR DAILY BREAD came to be, narrated by the director himself, King Vidor. It's interesting to note that Vidor struggled to get a movie studio interested in distributing this project. He found one in United Artists, but had to mortgage his home or sell whatever he owned to finance the film. Vidor also mentions that he can be seen as one of the crowd of extras playing a laborer in the ditch digging segment near the end of the movie.

Reportedly a commercial flop when initially released in theaters, it has grown to become a minor film classic that was, as subtitled during the opening credits, "inspired by headlines of today." (***)

Desperate people set in desperate Great Depression times try to eke out a living on an abandoned farm. Rousing for its "back to the land" pioneering spirit of people from all walks of life forced to help each other start a new life (or starve). The film preaches self-reliance (away from expecting government assistance), yet encourages people to help each other (in a somewhat Socialistic sense), so there are mixed messages here. There seems to be an undercurrent not to trust the various forms of government either.

Parts of this film are greater than the whole, with uneven performances and some hackneyed "girl tries to steal husband" scenes that make you want to fast-forward... Director King Vidor managed to get "OK" performances out of some of the lesser (amateur?) performers (some of which never made another film).

I've seen this film dozens of times for its most interesting scenes, tops of which include the famous ditch digging scene at the films end.

Unlike Grapes of Wrath, Our Daily Bread is overall optimistic that the individual can rise above dire straits to triumph through "work, work without stopping." Unfortunately, this film has enough flaws in story and acting to keep it from anywhere near the masterpiece status Grapes of Wrath has achieved.

Boy, is this film interpreted differently, depending on which critic is discussing it. Overall, however, most of them - including me - like this movie and find it interesting.

Today's critics like to use this film as a boost for socialistic or Commununstic causes, but that's baloney. One could easily do the opposite and use this film as an analogy to the early Christians, too - people who banded together pooling their talents and possessions for the good of the whole group.

This was a simply of story of America during the Great Depression with a bunch of people out of work, so they try to make a living by turning themselves into farmers and making a go of it together.

Tom Keane and Karen Morley star in here, playing husband-and-wife. Morely played a very upbeat, sweet lady who was joy to watch. Keane's acting was strange. At times it bordered on raw amateurism. He also looked, with the wild expressions, as if he were back doing a silent film.

The rest of the cast was solid, from the Swedish farmer to the tough guy who turned himself in to the police to help the rest of the group. Overall, a good film and worth watching, whatever your politics.

The film, though socialistic in many ways, represents the drive to get back to nature as stressed by FDR. It represents the optimism believed by people that the current system had gotten too complex and that people were mere cogs. By creating a co-op, the characters essentially created a system focused on barter. This form of commerce could not become corrupted to an extent as a monetary based market did. Had the film been a propaganda film biased towards a socialist state, the emphasis of the importance of money would not have been as pivotal as it became partway through the movie. This film served not as propaganda, but as a solution to a common shared problem of a bleak time in American history. Because of this, this movie should not be viewed with the same biases of the 21st century.

At the time of this film's release, it was a pure novelty. Hollywood had paid little attention to the people in rural areas who had to deal with the Depression. The fact that this movie was made at all is somewhat miraculous since most people didn't want to see films about human struggle -even if they did have happy endings. They just wanted glamour and thrills (amazing how some things never change!). But the most miraculous thing was that Hollywood even allowed a film with a blatantly obvious socialist theme to be made. But then that's what most Americans called Franklin Roosevelt's policies anyway, despite that his 'New Deal' plan lifted the country up out of the mire of hopelessness. This film is hardly a documentary-like look at the effects of the New Deal (which in this scenario was basically co-op living and farming). Nor does it try to be propagandist, preachy or artistic, like Vidor's contemporaries in the Soviet Union. It was able to be made simply because it accepted the form of Hollywood populist cinema, which was basically: keep it melodramatic, cute, and non-threatening. It's sort of like 'Capra goes country', or like the Judy Garland-Mickey Rooney movies, only instead of everyone saying "hey, let's put on a show!", they build a farming community, and carry shovels instead of batons. It's a fascinating look at how people saw this country back then and how Hollywood approached The New Deal.

If you can, try to rent this on DVD because the DVD comes with four fascinating documentary shorts containing different viewpoints of The New Deal.

To really appreciate this film you need to view King Vidor's 1928 silent classic "The Crowd". Both movies are the stories of John and Mary Sims. In the 1928 film, John is done in by his own mediocrity and dreaming during prosperous times overflowing with opportunity. Just six years later a couple by the same name is done in by the Great Depression. Although the two couples have the same name, this is not a sequel. It is King Vidor making a statement on the desperation of the times and how much difference just six years have made in the lives of average people. John actually shows quite a bit of leadership in this film versus "The Crowd". At the beginning, John and Mary are on the verge of being thrown into the street as John cannot find work. Mary's uncle saves the day by allowing them to move into and work a farm that has been foreclosed upon but that nobody wants due to the bad financial times. John, who says he could write a book about what he doesn't know about farming, is helped out by a Minnesota farmer whose own family has been kicked off their farm and is passing through. Pretty soon John gets the idea of turning the farm into a cooperative with people of all professions - plumbers, electricians, masons, etc. - joining in and setting up a system of bartering.

John Sims is voted the leader of the group, but there are obstacles along the way - a drought that threatens the crops and an ex-flapper who wants to lure John away from the cooperative and tries to convince him that it will never amount to anything.

This film is particularly relevant since the U.S. economy is facing challenges similar to those of the Great Depression again. However, people generally don't have the skills needed to live directly off of the land that they still had in the 1930's.

Too bad the movie's laudable message gets dragged down by bad acting. That's been the traditional rap on this Depression era film, and critics are correct. Tom Keene's Golly, Gee Whiz! performance seems tailor made for Andy Hardy's older brother, but not for the embattled head of a farm co-operative. No doubt, director Vidor wanted a fresh faced non- celebrity for the inspirational role of Tom, but he should have kept auditioning before settling on Keene-- and what was Vidor seeing when he viewed the daily rushes which he likely did. The part requires an actor of Henry Fonda's calibre to bring off the various mood changes. Unfortunately Keene treats those scenes like a sulking teenager. Then too, the normally competent Addison Richards overplays the hostile stranger to a fault, which doesn't help. Fortunately, the winsome and polished Karen Morley has a featured part that anchors the rest of the cast.

Nonetheless, I can see why Vidor was driven to make the film. Depression era audiences needed reminding that they could re-establish their livelihoods by combining skills instead of waiting for the financial markets to get their act together. After all, our daily bread ultimately depends not on the money changers or financial firms, but on cooperative labor working to keep production going for mutual benefit. Here, ordinary people are shown as having the necessary skills of farming, carpentry, care-giving, and the other know-how's necessary to sustaining a community. It's these folks and these skills that we can't do without when the economic chips are down.

Note especially how the cooperative farm has no need for money in order to exchange goods and services. Then, no less than now, people are led to believe that no economy can function without money in some form, no doubt a comforting thought to the private bankers of the world. The movie however, shows that cooperation, not competition or money, is the ultimate background from which other economic forms develop.The fact that the cooperative farm had to reach into the money economy in order to survive only shows that their cooperative is still too small, and not that the idea won't work on a larger scale. I expect Vidor's effort was not favorably reviewed on Wall Street.

It doesn't help the movie's down-to-earth message to sentimentalize plain folk as the script too often does. There's too much of the "happy peasant" atmosphere at times to be believable. (Note also how even the cheerless Addison Richard's criminal past is reformed by productive labor before he makes his sacrifice.) Nonetheless, I'd like to know where Vidor got his very ordinary looking people who don't even look like standard film "extras'-- a real boost to the movie's theme. Note too, how quickly the 4th of July rhetoric about "immortal democracy" is dismissed by the refugees as being the cause of their problems and not the solution. That's certainly an unexpected point to ponder. The fact, however, that they turn decision-making over to a single individual may be a naive reflection of developments in European fascism at a time when Germany and Italy were turning to strongmen as their solution.

All in all, this is one of the more thought-provoking movies to emerge out of that turbulent period. Then too, its message is no less important now than it was then. For all that apparently aimless rolling in the mud at movie's end is more than just an expression of unbounded joy. It's a near-religious communion with the rich moist earth from which we spring and on whose bounty we still depend. For the basic fact is that mother earth and those who work it continue to feed, shelter, and clothe the rest of us, no matter how far the movies, TV and super-slick celebrities may remove us from that homely truth. Thanks, King Vidor, for the celebration and the much needed reminder.

Ponderous, though well-meaning, socialist propaganda piece. Features lots of "let's all get together and form a collective!" speechifying, creaky romantic complications, and wooden characterizations by non-professionals acting very self-consciously (the "pros" aren't any better). However, in the final section of the film (the digging of the irrigation canal), things spring gloriously to life, and the joy and drama of collective effort, that the movie has been preaching to us for over an hour, is simply SHOWN (to great dramatic effect). Would have made a terrific short. 5/10

Politically, this is one of those movies (like High Noon, for instance) that you can read any way you like. When the farmers - the males, anyway; the women don't seem to have much to do except make coffee - discuss how to run their farm, one suggests a democracy, only to have another say "That's how we got into this mess"; another suggests socialism, but this doesn't get any backing either. Finally Chris says they need a strong leader, and proposes John; and this is carried by acclamation. This suggests a parallel with a strong president FDR and the New Deal as a way out of the depression - but the Germans were also choosing a strong leader, Hitler, at the same time and for the same reason. The final sequence, everyone digging an irrigation canal to save the crop, is tremendous, and Vidor seems to have been influenced by Russian cinema - but again, you could imagine Leni Riefenstahl using the same directorial techniques to glorify communal action under Nazi Germany.

A young impoverished couple (Tom Keene, Karen Morley) with no employment is given some land and a farm by an uncle during the Depression.The couple finds hardships on their way and they'll have to fight against distress, elements, and drought. They are helped by some hapless people (John Qualen and many others) and success in managing the land, creating a socialist community . They find hardships as the struggle to support themselves. As they struggle to maintain their dignity and pride and the enjoyable community is peppered with some happy moments, Meanwhile a cover-girl (Pepper) is tempting to the protagonist John.

This is a naturalist rural drama magnificently performed and splendidly staged. This look at day-to-day existence of a poor-class couple is a superb naturalistic celebration of fighting to survive amid all the disgraces, and drought. Its best scenes are referred when the workers are commonly digging the land and water running through the furrows. It contains with numerous sequences highly influenced by Russian directors, such as Alexander Dovshenko and Sergei Eisenstein. Interesting screenplay by King Vidor, risking bankruptcy to finance it, furthermore clever dialogs by the great director Joseph L Mankiewicz. It was a deserved critical success for its sincere treatment of sentiments and its thrillingly slick edition, and innovative utilization of mobile camera. Neo-realist and evocative photography by Robert Planck. Sensible and imaginative musical score by the classic Alfred Newman.

The picture is originally directed by King Vidor. After his successful ¨The last parade¨ one of the great war films of the silent era, he directed ¨The crowed(1928)¨, one of the best mute motion pictures, that is a precedent to ¨Our daily bread¨ and concerning about a working-class people against the backdrop of wealthy society. Later on, Vidor explored similar theme in ¨Street impact¨and he went on filming successful movies such as ¨Duel in the sun (46)¨, ¨Fountainhead(49), ¨Ruby Gentry¨ terminating with blockbusters as ¨War and Peace¨and ¨Solomon and Sheba¨. Rating : Better than average. This sentimental and religious film appeal to uncharacteristic Hollywood epic buffs.

I like it that one reviewer likened this to a Rooney/Garland musical, for it really is, even including the big "production number" for a finale! I showed it to my American lit class today as part of our discussion of naturalism. I could have picked other, better films, but this fit neatly into the 75 min. period. Anyway, it got some applause at the end! There are obviously Soviet-style overtones, especially in the photography and editing of the final sequence, but the film is also explicitly Christian and pro-private ownership (John retains the deed to the farm). What saddens me is that the "survivalists" of today are mainly concerned with their own bug-out-dug-outs and stashing them with goods for their immediate families but no one else.

Despite its naiveté and occasional bad acting (Tom Keene?) it remains an entertaining period film and instructive as well. John Qualen. He was so great in so many movies, including The Grapes of Wrath!

Our Daily Bread could only have been made in the Thirties, the great reformist decade in American history when all kinds of social experimentation was being tried to save our economy. This was the decade of the New Deal, but also the decade of Share The Wealth, The Townsend Plan, Social Credit, all kinds of ideas and plans that were going further than government and the men that run it were willing to go.

Karen Morley and Tom Keene play Mr.&Mrs. Average Americans who are doing their best not to sink into poverty during the Great Depression. Not getting anywhere in the city, they go out to the country though neither of them know a thing about farming. Still Morley and Keene move into an abandoned farm and become squatter's. Pretty soon all kinds of folks are moving in with them and a collective of sorts is established. You might remember 26 years later something along the same lines was established in Spartacus from all the men and women freed from the gladiator school and then other places. All contribute their talents and the collective in Our Daily Bread, they even find work for a music teacher, just like Kirk Douglas found work for Tony Curtis, a minstrel.

Addison Richards becomes a true believer in the work and he makes a real sacrifice which I cannot reveal, but it's a timely one.

Our Daily Bread did not fare so well at the box office though with no really big stars involved, I doubt too much notice was taken. It got taken later by all kinds of investigative bodies like the House Un-American Activities Committee. Karen Morley's politics were truly reflected in Our Daily Bread, she ran for public office in New York State on the American Labor Party ticket.

Watching it now I think the collective could be best compared to the kibbutz in Israel. When they started a lot of city dwellers came to live on them, but they learned the agricultural skills which are truly universal.

King Vidor got good performances out of his cast which expressed the hopes and optimism of the common people. Frank Capra couldn't have done any better. Best scene in the film is the sheriff's sale on the abandoned farm where outside bidders are 'encouraged' not to bid and destroy what the people have started.

Of course as Preston Sturges observed in Sullivan's Travels a little sex always helps at the box office. That's supplied by Barbara Pepper who plays a poor man's Jean Harlow (no pun intended considering Our Daily Bread's subject matter) who makes a play for Tom Keene.

Our Daily Bread is incredibly dated, but still it's most reflective of certain attitudes in the decade it was made.

King Vidor's "The Crowd" (1928) ended hopefully: James Murray and Eleanor Boardman (then playing John and Mary Sims) conquered the industrialized, impersonal City, with a new job and child replacing previous losses. But, the Sims' luck is, according to this film, cut short by the Great Depression. Tom Keene and Karen Morley (now playing John and Mary Sims) are sans job and money. With nothing to lose, the couple moves out to farm some country land owned by Ms. Morley's uncle. Mr. Keene organizes the locals into a communal society; but, nature and a woman threaten the Sims' success.

Although the lead characters resemble their namesakes from director Vidor's "The Crowd"; their tale, proclaimed as "Inspired by Headlines of Today", is derived from a "Reader's Digest" story. The characters do not share factual similarities with the original John and Mary Sims; for example, no reference is made to their children.

Vidor directed, and Keene acted, the "John" role inappropriately. Several of the supporting players are also unsuitable. Morley's Garbo-like "Mary" is a bright spot among the performances, though. Barbara Pepper answers "Garbo" with a Harlow-like "Sally". It's the closest you'll get to having Greta Garbo and Jean Harlow in the same film. However, the attempted "city girl" temptation of Keene, by Ms. Pepper, is not convincing. Interestingly, Pepper returned to country life in the 1960s, as the wife of "Fred Ziffel", on TV's "Green Acres".

The irrigating ending is unexpectedly exhilarating.

******* Our Daily Bread (1934) King Vidor ~ Karen Morley, Tom Keene, Barbara Pepper

Tom Keene does a marvelous job as an everyman during the depression era. This King Vidor classic of a group of poor drifters who try to make a go of a farm is timeless in its universality. Barbara Pepper (much later cast as Doris Ziffel in Green Acres) is devastating as the bad girl who tries to lure Keene away from all that is chaste and pure.

John and Mary are a married couple struggling to make it in the city during the Great Depression, because John cannot find work. An uncle gives them an opportunity to work an abandoned farm, and they decide to take it. They know nothing about farming. A genuine farmer, who lost his own place, breaks down on the road, and John invites him and his family to join them. John then gets the idea of inviting other people to join the farm, using their diversity of skills to turn it into a cooperative commune.

Naturally enough, there are scenes showing how well this works out, but there are also scenes of trouble. There is a discussion of the kind of government they will have for themselves, and we get just a taste of political discord. There is a scene involving a troublemaker, who is quickly forced to behave himself. John tells Mary about one of the members of the commune trying to steal some stuff and sell it for his own personal gain. We want to see more of this, because there are not many movies premised on the idea of desperate families forming such a commune, and we are curious as to whether these elements of discord could be overcome. Unfortunately, the movie diverges from these issues.

First, it slides into a man-against-nature situation, in which drought threatens to ruin their crops. There are lots of movies about farmers struggling against the elements, and it seems a shame to waste time on that theme here. The only good thing that can be said in its favor is that they all pull together and build a path from the river to the crops for the purpose of irrigation, solving the problem through their own effort and ability. Another movie might have had someone pray for rain, followed by a downpour, so at least we were spared that deus ex machina.

Second, there is a diversion with no redeeming features at all. It concerns the arrival of a blonde femme fatale, who almost succeeds in getting John to desert his wife and the farm by running off to the city with her. Movies about a wicked woman making a good man go wrong can be lots of fun, but that plot element does not belong here. Besides, it is a little irritating the way Mary blithely takes John back after abandoning her, even if only temporarily.

The movie should have spent less time on the drought and none at all on the femme fatale, thereby leaving more time to dramatize all the difficulties in getting people to cooperate in such an enterprise, especially since many of us have doubts as to how well something like that would work out anyway.

An early classic by King Vidor, "Our Daily Bread" sees an unemployed couple defaulting on their rent and starting a co-operative out in the countryside. A reaction to the Great Depression, and the vast shanty towns which proliferated under President Herbert Hoover's administration, the film's a stark contrast to some of Vidor's latter works (he'd film Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" some years later).

Much of the film watches as despondent men and women band together, form co-operatives and attempt to turn despair into hope. Revitalised by common purpose, our heroes start farming and housing projects, irrigation projects, and slowly create some semblance of order. Aesthetically the film is evocative of Soviet agitprop cinema, and perhaps Vidor's Kansas scenes in "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). It also contains a subplot about a seductive woman who infiltrates the cooperative and entices a community leader away from his wife and job; she's this Garden of Eden's own serpentine temptress.

As the US government and CIA began a violent clampdown on all radically left-wing artists, movements and political bodies in America in the 1930s, and murderously did the same across most of the world over the next 90 years, films like "Our Daily Bread" became, not only rare, but a form of career suicide, especially in the wake of House Un-American Activities Committee. Vidor would film "The Fountainhead" some years later, its politics of extreme individualism reversing Vidor's themes in both "Bread" and his famous silent picture, "The Crowd". Indeed, many directors accused of left-wing sympathies, or who joined the American Communist party (Edward Dmytryk et al), would make proudly right-wing films after freeing themselves of the blacklist. Not wishing to be forced into either exile or bankruptcy, these were naked attempts by artists to ingratiate themselves with those in power. Vidor would himself join the anti-communist Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals in 1944.

7.9/10 – See "Salt of the Earth" (1954), "Grapes of Wrath" and Vidor's "The Big Parade".

Hollywood in the 1930s was a great era for collaboration, under the steady guidance of the studio system. It wasn't an age in which independent filmmakers could thrive, but by and large they didn't need to since studio output was of such high calibre. And yet, there were still times when producers and directors had such a burning desire to get a project off the ground that they just had to strike out on their own. The director, producer and indeed the writer of Our Daily Bread is King Vidor, a man of such good sense, knowledge and professionalism that he was able to make a picture that is head and shoulders above the typical indy feature.

With neither studio backing nor stacks of cash, Vidor couldn't get the perfect set-up. Most of the cast are bit players or B-movie stars, so they are a rough bunch, but nevertheless carefully chosen. Lead man Tom Keene I have only seen in one other lead role, and that is in the DeMille silent The Godless Girl, where he is billed under his birth name of George Duryea. Like many silent stars his career dwindled but never quite fizzled out. His voice and manner bear more than a passing resemblance to James Stewart. He doesn't have half the talent, but he has that same honest charm and boyish enthusiasm. He really comes into his own when making a speech and whipping up the crowd – close your eyes in those scenes and you could almost believe it was Jimmy himself. Karen Morley was a fairly prominent character actress, and while she is not outstanding she is not conspicuously bad. Barbara Pepper fulfils the typical bad girl role, and isn't really required to have any more dimension than that. Addison Richards is a little wooden but certainly has presence. And John Qualen is always entertaining, and he proves himself fully able to expand his silly Swede persona beyond a mere comic relief caricature.

And Vidor was lucky with his collaborators. As well as securing the services of a competent technical crew, he managed to get nine-times Oscar winner Alfred Newman, before he became Fox's in-house composer and was just a jobbing musical director. Newman's score for Our Daily Bread is delicately touching in a way that film music rarely was, and the massive orchestral finale he provides gives the picture a truly symphonic feel. It is clear the composer absolutely understood the necessary tone, and he is undoubtedly the most crucial contributor after Vidor.

But what about Vidor himself? As always his work is supremely beautiful, and he directs with both heart and head. He begins the picture with cramped interiors, with little space between camera, players and the back wall. In the earliest scenes on the farm the space is still not properly opened out – the camera tends to point towards the ground and trees block the horizon. Only when the commune is established and the land cultivated are we hit with the full majesty of the outdoors. These are typical Vidor shots – sublime, sweeping, almost surreal landscapes that seem to call to something deep within us. As the picture progresses we move from straightforward realism into cinematic fantasy, with montages, aesthetic imagery and an increasingly prominent musical presence.

I haven't yet touched on why Vidor – a respected industry insider with a healthy career at MGM – had to do Our Daily Bread off his own bat. It was of course too politically controversial at the time for the majors to consider. It's a shame he couldn't have done it with studio backing, and that it was virtually ignored in its day. And yet such is Vidor's determination he has pulled off a production that may not be entirely smooth but at least has no gaping flaws. And as for the politics, whether or not it represents a crazy dream or an attainable paradise, Our Daily Bread's appeal should be universal, because it is above all else a stirring and evocative paean to human endeavour.

Cynics may, and will, find a lot to dislike; conversely, idealists will find a lot to like.

Another commenter said "Our Daily Bread" gets a lot of interpretations, and that is very definitely correct.

The one I like is this: People in voluntary co-operation, working together toward a common goal, in this case, survival, can accomplish a lot, especially if there is some intelligence used in both finding the goal and finding the means toward it.

Unfortunately a lot of luck is needed, too, and the people here got a bit of it at the start.

Also needed is a very high threshold of frustration, and patience, and a reluctance to place blame.

Father Flanagan, most famous for Boys Town, started his mission of helping financially deprived people by acquiring an abandoned hotel in Omaha. He opened it to anyone in need who would also provide some ability or effort toward restoring the building.

It's an idea whose time might be here again, as we are in either a depression or a very severe recession, and thousands of people are losing their homes.

The John Sims character in "Our Daily Bread" begins with a similar, if not identical, premise, and disparate, but desperate, people pitch in with their skills and talents or perhaps just their desperate desire.

The commenter who said the women had little to do should re-watch "Our Daily Bread" and pay closer attention to the last scene, which someone else called, rightly, "exhilarating."

Exhilarating: That's the word for "Our Daily Bread," a must-see.

"Our daily bread" is some kind of follow-up to "The Crowd" (1928).Not only there is not work in the city anymore on account of the economy,but city is evil ,as temptress Sally shows.

I love the way King Vidor tackled the subject : the society's rejects's plight after the Depression.He never loses his sense of humour ,even in the most dramatic scenes: John Sims trades his small guitar for a scrawny chicken,the farm is sold for 1.85 dollars ,etc

"Our daily bread" is the new society in miniature Jim built with a little help from his pals .Every human being counts,a violin player is as useful as a carpenter.Politic is not much talked about;the word "socialism" is uttered once or twice ,but the keyword is " cooperative" ."Let's stand together" is their motto.It culminates in the last sequence,one of the strongest of all time !Songs,prayers,a bit of utopia but a lot of human warmth and love!

Like this ?Try these ...

"le Belle Equipe" Julien Duvivier 1936

"Grapes of Wrath" John Ford 1940

What did i learn from this movie? Well, let's see. First I learned what the best kind of government is. One of the 20 or so men birthing the communal farm says 'lets establish an immortal democracy' with super political bombast. They all say 'no that got us into this mess.' The next says 'lets be socialist. the government should control everything'. Many say no to that. Then the humble Swedish guy says "Well i don't know the meaning of any of these words you all just said but i know this, we need a big man for a big job and John is the biggest man here.' Everyone cheers and shouts hip hip hooray for John. Well there you go. The rest of the film has as much depth as this scene. The level of detail and care put into realism is also comparable. If you thought that scene was pretty cool, then you'll like the movie. Or maybe you will be like me, and find its lack of realism insulting to real farmers.

More than fifty years ago, when I was 10 or 12, my very radical parents compelled me to watch this film. At that age, most of it went over my head; I was far more interested in the Adventures of Sky King. But the movie stuck with me. I figured out eventually the political message, or so I thought. And remaining a faithful leftie, I embraced it. I note that the first User Review to appear on this site calls it a "ponderous socialist propaganda piece." None of that is correct. It is, as a film, not at all ponderous. The action moves swiftly. There is no wasted plotline, no unnecessary palaver. Perhaps the message is ponderous, if by that one means heavy handed. But it is not socialist. My parents were wrong. I was wrong. The reviewer is wrong. King Vidor will be turning in his grave. He was distinctly NOT a Socialist. He was a dedicated Libertarian. Not only is there no socialist propaganda in the film, but the idea of Socialism is specifically introduced in the scene in which the commune members discuss forms of government. They roundly reject Socialism, as they reject Democracy. If anything, the commune is Anarchist. Some years ago I showed this film to a Libertarian/Anarchist friend. (I guess I am one of the few people left who can discuss political ideas with a friend and not dissolve the friendship.) He had no objection to it. He loved it.

The film's message - coming in the midst of the Depression - is self-reliance. Government got us into this mess. Government is the problem. We must pull ourselves out. Some of the characters insist that We must have a government of some sort. So what do they settle on? A fake government. Democracy is hooted down. Socialism is rejected. One man, John, is put in charge. That might be called Monarchy. But John is really not in charge. He has no actual authority. He makes no binding decisions. He suggests but he cannot impose. He tries to enforce only one decision, his plan to build a conduit for irrigating the fields. He can't even impose that. Not until he asks the advice of John Qualen's Chris, the only knowledgeable farmer in the place, and Chris agrees with him, do the others consent. (They really should have made Chris the boss; he's obviously the only one who knows how to run a farm.) Politically, the commune runs on a system of anarchy - William Morris' vision in "News From Nowhere." Decisions come from the people. There is, of course, the question of law enforcement, the sphere in which, one may say, government is indispensable. Even there, we see no government. Louis, the former criminal, acts as a self-appointed gendarme. But he is not an agent of government. The people themselves will see to their own security and deal with their own problems in their own way. (There is also, note, no prohibition of private property. The proceeds of the agriculture, having been produced on a cooperative basis, are distributed on a cooperative basis, hardly a recipe for communism.)

A word about the acting. It's great all through: John Qualen, Barbara Pepper (Lucille Ball's friend), Addison Richards - all excellent character actors. The main roles are especially impressive, if you watch carefully. Considering that it is a message-heavy film, those characters are surprisingly complex. Tom Keene and Karen Morley express them splendidly. (Karen Morley was probably the only Socialist in the cast, for which she was duly blacklisted once Socialism became a Hollywood crime.) Tom Keene's character is sometimes seen as too goofy. That's it exactly. He is essentially a weak, frivolous person, as incompetent in life as he is on a farm. He lurches, we are told, from one get-rich-quick scheme to another. He's a precursor to Ralph Kramden. Who would put Ralph in charge of anything? He's amiable but weak, indecisive - precisely as Tom Keene plays him. Without Louis as enforcer how long could he have kept things together? He's too weak, too cowardly even not to run away, deserting his wife and his responsibility. But in the end he finds fortitude and resolution within himself. It's not an easy role to play, and Tom Keene does it to perfection. Karen Morley, in my opinion, has an even more subtle role. Mary could have been a vacuous character, merely a stand-by-your-man wifely adjunct. Karen Morley elevates the part, just by her look and her voice. Without overplaying, softly, she shows in every scene that she is his backbone, the backbone of all that we see. She needs him - she is particularly touching in the scene in which she cannot sleep for fear that murderous tramps may enter the dark isolated farmhouse - but he needs her even more, for his very existence. She is the one to discover the first growing shoots in the field. She is the symbol of the whole paradise - for an anarchist paradise it is. I would compare her role to that of Ma Joad in "The Grapes of Wrath." She is the pillar on which all stand. Jane Darwell got an Oscar for that one. Karen Morley deserved at least a nomination for this one.

There's no need to comment on the final scene, the famous choreographed digging of the canal. Orson Welles called it one of his favorite films. One can add no more to that.

This movie is a story about hope and it is told so that any viewer can see for themselves that what is taking place works. Why? It becomes self-evident. Simple in its nature but potent in its message this movie shows there is always a way and man has the ability to find it and use that way to prevail and over come any obstacle. Why? We were not put here to be defeated but to rise above it all thereby testing to the glory of God and our Father. The cast is not known but the message lives on. Never give up. Never believe its over or the negative circumstances as the final word. HE who created all things and invited mankind to join HIM has provided sustenance that will never let us down...

There is always a solution to every problem perhaps more than one and this problem and its solution moves and entertains. Who hasn't been desperate or down and out and worried about giving up and your luck changes for the better? Here we see that it is possible and to not give up hope. To me Hope is the central theme in this movie. The people work against all odds which is why hope not only works and sustains but delivers if we persevere. These people do just that. We can never really starve because we all have access to...

If I had the ability to read minds, a version of Our Daily Bread would probably be playing in the minds of every self-professed anarcho-communist I met in college (I met a lot surprisingly). For much like the passions of youth, the thoughts on culture and politics in this movie are bold, provocative, and not very well thought out. Not to worry comrades, with a little bit of elbow grease, "aw-shucks," and "gee-willickers" you too can be a part of a commune that will force you to listen to Utah Phillips all night long. What happens if and when you don't like the way things are headed; Suck it up!

To be fair to the film, it was a far different and more volatile time in 1934. The film begins in a nameless Depression Era city with John (Keene) who struggles to find work. Mary (Morely), his wife calls upon Uncle Anthony (Ingraham) an old codger with a vacant plot out in the country. John and Mary know nothing about rural farming life but lacking any other options, they decide to take a chance and take the lot until it can be sold. John and Mary find working off the land nearly impossible until a friendly migrant (Richards) and his family help them out in exchange for room and board. Then John gets an idea; an idea that culminates in dozens of men, women and children, finding hope on a burgeoning co-op farm.

It's truly shocking that a movie as unabashedly this side of Mission to Moscow (1943) can be made by a director who was a founding member of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The Alliance was responsible for the vast majority of friendly witnesses to the House Un-American Activities Committee and was spearheaded by the likes of John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Clark Gable, Leo McCarey and Walt Disney. The group's aim was simple; defend American ideals from being eroded from the inside out (mostly by communists). Perhaps gossip columnist Hedda Hopper forgot this little film while bad mouthing the likes of Paul Robeson and Dalton Trumbo. Or perhaps Vidor's adaptation of the interminably petulant The Fountainhead (1949) was enough to make him beyond reproach.

There are remnants of other, finer films in Our Daily Bread not the least of which is director King Vidor's Silent Era populist opus The Crowd (1928). In-fact this movie was meant to be a sequel of sorts, providing a concrete solution to the foibles John and May Sims faced in 1928. At this point in his career however, King probably didn't know how this whole sound thing worked. Whatever visual vocabulary King seems to want to replicate here, is immediately undone by pat dialogue so on the nose you'd swear just out of shot actors and crew members were chuckling. Of course if Our Daily Bread was a sequel one is prompted to ask what happened to their small son; tuberculosis? They sure are very quaint and naive for a bereaved couple if that be the case.

There's also smatterings of Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans (1927) in the form of Barbara Pepper's femme fatale Sally; a lost girl meant to represent the encroachment of selfish, city life upon a proverbial Garden of Eden. Again what would have worked in pantomime comes across as one dimensional and eye-rollingly goofy. Her appearance after the noble (and poorly written) sacrifice of convict Frank (Hall) catapults the movie into outright parody.

Personally I found the simplicity of the dialogue and the supposed character conflicts laughable even by 1930's standards. Those looking to see a movie much more attuned to communist/socialist fervor should check out the austere but riveting Salt of the Earth (1954). At least that film had a more immediate and compelling conflict than "will the wheat grow?"

"Our Daily Bread" is a depression era film about some who suffered but banded together to survive on a communal farm. The effort is led by John Sims who needs the exhortations of his wife, Mary, to keep his spirits up and his mind in the game.

The group faces numerous setbacks and trials, but they always manage to persevere. It's a solid portrayal of a communal effort, where every man is his neighbor's brother and some "sacrifice" for the benefit of the many.

In the midst of this community arrives Sally, a platinum blonde who fits in like chewing gum on the bottom of a shoe. She provides color, and agitation to the order of the farm. John seems to like her outlook on life.

The acting is mostly good, and the plot is dramatic, if somewhat predictable. Other reviewers have cited the ending as the best part of the movie. I disagree, because the ending is so unrealistic (for many reasons) as to take the viewer out of the film. But I understand the intent. A reviewer commented that it reminded him of the "Hey, gang, let's put on a show" device and I was thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, this "show" is more fairy tale than drama.