User reviews

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." (***)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

As some have noted, this is a backstage musical in its basic form--a bunch of unemployed characters decide to take things into their own hands, using their separate talents to craft a big production. Of course, it's a farm, not a theatrical show, but the whole film is process-oriented, headed toward the big production number at the end. Everything depends on whether or not the cast can deliver, and the beautifully choreographed irrigation sequence is a triumph of group effort. Politics? Oh, the heck with that. This is New Deal collaboration with no government help. The ending is a doozy, and has certainly been shown in every film school class on directing, musical score, and editing. It may be a little naïve for contemporary audiences, but it's hard not to get excited during its final reel.

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.

When a filmmaker writes, produces and directs his own pet project sometimes it can be a masterpiece, sometimes it can be self indulgent. This is a bit of both.

This isn't just a film with a message, it isn't just an interesting idea, it is also entertaining. Well, reasonably entertaining, it certainly holds your interest but possibly more like a fascinating documentary of real actual life at times rather than a movie. The leads, Mr and Mrs Sims, the same suffering characters from Vidor's magnificent THE CROWD (1928) are deliberately ordinary (and still suffering) so not being that interesting, they're not that easy to engage with. What's more important than the characters is the story and because it's such a good, heartwarming and positive story, the dull characters don't really spoil the experience no more than they did in THE CROWD.

King Vidor does however inject a bit of additional colour for us. Barbara Pepper's incongruous 'gangster moll' was added purely to add some spice. At first she doesn't seem to fit, she's from the other 1930s! Although keeping our attention by adding a sexy blonde might seem a cynical trick, it does actually work. Her shoe-horned character does play a vital role in the story but because of bad timing - this came out just when the production code got its teeth - the affair she had with John had to be cut. This leaves a weird gap in the story but our imagination can easily fill that in.

What I find utterly bemusing is how some folks thought - and still do that it was promoting communism. The theme as I saw it was that if everyday Americans are prepared to roll up their sleeves and work hard together, they can get themselves out of economic adversities. I'll be blown if I can see anything remotely left wing in this. Maybe because its political ambiguity can be interpreted in different ways is indicative of the depth of its story telling - it doesn't just spoon feed you, it engages your mind.

This is a difficult one to rate because it doesn't feel that entertaining when you're watching it: it's rather too sincere and serious it's also too simplistic and naive at times (the water thing is a bit silly isn't it) but afterwards it stays with you. If you like something a little different (but still with a typical 1930s sassy blonde for good measure) or if you're interested in how America coped with The Depression then you will certainly want to see this superbly made film.

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.

It's comical to read the left-leaning denialists lashing back against the clear socialist/communist leanings of this film. And though it may have nothing to do with this film in particular, even the leading lady, left-wing activist Karen Morley, was eventually blacklisted in the 1950s. It was still a nice capture in time of our Great Depression, and while not as polished as the A-Grade Grapes of Wrath (with its own little socialist themes), a good and worthwhile watch.

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

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.

My reactions to this interesting little film were all over the map, so it's a tough one to rate. On the one hand, I was floored by seeing such an explicit depiction of an alternative cooperative farming society set up by the unemployed from all walks of life. You can argue whether they are communist, socialist, or anarchist, but clearly the message is that the capitalist (and even democratic) system in America had let them down, which was a growing feeling in the country as the Depression continued on much longer than economists had predicted. Many films from the era depict hardship but few so openly advocate an entirely different model, which made the film rather dangerous (other such radical films were Cabin in the Cotton (1932) and Gabriel over the White House (1933)).

The film can be viewed as simply a mix of cooperation, self-sacrifice, and a dash of Christianity, all inspired by Vidor's reading of a magazine article, but it's hard not to see parallels to the propaganda films coming out of the Soviet Union. Vidor was friendly with Sergei Eisenstein when the latter was at Paramount at 1930, and the film we see here - both in its collectivist content and that extraordinary trench-digging montage sequence at the end - seem to be an homage to the Soviet director. At the same time, the film dismisses socialism in one of its lines of dialogue and calls for a strong leader, and this along with Vidor's conservative side made me think his views are hard to put a simple label on. With that said, 1934 was a time in which many Americans believed that capitalism was doomed or were genuinely sympathetic to the Bolshevik experiment (ironically including fellow director Cecil B. DeMille), which made watching this film fascinating to me.

Unfortunately, however, it's seriously flawed. For one thing, it's incredibly naïve in its script and in how these characters interact with one another. The two principals are played by Karen Morley and Tom Keene in rather poor performances; they are squeaky clean to the point of being cartoonish, and reflect none of the grit or despair of the impoverished. The film also brings in a temptress (Barbara Pepper) in a very tired way, and for absolutely no logical reason. That entire subplot seems geared towards generating more interest at the box office or elongating the runtime until that glorious ending. The result of all this is a stiff, creaky, heavy-handed and difficult watch. The poor execution is in such direct contrast to the interesting context. Certainly don't watch it for the entertainment value alone, and enjoy the varied political interpretations 85 years later.

What can you say about a director whose works include the very right wing "Fountainhead" and the very left leaning "Our Daily Bread"? That he's wildly uneven? Sure seems like it. And that erratic nature is very much on display in this at times affecting and at times mawkish socialist utopia flic. Give it a B minus. PS...Could Vidor have picked a duller leading man than Tom Keene?

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.

TOM KEENE and KAREN MORLEY are the lesser-known stars of this Depression-era classic, a poor man's "Grapes of Wrath", about a young farming couple who use ingenuity to overcome a drought that threatens to ruin their crops.

Tom Keene was a B-actor who did mostly westerns and does a sincere, earnest job of playing the kind of "everyman" role that Henry Fonda and Joel McCrea usually played in these sort of films. While he has a limited range, he makes an appealing hero, a man who fires others with his ambitious idea to build a gully for the water to reach the crops that are badly in need of water. It's this sequence, with the men following orders and digging the ditches that make a pathway for the water, that really makes the film special.

Otherwise, it's a rather drab exercise in showing the downtrodden lives of farming people during the Great Depression of the '30s.

KAREN MORLEY is lovely as the loyal woman who stands by her man and JOHN QUALEN does an effective job as a frustrated farmer. Some striking scenes for the last half-hour, but a bit heavy going before that.

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...

Tired of avoiding bill collectors, a city couple become farmers after the wife's uncle lets them to take over his abandoned farm. Not knowing anything about farming, they form a co-operative commune with unemployed skilled workers.

With collaborators such as King Vidor, Joseph L. Mankiewicz and Alfred Newman, there are high expectations. The film doesn't quite get there but it is still an interesting social document. Stars Kay Morley and Tom Keene.

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.

One thing "Our Daily Bread" (ODB) had going for it is that it didn't feature any high society folks, nor did it feature a tawdry romance, nor was it about becoming rich. ODB was about people at the bottom helping one another survive and have a little something they could call their own. It did, however, have one head-scratching character in it which I think was shoved into the plot to create drama. ODB was mainly about working class folks who joined to form a community based on collectively supporting each other through trading goods and services.

John and Mary Sims (Tom Keene and Karen Morley) were days from being evicted when they received a lifeline from John's uncle. He gifted them a parcel of land in a remote part of the state. It was a worthless piece of land that he couldn't sell, so he handed it over to the struggling couple to make something of the property.

What the two did was open up the multi-acre property to folks who had skills and talents to help develop the land and build a community. John wanted carpenters, mason workers, and farmers, but he still accepted preachers, barbers, and others so long as they were willing to work.

The community was growing and they'd elected John to be their leader. John was doing a fine job until the introduction of Sally (Barbara Pepper). Sally was driving through when her car broke down. They gave her shelter and she decided to stay. She had eyes on John and she was able to woo him with her blond hair and sex appeal.

The reason I didn't like this aspect of the movie was because her presence there didn't add up. She was a city gal through and through. She was used to nice clothes, make-up, night clubs, and men spending money on her. There was NONE of that there. It was nothing but toiling, limited resources, and no amenities. Her being there seemed like a cheap way for the writers to add drama which she did. John was about to leave the community he established in its most dire hour because of Sally, and I didn't like it.

I actually liked the movie as a whole. It was about the working poor joining together to make something for themselves even though it wasn't much. Everyone got a fresh start in this new community and everyone was sacrificing for the good of the whole. There were plenty of pitfalls and plenty of obstacles to overcome, there was no need to make a cheap floozy one of them.

Free on Tubi.