Blast from the Past: Revisiting King Vidor’s “Our Daily Bread”
King Vidor’s earnest sincerity and straightforward treatment lend Our Daily Bread some interest and charm, if not realism or credibility.
| Our Daily Bread | |
|---|---|
.jpg)
Theatrical release poster
|
|
Critic Maltby noted that the film’s ideology was anachronistic because its pastoral fantasies were created by urbanites, not country people. Furthermore, “idealistic solutions of populist rhetoric were apolitical precisely because they were impractical.”
The movie ignored the real conditions of agricultural production and the increasing migration of farmers to the cities. But valid as this criticism is, Vidor’s humanistic idealism was still the only directorial voice in the l930s to actually advocate cooperative farms as a radical economic alternative. Collectivist values and communal lifestyles were seldom taken seriously by Hollywood and dominant culture.
Vidor Vs. Capra
Frank Capra’s benevolent solutions (in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Meet John Doe, both starring Gary Cooper) were less realistic than Vidor’s, but they conformed to Hollywood and dominant ideology of market capitalism (free enterprise and laissez-faire economy) and romantic individualism.
However, Vidor and Capra shared in common deep mistrust of governmental interference in solving problems of poverty and unemployment, and a correspondingly strong belief in the puritanic ethos of hard work and self-sacrifice. Institutional authority, in the form of centralized government, planned policy and economy were rejected–in ideology and practice–in favor of good neighborliness, which took the form of communal living in Our Daily Bread, or rich benefactors helping the poor in Mr. Deeds.
The film was well-received by the critics, but not by the lay public.
Richard Watts wrote in the “N.Y. Herald Tribune” that it was “an adventurous, stirring, courageous film,” emerging out of “idealistic materials of American existence,” with none of “the glibness or smooth dexterity,” lacking the “lavish decorativeness or urbane suavity” of the usual Hollywood product. Watts thought the film was alien to Hollywood, because “it tosses away surface brilliance in the interest of honest values.”
Andre Sanwald of the N.Y. Times also singled out the film’s “richness of conception,” describing it as “a brilliant declaration of faith in the importance of cinema as a social instrument.” As “a socially-minded art of amazing vitality and emotional impact,” the film was compared with the work of proletarian novelists, Albert Harper, Robert Cantwell, and William Rollins. However, the Hearst press in California called the film “pinko,” and the L.A. Times refused advertising layout because the film’s “too leftist” ideology.
Our Daily Bread in Europe
Vidor took the film to Europe, where he had established a reputation with The Crowd and Hallelujah. However, he was misquoted by the press, with the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune headlining in bold letters on the front page: “Vidor says food more important than sex.”
Our Daily Bread won a League of Nations Award for its “contribution to humanity,” and went on to win the second prize at an annual film exhibition in Moscow.
Ironically, Vidor was told that he would have won the first prize, but the film was considered “capitalistic propaganda.” “The pronouncement of ‘capitalistic propaganda’ by the Russians, and the cry of ‘Russian propaganda’ by other papers, located us somewhere between the two extremes.”
Despite the fact that it was one of the most radical films of the entire decade, in some ways, Our Daily Bread still conforms to Hollywood conventions.
First, its anti-city bias: the characterizations of the city woman and the banker were too simplistic and one-dimensional.
Second, the resolution it provides is too individualistic: with all its emphasis on organized action, Tom is clearly the charismatic leader, referred to by the members as “a strong boss.”
Collectivist values stand in sharp opposition to the American capitalistic spirit and market-oriented economy. Similarly, an independent production, boasting a strong political statement, was also not viable in Hollywood.
A box-office failure upon initial release: Vidor, who produced the film with his own money, said he “just about broke even.”
However, the movie was “rescued” decades later by film critics and scholars when they reexamined the career of Vidor as a significant and visionary American filmmaker.
Credits:
Directed, produced by King Vidor
Written by King Vidor (story), Elizabeth Hill (scenario), Joseph L. Mankiewicz (dialogue)
Cinematography Robert H. Planck
Edited by Lloyd Nosler
Music by Alfred Newman
Distributed by United Artists
Release dates: Aug 1, 1934 (premiere) Oct 2, 1934 (U.S. wide)
Running time: 80 minutes
Budget $125,000 (estimate)
