Donnez-nous aujourd'hui

This movie does have some great noirish/neorealist visuals, and it tells a story that is refreshingly free of Hollywood's sugar-coating, which was only possible because it was essentially an independent foreign film. But some of the scenes go on for much too long (the wedding, especially), and I found the exaggerated acting and unrealistic dialog to be more fit for the stage than for the silver screen.

The dialog was particularly distracting, and it seemed to get worse as the movie went on. Most of the characters were either Italian-Americans or Italian immigrants living in New York in the twenties and thirties, but their dialog sounded like they were practicing lines for a Shakespeare play while they mixed cement and laid bricks. Toward the end I was laughing, and not because the filmmakers wanted me to. I guess the stilted poetry could be defended by saying that the characters would have been speaking Italian, and the dialog is a literal translation of how they would really talk. But it absolutely did not work for me.

Another line of dialog made me laugh for a different reason: the main character's son, born and raised in New York in the 1920's, suddenly picks up a lovely lilting British accent. I'm only guessing this had something to do with the fact that the movie was made in England.

I give this movie an 'A' for effort and intention, but a considerably lower grade for execution.

I read the book about 2 years ago. It's a beautifully written and well told story of a son's love and devotion towards working, supporting his mother, upholding his deceased father's dignity, and surviving through the toughest of times, the great Depression. The book version told a story that I thought was easily adaptable to film, and when I saw that the movie version had been released as a DVD, I ran out and bought a TV, a DVD player and rented the film.

Now what astounds me is that, considering the great impact of the original story, and how easy as I say it would have been to simply tell it on the big screen, why did the filmmakers toss the whole thing out and produce a most conventional and predictable typical film of that era? This movie should really not be associated with the original novel- there's really very little comparison.

As an original story, average- 5/10. As an adaptation, poor- 2/10.

Both titles ("give us this day" ,"Christ in concrete" ) refer to religion ,but religion does not really play a prominent part in "give us this day" which is close to Italian neo-realism .All the movie revolves around the "a bricklayer deserves his house for his work is hard and he dirties his hand every day"subject.One of the rare movies of the era which deals with working-class people ,it ran into problems with MacCartyism .It was the first time that the recurrent feature of the injured arm had appeared in a Dmytryk movie (see also "the sniper" " the Caine mutiny" and "the juggler").As Dmytryk had not yet betrayed,it would tend to destroy the "Dmytryk feels guilty " theory.

" Give us this day" actually reminds one of the movies-before the-code ,the great works of Wellmann("Heroes for sale" "Wild boys of the road" ) as well as the precise depictions of Rossellini and De Sica in Italy.

Have I seen this film?! Only every time I teach an urban sociology class, when I show it to my students! I can only echo the previous commentator--what a great film! The best scene--and there are many--is during the Great Depression, when the five bricklayers decides that it is Julio, who starving mouths to feed, should get half a day's work. Then, through a store window, Geremio catches one of the other bricklayers panhandling. "Heaven has forgotten us!" his workfellow says. This film, whose story was written by an Italian socialist (DiDonato) and made by socialists in London (couldn't make it in New York--it was the McCarthy period, may he rest in pieces!) is, besides being dramatically and emotionally rich, is sociologically rich. It's a brilliant portrayal of the conflict between the individualist version of the American Dream among immigrants--and the sordid reality they face. When they face it collectively, they are great men and women, in all their splendor. When they face it individually, they become alienated from themselves and each other. Though the DVD is entitled CHRIST IN CONCRETE, it is actually the prequel to the story in the novel. The last horrific scene is the first chapter of the novel, which detail's the life of Geremio's widow, Annunziata, and their son Paul, after Geremio dies. All the actors are great--but I especially like Lea Padavini--who had to learn the part phonetically, because when they hired her, she didn't speak a word of English! I also highly recommend this film

Hounded out of the States as a Commie (fellow DGA member Sam Wood outed him), Edward Dmytryk actually made (in the U.K.) that left-leaning agit-prop proletariat 'noir' HUAC vainly searched Hollywood for. The film never got a proper American release, Dmytryk returned, 'named names,' served time, & found himself upgraded to 'A' projects which never lived up to his promising early 'B' stuff. Pietro Di Donato's once influential novel tells a fatalistic story of an Italian/American brick layer, always on the verge of better times, who loses his soul when he rises to foreman during tough depression times. Dmytryk does some impressive work within the restrictions of an indie U.K. production, but he's ultimately defeated by a twice too earnest script and a lackluster cast that has to work overtime to fake that Brooklyn flavor. Five years on, another HUAC alumni, Elia Kazan, would get this sort of thing right in ON THE WATERFRONT, which you may have heard of.