Cristo fra i muratori

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.

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.

This film is extremely difficult to find anywhere, and still it's a major milestone in the history of film noir. Both Edward Dmytryk and Sam Wanamaker fled America for the McCarthy persecutions and made this unique film in London about Little Italy in New York. It's brutally expressionistic and realistic about the conditions of Italian building workers in New York and was forbidden in America - today you wonder why. Sam Wanamaker remained in Britain, made many films, was in 'Holocaust' and initiated the process of rebuilding the Globe theatre in London. Another of his major performances was in "The Voyage of the Damned" 1976, another great film of documentary character and a true story; but "Give Us This Day", also known as "Christ in Concrete" is his quest for immortality as a very ordinary Italian worker in Brooklyn with great foibles and weaknesses, and he is well supported by Kathleen Ryan (expert at such roles, like also in "Odd Man Out") and Lea Padovani as the sorely tried but heart-renderingly faithful wife. Perhaps the greatest credit of all in this film is due to the music of Benjamin Frankel, booming with beauty sand pathos all the way, while above all the story is without comparison in its very human and overwhelmingly true account of the conditions of Italian house-building workers in Brooklyn around the Great Depression. This film makes an unforgettable impression the first time, and you will always recall it with tears and return to it - a film indeed worth owning.

I saw this film many years ago on television and was quite stunned by it. This very simple drama of the life of an ordinary working man is turned into high tragedy through the wonderful talents of the filmmaker. The film is all the more impressive when one considers that it was made on the cheap in London, though set in New York. The low budget gives rise to one or two false notes, but the story is so well told that you easily forget about those. Perhaps the lack of budget was a blessing, in that it allowed the actors and director to concentrate on the more ineffable qualities of story-telling. I would love to see this film again. It should be revived so that many more people can appreciate the great talent of Edward Dmytrk and the social-realist style, of which it is a wonderful example.

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.