Donnez-nous aujourd'hui

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

Sam Wanamaker is an Italian-American bricklayer. In 1921, work is good, so he brings Lea Padovani from Italy to be his wife. Building is not a constant paycheck, and with the coming of the Depression, his marriage and trade struggle.

Director Edward Dmytryk shot this for Eagle-Lion in Great Britain, and it shows in the mistaken rhythms of some of the actors -- having Englishmen playing Italian-Americans forces them into a slow and mannered style that seems unnatural to my ears; those playing Italians do better. This raises the question of why Dmytryk was not shooting this in the US, and it was because of the HUAC witch hunts. Dmytryk would be one of "The Hollywood Ten", one of the writers who refused to testify before the committee and were jailed. Dmytryk would eventually cave and testify. Even though he would work again, starting three years later, and continue directing for another 20 years, many would never forget or forgive.

Besides the political issues, Dmytryk was trapped by his own success in producing cheap but well-regarded film noir in the US. One outlier, CROSSFIRE, had gotten him an Academy Award nomination. This movie was another shot at a serious movie. Unfortunately, despite a fine performance, Wanamaker no more suggests a bricklayer than Miss Padovani, and only Miss Padovani and Sid James (in a small but key role) acquit themselves well. The result is always watchable, but given the aspirations of the film makers, disappointing.

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.

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 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.