Donnez-nous aujourd'hui

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.

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.

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.

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.