It would be quite better to criticize this short production in the context of the great depression, that had wide consequences in the thirties. Otherwise, it's really too easy to put some tags like 'ordinary' or 'mean'.
The thirties in the States was lived rather polarized in the sense of social classes and this situation surely created its mirror images in the senses of various kind of artistic representations. Steiner, whom the frames of photography became not enough fruitful during that extraordinary period when masses marched, moved to make the movies of these masses. With the start of the 2nd WW and when the war economy absorbed many jobless masses in arms production in the States, the marching masses were no more there. And, we do not know any film of Steiner made after that era. Extraordinary periods leave extraordinary performances, thoughts and works in parallel; this movie is more understood when considered around this point.
Also an important point which comes up with Pie in the Sky is that, that Steiner refused practically just to document what was going on, he looked more the artistic way, like with his photography, and tried to tell the well known social stories his, the more indirect way. From this point of view, Pie in the Sky is a great success.
Religion and the relation of hungry, jobless masses with state-driven-religion is the main theme of this movie. The success in directing is located here: Steiner masterfully managed to make a satire out of this subject that smells much like 'our rulers, the priest, those having those cars, those in wealth have their pie ready when they wake up'. But yours is taken away just when you awaken. "The Lord had given, the Lord has taken away". You will have it though, when you die. Jobless, homeless and still faithful. Yes, it's possible. It's the way people are ruled still today, either in western or eastern, northern or southern countries. Just the texture changes: it is either Islam or Christianity.
