My reactions to this interesting little film were all over the map, so it's a tough one to rate. On the one hand, I was floored by seeing such an explicit depiction of an alternative cooperative farming society set up by the unemployed from all walks of life. You can argue whether they are communist, socialist, or anarchist, but clearly the message is that the capitalist (and even democratic) system in America had let them down, which was a growing feeling in the country as the Depression continued on much longer than economists had predicted. Many films from the era depict hardship but few so openly advocate an entirely different model, which made the film rather dangerous (other such radical films were Cabin in the Cotton (1932) and Gabriel over the White House (1933)).
The film can be viewed as simply a mix of cooperation, self-sacrifice, and a dash of Christianity, all inspired by Vidor's reading of a magazine article, but it's hard not to see parallels to the propaganda films coming out of the Soviet Union. Vidor was friendly with Sergei Eisenstein when the latter was at Paramount at 1930, and the film we see here - both in its collectivist content and that extraordinary trench-digging montage sequence at the end - seem to be an homage to the Soviet director. At the same time, the film dismisses socialism in one of its lines of dialogue and calls for a strong leader, and this along with Vidor's conservative side made me think his views are hard to put a simple label on. With that said, 1934 was a time in which many Americans believed that capitalism was doomed or were genuinely sympathetic to the Bolshevik experiment (ironically including fellow director Cecil B. DeMille), which made watching this film fascinating to me.
Unfortunately, however, it's seriously flawed. For one thing, it's incredibly naïve in its script and in how these characters interact with one another. The two principals are played by Karen Morley and Tom Keene in rather poor performances; they are squeaky clean to the point of being cartoonish, and reflect none of the grit or despair of the impoverished. The film also brings in a temptress (Barbara Pepper) in a very tired way, and for absolutely no logical reason. That entire subplot seems geared towards generating more interest at the box office or elongating the runtime until that glorious ending. The result of all this is a stiff, creaky, heavy-handed and difficult watch. The poor execution is in such direct contrast to the interesting context. Certainly don't watch it for the entertainment value alone, and enjoy the varied political interpretations 85 years later.
The film can be viewed as simply a mix of cooperation, self-sacrifice, and a dash of Christianity, all inspired by Vidor's reading of a magazine article, but it's hard not to see parallels to the propaganda films coming out of the Soviet Union. Vidor was friendly with Sergei Eisenstein when the latter was at Paramount at 1930, and the film we see here - both in its collectivist content and that extraordinary trench-digging montage sequence at the end - seem to be an homage to the Soviet director. At the same time, the film dismisses socialism in one of its lines of dialogue and calls for a strong leader, and this along with Vidor's conservative side made me think his views are hard to put a simple label on. With that said, 1934 was a time in which many Americans believed that capitalism was doomed or were genuinely sympathetic to the Bolshevik experiment (ironically including fellow director Cecil B. DeMille), which made watching this film fascinating to me.
Unfortunately, however, it's seriously flawed. For one thing, it's incredibly naïve in its script and in how these characters interact with one another. The two principals are played by Karen Morley and Tom Keene in rather poor performances; they are squeaky clean to the point of being cartoonish, and reflect none of the grit or despair of the impoverished. The film also brings in a temptress (Barbara Pepper) in a very tired way, and for absolutely no logical reason. That entire subplot seems geared towards generating more interest at the box office or elongating the runtime until that glorious ending. The result of all this is a stiff, creaky, heavy-handed and difficult watch. The poor execution is in such direct contrast to the interesting context. Certainly don't watch it for the entertainment value alone, and enjoy the varied political interpretations 85 years later.