John and Mary are a married couple struggling to make it in the city during the Great Depression, because John cannot find work. An uncle gives them an opportunity to work an abandoned farm, and they decide to take it. They know nothing about farming. A genuine farmer, who lost his own place, breaks down on the road, and John invites him and his family to join them. John then gets the idea of inviting other people to join the farm, using their diversity of skills to turn it into a cooperative commune.Naturally enough, there are scenes showing how well this works out, but there are also scenes of trouble. There is a discussion of the kind of government they will have for themselves, and we get just a taste of political discord. There is a scene involving a troublemaker, who is quickly forced to behave himself. John tells Mary about one of the members of the commune trying to steal some stuff and sell it for his own personal gain. We want to see more of this, because there are not many movies premised on the idea of desperate families forming such a commune, and we are curious as to whether these elements of discord could be overcome. Unfortunately, the movie diverges from these issues.First, it slides into a man-against-nature situation, in which drought threatens to ruin their crops. There are lots of movies about farmers struggling against the elements, and it seems a shame to waste time on that theme here. The only good thing that can be said in its favor is that they all pull together and build a path from the river to the crops for the purpose of irrigation, solving the problem through their own effort and ability. Another movie might have had someone pray for rain, followed by a downpour, so at least we were spared that deus ex machina.Second, there is a diversion with no redeeming features at all. It concerns the arrival of a blonde femme fatale, who almost succeeds in getting John to desert his wife and the farm by running off to the city with her. Movies about a wicked woman making a good man go wrong can be lots of fun, but that plot element does not belong here. Besides, it is a little irritating the way Mary blithely takes John back after abandoning her, even if only temporarily.The movie should have spent less time on the drought and none at all on the femme fatale, thereby leaving more time to dramatize all the difficulties in getting people to cooperate in such an enterprise, especially since many of us have doubts as to how well something like that would work out anyway.

I like it that one reviewer likened this to a Rooney/Garland musical, for it really is, even including the big "production number" for a finale! I showed it to my American lit class today as part of our discussion of naturalism. I could have picked other, better films, but this fit neatly into the 75 min. period. Anyway, it got some applause at the end! There are obviously Soviet-style overtones, especially in the photography and editing of the final sequence, but the film is also explicitly Christian and pro-private ownership (John retains the deed to the farm). What saddens me is that the "survivalists" of today are mainly concerned with their own bug-out-dug-outs and stashing them with goods for their immediate families but no one else.Despite its naiveté and occasional bad acting (Tom Keene?) it remains an entertaining period film and instructive as well. John Qualen. He was so great in so many movies, including The Grapes of Wrath!

Heard my grandparents speak about the depression and how hard it was to live in any big city trying to find work and food. This film clearly shows in great detail all the difficulties people experienced trying to find work and hold a job and turned their ambitions into the rich farmland of the Mid-West. King Vidor showed the poor conditions that people had to live in and how the weather seemed to work against them with droughts and dust storms. The scene I liked the most was when all the men decided to do something about getting water for their corn crops and working day and night to get their corn fields filled with water. Some of the people jumped and rolled in the dirt, mud and went simply crazy at the sight of water flowing on their land. This was a great realistic film about the depression days years ago.

Boy, is this film interpreted differently, depending on which critic is discussing it. Overall, however, most of them - including me - like this movie and find it interesting.Today's critics like to use this film as a boost for socialistic or Commununstic causes, but that's baloney. One could easily do the opposite and use this film as an analogy to the early Christians, too - people who banded together pooling their talents and possessions for the good of the whole group.This was a simply of story of America during the Great Depression with a bunch of people out of work, so they try to make a living by turning themselves into farmers and making a go of it together.Tom Keane and Karen Morley star in here, playing husband-and-wife. Morely played a very upbeat, sweet lady who was joy to watch. Keane's acting was strange. At times it bordered on raw amateurism. He also looked, with the wild expressions, as if he were back doing a silent film.The rest of the cast was solid, from the Swedish farmer to the tough guy who turned himself in to the police to help the rest of the group. Overall, a good film and worth watching, whatever your politics.