Produced, directed and starring members of the left-wing Public Theater, this depression-era indie short film is notable for being Elia Kazan's first film appearance- and in front of the camera, at that. When a group of men are turned down in a breadline, they head to the local dump, where they make an imaginary meal out of auto parts, including the titular pie. The cast impersonates politicians, big business men and religious leaders who are living comfortably while the masses go hungry in the streets. The silent film ends with a satirical sing-a-long, sarcastically reminding the audience that, although starving at the moment "we'll all have Pie In The Sky when we die"
6 Reviews
Good slapstick, mediocre satire.
Polaris_DiB6 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This short is a satire, though it's a little too obvious. The best satire involves a subtlety in design that makes it a bit more biting when one thinks back on it, and this one just kind of makes its statements then ends.
Two Depression-era men attend a mass where the priest promises to give everyone attending some pie. The short makes a lot of the boredom and uninterest in the audience before the pie appears, and then leaves the men wanting when the pie runs out before they get their share. The priest, being ever the parodied holy man, points out that Jesus won't leave them lacking. The two men, angry, leave into a junkyard (wasteland) and live out their fantasies, making fun of the rich, the well-off, and the priest that snubbed them.
It's an okay short thematically, but what I find most appealing about it is its more slap-stick style humor. The first half is almost as boring as how boring they're trying to make the priest seem, but the second half is a fun, childish romp where ordinary objects become animated through the imagination of the destitute men. Sure, the short could have been better, but at least it entertains in a form that was being left behind with the advent of the sound era.
--PolarisDiB
Two Depression-era men attend a mass where the priest promises to give everyone attending some pie. The short makes a lot of the boredom and uninterest in the audience before the pie appears, and then leaves the men wanting when the pie runs out before they get their share. The priest, being ever the parodied holy man, points out that Jesus won't leave them lacking. The two men, angry, leave into a junkyard (wasteland) and live out their fantasies, making fun of the rich, the well-off, and the priest that snubbed them.
It's an okay short thematically, but what I find most appealing about it is its more slap-stick style humor. The first half is almost as boring as how boring they're trying to make the priest seem, but the second half is a fun, childish romp where ordinary objects become animated through the imagination of the destitute men. Sure, the short could have been better, but at least it entertains in a form that was being left behind with the advent of the sound era.
--PolarisDiB
Good Film representing the emergence of Indie Cinema
nzeig_owens18 November 2003
This film is well executed and helps the audience understand not only the ramifications of the depression but also emergence of independent cinema through small New York theater groups.
The cinematography and the direction is excellent and the acting is superb even though it is such a short movie. It really shows what one could do with such limited resources
The cinematography and the direction is excellent and the acting is superb even though it is such a short movie. It really shows what one could do with such limited resources
jobless, homeless and still faithful ?
chimera_s5 January 2007
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.
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.
Unseen Cinema D1
Michael_Elliott13 March 2008
Pie in the Sky (1935)
* 1/2 (out of 4)
Early film from Elia Kazan (and several other directors) is a spoof of religion that isn't funny, interesting or spiritual. The film tries to be better than it is by using various camera tricks but nothing really works here. Kazan also plays the lead.
Travel Notes (1932)
** (out of 4)
Semi-documentary about a voyage to Tahiti where the director films everything on board. Some nice camera shots but pretty dull story.
"Oil": A Symphony in Motion (1933)
* 1/2 (out of 4)
I have no idea what this film was about but it was boring. Even the technical aspects were all rather dull so its inclusion on this set is beyond me.
* 1/2 (out of 4)
Early film from Elia Kazan (and several other directors) is a spoof of religion that isn't funny, interesting or spiritual. The film tries to be better than it is by using various camera tricks but nothing really works here. Kazan also plays the lead.
Travel Notes (1932)
** (out of 4)
Semi-documentary about a voyage to Tahiti where the director films everything on board. Some nice camera shots but pretty dull story.
"Oil": A Symphony in Motion (1933)
* 1/2 (out of 4)
I have no idea what this film was about but it was boring. Even the technical aspects were all rather dull so its inclusion on this set is beyond me.
Wow...who would have predicted greatness from any of the folks in this film.
planktonrules11 October 2011
This film is interesting because it stars Elia Kazan. Kazan acted for some time before becoming a world-famous director of such films as "On the Waterfront". Here, he's acting in an experimental film made by some theater group. Unfortunately, the film itself is pretty awful--and amazingly amateurish considering its made by folks studying to be professional actors. To me, it comes off very poorly and you'd never suspect that any of these folks would go on to have great careers--at least in film! The short features bad music, some VERY goofy camera work (with VERY close up shots that just look like they're done by someone who's never used a camera) and, at times, it seems a bit pointless. The point, if there is one, seems to be rather anti-clerical--and I could sure see this offending many folks when it debuted, though I doubt if very many people actually got around to seeing this...those lucky fools!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
