arly bad is how confused is seems ideologically at times. The campfire scene has moments were the film is very much leftist, then it swings to the right (Durgnat 149). John tries to give up ownership of the land to the co-operative, a left-wing act, but they feel it would be an ungrateful act, similar to an anti-welfare attitude. They also demand a strong leader and choose John, which he proudly accepts, also a right-wing attitude. There are other instances where there is a more leftist attitude, where people sacrifice for the good of the collective, which leans almost towards communism. The best example is when the criminal/cop turns himself in for the $500 reward to feed the commune. What best illustrated this confusion is the film’s winning second prize at a Soviet film festival in Moscow, yet didn’t receive first prize because they considered it to be “capitalist propaganda.” The Hearst press machine labeled the film “pinko”, and the Los Angeles Times refused an advertising layout because the film went too far to the left in their opinion (Vidor 227).With the country in the midst of The Great Depression it is easy to see why the film was well received. The system that was currently in place was obviously not working. People wanted a solution to their problems. Vidor offered the means to a utopian society where people could work together towards a common goal, everyone doing equal share, everyone taking equal rewards. But his vision was unachievable. People out of work in the cities didn’t have relatives that owned farms and were willing to give them away. Cash crops were not bringing enough to earn a living. Vidor’s dream for pulling America out of the Depression was nothing more than what it was: a dream....
