Is Imitation of Life Pioneering or Racist?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 авг 2024
- Imitation of Life movie: amzn.to/2OwZhWw
The 1934 film Imitation of Life is often cited as one of the most progressive early films regarding race. I always took that at face value, but while researching for my other video about the film ( • Why Imitation of Life ... ) I stumbled upon quite a few articles from the year the movie came out, where people claimed the film was racist and promoted negative stereotypes. I couldn't help but explore this further.
Is Imitation of Life a progressive, groundbreaking film about race that just doesn't age well? Or is it racist no matter what decade you're in? Let me know what you think!
Help support my work on Patreon!: / antoniacarlotta
Email: antoniacarlotta@gmail.com
Instagram: / antoniacarlotta
Antonia Carlotta
PO Box 5860
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
United States
DISCLAIMER: Links included in this description may be affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with a link here I may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you! Thank you for supporting my channel!
![Kodak Black - Sharp Vibes [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/oEV0OoLJeIs/mqdefault.jpg)
It woudve been a better film if they werent so scared to let the black characters have actual personalities besides "let me serve my white master" and internalized racism
You're right. I would have loved to see some other character development there.
It was based off the book that had all of that in there sweetie. So of course the movie was going to have it. They weren't being entirely racist when they made it. There's a lynching scene that they excluded feeling it was distasteful. That's something to take into consideration. But people need to lighten up. This was 1934 and simply representing the times and how people thought.
i know Im quite off topic but do anybody know a good website to watch newly released movies online?
Why do RUclipsrs always apply Modern-day solutions to archaic problems
Unfortunately blacks did want to stay to work for them especially if they worked for ones that treated them well. Blacks back then were so conditioned to serve and be comfortable being stagnant that being independent was scary for them. Even in the 70s the conversations I had with my grandma about getting my own car scared her. She wanted me to save my money, keep taking the bus, work on the bus line in case my car broke down. It was “safe” for her. And she feared white racist cops pulling me over. And even in the 90s I had to be careful where I moved to because now I had children of my own (black children). I was warned about the racism that existed in certain towns I wanted to move to. I chose a diverse town. Where we still live today. So back to my point, during that timeframe, that was their personalities. However the daughter had the option to “pass” and live a different, better life from what she knew and chose it in the hopes of a better life. It was sad how she hurt her mom but many people did choose to pass back then.
I think the movie is definitely progressive by 1934 standards. You did an amazing job on explaining everything!!
I'm awed with the way that you've broken this down here... particularly the point of the film dodging the reasons for Peola's racial self-loathing. I saw the same in both versions of the film. In the '59 version it seemed as if they were subtly blaming miscegenation itself for Sara Jane's issues. Even Annie's comment ('59 version) "Miss Lora, we just come from a place where, where my color deviled my baby" seemed to attempt to also blame other blacks for it.
The 1934 film is closely based on the novel, and Delilah acts just as she did in the novel. Thus, it would be wrong to change her character. Delilah was a caretaker and is one reason Peola, her daughter, resents her so much. When she doesn't want to move out into her own home, living downstairs becomes oppressive for her daughter. It is one of the reasons Peola runs away right after the party. People need to read the novel. The novel deals with Peola's struggle with her racial identity, and there is no way the Hayes commission would allow John Stahl or the screenwriters to touch.
Next, in the 20% argument, everyone thinks Bea rips Delilah off, but they forget Bea has to hire Elmer. Bea, herself, cannot walk into a bank and borrow money to incorporate the business to package the pancake flour. Bea is also trapped. She doesn't own the entire company. The bank owns a great deal of it, 30%. If you watch the movie, when Delilah is sick and Jessie is falling for Steve, Bea is considering selling (her controlling) interest (50%). She pays Elmer 100,000 a year, but Delilah makes much more. Bea admits it is all because of Delilah.
Now, Many ask why wouldn't Bea split the stock 35%-35% with Delilah? It is the same reason Bea couldn't get into the bank without Elmer. Delilah couldn't have rented that store on the boardwalk; Bea barely got the store owner to listen to her. She got it by hook and crook. They would have never give Delilah a second look, even with a pancake recipe. Bea had to do the day-to-day business with all the "white" business owners and deal with all the budget details. Also, when they do a montage shot of the pancake boxes being filled just after Elmer tells Ms. Bea to box it, you see a pair of black woman's hands filling the boxes. You also see another black woman in the shop with Ms. Bea when Delilah gives Peola her rain gear. In other words, Ms. Bea hires black people during the depression, not just black people but also black women. After they incorporate the business and become a factory, there is no reason to believe she will not continue to do the same.
Finally, the racial stereotypes are awful, and there is no excuse for them. America lived in a racist era, and Hollywood helped perpetuate these stereotypes. The Mammy stereotype is in the novel and is carried through film. Delilah's character doesn't have the best grammar but has a great heart. She sees herself as a caretaker, and that's her lot in life, and she seems content with it, and this is at the heart of the conflict of Peola, who wants more out of life. She resents her mom's attitude about herself and living in the basement with Bea. The upstairs/downstairs shot is a powerful reminder to Peola that she could be upstairs.
One last thing, as I am getting long trying to illustrate just how progressive this film is for 1934, Stahl uses a curious detail about a particular hairstyle to make an interesting point. If you look at Peola's teacher, you will notice Peola wears the same hairstyle. Now, go to the party scene; it is when Peola is hurt the most. She is downstairs, tapped with her mother, who is responsible for all the wealth upstairs, and looks into the mirror and says, "I want to be white like I look," she turns to a mirror and continues, "Look at me? Am I not white? Isn't that a white girl there?" You notice two things. First, her grammar is superior to Delilah's, and when Delilah tells her to get that out of her mind, she says, "I can't. You wouldn't understand that, would you." Second, you come to understand how trapped Peola really is. She cannot escape her mother's shadow, reflection, or her own.
What does any of this have to do with a hairstyle? I am glad you asked? The next scene is upstairs when Bea finally meets Steve, and after he enters the house, Bea rounds the corner to get to know him, and Stahl also has a female party-goer focused in the frame with her. Bea pays no mind to the guest, but if we pay attention, we notice the guest has the same hairstyle as Peola's teacher and Peola. Is Stahl suggesting there is a Peola upstairs unknown to anyone else? Moreover, Bea walks past her without noticing anything is also another indication Bea truly doesn't even care about color. The fact that there could be is Peola's point from downstairs and part of her anguish.
I am saying for a film released in 1934, Stahl did some incredible things here. The shot framing is just one thing; the way Peola educates herself despite all the school troubles, so she does not sound like her mother. I am also saying read the novel if you want real tragedy. Finally, having said all this. I will never stop loving this film and think it deserves to be one best films on race ever made because of how early it was made. It is not perfect, but Hollywood wouldn't let anyone make a perfect film about race. Don't blame Stahl or the actors; blame Hollywood executives and the time in which we lived. The Hollywood executive helped perpetuate the stereotypes that haunt America to this day, and it irks the hell out of me how the people living there now suddenly think they can flip a switch and preach what they didn't teach for so many years.
@Pamela West The reasoning for your 20% argument shows & proves Bea's & Delilah's relationship is not equal. We must understand anti black racism is a POWER DYNAMIC between white & black people
The main themes of the movie is racism & racial identity. Peola has a lot of internal hatred of herself because she is black. Her "passing" as white gives her a higher status and allows her to escape the "stain" of blackness
Her mother Delilah is black, which makes Peola black, and blackness comes with a negative status in all aspects of society. The point is, Peola doesn't dislike her mother because she is content with being subservient. She dislikes the fact that her mother is black, which makes her black, and the ceiling for blackness is the BASEMENT
Yes, Peola wanted "more out of life." More out of life for her was being able to serve white people at the restaurant, be socially accepted as white, & not have to accept being black
I AGREE with a lot of your other assessments of this movie. This was most definitely a monumental film and one of the best racial movies ever. The lion share of the blame should go to the Hollywood executives. White supremacy is an organized global system so Stahl can share some blame as well. I RESPECT the fact you read the novel & still love the movie. Usually, the movies never does the book any justice
@@MichaelJordan-hb5kk Thank you for a reasoned response to my points; however, may I add one more thing in case I did not add this in my initial argument. You are absolutely right about Peola's feelings in the novel and Freddi Washington's sensational performance.
However, Bea has to hire Elmer to get a meeting with bankers to present the "idea to 'box it'' he gives her when eating a stack of Delilah's cakes.
In the novel, Bea uses Deliah's Waffel recipe, and I believe Steven starts helping her after WWI; I know he's younger than Bea and ends up with Jesse again in the novel. However, my point is Bea is also stuck in a hierarchy, like Deliah, only her's is based on sex, not a race.
Finally, a remake based on the novel is more than high time, especially today with the high leverage of black power brokers in Hollywood and around the country. Peace and Blessings.
@@pamelawest2523 Thank you for the conversation. It is much appreciated. I AGREE with your point as far as the social hierarchy. However, that social hierarchy & sexism didn't stop Bea from inheriting her husband's wealth. She was affluent due to her husband's wealth and became more financially stable because of a black woman
My point is them both having common struggles as "women" is superficial at best. The intersectionality debate (not saying this is your position just speaking in general now) has NEVER applied to black women because for black people it has ALWAYS been about race
Delilah's hierarchy "barriers" due to her race is a big deal whereas Bea's being a female has still allowed her to reap the benefits of the system. I think we can find common ground on that
A remake based on the novel would be ehhhhhhh. I believe in leaving the classics alone & it is very unlikely a remake would be up to par to the book or the 1934 film (imo). Is it possible, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Is it likely, probably not
There are some black heavy hitters in Hollywood but as far as them using their leverage to remake this, not very likely. Most black Hollywood celebrities will not destabilize the white supremacist status quo & there are consequences when they attempt to do so. Most of them do not have that kind of POWER or revolutionary will/incentive to do so (imo)
@@MichaelJordan-hb5kk
Her husband had no wealth, not in the novel or the film, but they did live in a home. She could not even pay Deliah, not at first. She had a home, and the novel makes this more evident; she had to take care of her disabled father and Jesse. I believe it was her father's home she lived in, not her husband's. I will be honest that I cannot remember if it is her husband's or her father's house in the novel.
All she could do was peddle the syrup leftover in his business as a saleswoman on commission. Have you read the novel? Now, I will not disagree with you about her being more financially stable than a black woman. Ok, no one will dispute that. I am merely stating Bea was still married off to the man her father her to marry, and in the original film and novel, sacrifices the love of Steven for Jesse.
In the movie, she cannot even pay Deliah initially and can only offer her room and board in a house. We do not know if this house belongs to her husband or was something she inherited from her father or rented. We only know she is trying to get Baby Jesse ready for day school when Deliah shows up at the wrong address. Bea answers the phone for a sales call, and when Jesse falls in the tub, Deliah fixes breakfast and talks herself and Peola into a job and a place to stay, which for Deliah becomes a home.
I will never disagree with Peola's feelings about her heritage and color. I am talking about Deliah and her relationship with Bea in both the novel and the film. If she did inherit her husband's home, she didn't inherit anything besides selling his syrup. Again, no one will deny having a place to live is a good thing, but selling syrup on commission is hard enough for a man but a widow and young mom. Also, in the novel, she has her disabled father living in the home. I wish I had my copy of the book on hand. Bea constantly asks Deliah what she wants, only what she wants, and in the novel, Deliah does have a house and frigging cancerous tumor she never tells Bea about.
@@pamelawest2523 Fair enough. I don't remember them explaining how she got the home but I always thought she inherited it from her husband. My point is, sexism didn't prevent the wealth acquisition that comes with a home. You said she wasn't able to pay Delilah at first. Are you referring to her being able to pay Delilah 20% with Delilah's own family recipe? If so, that is criminal in itself (imo). Keep in mind, did Delilah & Peola have a home? #FoodForThought
If all she could do was peddle the syrup leftover from the business as a saleswoman on commission, she must have been doing something right. This is the epitome of the "equality" a lot of feminist advocate for so we can't have it both ways here lol. I say that respectfully
Ironically, I was highlighting how she gained more financial stability because of a black woman (Delilah). The video also shines a light on this as well. Her business success comes SOLELY from Delilah's family recipe. To add insult to injury, Delilah only gets 20% of the profits. Very questionable there
No, I never read the novel but I WOULD LOVE TO READ IT. I am also talking about Delilah's & Bea's relationship. It is inaccurate to compare white women's "struggles" with black women's struggles because they don't compare and are not the same. So the theme of them both being single mothers is true, but that commonality they share is superficial at best
I'm sure a lot of the things/questions we're having was not the main premise of the movie but it makes for good discussions. The intention of the movie was not to be solution based either but it was intended to address the issues pf racism, racial identity, etc....
Things like the did happen in families. My mother was mixed raced as was her brother there mother was white and gave them up at age 3 and 5 to foster care because she married a man that didn't want mixed children. when my mom was 15 and her brother was 17 he left to pass as white. My mother died at 36 and sadly she never saw brother again.
Sorry that happened to ur family and people criticize the movie for facts that did and still do truly exist today. I know a Hispanic woman that doesn’t want anything to do with her family cus they come from the hood. She married a white man, no longer speaks her language and passes as white cus she thinks it makes her better than others and she thinks her life is perfect because of this. Times change but people dont
Peola didn't want to be black because they were treated so bad!! You're very young to be making these comments.
It's RACIST. Done!
Very sophisticated and thoughtful analysis here. It's not either/or, it's both/and. It's a very good movie, well-written, and well-acted. The movie is also problematic; we can acknowledge those problems, and still enjoy its many strengths.
While progressive in certain themes, some of the character presentation and motivation is racist and regressive. And not just by today's standards: as pointed out, people cringed even back them.
All in all, a thoroughly interesting tearjerker and an important and thought-provoking film -- still worth seeing, enjoying, and critiquing. Washington, Colbert and Beavers are to be commended for their wonderful performances. Such a shame Fredi Washington's great talent was largely wasted by Classic Hollywood's failure to pushback more forcefully against prejudice and bigotry.
Very well said
There is no question as to why Peola "spent the entire movie running and hiding from her blackness", she existed in a world where she was accepted when people thought she was white, but was rejected when it was realized that she was actually black. A world where she saw the privileges afforded to not only her white counterparts but to her, in specific conditions. A world where being black is criminalized. No one is wondering why she would detest being perseviced as black. Where viewers have an issue, is her making the decision to abandon her mother and in turn her blackness for a more privileged life. The same mother who in the beginning of the film agrees to work for nothing just as long as she can have room and board for her and her daughter. The same mother who expresses her skills and ability to find work but refuses to accept a position where her daughter isn't welcome as well.
To answer your question, it is ALL OF THE ABOVE for me. It was pioneering because it put racism, racial identity, & passing into the American mainstream & consciousness. It was PERFECT actress representation with Frederika Washington. It was obviously racist due to all the things you mentioned in your break down. We often miss the subtle subconscious racism in films like this but you did a really good job in shining a light on that. "Art imitates life" and this film did a good job in doing that
I liked the 1959 version wayyy better than the earlier 1934 version. Delilah sounded like she just walked off the plantation and she was very childlike not wanting to get a place of her own and not wanting all the money she made Bea. Someone needs to make a 2024 version of this movie. Would be interesting.
I think the 1942 film "In this our life" was probably the 1st.movie which showed a very intelligent African American. Parry Clay [play by Ernest Anderson} wanted to be a lawyer and worked as a paralegal. Ernest Anderson received a National Board of Review Award for Best Actor in 1942 for his performance.
Just watched this on Criterion Channel yesterday (it’s going away at the end of the month). I think all of the criticisms are valid and yet the movie was still groundbreaking in 1934 for even taking on the issues. I would’ve loved to see a real grappling with the issues of race and the two women’s friendship that left out the whole lame love story. But that film probably never would’ve been made. Definitely feel conflicted about this one.
When we think of Imitation of Life, we think about the 1959 version, so I don’t think this video said much different than how we’ve all felt. Black people love the 1959 version & hate the other version.
No it’s the other way around. We hate the 59 version because they didn’t even use a black woman but love version with Fredi. Fredi never tried to pass for White and was in love with Duke Ellington.
@@r.pinheiro549 FACTS!!! I doubt Miranda is a black person lol
No they don't. They love both
Thank you for your insightful video.
The ‘tragic Mulatta” trope was a very common stereotype in early Hollywood. (Showboat with Ava Gatdner mouthing Lena Horne’s voice ) Jim Crow laws infiltrated Hollywood’s code of ethics. Miss Washington’s casting caused a stir in the 1930’s. Censorship did not allow depictions of romantic afrection of two black persons, let alone a black and white couple( in Hollywood films- not the “Race” films) . Note the Codes had barely changed in the fifties and early sixties, and to allow for a romance in the remake ( and several other films ) they cast a white actress in the role of the fair skinned daughter. It should be noted that criticism from Black Critics in 1934 was aimed at the Hollywood system. As to Miss Hurst attitude; Consider “The Help.” There exist a generous collection of non-fictional and fictional books about and black women written by black authors. Regardless of this resource, The Help” is celebrated as it depicts a whie woman giving agency to an outlet that Black American women have exercised on their own since Phyllis Wheatley: telling their own stories.
Loved your analysis. I agree with one person's comment with regards to progressive or racist. I consider it a combination of both.
Is Imitation of Life Pioneering or Racist? I feel it's neither one, although it is a stark reality as to how ugly and deeply ingrained racial hatred can be.
The subject matter of the story is one of social racism that causes the dilemma for Piola. Admittedly, there are some awkward moments in the way Delilah's scenes were written. However the reason why characters like this were in films was because there were people like this. The problem was that this was also termed as "typical" Black female character in the minds of the film makers. If one wants to continue dissecting films of this era, all movie character roles were based on stereotypes right down to the that men and women were defined on screen. And when you think about it, there were stereotypes of certain White people. But in the case of Black characters, the criticism was valid since those characters were limited to the same type of character.
I would rather movies like this to have never been made then to exist and help to spread constant stereotypes from generations. Horrible propaganda that serves to keep inflicting slaps.
Great commentary. I don’t think it’s as progressive as some say.
This movie is the story of my life today, us white passing 2020, still struggle to find our identity, racism hasn't changed, the fear is still the same..
Why? You are making it the story of your
life. Fredi had no issues being black in real life.
@@r.pinheiro549 You can't walk in the shoes, unless, the shoes were made for you to walk in, And I've done that so I understand and been there...Being mixed is not easy sometimes we aren't accepted in either race..because we are what the others hate. Were not white enough or not black enough or red enough lol..We really are our own race the human race..
You should take time to learn from the film, read and interrogate what is Wrong about Race and Representation in American film. Research more about the Intelligent / Remarkable woman that Fredi Washington was off-screen. I adore her. She Quit Hollywood cold-turkey, and pursued careers in the Theatre and as a Civil Rights Activist ! She didnt end a "vicitm" like Dorothy Dandridge. Also, view another film called "Thirteen Woman" (1932) with Irene Dunne and Myrna Loy, as a Bi-racial woman. A surprise film that might "blow you away" at the end.
@@j.w.2391 Dorothy Dandridge made history by being the first African American actor to be Nominated for an Oscar in a Leading Actor or Actress category, To walk the red carpet and be an Oscar Presenter, the same year she was nominated, [she was a presenter again in 1957] To grace the cover of Life Magazine, To appear at the Waldorf Astoria in New York, in 1955 and sign a three-year contract with a major studio, 20 Century Fox on February 15th, 1955 for star roles only for a lucrative salary per film [lucrative for the 1950s] She sang in Europe in such venues as Café de Paris, in London and the Sans Souci Club in Havan Cuba. How was she a victim? Today she has a star on Hollywood Blvd. and a statue at Hollywood Gateway in Hollywood.
When you want to respond to someone but their comment is a year old. Ugh! I definitely think this film was more insidious than progressive. All of the excellent points you made simply highlights the damaging effects of the stereotypes this film champions. Fredi Washington didn’t even agree with most of what her character said in the film and she lived her life more progressively than this film ever dared.
I've seen both versions of this film, and the 1959 version remains my favorite. However I am a fan of the late Fredi Washington who played Peola in the 1934 version. I have learned a lot about this story that I never knew before. Thanks for the information.
Whether you like it or not, RACISM is real and this movie was made during the time racism was high. Just stop.
You did a wonderful job detailing the dissonance that comes while simulateously admiring and critiquing films from this era!
It definitely was pioneering but not so progressive, reflecting the racism of those times. The film embodied stereotypes and lines that made me cringe. I really appreciate your perspective and review of this film. You are spot on! You also shared info that validates why the film turned out the way it did. I believe the 1959 version developed the characters and storyline better. For the 1934 version, I do think the black actresses Louise Beavers and Fredi Washington did the best they could with the material they had. As a Black person, I can understand why the Peola wanted equality but I can not relate to her character being so obsessed with acceptance that she would reject her mother and her Blackness. I do agree the stair scene is profound in speaking about the “places” of the two women. Another observation is the absence of the Black man from the movie. Based on what you shared, I believe that was intentional too. Having said all of that, I think the film is quite important as it captures the way business was done the as it relates to film and challenges us to discuss race relations past, present and future.
Just because you don't know the era doesn't mean they didn't. You miss the point where you were never born then to know how life was like in the 1930's, I will tell you it is SO FAR from how you've been brought up thinking that time is and your blatant guesswork stereotypes of society, hah hows that reverse psychology for you, you think they are stereotyping; welll, I guess it does take one to know one my dear.
Racism was no where even close to how bad you think it was, and many regions had a 80-20 percent agreement rate on minorities as were the many studies and tests you can only find in the statistical libraries/ digital libraries, the library of congress, or dewy decimal centres. Just think about how much you pretend you know when you truly have no given proof of anything you accuse the past of showing beside famous articles of heinous crimes by what could be criminals, rather than just racists and sexists. And that's the high tale height of this ALL! Once you take away the thought of the era being supremely racist, you are powerless against criticizing their work for no reason, and if you ever shut up about how "racist" the time was, you will perhaps finally start to get that none of those lines were “cringe“ or racist....it is a well off understanding that some few people will not be open to the idea of a black women posing as a white women, its probably the worst fear for racists..knowing a black lady is getting every advantage the white lady could, almost mocking the white race in their eyes. That is a terrible horror to reveal, its not about the mother, people would catch on if she treated her mother as more than a maid for them, and the mother actually loved her publicly. Its just the mother is a higher age enough that people would know (those who have something to say) it isn't her friend and is definitely someone far closer and more experienced with knowing her. The 1959 version was far more cruel, whereas the 1934 version had the daughter by her side, then the neighboring roommate comforting the poor mother, and if you infact If I'm getting this right, cringed at the mother calling herself a mamy, it was quite literally the name that african american mothers called themselves, and moved in with maids as well, becoming maid-mommy. This is a confusing and mysterious era we are speaking on, a great unknown turf. Don't pretend you can say anything you want because of your modern entitlement in thinking the internet tells you everything. You don't say this from a non biased standpoint, you have a mission to insinuate the hardships faced at the time through blatant basic stereotypes.
people whom criminalize the decades and the people who lived in them, are absolute scum who have no remorse for those back then, you know, the 65-70 percent of people that weren't racist in America??? But why would you open your eyes to that, its just the dirt road model t era with no advanced technology or charming soul on earth. You don't know anything, have zero research, yet somehow have too much to say from the morals you construct around an era you've made up in your head versus the true 1930's.
First of all, a lot of compromises entered into bringing this film to the screen by 1934 standards to make the film acceptable in parts of the country. The central issue about Piola being a "quadroon" or "octoroon" is a statement about society and the conditions of segregation. Her "struggle" is based on the basic desire to live as a normal American and have the opportunities for a better life that are offered to White people. This was a serious and difficult issue for many Americans of this makeup, whether to pretend or "pass" and forsake their origins, or remain at a second class citizenship level. The choices are to either deny one's roots and leave those connections, or take advantage of society's assumption and help open doors for those you came from.
All of the films dealing with the mixed race dilemma were about female characters. In my experience, I saw that happen where very fair "octoroon" men were allowed into the Tool and Dye Trades and other areas of manufacturing that were closed to recognizably "Black men." They worked quietly, becoming active in the labor unions, and help break down the barriers of discrimination. This was the case among some of our neighbors on the west side of Detroit. In the case of Piola, she is confused and angry about society and motivated to "pass' for selfish reasons without realizing how she would have been in the best position to bring about change. This is an aspect this story does not explain, and perhaps would have been too controversial. However, those seeing the film would sure reason that this would have been a better solution for Piola. Instead the mixed race issue remains as an unresolved social issue. One movie that used the the mixed race issue to the benefit of others was PINKY (1949), which cast Jeanne Craine, a White Actress in the title role. She returns to the south after getting her nursing degree and deals with the segregationist south.
She is assigned to a White woman she despises, but carries out her duties in spite of her rude treatment. She makes plans to return to the north when she is willed the large plantation style mansion. She turns it into Nursing School and Clinic to train Black Nurses. This makes a positive statement regarding this complicated issue.
The subject of mixed race people was rarely depicted in movies, and the subject of inter-racial relationships and marriages (a.k.a. miscegenation) was prohibited by The Production Code of 1933. This was not the first time that Universal dealt with this subject. They had the film rights to Edna Ferber's book, SHOWBOAT, which was a successful Broadway Musical where "Old Man River" came from. They filmed it twice, once as a short sound segment in 1929, and as a full length feature in 1936. This story dealt specifically with the miscegenation issue and used the word in the movie. Universal went out on a limb to test this prohibition further with the story of a mixed race person in IMITATION OF LIFE (1934). For this reasons there were the awkward approaches in places in order to appease the Censorship Board. The elimination of a lynching scene were due to a matter of taste and sensitivity, mostly to avoid the promotion of the idea as well as repelling the audience with a reminder of these horrible acts when the story needs to stay focused on the problem that Piola is struggling with.
Imitation of Life came out the same year as March of the Wooden Soldiers with Laurel and Hardy. 1934 is easily one of the best years for cinema.
I much prefer the original to the remake. I attribute the shortcomings to the time period in which it was made and, even though I can empathize with the criticisms made against it, I still enjoy it for what it is. In an imperfect, small way this film did push boundaries. Baby steps before major strides, to be sure.
Consider both the times and the attitudes of the studio bosses in those days. Don't "present-ize".
I had just watched both these movies back to back the other day and I thought the 1934 version seemed to be pretty progressive for the time, I, however, am looking at it by today's standard and was perplexed by the attitudes back then, I can't blame how people were portrayed at that time it was, after all, that time. My favorite scene was actually the stairway scene and I too thought what a statement! were they trying to make that statement? or did it just happen? And although it has some cringe-worthy scenes and overacting was abundant I still thought this is a move that still needs to be seen. The other versions to me seemed to be more of a whitewashed version of the same and much more Hollywood even though they tried some social commentary.
The reasons outlined in this video is exactly why I didn't like this version. Didn't realize there was so much criticism ( justified) from the black community during this time.
But Fredi Washington wasn't biologically BLACK she was a mixed-race person like her parents, which exponentially increased increased the probability of producing a child that looked like Fredi
There is nothing biological about "blackness" because it isn't based on science. To my knowledge, both of Frederika's parents had African & European ancestry. If you believe in the "Eve" gene theory, you would understand that black women can create all skin tones (including white). If you don't believe in it, that's fine too but understand that African DNA is genetically dominant while European DNA is recessive. This disputes your last point
Both her parents were black and she identified as black. Whether u agree or not, people still see them as black and they were not accepted by white society as white unless they passed.
@@shirrelljackson6365 In case you missed it, BOTH of Fredi Washington's Parents were BIRACIAL, so do yourself a favor and have have a seat.
Besides, Washington wanted to assuage the black community by claiming to be black, but that's NOT how it works, and is the main reason she left Hollywood for Broadway.
She was being offered roles that were s-reserved solely reserved for White Women.
If Washington looked black in any way, she would not have been offered the roles that she inevitably turned down.
Some research about Washington's family tree / parents might be in order...also, it is more about how Washington chose to Identify / what Community she born within and chose to live in. I think we need to understand the Social Construct of Race, its artificialities and the Reality of Racially mixed persons who Identify as "Black" but can sometimes "pass" for White with a change of make-up and hairstyle. Look up 40s starlet Dona Drake and Swing musician Ina Ray Hutton and the tragic socialite Elsie Roxborough.
It’s a white savior film. Both film heavily push that message. As well as many other thing that were very troubling. I believe this film could be remade. But I would hope it would be done right this time. Meaning they shoot the film through the eyes of Black People from that time and today. All of the criticism of these films were all valid. No. We really haven’t made much progression. When you can still count on your hand how many actors and actresses have won an Oscar. When there still aren’t many film with majority Black cast about sci-fi, or fantasy, or period romance, or just period pieces. Where all the characters are rich and complex. I honestly don’t believe this will ever happen unless Black People do it themselves without selling out.
@@BartholomewSmutz What are you talking about? I already stated this in my comment, which you clearly didn’t read. Now you just look stupid. Seriously, reading is fundamental.
@@BartholomewSmutz Here is where I said it “I honestly don’t believe this will ever happen unless Black People do it themselves without selling out.”
@@BartholomewSmutz Are you joking? If you are going to attempt to have an intelligent conversation about race and cinema and race and economics maybe you should educate yourself. Also understand American descendants of slavery are not a monolith. Try not being so bias next time in your pursuit for America knowledge of history.
Imitation Of Life is a MASTERPIECE!!!! both versions are SUPERB!!!!
Racism at its best smh sad wonder why America's a mess
That"Metropolis" poster in the back!!!👺
I first discovered women's melodrama some 35 yrs ago in a Film Studies class. I loved it but was annoyed how the Prof wanted to Ignore the Racial themes and just focus on the White - Feminist Working Woman themes pervading. IOL is indeed a Seminal film about Race/ism / White Privilege in America...but it is also very Paternalistic / Status Quo film in its perspectives and resolutions. Much of the White Paternalism emerges from Jewish American author Fannie Hurst and Jewish American director, John M. Stahl ! Overall the film remains "engrossing" and "entertaining" but flawed and hardly "radical" in its analysis of America's tenacious social problem. Another early surprise film about race/ism in America is Thirteen Women (1932) with Irene Dunne and Myrna Loy. A startling conclusion and worth a watch.
I prefer the 34 version to the 1959 remake. Fredi Washington's Performance lends authenticity to the Role. In the Novel, Peola gets married to a White man and gets herself Sterilized ! The '59 version is a bit "Gritty" but is very "artsy" and Im not convinced it's any more "revolutionary" either because the Bi-racial character is played by a Jewish - Latina actress (Susan Kohner) that somehow kills the point.
I miss Carla Laemmle very much
I do too!
In the book, Peola moves to South America to live as a white woman and never returns.
Did she ever make up with her mom? Did she have a good life?
Oh will you stop its a great movie .Claudette was a great friend to Delilah
No, no progress has been made. Like 1850s. 🙄
Also as a foundational black American I must say "AMERICA SHOULD BE ASHAMED"!!! THIS MOVIE SHOWS THE OPPRESSION IN DETAIL AND THE ROLLS PEOPLE HAD TO PLAY PREDICATED UPON RACE WITHIN THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AND SOCIETY!!! WONDER WHY BLACKS ARE IN POVERTY AT SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE?? THIS TELLS THE STORY..... THIS WAS POST SLAVERY!!!
The white girl reviews a move from this era….is this a joke?
The 1934 version is very good but feels too tame and safe. The 1959 version is much thornier and more uncomfortable, and a true masterpiece.
I can't get past the constant vocal fry. I wish this trend among young women would just stop.
That version I don't know about. But Douglas Sirk's version is melodrama. It's 'meant to be' over the top.
That's the main reason, I've watched it over and over again. Pure entertainment. My favorite version has its racial problems too. But the country hadn't gotten 'that far' from 1934 to 1959.
If it came to living in the 'real, real' my preference would be. Far From Heaven (2002). Douglas Sirk reimagined.
Good critique
The remake waa much better.
It's definitely one of the most racist movies ever
I agree with most of this video but Freddie Washington WAS NOT black. Black and biracial are not equivalent.
FACTS 💪🏿
How is she not black???
According to this logic, Frederick Douglass was not black. His father raped his mother who was a slave. According to this logic, Sallie Hemmings children (fathered by the rapist Thomas Jefferson) were not black but were born into slavery
@@MichaelJordan-hb5kkA child coming from 2 parents of the same race it's not the same as a child come from parents of different races. Calling them black is akin to you calling your daughter white and you know that she has a Japanese mom. America brainwashed all of us to see things this way and that's crazy!!!!!
Also as a foundational black American I must say "AMERICA SHOULD BE ASHAMED"!!! THIS MOVIE SHOWS THE OPPRESSION IN DETAIL AND THE ROLES PEOPLE HAD TO PLAY PREDICATED UPON RACE WITHIN THE AMERICAN SYSTEM AND SOCIETY!!! WONDER WHY BLACKS ARE IN POVERTY AT SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE?? THIS TELLS THE STORY..... THIS WAS POST SLAVERY!!!
This film is nothing more then minstrel put to film...
This movie is NOT racist it's just something that could have happened in real life. I was a great movie by the way.
Are you saying racist things never happened in real life?
@@ttintagel Hey go take a chill pill 💊 it's just a movie not real life. Someone wrote a story and turned it into a movie.
Excellent video!
you did good with this video!
Did you realised you have the community tab now 🤯
When I came and spoke to your class you guys asked for videos in the park! I just put my first one up where I went to visit for the Magic of Christmas at Hogwarts Castle! The light show was so fun/cool! ruclips.net/video/_xng89OT378/видео.html
Do you remember ms grassbaughs class? Where in summer break now uwu. I haven't seen your vids since I tried to check ur channel out.
Edit: uwu again uwu
Of course I remember your class! You guys were so much fun. A lot of you said you wanted me to make RUclips videos at Universal Studios, so I'm going to make a few there this summer. Hope you have a great break!
@@AntoniaCarlotta Thank you, you too! Uwu
Like always, your analysis was very detailed and polished, and I agree with some of what you said, but at the same time, I also think you’re misinterpreting some of the key story elements in the film. First of all, Delilah wanted to stay with Claudette Colbert because she had legitimate affection for her, and not because of any internalized racism. To think otherwise, in my opinion, is to read too much into the storyline. During the Great Depression, some black people did legitimately like their employers, some of whom treated them with dignity and respect, just as Beatrice did. Sure, Louise Beavers played a black stereotype, but given the context of the time period, most black women were regulated to working such jobs, rightly or wrongly. Ironically, however, black women were often given better parts in movies than black men. Can you even name a memorable performance by a black actor from the thirties? I know I sure can’t. Yes, I do not think the movie is nearly as progressive as some people claim, but then again, it does not really have to be. With that being said, I still enjoyed the review, and I will continue to look forward to future videos.
She was right on in her review when it came to Delilah wanting to stay with Bea. It is subconscious programming as if to say "I don't wanna leave from under my white friend because they treat me good." This comes from mental conditioning due to the legacy of slavery. It is a very SUBTLE way of saying that black people are ok with being under white people even when self autonomy is presented to them. Delilah could still have "legitimate affection" for Bea in her own mansion
@@MichaelJordan-hb5kkand if Delilah really didn’t want to live apart, she should’ve had a bedroom upstairs like Bea instead of being stuck in the basement. They also could’ve afforded a maid and/or butler, and spa treatments for Delilah to get her own feet massaged.
2.2 k views in a whole year?? 1.8 k subs??? Looks about right!!! Becky try concentrating on your own race!!
For 1934 it was ground breaking because up until that time no film was made that was as big a success as this one that showed a true loving friendship btwn a "colored" woman and a white woman. Knowing as much film history , esp pre code, as I do I'm surprised it got past the sensors. I believe this one was releases just before the Hays Code went in effect. The Hays Code was put into place in 1934 to restrict subject matter in Hollywood studio films. Up until that time (by today's standards pre code films were still very tame) there would be brief nudity (Claudette Colberts breasts are seen in her film Cleopatra, just a year before this one), Joan Crawford did a movie where she, a rich Park Ave girl, and a bunch of friends party on her father's yaht all night and decide to go for a swim but tell the Captain to turn the lights out so the women could undress , they are in shadow back lit and you see breasts fall out of brasiers but in shadow, but still, you never see that again until the late 60's. And then Maureen O'Sullivans famiuys nude swimming scene with Tarzan in Tarzan. Mae Wests racy films filled with sexual inuendo helped place the Hays Code into effect as well. Race relations were also heavily restricted. Black actors and white actors could not kiss or be remotely romantically involved on screen and the only way for a black actress to play a white woman's friend and business partner was to make her a domestic servant as a relationship btwn a white woman and her black maid was more acceptable. Keep in mind of the times, and if you don't know what I mean I suggest you educate yourself before calling this film racist or getting all worked up over a way of life that is long gone and can never be changed. Younger generations are holding onto negarjve feelings over race relations that were in place 70 + years ago. And I don't understand why. I'm 50 and in school we learned that's how it was, it isn't like that anymore, look how much has changed for the better and move on. You cannot change the past and you cannot let the past effect the now. Why would you? Negative energy over that which is impossible to change (such as time and the past), esp over things you werent alive for, had nothing to do with , and have been more than made up for thanks to films like these. And I can tell you , seeing black people in roles like these , did not make me think of them in any negative way growing up. You know why? Because at a young age I knew that that's not how the world was in the now so let's just get over all the anger for the past and be greatful you didnt experience what they did. And respect the fact that racism was an evil generated by a few and not all. And many whites, esp in the South, had to play along to stay alive. There was nothing worse than a white person that was sympathetic of blacks.
You started off well in making some good points about Censorship and the Production Code that indeed pervade this film. But then started "white-splaining" by "excusing" / apologizing the historical context---"that's - the - way - it - was" tone. That diminished your argument. For the record, Imitation barely squeaked by the censors when released in Nov. of 1934, 4 mons after the Code came into full effect. There were many editing CUTS that seem visible in spots---the Mirror scene. The film is "weepy" and "entertaining", for sure....but White Paternalistic in its ideological and Status Quo Resolution.
Ugh, your crackly voice as you pronounce the last words in your sentence. 😖
Great analyze though. ☺️
Just one of the ways I let people know I'm from LA! 😉 Thanks re: the analysis!
I feel like the movie never went into the background of HOW the little girl became so self-conscious about being black. How did she get to this point. But then I only saw the “59 version, not the 1934 version
I mean, this wouldn't have been any mystery to anyone who saw either version of the movie back when they were made. Children raised in a society where people who look like them are automatically treated as second-class citizens are going to internalize those feelings regardless of how much their parents try to protect or prepare them. Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark did a famous study where they showed dolls with different color skin to primary school children, and asked them which one they liked best and why. The majority of children regardless of their own race, picked the White doll and said it was prettier, nicer, all the good adjectives. The study was used as evidence in the Brown vs. Board of Education desegregation case.