Imitation of Life was a book about two women bonding, the complicated mother-daughter relationship, and the even more complex issues of race. It was adapted into two films, the first of which came out in 1934, starring Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers, and the second of which came out in 1959, starring Lana Turner and Juanita Moore. They're both very good films in their own right, but which is better?
The stories are, for the most part, incredibly similar. There's a white single mother with a little girl to look after who's struggling to make ends meet. The "Magical Negro" shows up and offers to help her out around the house, in exchange for room and board for her and her daughter. Her daughter is a very light-skinned African American, so much so that she can get away with "passing" as white. She resents her mother for being black and tries to fight her own racial background. This is the source of most of the conflict throughout the film. The only real difference between the films is that in the 1934 version, Bea (Colbert) makes her fortune by opening a pancake house and marketing Delilah's (Beavers) pancake recipe, while in the 1959 version Lora (Turner) finds success as an actress.
For me, this is an incredibly character-driven story, so I think it would be a good idea to look at them first, in trying to decide which film is better.
 |
| Bea (Claudette Colbert) vs Lora (Lana Turner) |
A lot of this one comes down to personal preference. I'm not a huge fan of Lana Turner, and I think she lacks the warmth needed for this role. She's just kind of unlikeable. I don't really buy her relationship with Annie, and I don't blame Susie for calling her out on her not being a good mother. She's overly ambitious, and is willing to put aside any commitment she has with her family or boyfriend for an opportunity in theater. I don't think this story works as well when so much of it is about her drama. I prefer the more friendly, laidback Claudette Colbert. Even though her work ends up taking over a lot of her life, there's still a great connection between her and her daughter...you can tell how much she loves Jessie. I feel like she and Delilah have a wonderful partnership and friendship. Most of all, she comes off as a nice person who worked her way to the top with hard work and risk taking. When Lora manages to get ahead, it feels contrived. She gives a bad audition and criticizes the playwright, but somehow that's exactly what he wants. Please. Also, I think having so much of the film revolve around Lora and her work as an actress takes away from what should be the more important story.
Winner: Claudette Colbert, 1934
 |
| Delilah (Louise Beavers) vs Annie (Juanita Moore) |
This is tough, because as much as I like and admire Louise Beavers, her character of Delilah is such a painful mammy stereotype. She injects genuine warmth and love into the role, but it's hard to ignore that Delilah is such a product of her time. The scene where Bea asks her to smile is just cringe-worthy in its awkwardness. It's sort of like when your 90 year old great-aunt uses the term "colored"...it's embarrassing, but you sort of can't get mad at her because that's just the way things were back then.
By contrast, Juanita Moore as Annie seems to be way more realistic. She's a little less subservient, a little smarter, and has a more complex relationship with her daughter. When she says, "How do you explain to your child she was born to be hurt?" that's just a heartbreaking moment. She fully understands why Sarah Jane runs away, but she still doesn't want to lose her baby. At the end, when she makes an effort to interact with Sarah Jane on her own terms (pretending to be her old nanny rather than her mother), it's depressing that she would have to do that, but it's also touching that she wants her daughter in her life no matter what. Even if it means doing something she disagrees with, she would rather do that than die on bad terms with her daughter. I think that effort is what makes Sarah Jane realize how much her mother means to her.
Winner: Juanita Moore, 1959
 |
| Peola (Fredi Washington) vs Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner) |
I have to be honest, I'm a little bit influenced by the realism factor. I think it's amazing that in 1934 they cast Fredi Washington, a light-skinned African American woman who was a very talented actress but refused to pass as white. There's something raw and truthful about her performance, because you know that the issue was incredibly real for her. It's a bit strange that in 1959 they cast an actress who was half Latina, half white, settling for someone who was just ethnic-looking enough to pull off the role. What gives, Hollywood?
That said, both of these actresses do a really great job. I think Peola comes off as being a little more reasonable and conflicted about her decisions, which for me makes her more realistic as a character. But Susan Kohner OWNS the funeral scene at the end of the film. Seriously. I watched it twice, and cried both times. Watching her running down the street, sobbing, "Mama!" makes me lose it. My only real issue with the Sarah Jane storyline in the 1959 version is the plot with her boyfriend. I think it's a really good idea to address the issues that go along with a light-skinned black girl dating a white boy, but I felt like it was done a little awkwardly here.
First of all, I couldn't stop thinking about how Sarah Jane possibly expected it to play out. Even if they did get married and stayed together, if she ever got pregnant that would be a disaster. It's too much to expect that her baby would be as light as she was, and I can only imagine what a white husband would do if his apparently-white wife gave birth to a black baby. Probably wouldn't be pretty. But beyond that, the whole scene where her boyfriend finds out she's black is so over the top and melodramatic and tonally off that it feels like it's from a completely different film.
Winner: Fredi Washington, 1934
I find Sandra Dee to be pretty annoying throughout this film, except for the scenes towards the end when she grows a pair and is telling off her mother. I just find her to be too wide-eyed and girlish...her little high-pitched voice drives me up a wall. It's almost comical when she falls in love with Steve, because she really does come off as a child. Jessie, on the other hand, seems more mature and likeable. It seems more believable that she could relate to Steve on an adult level, so well it's obvious that her feelings aren't reciprocated, it makes for a more interesting situation. Interestingly enough, in the 1934 film, Bea and Steve decide against getting married so that Jessie doesn't feel that her mother got in the way of her happiness. In the 1959 version, Lora offers to call the engagement off, only to have Susie snap at her that she'll get over it, and she tells her mother not to "play the martyr". As much as I prefer Rochelle Hudson, I find the 1959 version's way of resolving the issue incredibly satisfying.
Winner: Rochelle Hudson, 1934
Other People:
I have to give credit to Karin Dicker, the girl who played the young version of Sarah Jane in the 1959 film. She was a really strong actor. Especially in the scene on the beach, when they ask her for her address, and she just has this stricken look on her face like she doesn't know what to say. She did a great job with limited screen time and complex emotional material, so hat's off to her.
In general, I think the two little girls from the 1959 version were vastly superior to the kids from the 1934 one. They seemed very natural and confident, while the girls in the older version were flat and just sort of reading their lines. Except for Baby Jane, of course. She was adorable.
Also, I love Elmer in the 1934 version. He is hilarious and I love listening to him, especially with Steve. "You're late." "You're drunk." "You're a liar."
Overall, I guess I would have to say that I prefer the 1934 version, but the 1959 film has some great moments, and definitely has the superior funeral scene. And they have Mahalia Jackson singing in it. Come on. That's awesome.
Thanks for reading, and come back next time!
 |
| Jessie (Rochelle Hudson) vs Susie (Sandra Dee) |
Winner: Rochelle Hudson, 1934
Other People:
I have to give credit to Karin Dicker, the girl who played the young version of Sarah Jane in the 1959 film. She was a really strong actor. Especially in the scene on the beach, when they ask her for her address, and she just has this stricken look on her face like she doesn't know what to say. She did a great job with limited screen time and complex emotional material, so hat's off to her.
In general, I think the two little girls from the 1959 version were vastly superior to the kids from the 1934 one. They seemed very natural and confident, while the girls in the older version were flat and just sort of reading their lines. Except for Baby Jane, of course. She was adorable.
Also, I love Elmer in the 1934 version. He is hilarious and I love listening to him, especially with Steve. "You're late." "You're drunk." "You're a liar."
Overall, I guess I would have to say that I prefer the 1934 version, but the 1959 film has some great moments, and definitely has the superior funeral scene. And they have Mahalia Jackson singing in it. Come on. That's awesome.
Thanks for reading, and come back next time!
13 comments:
I think you missed Sirk's point about Lora. He intentionally undercut Lana Turner's role at every turn, and Lana Turner pretty much not only got what he was doing and why, but also agreed with it all.
Once you understand that, Turner's performance becomes far more complex and nuanced than it seems at first. She wasn't supposed to be likeable. She was supposed to be cold, brittle, ambitious and artificial. She's living her own imitation of life--she seems to have everything...but the reality of her life is that it's as cold, empty and meaningless as she herself is.
Lana Turner did a far better job with this role than most viewers give her credit for. It was an incredibly brave performance for an established star.
Thank you for this review. I haven't seen the 1934 version. My mother introduced me to this film when I was a kid and I never forgot it. She preferred the Lana Turner version. She liked Lana Turner. I now want to see Claudette Colbert version and make my own comparison. D.Stone
I've watched the 1934 version many times over, and avoided the 1959 version until last night, when I finally caved.
It wasn't as bad as I expected, but I still prefer the original. Whether Lora was intended to be unlikable or not, she's a central character and we're meant to empathize with her to at least some extent. I just can't, though. I don't acre about her love life, or her career. I'm not happy or sad for her at any point in the movie.
Contrast this with Bea - she's sweet, she's tough, she's resourceful. I love the scenes where she's using her charm and wiles to get the restaurant location (on Atlantic Avenue, no less), get it refurbished, and get all the equipment for next to nothing! Claudette Colbert is pretty enough to make it believable. They'd DO that for her.
Louise Beavers plays her part admirably. But yes. I always cringe (and often fast forward) the "smile" sequence. And when the money starts rolling in? Delilah won't take a penny. I don't find that part credible at all. If Bea was as ethical a person as she appears in the rest of the movie, she'd have found a workaround - a trust fund for Peola, maybe?
It's things like this that keep me from shouting from the rooftops for people to watch this movie. Racism taints everything it touches. I haven't read the book (yet) but I understand that in it, Peola's father is white, not "a light skinned colored man". That was changed in both movies because of the Production Code forbidding "miscegenation". It's disgusting that this ever was, that it was still a thing in 1959, and that there is a mindset in our own time that would bring it back.
I'm OK with Susan Kohner's performance, she's good. Even the boyfriend sequence was believable to me - at that age, I considered everything that wasn't happening NOW to be in some distant future that I would worry about later, and I think most teenagers are the same. I suspect it's something to do with our psychological development at that age, and besides, the hormones often reign supreme. And there are a lot of guys who would use any excuse to smack a girl around, may they all rot in hell.
Speaking of which, the 1959 Steve was controlling and he lost my sympathy when Lora left him. Warren William wouldn't have pulled that in the 30's. I think the 50's must have been exceptionally stifling for women. Lora surrounded herself with creepy men and that's another thing that left me cold.
Ned Sparks (Elmer) - what can I say? The Master of Deadpan. I've watched much worse movies because he was in them.
And (saving the best for last) Fredi Washington. Yes. Just YES. Sometimes the realism factor is what saves a movie from the cringeworthy moments.
I saw the the 1934 version last night. It was enlightened for it's times. I wondered if Aunt Jemima pancakes had anything to say about the pancake theme. Both women on the box were similar.
That being said. The 34 version was way ahead of America regardless of the movie. Two really good friends of different races.
Biracial child trying to fit in somewhere.
Racial rules that segregated people. We have not advanced enough on over 80 years to not see that America in 2020 still has issues with the color of skin. That in itself makes sad, but I like this movie for trying in a time when it had to make a statement to deaf ears about people are people. Live and let live. It's your heart not your color that matters.
I believe that white privilege has been emboldened by need to be superior and right regardless of the circumstances. Systemic racism is truly alive and well these days. Truth is the narrative of those who were implicit with the racism.
I loved them both but the last one was the best.one
Agree with most of your comments. But I felt they were two different films. In all, the 1934 version did a much better job weaving the themes of racism, mother-daughter relationships, female empowerment, and - really lacking from the 1959 version - friendship. Yeah, Mahalia Jackson. But even the Queen of Gospel herself couldn't make the 1959 a better story.
Thanks for this review. When I was coming up, the streets would clear when someone would yell, "Imitation of Life is on TV!" All of us kids would abandon our kickball game to run inside. I remember the 1959 version and was not that aware of the 1934 version. I got here through my usual ADD rabbit hole when I read an article on Fredi Washington.
I couldn't agree more!
The irony that you don't really touch on is that the 1959 version is in many ways less progressive than the 1934 version. Turner's character is relegated to being an artist, not a business woman like Colbert. And the 1934 Delilah character plays an integral role in Bea's success and earns her own money. Whereas in the 1959 version, Annie is more like a house slave who is loyal and trades servitude to Lora for support of her and her daughter.
The 34 ending?absurd! The 59 version? A little more believable
This movie made me aware of a scenario where light skin was a liability because of the agonizing option it presented. One that tempted you to choose between a loving mother and premium social status. I am not a light skinned person, but it makes you wonder what you would do in a similar situation. What would you do with your light skin in a world that vilified dark?
Agreed. There's a scene in the 59 version where Turner admits that she never knew Moore's character had so many friends. She then replied, "you never asked". So that shatters the illusion of the friendship.
Post a Comment