paulknobloch Melodrama relies heavily on archetype and hyperbole, and when it's done right, when it's pushed to the limit, it almost resembles Noh theatre: human existence as highly stylized ritual; pain, suffering and loss all boiled down into a series of tableaux so rigid that they almost become hieratic. It's a thoroughly unironic and direct means of getting at the truth, and that lack of irony is probably why it's fallen out of fashion. Done wrong, it's unpalatable kitsch. Done right it's high art. Few people understand how far to push it. Fassbinder did, and so did Douglas Sirk.And so did John M. Stahl…Unfortunately, Stahl is rarely mentioned alongside those other two stalwarts. In fact, he's often treated like a hack, an unfortunate buffoon who drove Tiffany Productions into the ground and had to resort to producing talking chimpanzee movies in order to survive.Nothing could be further from the truth.It's no wonder that Sirk remade three of Stahl's masterpieces: Imitation of Life, Magnificent Obsession, and When Tomorrow Comes. But where Sirk serves up subversion via camera angles, lighting, and a painterly control of Technicolor, Stahl comes right at you with static shots, costuming, big chunks of dialogue. A lot of my filmgeeky friends wince when I tell them that Stahl's Imitation of Life is even better than Sirk's, and it is.Stahl's 1934 version is as ostensibly political as any Hollywood film I have ever seen, dealing with issues of class and race and gender as directly as Straub-Huillet or Chantal Ackerman, only in the framework of mainstream cinema, which makes it all the more subversive. The fact that it was made pre-code probably has something to do with it, but still, this film pulls no punches. Imagine Marx and Freud filtered through a lens at a back lot in Burbank.The film, based on a Fannie Hurst novel, follows Claudette Colbert's character, Beatrice Pullman (there is more than one reference to Dante throughout the film, a reminder of the hell we all live in), who gets rich by boxing and mass-producing her African-American maid Delilah's pancake batter (see it for Louise Beavers' performance alone). For publicity's sake, Delilah is turned into an Aunt Jemimah-esque cliché, and later she's abandoned by her light-skinned daughter, who wants nothing more than to pass in the white world. In turn, Beatrice's life is complicated when her own daughter, Jessie, decides she wants to bed mommy's new beau, famed ichthyologist Stephen Archer. Ultimately, the film ends with a grim reminder that in a male-dominated world, female subjectivity, even for someone as insanely successful as Beatrice, is defined by a woman's ability to fill the gaping hole inside her with male adoration.Again, in the hands of most directors, this would be pablum, camp, kitsch. In the hands of John M. Stahl, it's as real as it gets.

sme_no_densetsu The 1934 version of "Imitation of Life" is today seen as an important Hollywood film concerning race. In it, a white widow and her black live-in maid form a bond that endures through the years. However, the maid struggles continually with her light-skinned daughter who yearns to 'pass' as a white woman due to the opportunities it presents.To give an idea of where I'm coming from with my comments on this film allow me to state that I'm a white male, 31 years of age. Obviously, what I've seen in my own lifetime regarding race relations reflects much more progressive views than those of 77 years ago. Nevertheless, I know enough to put the film in the proper context of time & place.The filmmakers had guts for tackling an adaptation of Fannie Hurst's novel at the dawn of the Hays code era. For instance, they were cautioned to avoid the subject of miscegenation, which was forbidden by the code. Ultimately, though, they were able to make enough concessions to see release without completely undermining the story.While there are elements of the story that are stereotypical I feel that the story is reflective of reality, at least a certain aspect of reality. The stereotype embodied by Delilah may be hurtful but I see it as part of the film's dramatic license. Peola's rejection of her race has its roots in the perceptions of others. Her mother represents the prevailing perception of black women by white America. Since it would be naive to suggest that absolutely no-one fit this stereotype, the character of Delilah is realistic in a sense. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that Delilah, while stereotypical, is not necessarily meant to be representative of all black women. Of course, that's just my own opinion. For all I know, the filmmakers may have just been woefully ignorant.Regarding Peola's desire to 'pass' for white, it may not be laudable but it is understandable. Given the deplorable state of race relations in the 1930's it's not surprising for someone of colour to crave the opportunities that others took for granted. Such feelings are bound to be exacerbated when being raised in close contact with a white family consisting of a mother & daughter.Leaving aside considerations of race, how does the movie function as a narrative? Is it just another film whose importance outweighs its entertainment value? As far as that goes, I'm not ashamed to admit that I wept at the emotional finale, which ought to illustrate the film's power. The movie's impact transcends age, sex & race since it's ultimately about the universal theme of parent-sibling relationships.In the end, while the acting and script show some imperfections and the direction isn't particularly impressive I'd have to say that "Imitation of Life" is a success as a film. Though the 1959 version is a bit more progressive and better in its individual parts I think that this version is better on the whole.

secondtake Imitation of Life (1934)A beautiful and beautifully felt movie. Claudette Colbert, in the same year as her legendary role in "It Happened One Night," shows the really sincere charm and natural presence on screen even better here. She's a wonder, as an actress, and her role as a young struggling single mom, idealized for sure, and her success as a mature woman, is terrific stuff. A great movie, with a great performance.The director, John Stahl, who gets maligned in the bio on this site (go to Wikipedia for a more balanced and fair view), was indeed a man of mixed talents, but he pulled off several really first rate movies. This version of "Imitation of Life" is remarkably clear and forceful and subtle. It's not quite a formula movie even if it has some standard Hollywood tricks (of the passing of time, of handling the filming and the back projection, all very convincingly). And it has a story at its core that is really rather forward thinking for a mainstream movie. There are those (I've heard them) who find the approach to race too cloying and timid, but I say, show me a better film that people actually watched about the subject from this year. Just to find a way to deal with the idea of "passing," which means a black person passing as white in order to avoid prejudice, is terrific and necessary for the times. (By the way, for an insider look on this, read the extraordinary 1929 short novel, "Passing," by Nella Larsen.) The story for "Imitation of Life" is written by a white (Jewish) woman (Fanny Hurst) and is clearly taking up the broad themes of the depression. Written in 1933, it nailed themes that probably echoed some of the bigotry against Jews of the time, as both blacks and Jews were largely assimilating into mainstream America.Inevitably the remake of this movie will come to mind, and luckily they are very different movies. I love Douglas Sirk for his stylizing excesses, and his willingness to identify clichés and make them the substance of his 1959 movie (including the cliché known as a tearjerker!). I watched them both together this week (back and forth between them), and you can check out that review, too, if you want. Stahl's version, closer to the book in time and feeling than Sirk's, is in many ways a better movie, once you remove pure style from the equation. There is less to love, but much more to really like here, in the sincerity of the characters, the sweeping defiance against a Great Depression (that is mostly invisible), and in sheer personality. Terrific stuff!

tavm First, I have a question: What's with IMDb listing Dorothy Black playing Peola at age 35? This version I saw ends with her at 19 crying at her mother's funeral and still played by Fredi Washington. Was there an extra scene missing? Anyway with that out of the way, I found this movie interesting with the relationship between Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers being nearly equal as being more friends as opposed to boss/employee even though Delilah kept calling Bea, Miss Bea, to the end of her days. Those scenes were so interesting and that of Beavers and Washington more so especially their last confrontation when Delilah still wants to be called Mammy and not some white woman's parent title (no offense to Bea, of course), that Bea's scenes with her potential husband (Warren William) and grown daughter (Rochelle Hudson) are sappy and a little melodramatic by comparison. I'd also like to praise the child, Sebie Handricks, that played Peola at age 4. She was really good. Ned Sparks as Bea's business partner is amusing with his sour disposition though a little of him goes a long way. I do wonder how many of the people at Delilah's funeral were her friends and how many were simply Bea's that simply came at her request because of Delilah's request of wanting a big one. I also wonder about the trailer that played on the VHS tape before the movie that emphasized Beavers and Washington in still frames with critical notices of them that probably played in segregated black theatres and how the intended audience reacted when their parts were small compared to the white actors. Despite those mixed reactions, I still recommend Imitation of Life.