anybody else find this movie very offensive? - Imitation of Life (1934) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

I hear this movie is based on a novel and I have seen both versions of it now, having seen this one yesterday with a friend. I really and truly hated that foot rubbing scene. And the fact that Delilah won't take her fair share of the money and just lives to serve "Bea." By today's standards it is very offensive to people of color.

reply

[–] Howie0331 17 years ago

From what I understand people of color found that aspect of the film offensive in 1934, too.

You Can Lead a Horticulture, but You Can't Make Her Think!

reply

[–] DivingIntheBlue 17 years ago

I just watched this movie for the first time tonight (after having seen the remake numerous times) and I'll admit, it was a little difficult to watch. I kept trying to remind myself that it was a different era but, it played into one too many stereotypes & clichés. I'm not a person that finds fault in everything and I don't like playing the race card either (it's soooo overplayed!) but, the role of Delilah was just a little too subservient and (for lack of a better word) selfless. That role of the helpful, forever smiling, chubby black woman was the norm back then but, this movie took it to a whole new (awful) level.

"Without love, you're only living an imitation. An imitation of life!"

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarlowMGM 17 years ago

Bea was extraordinary to Delilah from day one. She took in this woman who was a complete stranger to her and gave a home for her and her child. Not many people would do that, let alone to someone of another race. This is why Delilah is so devoted to her. She offers to rub Bea's feet as one would do a friend, what's wrong with that? No employee would certainly ask an employer if they wanted their feet rubbed but a friend would. These two women are best friends. When Peola is missing, Bea is concerned, at the end of the film Bea convinces Peola to go to college and build a future for herself.

Delilah was NOT Bea's business partner. She never invested a dime in the business. Delilah supplied the recipe but Bea did all the hard work marketing it, investing her own money in it to make it a success, etc. It's only natural she would own the majority of the corporation. Plenty a businessman would have paid Delilah (or someone in her shoes, black or white) a modest flat fee and had them sign away all future rights.

I've seen this "20 percent of profits" complaint many times on boards and reviews of IOL but people are just not sitting down and realizing it is a very GENEROUS offer. If you write a book, you take it to the publisher what amount of royalties do they pay you - TWELVE PERCENT!! If you record an album of music, what percentage of the record sales do you get - TEN PERCENT! Sometimes it's higher than those rates, but usually not by much. And I suspect most people who invent recipes for food products probably get nothing more than a flat fee and zero on the actual sales.

If you invent something and you want a bigger slice of the sales, you'll need to own it and market it yourself because not many places will give an "idea" person a 20 percent share of the sales, especially some with no track record.

reply

[–] lyndadavis_07 16 years ago

I don't know what movie you were watching but Bea absolutely did not invest her own money. She was the only one of the two of them that COULD get credit but that's basically what she did. There were two whole scenes showing her talk the men she was working with into letting her pay in installments or put it off until later. They paid of their bills with the money that they eventually made. There is a whole other scene where Bea and Delilah were talking about how long it took them to pay off their debts. Also a scene were Delilah asks Bea if someone had died and left her money because she only had $19 to her name yet she owed so much money. Did you miss like half of the movie?

reply

[–] HarlowMGM 13 years ago

I don't know what movie you were watching but Bea absolutely did not invest her own money. She was the only one of the two of them that COULD get credit but that's basically what she did. There were two whole scenes showing her talk the men she was working with into letting her pay in installments or put it off until later.

Are you seriously calling a loan someone has received not their own money? A loan is borrowed money but then the funds belong to the person who has obtained it and is their responsibility and obligation to pay it back in full. That's like saying somebody's house or car is not theirs because they had to get a loan to obtain it. The money is absolutely Bea's own investment - and she's responsible for paying it back, not Delilah.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] noname1479 13 years ago

"The whole concept of the white woman being so generous to the helpless black woman is racist in itself."

I'm assuming you're trying to funny. A person cannot be kind to someone else during a time (The Depression) when people in this country were starving to death. Good joke.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sweet_T0209 10 years ago

While I agree with what you said to a certain extent you have to be black to understand where we are all coming from on this board. You are not black and I don't expect you to understand the depth of hurt that blacks have been experiencing for centuries. I can't. And for this movie the degree of cheesiness and ignorance of Delilah was the epitome of being an Uncle Tom. I'm sorry but that is how I see it.

reply

[–] Kumquat66 17 years ago

Bea was an exceptional woman to take in a black woman and child in 1934. Even if she was a servant. As for the foot rubbing scene...it was a bit much but Delilah was grateful to her hard working friend/employer. After all, in 1934 a woman in Delilah's position did not have much of a chance. In 1934 it was a win win situation for both of them.

reply

[–] corbryn 17 years ago

Delilah was sweet and all but I could not stand the way she acted, I just wanted to reach through the screen and slap her to tell her to snap out of it! It really got me when she called Bea "honey chile" and when she said "I'm your mammy", you can't get much more stereotypical than that. At least Peola acted normal, I guess they wanted to make sure that Delilah would be contrast to her.

reply

[–] noname1479 13 years ago

During the Great Depression a black woman with a child in tow was lucky to have a roof over her head. Delilah wasn't a young hip chick like Peola. Delilah wasn't a college graduate. Her job was to take care of the household, and mothering everyone solidified her position as a permanent employee. Not only was typical of the time, but it was smart of her to have "game".

reply

[–] Sweet_T0209 10 years ago

YES!!! I totally agree. Delilah's behavior was very painful to watch.

reply

[–] Devotchka 14 years ago

Racist.

--celebrating my 10th year on imdb. woohoo!--

reply

[–] dadbowen-1 17 years ago

This movie does have sterotypes but it is done intentially to show the inbalance and unfairness of the American society. It is a Pro-Black movie. The whole point of the movie was to enlighten people of the way whites had (have) a hard time treating blacks equally, seeing them as valued, equal citizens. The movie does an excellent job bringing this to light. It is not promoting sterotypes, it is trying to stop them.

reply

[–] Jal8919536 17 years ago

The scenes that really got to me was when Delilah inadvertedly embarrasses Peola to her entire class and her teacher just turns on her, telling her, "Goodbye" (In other words, she's expelled). But just how Peola managed to get enrolled into a white school if they were segregated then, is beyond me.

And how when Peola is called "black" by Bea's daughter and is told to apologize, Delilah prevents this, explaining Peola needs to "learn to take it". Fine example to set for young children, a black woman encouraging prejudice. >:(

reply

[–] Greenster 16 years ago

Those who comment that Imitation of Life (1934) is more pro-minority than racist get its point that there were few opportunities under Segregation, and Beatrice, as well as Delilah, benefits from rising above social injustices.

Keep in mind that although Delilah does not care to accept her 20% of the corporate stock, Beatrice invests the value of her shares. This also does not mean that Beatrice hangs onto control of the remaining 80% because then there would be no other stockholders, and we all know that Elmer continually insists upon answering to those shareholders.

At most (and this is speculation), Beatrice would have probably maintained about 31% of those remaining shares in the Aunt Delilah Corportation, to afford the friends its controlling interest. (If she would have controlled less than 31% of her own, in addtion to Delilah's 20%, the other shareholders may have sold to someone's scheming to a corporate takeover bid to control half of the stocks. But we know that throughout the years, Beatrice (with Delilah) maintain charge of active management and decision-making.

"National Brands" obviously has made a bid on the Aunt Delilah Corporation, leaving Beatrice with the decision to sell, to give up management and to retire to "Easy Street," according to Elmer, but then Beatrice would have to relinquish her "Imitation of Life."

“Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others.” — Robert Louis Stevenson

reply

[–] hillbrian2005 16 years ago

How did Japanese immigrants get along in America back in those days? Like Afrcian Americans or alittle better due to their education.

reply

[–] TheDuchessofM 16 years ago

Oh boy. There's way too much to explain to answer this questions. Let's just say that for non-blacks and non-whites in this country, there was a whole lotta mess regarding the laws passed to say who was "white" in this country and who was not.

Read:
Encyclopedia of Japanese American History: An A-to-Z Reference from 1868 to the Present. Ed. Brian Niiya. Updated Edition. New York: Facts on File, Inc, 2001.

Chin, Frank. Born in the USA: A Story of Japanese America, 1889-1947. Lanham and others: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2002.

Takaki, Ronald. Strangers from a Different Shore. Updated and Revised Edition. New York: Back Bay Books-Little, Brown, 1998.

reply

[–] carmystic06 16 years ago

"But just how Peola managed to get enrolled into a white school if they were segregated then, is beyond me."

Because Peola looked WHITE and that's what her teacher thought she was.

SEE IT, BELIEVE IT, CLAIM IT, RECEIVE IT !!!

reply

[–] leggycat-1 15 years ago

the film took place in new york city. the public schools were not segregated there in 1934.

reply

[–] HarlowMGM 15 years ago

No but then the issue is not that Peola isn't supposed to be in that classroom but Peola has not let the teacher and other students know she was black, that she is "passing" as white. Note the teacher says "I don't have a little colored girl in my classroom" and that Delilah comes to the class knowing it is a mostly (or rather all) white classroom - obviously some teachers do have black children in their classes at that school and also Delilah knew Peola's class was in a intergrated class.

reply

[–] bothpartiessuck 14 years ago

This movie was made IN 1934! TIMES WERE DIFFERENT BACK THEN; THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE BLACK EXPERIENCE AT THE TIME.

What part of that don't you clowns understand?!!!

reply

[–] onemightymike 14 years ago

Thank you. I agree completely Bothpartiessuck. BTW, do you think it is possible that the now "infamous whites go up the stairs, blacks go down the stairs" to their bedroom scene is in there....for a reason? I mean my thoughts were that the makers of this film deliberately included that scene (which actually plays a little awkward) to show how ludicrous the situation for blacks were. I believe, the thought processes here by the filmmakers were WAY ahead of their time.

What I truly find astonishing, and astonishing that no one really has mentioned this (unless I missed it somewhere) that a pretty faithful remake of this original film could be made 25 years later,,.,,,with the action taking place 25 years later....with little change to the "black experience". The fact that the same story could be told, and be plausible 25 years later is sad.

To me, the lack of progress we made as a society in 25 years is what stuck out in my mind.

reply

[–] lyndadavis_07 16 years ago

I thought that Delilah's behavior served as a way for us to understand Peola's need to distance herself from her. They try to soften the embarassment a little more in the 1959 version but here you can clearly see why Peola was embarassed even if you don't like her reaction to it. Delilah is the stereotype of a black mammy back in the day. If blacks watched it back in the day and hated the way they had to be portrayed, imagine if your mother was like that. Peola had a free ride with her mother but was happier working in a store because she was so embarassed by her mother. Delilah's character is a good person but she's slow, has no ambition and she puts herself down. Sarah Jane in the 59 version just seemed evil and bratty. In this version Peola is seriously depressed. The mammy portrayal helped make the audience understand exactly why Peola would want to be a white woman versus the person her mother was.

reply

[–] carmystic06 16 years ago

In those days, Hollywood portrayed Blacks as dumb and stupid (which is a LIE) and most whites back then, who have NEVER interacted with a black person, actually BELIEVED what they saw in the movies. Black actors/actresses had very limited roles to choose from in those days. However, there were many UNKNOWN black movies in the 30s/40s, with ALL BLACK cast, that contained : romance, drama, mystery, horror, etc. and they were just as good as the "Hollywood" movies.

SEE IT, BELIEVE IT, CLAIM IT, RECEIVE IT !!!

reply

[–] bayphatt 15 years ago

There was so many good all black movies that are, sadly, lost forever now. I have been trying my best to get another Fredi Washington film called one mile from heaven and it's impossible.

reply

[–] pmdawn 14 years ago

what movies are you talking about? are any still available?

reply

[–] TCall2004 16 years ago

I found it sexist and racist in the extreme.

Come on - Claudette Colbert's character has to give up the man she loves because her daughter has a teen crush on him?

To me, this sent a message "If you want success, woman, you can't have happiness and love, too!"

Is that how they kept women docile housewives in those days?

Don't even get me started on the racism thing - I was cringing throughout the entire film and if I was African-American, I would have gone Elvis on the TV.

Louise Beavers' recipe made the money and the fame - and ehe and daughter weren't permitted near the party????

Maybe I'm looking at this film through the eyes of a feminist and a child of the 1960s, but I prefer the 1959 version.

reply

[–] DaytonVegas 16 years ago

http://mylifefrommidnighton.blogspot.com/2008/04/gentlemans-imitation.html

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 16 years ago

I've just read the original Fannie Hurst novel and then watched this film again. The novel ends differently from both film versions - I really felt for Peola, lost between two worlds and not entirely equal in either of them - this is a story about mother-love, self-sacrifice, and self-acceptance. I thought Louise Beavers and Fredi Washington were both superb - Delilah may have been somewhat stereotypical, but Beavers' acting was sincere and honest.

"Stone-cold sober I find myself absolutely fascinating!"---Katharine Hepburn

reply