MovieChat Forums > Imitation of Life (1934) Discussion > anybody else find this movie very offens...

anybody else find this movie very offensive?

posted 18 years ago by chris-e-lee
74 replies | jump to latest

I found the 1934 version pretty offensive in how they portrayed Dahlila. she doesn't want her own house? she only wants to serve Bea? She's her "partner" and gets 20%? even so she should be a millioniare and yet still takes comfort in rubbing her feet? lol, come on. they portray her with basically no self dignity and how she just accepts her daughter's rejection is pretty sad too. i suppose back in 1934 this was considered progressive, but at the same time it is pretty clear about Dahlila's role and yet nobody really wants to adress this issue when talking about this movie.

[–] Echo_in_big_sky 14 years ago

I wasn't alive 77 years ago, so I don't know if this was a liberal portrayal of progress for the times or not. But obviously by today's standards Delilah's attitude and treatment makes me cringe. The 1959 version wasn't much different from the 1934 version, but today they are both obsolete in terms of what we perceive as equal and fair. So happily, the progress has been considerable.

I'm an hispanic woman who when most people learn this exclaim, "I didn't know you were hispanic, you look white," as though I can't be both. I mention this because I think it illustrates that racial perceptions and distinctions are difficult to shake no matter how much progress we make.

Just be truthful and if you can fake that you've got it made. ;)

[–] senator_noc 14 years ago

In context to the times this was very progressive, and I say this as a black man.

At the time alot of film critics and fans didn't believe that a white woman would be partners with a black woman. And not only that, befriend her and her daughter, treating them as "family."

I think looking at the foot massage thing and them living together are valid points if you are critiquing something through the eyes of a black person living in 2011. But I still think it is pushing it. Those things were not put in there to be degrading but to establish Bea and Delilah's friendship. The fact that the bond is not felt stronger on screen has to do more with filmmaking of the 1930s and the PC nature of race relations of that era.

I personally like this version more than the Lana Turner version for that reason alone. The 1959 version out right made Annie a servant. 25 years later they scaled back on the Nancy Green/Madame C.J. Walker black business woman angle and out right made her a Mamie. The 1959 movie is a tad bit more touching, but we are talking about a post-Citizen Kane/Elia Kazan/Marlon Brando influence film landscape. Technique, acting and storytelling was better by default.

[–] ChorusGirl 14 years ago

Well said.

I also think director Stahl addressed the inequality on display, in the memorable long shot of Claudette Colbert going up the steps to bed, and Louise Beavers going down the stairs beneath her. Very few studio films from the 30s made such statements (SHOW BOAT is one of the few that come to mind).

I have to wonder about some of these reviewers. Have they seen any other movies from the 1930s? At the same studio, one year later, James Whale made a movie called REMEMBER LAST NIGHT, where party guests get in black face for a pretty jaw-dropping sequence that has no other intention but to mock blacks. That is more representative of the era.

You cant review a 1934 movie like you review the meal you had at a restuarant last night. To brush off this movie as racist and offensive shows the limitations of some of these commenters.

[–] mjr1114 11 years ago

I agree with how senator_noc explained it and with the points made by others about what this film was trying to portray. It was meant to have those 'uncomfortable' points to try to enlighten the viewer to their current realities. It was trying to say, 'hey, you gotta admit that it's pretty bad you can be great friends, but have a different social standing just because of the color of your skin'. It was trying to make people think. It wasn't attempting to be degrading. At least, in this version, there was a friendship between the two women. The women were partners in a business. In the remake it started out to almost be a friendship, but really turned into an employer and employee relationship by the second act and remained that way, throughout. I felt the remake was a step backwards and didn't delve into what the storyline of the book was trying to get across, originally. The Hayes code made it impossible for the '34 version to really do as much in your face 'racism is just stupid', but the '59 version could and should have. If the '34 version would have been made/released just a year or two sooner, it could have gotten away with a much more bold approach, even if they would have had to film two versions, one for the white audiences in the south, and one for everywhere else. [Like they had to do for the wedding scene in 'Hold Your Man ('33)]
I first saw this film on AMC during the Bob Dorian days, so I knew about the points the film was making in many scenes, early on, thanks to him. TCM has many clips from time to time that focus on a few scenes, as well, as the hosts explaining them, too. I'm guessing many may have just missed the lead ins and/or have never read the book to understand the meanings behind those scenes. Another thing is there are still those that really don't understand how creative many writers, directors, producers and actors had to be to 'sneak' their messages into a film once the code was put into place. There are so many movies with so much 'subtlety' woven through them that really drive points home for those open to seeing them. Even though I love pre-code films for being able to get away with some more 'in your face' realism, so to speak, you have to give the post code film makers (many were pre-coders, too) for being able to do so much under so many restrictions.
It's quite shocking that they allowed this movie to be put on the screen with Delilah even being a partner in the business. The Hays code almost forbid 'equal' roles for non-caucasian actors/actresses and the southern cinemas would refuse to play movies that had movies that would portray minorities as being 'equal' or prominent in any way. It was a financial risk many studios didn't always want to take. This really was a very progressive film that broke the rules of that time.

Credo ergo sum

[–] albertflasher 14 years ago

Yes, this is offensive. I can't stand this film! Why do white women in movies all have some black woman to advise, nurture and care for them? This is happening in films this day and age. As a black woman, I don't know of ANYBODY who act like this, ever.

[–] BelleDameSansMerci 14 years ago

I am just deeply grateful for ANY movie that was made before this Po-Co age we have to endure....

[–] Echo_in_big_sky 14 years ago

You make excellent points. Thank you for sharing them. I agree with you,I also prefer the earlier version.
[i]Always the wedding officiant, never the bride.[/]

[–] HarlowMGM 14 years ago

Is it impossible to be both - friends AND business partners?? Most people would not have a problem with that.

Take race out of the picture. A black woman in Bea's shoes who does all the work Bea does, gets the loans which she alone is responsible for, etc. would be an absolute fool to "split the business" with Delilah whose sole contribution is coming up with a recipe!! I'd say yes split the business if Delilah would have also had to sign for the loans, if Delilah had knocked herself out to come up with ways of expanding the business and being a true partner but Delilah does nothing other than supply the recipe and work as a cook in their short-lived shop!! The former would never get her anywhere near 20 percent profits at another corporation, the latter would have been a minimum wage position. And as has been pointed out in other threads, Bea certainly does not own the other full 80 percent of the business.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ScipioDefeatsHannibal 14 years ago

I say lets just burn all copies of this film and any other films or books or maybe even people whom we find offensive in our PC collective. We could then label ourselves progressive and everything would be alright with the world!

[–] noname1479 14 years ago

This was made during the height of the Great Depression. Many black people were homeless, as were many whites. People were starving, literally. Getting white audiences to part with their precious money to view the many movies available, was a challenge. Some studios were on the verge of going under financially. Do you really think 1934 white audiences were going to pay money to see Claudette Colbert massage a black maid's feet? Can you say riot? As revoluntary as this movie was, it had to be presented in a way that the audience would pay to see it. It was made for white audiences, not black. I might add, that black movie productions were often cast so light skinned girls got the plum roles. The black movie themes were often centered around light blacks vs. dark skinned blacks. Check out the movies of Oscar Micheaux. You are looking at the movie through the eyes of today, not 1930's audiences.

[–] digitaldiva 13 years ago

Hi noname1479,

Films that deal with racial relations continue to anger and incite, just look at the rancorous comments on "The Help" board. Despite the fact that the novel was a huge hit among audiences in the 1930s, it's a miracle that the film saw the light of day. In the Hurst novel, Peola, the light-skinned daughter marries a white man and moves to Latin America. Her mother dies of a broken heart. Will Hays and Joseph Breen both felt novel was too explosive to bring to the screen and blue-penciled the script every step of the way.

[–] twilson11208 13 years ago

I feel the same way you do but given the time this film was made in one would have to understand, this coming from one who is anything but politically correct. I couldn't feel any empathy for any of the characters save Fredi Washington, she was outstanding. One could feel her torment. My heart broke for her. It is the only reason why I'd recommend it, for that performance alone.

[–] Sweet_T0209 11 years ago

It was so disgusting until I had to take the DVD out during the first 30 minutes of the film. Then I forced myself to watch it a second time. I still only got half way through the film, just 20 minutes more than the last time, and the part that killed me was when she said "I am your cook and I'll stay your cook." She was just happy to be a friend to a white woman until she denied receiving the 20 percent profit. In fact she deserved more than 20 percent since it was her recipe and she cooked the pancakes.

Delilah was so silly until it was painful to watch. She even shared her grandmother's secret recipe which I am sure Bea used after her death and made major profits.

I agree she had no dignity and was a pure Uncle Tom. I highly doubt that black women conducted themselves like this during that time. Very embarrassing for me as a black woman even if the movie was 80 years ago.

[–] Ethereal-Cloud 11 years ago

In 1934 (presumably) Delilah had little to no formal education and was comfortable working and living with Bea and her daughter. At one point Bea mentioned that Delilah had enough money to move out and "buy your own home and car", Delilah said "You mean I can't live with you anymore?".

The only part of the movie that made me cringe was in the first act when Bea's daughter Jessie (innocently) pointed out that Peola was black and Bea said something to the effect that it was mean to point out that she wasn't white, like it was an insult.

It's a shame that people are hyper-critical of this 1934 gem and miss the bigger picture.

[–] angelx 10 years ago

I don't think she turned down the money per se. She didn't want to have to move out.

[–] dizexpat 9 years ago

Having just watched the film for the first time I'm sorry to be replying two years later.

While I agree with most of your remarks on Delilah during the first half, I found the second half of the film much more moving and hope you will give it a chance.

Mice work in mysterious ways.
No, dear. That's God.