Was "Imitation Of Life" racist?

Yes Both versions are racist

At least they're business partners in the original; the African-American mom is just a maid in the remake.

I never thought the black daughter in the first version actually could pass as white.

If this is yet another race baiting thread I shall scream like a banshee. A black baby with bangee lips.

And they used a white woman to pass for a black woman passing as white in the 1959 version.

Adjacent .

That hotcakes sell like hotcakes.

In the 1930s version the two women go into business marketing the black women's pancake recipe, and the black turns down money and an equal role in the company, because she's too "good" and humble not to know her place. So there's probably a lot more racism in the first version.

Making her a maid in the the fifties remake actually gives a good reason for their unequal relationship, but the idea of a "good" black woman being humble and self-effacing knowing her place is still there.

Louise Beavers would have won the Academy Award for Supporting Actress in 1934 had there been supporting awards. I can't even think of one person more deserving that year.

I had turn off “Pinky” that just depressed me so much. But I liked both version of Imitation of Life.

The message of the movie is: if the great Fellucci is offering to star you as Raina in "No More Laughter," SKIP your daughter's fucking graduation!

The other message: you'd be surprised at how lavish your funeral can be if you only save up for it.

I’m livin’ in shame

The ultimate in casket dancing

Both versions are great. The white characters lead lives of shallow romantic drama; the black characters experience bitter pain.

I like Pinky more because while the idea of Jeanne Craine playing a black woman passing for white may seem ludicrous, it forces the white audience to relate to a person of color as they see someone who looks like them deal with harassment and racism and being thought of as "less than". It's very subversive, even if in a blatant way that anyone with an IQ can see through. But Imitation if Life, the original, bothers me when Louise Beavers turns down her rightful share in the company. It reinforces the "less than" to make its white audience feel comfortable. Pinky, by contrast, is meant to make the white audience very uncomfortable.

Both versions are a product of their time. You have to understand the context.

But as far as the 1959 version goes, who cares anyway? You watch it for the fabulous art direction. The clothing and interiors.

[quote]You watch it for the fabulous art direction. The clothing and interiors.

I just watched it to see the Hart to Hart house. The interiors were alright, but I'll be re-watching for John Gavin.

This generation would probably consider it 'tone deaf.'

Or “cringeworthy”

R2 Freddie Washington? you betcher sweet ass she could.

No, both are brilliant.

Lighten up, Mary!

1934 version is currently free via Peacock. 1959 version is also free and available on Xfinity for those who have seen one but not the other.

I really don't understand how the 1959 version was racist at all. It was partly ABOUT racial dynamics. That line that the Lana Turner says to the black woman is a big tip off as to what the movie is exploring: " I didn't know you had any friends." To which the black woman says "You never asked". The movie is about the lies we tell ourselves, the fake realities we create, the acceptance we crave, etc.

Written on the Wind has better interiors. Better cringe too - IoL is just kind of boring and silly.

Ma says if you put a knife under the bed it cuts tha pain in two.

Oh Peola- why you gotta act that way?!?!

Another big difference (though not racist) is that Claudette's character feels she should break up to spare her daughter pain, meanwhile Lana just wants hers to get over it.

Wish John Gavin had whipped out his secy peen and slapped Lana with it. He was gorgeous..

The racism in both versions is in that the film's POV seems to be that the black mother's quiet acceptance of racism and suffering is presented as nobler than the daughter's refusal to put up with that shit.

The attitude seems to be that "Yes, racism is bad, but actually doing something about it is worse!".

The daughter in both versions didn't do anything about racism, she passed. My Grandma's sister moved to NYC and passed in the 50s. It wasn't considered noble or sticking it to the man. But it did show how silly our concept of race is in this country.

I posted this here before, and of course now I can't remember the reference, but I was watching some movie and there were boxes of Aunt Delilah's pancake mix on the shelves in one of the scenes.

Ah! It came to me. The Aunt Delilah's boxes were in Hitchcock's "Saboteur" (1942.)

The most offensive thing in the original production to me was when they were about to "go large" with the pancake mix, divvying up percentages and giving Delilah the lowest among them AND SHE DIDN'T EVEN WANT IT!! She started talking "Well, no Miss Bea, I don't wants no money - jes let me stay here and take cah of ya, dats all." W....T....F?!! I was so offended by that scene.

Almost as offended as I was by this bull shit, here:

Both films are racist and also progressive. Yes you ignorant cunts, a film can be both. Douglas Sirk knew exactly what he was doing. In case you haven't been paying attention, he's considered a master maker of caustic social commentary iced over beautifully by melodrama and pathos sure to please anyone who's too dumb or can't be bothered to notice the critique.