Imitation of Life
Directed by Douglas Sirk
Written by Eleanore Griffin and Allan Scott from a novel by Fannie Hurst
1959/USA
Universal International Pictures
First viewing/Netflix rental
[box] Sarah Jane: I’m someone else. I’m white… white… WHITE![/box]
For 50’s Technicolor eye-candy and glamor, this can’t be beat. For substance, I’ll take the 1934 version.
Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) is a single-mother and struggling aspiring actress. One day at the beach she loses track of her young daughter, Susie. She is found playing with another little girl, Sarah Jane, under the boardwalk. Lora and Sarah Jane’s mother, Annie (Juanita Moore) strike up a conversation. Annie, also a single mother, is in desperate straights. Lora offers her what she has – food and a place to stay for mother and daughter. In turn, she has a life-long friend and servant in Annie. The day at the beach will be significant for Lora in another way. She meets aspiring photographer Steve Archer (John Gavin). He will be a constant in her life for years to come.
Lora’s ambition proves to be all-consuming and soon she is headed straight to the top. Her career takes precedence over her daughter, who grows up to be Sandra Dee, and romance. Sarah Jane, who grows up to be Susan Kohner, enjoys the privilege she experiences in Lora’s household. She finds she easily passes as white. Annie is clearly black and repeatedly blows Sarah Jane’s cover, causing a rift and heartbreak for poor Annie.
Producer Ross Hunter and director Douglas Sirk pulled out all the stops in terms of lavish decor and stunning costumes and jewels for this film. I was engrossed all the way though.
But I couldn’t help comparing the story to the 1934 version with Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers. In that film, Annie is more of a full partner in the household, having invented the pancake recipe that makes them all rich. Sarah Jane is played by a light-skinned black actress and she wants a chance to utilize her intelligence rather than display her body. The Lora-Susie-Steve triangle is also more nuanced and interesting. If you have to choose only one of these films, I’d recommend the original.
Susan Kohner and Juanita Moore were nominated for Best Supporting Actress Oscars.
Trailer – color is pretty faded compared to DVD
I liked this a lot. Lana Turner, Sandra Dee and Susan Kohner are all in a little over their heads, but they sure get a lot of points for trying!
Geez Louise, I love Susan Kohner! Have you ever seen The Big Fisherman, where she masquerades as an Arab boy for a big chunk of the movie? It’s not for everyone, but I love it because they are all trying so hard and taking it so seriously. The most sincere bad movie I’ve ever seen. Howard Keel is St. Paul. Herbert Lom is Herod. And it goes on and on for several hours and seldom gets anywhere near anything from the bible. Which is baffling because there’s a lot of amusing scenes in the bible.
Gee, The Big Fisherman is from 1959 and on YouTube. I’m kind of afraid to risk it, yet it sounds sort of irresistible. One thing I didn’t know about Kohner until I did the research for my review is that she was the daughter of Lupita Tovar. I LOVE the Spanish-language version of Dracula and Tovar is one of the main reasons why.
The Big Fisherman is a unique experience. It’s very strange and long and I even found it kind of boring, and I generally have a pretty high tolerance for strange movies. And yet, even though I found it boring at times, I still found it charming, partly because it has a lot of people I like so much, but also because it was trying so hard! I really have no idea who to recommend it to. I’m a sucker for bible movies, but The Big Fisherman is no ordinary bible movie. I think it’s in a genre all by itself. If you decide to tackle it, my advice is to plan on treating it like a weird TV show and watch it in several segments of 40 minutes to an hour. You are on your own if you decide to watch it in one sitting. (I hope you review it. I don’t know anybody else who’s seen it. We can fill the comments with our fond observations.)
I’m with you 100%. Not long ago, I watched the two versions back-to-back. The 1934 version would be my recommendation if you have to choose. Watching both is a fascinating study.
For adaptations of the same novel, they are so very different. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. My husband’s son is here visiting from Finland so that’s something else to be grateful for.
I like them both, but I prefer the 1959 version, mostly because in the older version, Louise Beavers plays the role so subserviently that it becomes a little too cringeworthy at times. The scene where she’s rubbing Claudette Colbert’s feet so adoringly is a bridge too far for me. (And I say this as a big fan of Louise Beavers.)