Is Imitation of Life Pioneering or Racist?

You may have seen my most recent post about Universal’s 1934 Imitation of Life, but just in case you missed it, here’s a quick recap: Imitation of Life is based off of the book by Fannie Hurst, which came out in 1933. A struggling widow and her daughter take in a Black housekeeper and her fair skinned daughter. The two women start a successful business, but face familial, identity, and racial issues along the way.

Imitation of Life is always touted as this incredible, boundary-pushing, progressive film. In some ways it is, but I always accepted that at face value. I often would say that Imitation of Life was one of my favorite Universal films. I knew that there were some issues with it, things that if you were to make it today wouldn’t fly, however, this was made in 1934 and looking at it through that lens, as far as I could tell, this movie really was everything everyone said.

While researching I was surprised and dismayed to find articles written by members of the Black community the very year this film came out, criticizing it and pointing out ways that it was harmful for the community. These are not criticisms from today that are looking back and reflecting on how we’ve evolved - but valid criticism from 1934.

Once I knew those critiques were out there it was impossible not to watch the whole movie with a more critical eye. Then it didn’t feel right to delve into the film without addressing these things. Now I’m not 100% condemning this film, I haven’t figured out how I feel in light of this information, but these things do exist, and they deserve a second look.

No matter what, this movie is worth watching. In 2005, it was selected for preservation by the United States National Film Registry of the Library of Congress, and in 2007, Time Magazine named it one of the 25 Most Important Films about Race.

Louise Beavers and Fredi Washington were left out of most Imitation of Life promotion - they are not billed or listed on the movie poster even though they have significant screen time.

Claudette Colbert plays Bea, a widow who is struggling to keep her husband’s business going and care for her young daughter. Louise Beavers, playing Delilah, accidentally shows up at her door looking for a housekeeping position. It turns out she got the address wrong, but she’s able to talk herself into a job. In exchange, she and her daughter will live with Bea and Bea’s young daughter Jessie. Bea and Delilah form a friendship, and they team up using Delilah’s secret family pancake recipe to start a pancake business together. This friendship and the business are part of what’s progressive about this film, but additionally the fact that a Black woman and a White woman are in business together, who are also two single women (and mothers at that). In 1934, this is absolutely more than you can expect from most films, but there are still some cringeworthy elements to this.

For starters, Louise Beavers is playing a “Mammy”, and that’s the term that I found used in the letters, not just a modern term for it. A mammy is a historical stereotype of a Black woman working for a White family, usually raising the kids or taking care of household duties. They’re generally played older, overweight, happy and amiable. They are often a caricature of a real person. Characters in this role will usually do anything for their boss, putting the needs of the family they work for over their own needs or the needs of their family. To demonstrate just how much of a character Louise Beavers was playing - Louise Beavers was raised Pasadena, California, and was not naturally an overweight person. However, she would have to keep her weight up or wear padding and put on a thick southern accent to play the roles that Hollywood wanted her to play.

Louise Beavers is playing a “Mammy”, which is a historical stereotype of a Black woman working for a white family, usually raising the kids or taking care of household duties.

Despite the fact that Delilah is the one providing the secret pancake recipe, and doing a lot of the manual labor, Bea only offers her 20% of the profits. What’s even worse is that Delilah doesn’t even want to accept the 20%. When Bea tells her that she could buy her own house or a car, Delilah responds saying “You want to send me away? But I want to live with you. I’m your cook and I want to stay your cook.” I’m sure some people will argue this is a stretch, but I see this is as a way to reinforce power structures and White superiority. This could also be an attempt to make White people feel better about the situation, that Black people could have opportunities, they simply choose not to and that they’re happy the way things are.

Why would Delilah want to stay Bea’s housekeeper? Why would she choose to rub her feet as she does later in the movie? Why does she happily stay downstairs and miss out on a party filled with White people in her own house celebrating her own business? There’s a great scene, at the end of the night when they’re going to sleep. It shows Bea ascending up the stairs into the light, and Delilah descending down into the darkness. It’s a beautiful shot, but I don’t think the film goes far enough here because it’s impossible to tell if they’re highlighting the disparity to make a statement or instead just accepting things as they are.

The other issue that gets addressed but doesn’t go far enough is that of Peola “passing”. Passing, in this instance, means that because Peola is so light skinned, she’s able to “pass” or pretend that she’s White. It’s huge that in this time the topic was so openly discussed the way that it was. Even more so because Fredi Washington, who played Peola, really was Black. Peola spends the entirety of the movie trying to run and hide from her Blackness, and we as the audience never get to learn why. Maybe in some ways they felt that it didn’t need explanation, that it was already understood that Black meant “bad” or “sad”, but I think this was another way of not wanting to offend audiences or make White people feel bad. Peola would rather run away, drop out of college, cut off her mom forever than live in her Blackness. It would be better if we knew what that really meant.

Peola would rather run away, drop out of college, and cut off her mom forever than live in her Blackness and the film did very little to explore this.

I mentioned in my other piece about Imitation of Life that the censors required script changes all the way up until two weeks after filming began, but I didn’t really know what those changes entailed. I often read and follow the TCM Film Forums, and while discussing Imitation of Life I learned something pretty astounding while talking to a poster who goes by TopBilled: He told me about a note in the AFI Catalog that discussed a lynching scene that had been removed. Apparently in the scene, a Black man is almost hanged for approaching a white woman whom he believed had given him an invitation. There’s a memorandum that the censors met with Junior Laemmle and Universal’s General Manager Harry Zehner. The censors were apparently completely against Peola’s whole plotline and definitely against the lynching scene. In reading their explanation and talking it over with TopBilled, I agree with his interpretation that the censors feared the lynching scene might cause audiences to sympathize too much with the Black characters and it would then justify why Peola felt she had to hide being Black.

Then there was the marketing for this film. Though we now know it to be a film about race, and Peola and Delilah have significant screen time, they were all but forgotten when it came to advertising. When Imitation of Life came out it was sold as a romance and a love-triangle even though that’s not the main plot. Louise Beavers and Fredi Washington were left out of all promotion really. They weren’t usually billed; they were not as front and center as everybody else. I even found one instance in a Universal Weekly, where every single character and side character and Carl Laemmle and Fannie Hurst had a picture and there was nothing for Fredi or Louise.

Then of course, there were actual critiques written by the Black community. Students at Oberlin College petitioned their local theaters not to play Imitation of Life, saying that it was filled with “vicious, anti-Black propaganda, and it was an insult to their common intelligence and the ideals that they were working for.” According to the newspaper, an overwhelming majority of Black students on campus signed the petition. They wanted to be clear that this was in no way a criticism of Louise Beavers or Fredi Washington - they understood that these were likely the only roles that they were being offered, and that they have to act in the way the director tells them. But still, they felt the film itself perpetuated negative stereotypes. Sterling Brown, a black professor, poet, and literary critic agreed that the film wasn’t revolutionary and that it reinforced white superiority and Anglo-Saxon self-esteem.

Despite the fact that Delilah is the one providing the secret pancake recipe, and she does a lot of the manual labor, Bea only offers her 20% of the profits.

Perhaps most frustrating was Fannie Hurst’s response to these critiques. In response to a letter that she received asking why she chose to portray the Black characters in the way she did, she countered that “antagonism precedes understanding” further insulting the feelings, the experiences, and intelligence of the Black community. She was saying that she, a White woman, knew better and that they just didn’t understand. Though Fannie Hurst was active in the Black community, and she championed Black writers and artists, she still spoke and wrote about them in a condescending and stereotypical way. If Imitation of Life was so progressive and Fannie Hurst was so progressive, you’d think she would want to hear from the very people she claims to be representing.

Finally, it was fascinating to be learning about all of this so soon after the Green Book controversy earlier this year. There were a lot of parallels in the making and criticisms of these films. I found it a little disheartening because I’m sure there was more backlash this year than in 1934 … but have we really not made progress in 85 years?

I’m sure this will be a bit polarizing, but I would love to know what everybody thinks. Do you think that these criticisms are valid? Do you think that the film is still super progressive? Where do you stand?