Imitation of Life (Two Movie Collection) 1934/1959

Rating:
Summary: Simply Magnificent...
Review: At long last they have finally released these two gems together! I have ordered the two movie edition and can't wait to watch them back to back...I have long been a fan of the 1959 version, but it is the original which pulls at my heart mightily...Ms. Beavers is brilliant as the heartbroken mother who suffers for her daughter and although dated by todays standards, the sentiments are still just as powerful and definitely worth seeing...P.S. Don't forget the kleenex!

Rating:
Summary: NO IMITATING THE LACK LUSTER QUALITY IN THESE PRINTS
Review: Both John Stahl's 1934 version of "Imitation of Life" and Douglas Sirk's 1959 adaptation are tales of racism and the shame that befalls a young malato girl who denies her black heritage. Based on the novel by Fannie Hurst, Stahl's quiet understated approach to the subject matter is less heavy handed in its use of melodrama than Sirk's (though Sirk is widely regarded as the master in this medium). To be sure, Sirk amplifies the melodrama to underscore racial prejudice and materialism but, to the contemporary eye, his exaggerations seem more garish than genius, more indoctrinated than inspired.
THE TRANSFERS: Stahl's B&W photography holds up remarkably well. But Universal's transfer is rather weak in spots, showing considerable signs of age throughout. Contrast levels are unusually low while black levels are weak. Fine detail is lost in film grain. The B&W film is presented full frame - as it should be.
Sirk's color version is a genuine visual disappointment. Colors are faded, dated and muddy. There is a haze across many of the scenes taking place outside. Film grain is excessive. Many scenes appear overly soft to down right blurry. There's a bit of smearing and bleeding of colors in several scenes. Contrast levels are weak. Fine details disappear during the darkest scenes and are never fully realized in brightly lit scenes either. This version is anamorphic widescreen as it should be. The audio for both films is BIG FAT MONO.
EXTRAS: None.
BOTTOM LINE: Not a very impressive effort from Universal to say the least. There's little to recommend the films as such. The transfers are entirely forgettable.

Rating:
Summary: NO IMITATING THE LACK LUSTER QUALITY IN THESE PRINTS
Review: Both John Stahl's 1934 version of "Imitation of Life" and Douglas Sirk's 1959 adaptation are tales of racism and the shame that befalls a young malato girl who denies her black heritage. Based on the novel by Fannie Hurst, Stahl's quiet understated approach to the subject matter is less heavy handed in its use of melodrama than Sirk's (though Sirk is widely regarded as the master in this medium). To be sure, Sirk amplifies the melodrama to underscore racial prejudice and materialism but, to the contemporary eye, his exaggerations seem more garish than genius, more indoctrinated than inspired.
THE TRANSFERS: Stahl's B&W photography holds up remarkably well. But Universal's transfer is rather weak in spots, showing considerable signs of age throughout. Contrast levels are unusually low while black levels are weak. Fine detail is lost in film grain. The B&W film is presented full frame - as it should be.
Sirk's color version is a genuine visual disappointment. Colors are faded, dated and muddy. There is a haze across many of the scenes taking place outside. Film grain is excessive. Many scenes appear overly soft to down right blurry. There's a bit of smearing and bleeding of colors in several scenes. Contrast levels are weak. Fine details disappear during the darkest scenes and are never fully realized in brightly lit scenes either. This version is anamorphic widescreen as it should be. The audio for both films is BIG FAT MONO.
EXTRAS: None.
BOTTOM LINE: Not a very impressive effort from Universal to say the least. There's little to recommend the films as such. The transfers are entirely forgettable.

Rating:
Summary: Great To Have Both Versions
Review: Both versions of the Fannie Hurst book were filmed before the
Civil Rights and Black Power Movements so must be viewed with
that in mind.must have been controversial. The 1934 version is
quite dated now but was probably controversial at the time. Louise Beavers is magnificent as
the mother whose heart is broken by her light-skinned daughter who
wants to pass in the white world. Had times been different, she
might have beaten Halle to the Oscar by 70 years instead of being
relegated to 5th billing. Fredi Washington as her daughter is also escellent.
The 1959 version features a magnificent performance by Juanita Moore who received
an Oscar nomination for her work. This is more than a glitzy
Lana Turner weeper. Douglas Sirk use of color is fantastic and
even if the movie is hokey you can't stop watching. This double
bill is great for collectors who wish to have both versions.

Rating:
Summary: Glad its only an Imitation
Review: Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life is a parody of an earlier film by John Stahl. The film portrays a struggling white actress who befriends a homeless black woman, and they end up living together. The black woman, Annie, takes on the rols of maid, servant, and nanny for the white woman Miss Laura and her daughter Susie. Annie's daughter Sarah Jane is half white, and throughout the film we see her attempt, time and time again, to "pass" as a white girl. Through the technique of gestic acting, or over acting, certain themes and messages in the film are impressed upon us over and over again. Miss Laura, for example is a struggling actress looking for work. She seems to be the picture of beauty and femininity. In John Berger's book, "Ways of Seeing,"he brings up the notion of the surveyor and the surveyed. This refers to the manner in which women are looked at and watched by the male eye. They then internalize that look and begin to see themselves as men want them to be, and begin to act accordingly. Throughout the film, we watch Miss Laura being surveyed, and eventually we see her internalize the look. At first she is watched and photographed by her future love interest Mr. Steve. He takes a picture of her at the very beginning of the film when she has lost her daughter and is frantically searching for her. In his picture she is a concerned mother. There are very few times in the film when Miss Laura seems to actually think about Susie. Mr. Steve, though, has framed her as a mother and wife from the very start. There is part of her that wants to fit into Mr. Steve's vision, but she first feels that she must pursue her career. Later on in the film Miss Laura and Mr. Steve are reunited. It is at this point when Miss Laura internalizes Mr. Steve's vision and begins to survey herself as she had been surveyed by Mr. Steve throughout the film. She gives up her career to become the housewife and mother that Mr. Steve had always seen her as. Another theme that become blaringly obvious in this film has to do with the intersection of race, class, and gender. We see this most clearly in Sarah Jane's character. In Smith's article she discusses the need to "pass" as a white person because of racism that is present in a dominantly white society, as well as in reaction to the discrimination against people of color. Sarah Jane struggles throughout this film, beause she has spent her life living in Susie's shadow. She sees all of the advantages Susie has because of her successful mother, and she is constantly jealous of her white privileged life. Try as she might, Sarah Jane can never break away from the intersecting characteristics that make her who she is. She tries to pass as
a white girl who is trying to make it on her own, but she cannot break away from her black roots. Thankfully this film is only an imitation of life and not the way that people really behave. The gestic acting is painful to watch but it does do the job of getting Sirk's messages across loud and clear.

Rating:
Summary: My Favorite Movie
Review: Everytime someone ask me what is my favorite movie and I tell them "Imitation of Life" and they are amazed. Why do I say this movie? The story is amazing and I love how the Mother is loving and caring to her daughter inspite of her daughter's rejection of her race and her mother. I love the relationship between the mothers and the daughters. This movie is a must have.

Rating:
Summary: My Favorite Movie
Review: Everytime someone ask me what is my favorite movie and I tell them "Imitation of Life" and they are amazed. Why do I say this movie? The story is amazing and I love how the Mother is loving and caring to her daughter inspite of her daughter's rejection of her race and her mother. I love the relationship between the mothers and the daughters. This movie is a must have.

Rating:
Summary: The original is better then the remake
Review: Finally both of these movies are released together. Most people do not even know the 1934 version exists. In my opinion the 34 version is the better of the two. Even though both are really over the top, at least the first version portrays the black and the white woman more as equals. The remake actually is more racist and condesending. The black woman in the original whose name is Delilah is a business woman not a maid. She is treated like a real person. Claudette Colbert who portrays the the white woman treats Delilah as a partner, her friends treat her equally. They actually try to talk to Delilah about her daughter and try to help her as a friend would not as a person who is pitied as in the remake. "Poor Annie" as Sandra Dee's character mentions. PLUS I find it insulting that in 1959 Hollywood could not find one black actress to play the part of the daughter, but way back in 1934 they did. Ferdi Washington. Delilah's job was not to take care of the white woman and her daughter. But in the 1959 version that was Annie's job. Also I like the story of the independent woman that the first version told. It is very strange how Hollywood has regressed. Because most movies would never be about a black and white middle aged single working women with almost grown daughters. The movie today would be more about the daughters then the mothers. Don't get me wrong the remake I enjoyed but more as a camp over the top melodrama and I do like the actress's in the roles. But the 1934 version was a better movie. The fact the the daughter tried to pass as white back in the 30's is more understandable then someone who would try to pass in the later version. I feel that is more out of self hatred and some bad parenting. But in 1934 even though it was not a right thing to do it might have been understandable given the times. In any case in both versions the daughters confusion was never dealt with. In the original it was mentioned that the father was high toned..a light skinned black person. I think in the remake I had the impression the father was white or "almost white". Maybe I should read the book. I took one star from these 2 movies bcause of the 1959 version. One last thing I love the fact that in the original version at the funeral in Harlem the film makers had the insight to include Marcus Garvey followers in the scene. They were a very big group in Harlem during the 30's and 40's. Marcus Garvey for people who do not know was a Jamaican who believed in black people being self sufficient and he had a back to Africa movement. I think the film makers of the original should be commended for putting in that little slice of Harlem's history in the movie.

Rating:
Summary: The original is better then the remake
Review: Finally both of these movies are released together. Most people do not even know the 1934 version exists. In my opinion the 34 version is the better of the two. Even though both are really over the top, at least the first version portrays the black and the white woman more as equals. The remake actually is more racist and condesending. The black woman in the original whose name is Delilah is a business woman not a maid. She is treated like a real person. Claudette Colbert who portrays the the white woman treats Delilah as a partner, her friends treat her equally. They actually try to talk to Delilah about her daughter and try to help her as a friend would not as a person who is pitied as in the remake. "Poor Annie" as Sandra Dee's character mentions. PLUS I find it insulting that in 1959 Hollywood could not find one black actress to play the part of the daughter, but way back in 1934 they did. Ferdi Washington. Delilah's job was not to take care of the white woman and her daughter. But in the 1959 version that was Annie's job. Also I like the story of the independent woman that the first version told. It is very strange how Hollywood has regressed. Because most movies would never be about a black and white middle aged single working women with almost grown daughters. The movie today would be more about the daughters then the mothers. Don't get me wrong the remake I enjoyed but more as a camp over the top melodrama and I do like the actress's in the roles. But the 1934 version was a better movie. The fact the the daughter tried to pass as white back in the 30's is more understandable then someone who would try to pass in the later version. I feel that is more out of self hatred and some bad parenting. But in 1934 even though it was not a right thing to do it might have been understandable given the times. In any case in both versions the daughters confusion was never dealt with. In the original it was mentioned that the father was high toned..a light skinned black person. I think in the remake I had the impression the father was white or "almost white". Maybe I should read the book. I took one star from these 2 movies bcause of the 1959 version. One last thing I love the fact that in the original version at the funeral in Harlem the film makers had the insight to include Marcus Garvey followers in the scene. They were a very big group in Harlem during the 30's and 40's. Marcus Garvey for people who do not know was a Jamaican who believed in black people being self sufficient and he had a back to Africa movement. I think the film makers of the original should be commended for putting in that little slice of Harlem's history in the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Imitation of Life DVD set
Review: I bought this purely for the 1934 version, I've been waiting for this DVD a long time.
Everything about the 1934 version is better then the 1959 especially the acting from Colbert and Beavers (Lana Turner might be eye candy but she can't act and Sandra Dee is silly as ever) this movie is not dated, how can a movie set in the 1930s and made in the 1930s be dated????? its how things were then DAHHH!
For whatever version YOU like this is a nice DVD set (a few extras would have been nice tho)