We just finished watching Imitation of Life (1959), the DVD edition that came out last year. Except for a few grainy reels, the film looks pretty good (1.85:1, Pathe). I think this is my third film of his. After watching the featurette with film historian commentaries, I have to say, I don't get it.
My wife and I found the film to be unbelievably melodramatic and over-the-top, with a ridiculous performance by Lana Turner and an annoying one by Sandra Dee that one historian found nuanced. The fact that Godard wrote an article in the late 50's telling us that Sirk is a great auteur strikes me as absurd, akin to calling Jerry Lewis a comic genius. Even more puzzling to me is that Fassbinder idolized Sirk. We are supposed to believe that Sirk knew exactly what he was doing, and got exactly the performances he was after to emphasize the absurdity and vacuousness of American Life in the 50's. They sum up with it being "one of the greatest of all American films".
But I was just reading that Sirk was distinctly uncomfortable with the critical praise. He was content to make at least 7 films under the guidance and admiration of Dr. Goebbels, and only left Germany when his ex-wife outed his current wife as being a Jew. I'm unsure whether Sirk wasn't hostile to America for different reasons. Still, the only sympathetic female character is Annie, the black maid. He clearly wanted to show how little had changed since the first film version (1934), and how badly white female Americans still behaved toward blacks. This isn't exactly hard-hitting as far as portraying black life in America, though.
But the film still has some really serious flaws. The character Steve is trotted out whenever needed to help Lora through the crisis du jour, and after an early attempt to bring her in line with the traditional passive role of woman, to just wait her out until she's practically exhausted every selfish act she could commit. And just why does he love her so much? This is just one instance of credibility/motivation that bugged me. Lora neglects her child, is indifferent/uncaring about Annie's personal life, uses Steve and any other man if it furthers her interests, yet at the end of the film she is supposed to now "get it".
During the course of the way-too-long film, Sirk beats us over the head with one example after another in regard to each sub-theme. In one example of bad film-making, he has Annie encounter her daughter Sarah Jane during a nightclub appearance that is basically a repeat of an earlier such scene. We are telegraphed early on that Annie will die (of what? we never know!), so that is used to drench as much weepiness as possible out of her scenes with her wayward daughter. In keeping with everything that came before, the funeral scene is ultra melodramatic and sustained. You would think that it was a major black civil rights figure dying, with the hundreds seen crowding the sidewalks.
Obviously Lora and Annie are used as archetypes/caricatures. The jewels dropping at the beginning are transparent. So why can't Steve see through Lora? Is this meant to be a totally anti-American film, disguised as a harmless soap opera? Does Sirk have nothing but disdain for the weak and clueless honkies, while he overidealizes every black? Should the film be seen as anticipating another Sirk admirer, Lars von Trier, who disdains and portrays every American as dumb, evil or both? I don't buy the Brecht argument in the Slate article that overemphasizing emotions and theatricality equals more. I don't see Lora as victim, mostly because that's typical of both the far left or right, which is to blame external forces rather than require people to assume some sort of personal responsibility.
I don't get where Slate comes up with: "what Sirk rightfully believed to be a seriously deranged American society" also. I haven't found anything to indicate he thought that way. The reviewer seems to think it's grand to interpret the film as an indictment of its pathological characters, but in the context of a tearjerker aimed at female audiences, that seems to be saying that the filmmaker detests the very audience he's crafting the film for, which would be cynical, to say the least.
I have to say, it *was* refreshing to see Troy Donahue's character spitting out the N word and beating Sarah Jane up, though. He's usually so *nice*.
Since John Waters loves Sirk, and he is known to love a lot of dreadful American dreck, I rest my case. The art direction itself, with its supersaturated gaudy colors, seems like Waters on acid.
My wife and I found the film to be unbelievably melodramatic and over-the-top, with a ridiculous performance by Lana Turner and an annoying one by Sandra Dee that one historian found nuanced. The fact that Godard wrote an article in the late 50's telling us that Sirk is a great auteur strikes me as absurd, akin to calling Jerry Lewis a comic genius. Even more puzzling to me is that Fassbinder idolized Sirk. We are supposed to believe that Sirk knew exactly what he was doing, and got exactly the performances he was after to emphasize the absurdity and vacuousness of American Life in the 50's. They sum up with it being "one of the greatest of all American films".
But I was just reading that Sirk was distinctly uncomfortable with the critical praise. He was content to make at least 7 films under the guidance and admiration of Dr. Goebbels, and only left Germany when his ex-wife outed his current wife as being a Jew. I'm unsure whether Sirk wasn't hostile to America for different reasons. Still, the only sympathetic female character is Annie, the black maid. He clearly wanted to show how little had changed since the first film version (1934), and how badly white female Americans still behaved toward blacks. This isn't exactly hard-hitting as far as portraying black life in America, though.
But the film still has some really serious flaws. The character Steve is trotted out whenever needed to help Lora through the crisis du jour, and after an early attempt to bring her in line with the traditional passive role of woman, to just wait her out until she's practically exhausted every selfish act she could commit. And just why does he love her so much? This is just one instance of credibility/motivation that bugged me. Lora neglects her child, is indifferent/uncaring about Annie's personal life, uses Steve and any other man if it furthers her interests, yet at the end of the film she is supposed to now "get it".
During the course of the way-too-long film, Sirk beats us over the head with one example after another in regard to each sub-theme. In one example of bad film-making, he has Annie encounter her daughter Sarah Jane during a nightclub appearance that is basically a repeat of an earlier such scene. We are telegraphed early on that Annie will die (of what? we never know!), so that is used to drench as much weepiness as possible out of her scenes with her wayward daughter. In keeping with everything that came before, the funeral scene is ultra melodramatic and sustained. You would think that it was a major black civil rights figure dying, with the hundreds seen crowding the sidewalks.
Obviously Lora and Annie are used as archetypes/caricatures. The jewels dropping at the beginning are transparent. So why can't Steve see through Lora? Is this meant to be a totally anti-American film, disguised as a harmless soap opera? Does Sirk have nothing but disdain for the weak and clueless honkies, while he overidealizes every black? Should the film be seen as anticipating another Sirk admirer, Lars von Trier, who disdains and portrays every American as dumb, evil or both? I don't buy the Brecht argument in the Slate article that overemphasizing emotions and theatricality equals more. I don't see Lora as victim, mostly because that's typical of both the far left or right, which is to blame external forces rather than require people to assume some sort of personal responsibility.
I don't get where Slate comes up with: "what Sirk rightfully believed to be a seriously deranged American society" also. I haven't found anything to indicate he thought that way. The reviewer seems to think it's grand to interpret the film as an indictment of its pathological characters, but in the context of a tearjerker aimed at female audiences, that seems to be saying that the filmmaker detests the very audience he's crafting the film for, which would be cynical, to say the least.
I have to say, it *was* refreshing to see Troy Donahue's character spitting out the N word and beating Sarah Jane up, though. He's usually so *nice*.
Since John Waters loves Sirk, and he is known to love a lot of dreadful American dreck, I rest my case. The art direction itself, with its supersaturated gaudy colors, seems like Waters on acid.