Critics reviews

I persist in thinking this better than the Sirk version, not least because of its harder edge. Beatrice Pullman’s exploitation of her servant Delilah’s pancake recipe carries a sharp economic bite, and the brutal classroom scene yanks our emotions in many directions.

Because the Depression was a far more progressive period than the conformist 1950s, [Stahl's film] comes across today as considerably more enlightened [than Sirk's]. . . . thanks partly to the skill of Claudette Colbert, the humor of Stahl’s version is much warmer and less cynical, expressing the more inclusive humanism of the 30s, when, as critic Manny Farber once noted, “all shapes were legitimate”.

Very good, and interesting to compare with the Sirk. Our friend Nicky Smith remarked that the original is stronger because it makes it obvious that the white heroine is robbing her "friend" — Claudette Colbert mass-produces Louise Beavers' family recipe for pancake flour, and gives her 20% of the profits. 20%? I wonder if 1934 audiences were able to convince themselves this was a fair deal.

In John M. Stahl's Imitation of Life, Louise Beavers finally had the opportunity to show her acting talent in a role that transcends the "Mammy" stereotype to form a profound portrait... Delilah can't do anything to solve her conflict. She has to bear it. And Beavers refines her sustained low tone in a heartbreaking demonstration of impotence and endurance. She never highlights any gesture and, even so, she is always shining.

Looking at Stahl's IMITATION OF LIFE in relation to Sirk's version is illuminating, with the Stahl rendition the more 'topical' in every sense—its treatment of racial issues is somewhat more progressive than the later attempt, but the social subject is finally an appendage, excised at will from the emotional core of the story.