Classic Film Review: Imitation of Life
by Special Correspondent Nadra Kareem
*Warning: Spoiler Alert*
If there’s a classic film on race that gives “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” a run for its money, it’s 1959’s “Imitation of Life.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the film, which stars Lana Turner and Juanita Moore. There’s no denying that this film is chock full of stereotypes and relegates its black characters to the sidelines—even on the DVD cover. So, why today is this Douglas Sirk film still regarded as ab fab? A few reasons come to mind—both shallow and serious.
For starters, Lana Turner’s wardrobe is to die for. Mahalia Jackson sings her ass off, and the acting in this melodrama reaped Academy Award nominations. To boot, the movie’s emphasis on mother-daughter relationships gives it mass appeal. Mix in a couple of failed romances and an untimely death, and you have all the ingredients needed for a tearjerker.
“Imitation of Life” inspired a 2001 R.E.M. song of the same name and the 2002 film “Far from Heaven.” Also, in ’02, a scene from the film was featured in Eminem’s star-making vehicle, “8 Mile.” Its enduring popularity made it no surprise when the film debuted on DVD in 2003.
The Lana Turner version of “Imitation of Life” is a remake of the 1934 film of the same name starring Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers, based on the book Imitation of Life by Fannie Hurst. (Both films were released together in a DVD set in 2008.) In the first film, white actress Colbert and black actress Beavers hawk a pancake recipe together. In the 1959 version, the focus here, Lana Turner (Lora Meredith) runs into Juanita Moore (Annie Johnson) on Coney Island after their daughters become playmates.
At first, Lora has no idea that Annie is the mother of little Sarah Jane. “How long have you taken care of her?” she asks Annie. Annie is brown-skinned, and Sarah Jane is “light, bright, damn near white,” as the saying goes.
Lora looks like she’s going to crap her pants when she learns that Annie isn’t SJ’s mammy, prompting Annie to tell her that Sarah Jane’s dad is “practically white.” This explanation is good enough for Lora, who likely would’ve needed smelling salts had SJ’s dad been actually white instead of practically so. Still, there’s no way for us to know his race for sure because he took off before Sarah Jane was born, leaving Annie to fend for herself and young daughter alone.
Now Annie has fallen on hard times. She’s jobless and apparently homeless and begs Lora to take her and Sarah Jane in. Why she wants to move in with Lora doesn’t make much sense. Lora’s a widow who’s not only broke but behind on her bills. It takes a stretch of the imagination to believe that Annie would insist on moving in with her instead of a more prosperous white woman or that Lora would take Annie in. Still, the two women move in together. To Sarah Jane’s chagrin, Annie assumes the role of maid and mammy, her payment being room and board.
“I don’t want to live in the back. Why do we always have to live in the back?” Sarah Jane objects when they move in with Lora and her little daughter, Susie.
Sarah Jane is none too happy about her station in life, a station she blames on her mother’s dark skin. Accordingly, she wishes Lora were her mother. She takes Susie’s white doll away from her because she doesn’t want to play with a black doll. Later, she pricks Susie to find out if their blood is the same color because she’s heard that black blood is different from white blood. Sarah Jane also wants to know what color Jesus was. When no one answers, she fills the silence by declaring, “He was like me…white.”
The discord Sarah Jane brings to her new household follows her to school also. When Annie shows up during the middle of class one day, she finds out that Sarah Jane has been passing for white. (This is the scene featured in “8 Mile.”) Her cover blown, Sarah Jane has a temper tantrum, stomping defiantly in the snow with Annie chasing her.
A major stereotype in “Imitation of Life” is that of Negro as saint. Annie is ever patient with Sarah Jane. She never raises her voice or backhands her, as you can bet some parents would do if their daughter pulled the stunts that Sarah Jane does. Because Annie is so Christ-like in the face of SJ’s ingratitude, it’s difficult to sympathize with Sarah Jane, who comes across like an evil brat. Yet, this child has clearly been through a lot—a father who abandoned her, a mother society tells her is a mismatch and a Gypsy-like existence due to the limited resources her mother has to draw on to survive. As she matures, one would hope that Sarah Jane would develop a more three-dimensional perspective, transferring the anger she has with her mother to the racially stratified society they live in. This doesn’t happen, though.
Fast forward a decade, and Sarah Jane is still furious with her mother for being black. It doesn’t matter that Lora Meredith is now a movie star and that she, Sarah Jane, Susie and Annie live in a house that could be on MTV’s “Cribs.” Sarah Jane remains surly. She doesn’t want to date a colored boy, objects to helping Annie serve Lora’s guests and to enrolling in a colored teacher’s college.
On one count I agree with Sarah Jane and that’s to do with serving Lora’s guests. We find out that, while Lora has spent her money carelessly, Annie has saved every bit of hers, so why is Annie content to remain Lora’s maid? Rather than invest in creating a life of her own, Annie puts aside cash for Sarah Jane’s schooling and for the lavish funeral she’s probably planned for before her daughter was born. It’s as if the only thing this black woman has to look forward to is death, a misconception, I believe, even in 1959. Since Sarah Jane refuses to go to teaching school, Annie won’t need to drop any coin on her education, though. Instead, she spends her money tracking Sarah Jane down when she runs away.
Sarah Jane decides to bounce when her mother’s presence makes it impossible to pass for white. First, Sarah Jane’s white boyfriend (Troy Donahue) dumps her and beats her up after finding out who her mother is. Then, Annie shows up to the dive bar Sarah Jane has been performing at in secret and blows her cover there. This leads SJ to pack her bags and head to California.
Am I the only one who cringes at this plotline? It’s common knowledge that blacks pass for white to obtain the opportunities denied to them in a racist society. Sarah Jane herself says, “I want to have a chance in life. I don’t want to have to come through back doors or feel lower than other people.” Yet, she’s passing for white to work in clubs? She could have remained black and landed such a gig, which entailed not only dancing but also taking off with clients after performances. Rather than give Sarah Jane any worthy motive for passing, the filmmakers chose to exploit the stereotype of the mixed-race woman as whore. Perhaps as a white woman, SJ could be an Ashley Dupré level whore rather than a Divine Brown level whore, but a whore she’d remain. Adding to my concern is that the storyline emphasizes how Lora Meredith refused to lie on the casting couch to be a movie star. In short, the white woman has integrity. The tragic mulatto, not so much.
While SJ is “dancing,” Lora Meredith has some personal drama of her own. She’s recently reunited with her former flame Steve (John Gavin) after dropping him years ago to pursue her acting career. This time around, however, their relationship faces another challenge when Lora’s daughter convinces herself that she has fallen in love with Steve. What a silly plot twist. Susie knows that her mother and Steve were once more than friends, so it’s pretty absurd that she deludes herself into thinking that now Steve has the hots for her and not for her mother.
Susie (Sandra Dee) is the character who most makes me want to hit “fast-forward.” Equal parts bratty and giddy—when she’s not pouting, she’s squealing—Susie is completely self-centered. She shows limited empathy for Sarah Jane and Annie, which is saying a lot given that she’s grown up with them. Then again, one can’t blame Susie too much for being self-absorbed. The woman who gave birth to her is such a diva she makes Mariah Carey look humble.
Don’t get me wrong. Watching Lana Turner being fabulous is junk food for the eyes. After Lora makes it big, we see her in her dressing room wearing a curve-hugging metallic gown and a matching jacket trimmed with fur. The next scene finds Lora in her luxurious new digs wearing a sheer floral piece that ties at the waist over a rose bodysuit. Even at home, she’s fierce. Other ensembles include a flared shimmering tube dress with a luminous pink shawl and a bustier cut Grecian gown halved by a turquoise sash. Turner is knee deep in jewels throughout the film. Pink gems, turquoise gems, platinum.
Beyond the wardrobe, however, Lora can be hard to swallow sometimes. How full of herself she is comes to light when she tells Annie that she didn’t know that Annie had any friends. Annie’s response: “Miss Lora, you never asked.” And when Annie grieves because Sarah Jane has disowned her, Lora is beyond callous, arguing that Susie’s crush on Steve is the bigger issue at hand. “This is a very real problem,” Lora says of Susie’s feelings for Steve, which are about as deep as an episode of “The Hills.”
So, let’s get this straight. Annie’s 18-year-old daughter hates her, hates her black blood, is a chronic runaway and is exotic dancing to make ends meet, and Annie’s problems aren’t “very real.” Seriously?
Although I’ve told you what happens in the movie thus far, I won’t give away the ending. Suffice it to say that, in the conclusion, we’re led to think that the characters have gotten the reality check they need to stop being hateful bitches. The ending features Mahalia Jackson singing with such emotion that you’ll get chills. If you’re the weepy sort, have a box of Kleenex on hand. Also, if there’s anyone you need to make peace with, prepare to make amends.
The 1959 version of “Imitation of Life” has been criticized for being an over-the-top departure from the novel. Moreover, the casting of Susan Kohner as the older Sarah Jane has been criticized because she’s not black, as was actress Fredi Washington, who played the role (but with a different name) in the 1934 version.
I thought that the Mexican-Jewish Kohner did a convincing job as Sarah Jane. Acting and looks wise, she’s believable as a light-skinned black, which wasn’t at all the case for Anthony Hopkins in 2003’s “The Human Stain.” Perhaps she drew upon her experiences with real-life mother (dancer Lupita Tovar) in playing Moore’s daughter in “Imitation of Life.” Whatever her method, the onscreen chemistry between the two earned both Kohner and Moore Oscar nods. Kohner won a Golden Globe as well. Compare this to Turner and Sandra Dee, who weren’t acknowledged for their acting in the film.
In addition to criticism about the casting, “Imitation of Life” has rightfully been targeted for fueling the stereotype of the tragic mulatto. The film makes it clear that Sarah Jane doesn’t have a chance because she’s racially mixed. “How do you explain to your child she was born to be hurt?” Annie asks Lora. However, what’s been overlooked at times is that Annie is a tragic character as well, and not just because her daughter rejects her. A strong black woman before the phrase was in vogue, Annie is everyone’s “Rock of Gibraltar,” as Steve describes her. Although she’s tired and weary, Annie takes time to give Lora a foot rub, a gesture Lora would never deign to make for her. In the beginning of the film, both Lora and Annie are broke, but Annie assumes the role of maid, doing Lora’s laundry because she likes “taking care of pretty things.”
Juanita Moore, interviewed by The Black World Today in October 2005, made it clear that saintly, self-sacrificing Annie in no way represented her. “Annie was nothing like me…,” Moore told the publication. “I have been in a lot of pictures. However, most of them consisted of my opening doors for white people.”
And such was the fate of a black actress in the 1950s.
If you’ve yet to see “Imitation of Life,” become initiated by catching airings of it in January and February on Turner Classic Movies.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Eva wrote:
I saw the 1934 version and hated it. Ugh, what a piece of rubbish, even without the black/white issues the film itself is bad. I never saw the Lana Turner version though but the older version is crap, and I never even thought Fredi Washington looked white.
My grandfather always was mistaken for white, he had straight dark blonde hair and blue eyes. He married my grandmother, a very dark skinned black woman, his brother, however did pass and moved to Baltimore. Maybe that’s why I can’t relate to this movie.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 10:01 am ¶
R.J. wrote:
I completely appreciate this review from a more racial/ethnic viewpoint. I’ve always had difficulty merging such a framework of critique against narrative construction, and storytelling. Although, it may very well make folks cringe, the relationships within the film are more familiar paradigms to that time period, and assign the melodramatic form-in one sense, to absolve a white audience of ‘guilt,’ but melodrama additionally proffers narrative tropes, a template, formula that can often (if done well) problematize the films characterizations more incisively than meets the initial viewer eye. I’m not sorry that I loved this film and Douglas Sirk, and in that light, I would ask to take a gander to Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s work, who worships Sirk and the melodramatic form, and upsets that structure in such films as Marriage of Maria Braun, Lola, Veronika Voss, etc… and if you do a little more homework on Fassbinder, you’ll find his catalog and choices much more complicated. I don’t condone shortsighted representations on film, or am completely complicit of the racial discussions that occur within the film, but I do believe that operate within a context of that period and Imitation of Life (Sirk) effectively presents an aberration, and possibly a shift, in the cinematic continuum.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 11:21 am ¶
Allison wrote:
This movie sounds fascinating and thank you for writing such a great post! One book that I really enjoyed which deals with the “tragic mulatto” archetype is “Passing” by Nella Larsen. The book’s examination of friendship, marriage, and internalized racism make it an incredible read.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 11:40 am ¶
Natalie wrote:
imitation of life is actually one of my must see movies. ( I saw the lana turner version years ago. I rented it from my local library out of curiosity since I had heard so much about the flick). I think I enjoyed this movie for the fact that it inspired so many reactions within me.. anger, sadness, disappointment… I felt the way I felt when I first read toni morrison’s the bluest eye. When a movie can illicit some strong reactions that’s when you know it might not have been such a piece of crap afterall. I remember my mother commenting after I watched the movie saying… you’d be surprised how many people i knew growing up who wanted to be white… damn right shameful… but it was a different era then and the world was a different place.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 11:45 am ¶
cuppachica wrote:
Your mention of Sarah Jane passing for white to work as an exotic dancer reminded me of Shirlee Taylor Haizlip’s book, The Sweeter the Juice, in which she writes about her search for her mother’s lost relatives, who had disappeared during her mother’s youth, because they had decided to pass for white (while Haizlip’s mother wasn’t light enough to pass).
I found it interesting that all of the “white” relatives she’d found had ended up working class, or working poor, while Haizlip and her black family were upper middle class. One sister was found living in a trailer park in Southern California. The family had never been poor, yet the lighter skinned relatives all felt the desire to leave, (even though they were part of a middle class Washington D.C. family, where this type of situation was not rare) because they felt they would have a more successful life as white people.
So, it seems, that Sarah Jane’s (1959) story might not be so far removed from real life.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 11:59 am ¶
Louise wrote:
What i absolutely dispise in this film is that black women are ignored . what are their back stories did they face any trouble in a black community, why were they without family members?? if someone could actually do a decent job of remaking this film i would watch it…. unlikely though!
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶
hvls wrote:
This is one of my favorite classic movies. Even though it is a bit silly; it still addressed an issue that you really don’t see addressed enough in our culture, even today.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 1:12 pm ¶
livininphilly wrote:
Great review. This film is now in my netflix queue. One thing that I want to point out though is that it doesn’t necessarily seem to be that far of a stretch to think that a passing woman could end up as an exotic dancer. Just b/c ppl passed (and still do!) doesn’t mean that they automatically had entree to the “easy life.”
Anyway, i’ll really have to check this out b/c you’ve certainly piqued my interest.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
Tiffany wrote:
After reading the post and the comments, I am glad to see that I’m not the only one who feels this way about “Imitation of Life.” I saw it as an undergrad for a film class. I was so bored with the petty drama of Lora and Susie that I fast forwarded through most of their scenes in the second and third acts. I was very upset that the compelling story of Sarah Jane and her mother was upstaged by the story of Lora’s rise to fame. I’d love to see this film re-made by a Black female director with Sarah Jane and Annie as the main characters. I think it would make for a much more powerful story.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
ms world wrote:
My mother made me watch this movie when I was younger (I’m African-American). I think she saw Sarah Jane as a lesson in never deny who you are because it will haunt your ass in the end. I understand the issues with the film but it says a lot about the time & Hollywood.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
My mother made me watch this movie when I was younger (I’m African-American). I think she saw Sarah Jane as a lesson in never deny who you are because it will haunt your ass in the end.
So true, LOL.
I have a love-hate relationship with this film. It’s definitely worth a watch though, especially for the chilling Mahalia Jackson solo near the end.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 4:47 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
co-sign on Mahalia
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 5:06 pm ¶
The Jaded NYer wrote:
I’ve seen both, and the 1930’s version was so awful I couldn’t watch the whole thing!
The Lana Turner one is definitely my favorite, and your review is DEAD ON when it describes Moore’s character as “saintly.” The original film was the same way, and it drove me nuts!
Thanks for this review; I think I’ll read the book next!
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 5:28 pm ¶
allheavens wrote:
I have so many emotions when I view Imitation of Life, anger, sadness, jaw-dropping indignation but it never fails to make me cry no matter how many times I view it.
And I could just slap Sandra Dee’s dizzy little ass sideways every time I view it also.
But just to hear Mahalia’s glorious voice at the end almost makes it worthwhile.
***Spoiler Alert***
Here is a link to Mahalia’s performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eiI52WluF0
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 5:47 pm ¶
ieishah wrote:
damn, y’all are some heartless mofo’s. with the exception of all heavens and a few others. how can you watch that funeral scene, soundtrack: mahalia, and not dissolve into a squishy ball of tears and ancestral memories?
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 7:26 pm ¶
R wrote:
Could have done without the bigoted crap against sex workers and Roma people.
Posted 12 Jan 2009 at 10:02 pm ¶
browne wrote:
“bigoted crap against sex workers” are we really comparing sex workers to being an ethnic minority or a lesbian now, I mean really…I’m sick of people with hobbies like riding a freakin’ bike or stripping on the weekends “co-opting” oppression and civil rights type language, especially those of the upper middle class and white privileged set, taking off their clothes for some fun women studies class or a book and now all of a sudden they can feel my pain. They get to be just as oppressed as someone whose descendants were slaves, interned and had their land stolen from them?
You are not the same as me and I highly resent it. You can’t stop being black or biracial or gay or disabled
Poor exploited women with all jobs should not be discriminated against, sex workers isn’t a special class just because some bored women at Smith wrote their thesis on it.
Sex workers shouldn’t be discriminated against, but don’t try to act like it’s the same as being born something. No one is born a sex worker and as I’ve said before there is this hierarchy in the sex worker rights movement that is a kind of a little bit of bs.
Browne
Posted 13 Jan 2009 at 3:42 am ¶
Noir72 wrote:
I enjoyed the film, but I agree… the drama between Lana Turner’s character and Sandra Dee’s was over-emphasized, virtually unecessary, and added nothing to the plot. Someone mentioned that was the way Hollywood was at the time, but I beg to differ: Hollywood has always been and is still very much the same way now…
The African Queen – a story about a white protagonist and her problems.
Dances With Wolves – a story about a white protagonist and his problems.
The Last Samurai – a story about a white protagonist and his problems.
Amistad – a story about a white protagonist and his problems.
Gran Torino – a story about a white protagonist and his problems.
wash, rinse, repeat…
Posted 13 Jan 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Noir72 wrote:
…and while we’re on the subject of groundbreaking films of 1959, one of the most surreal movies I’ve seen is Orson Wells’ Touch of Evil. Where else can you see Charlton Heston in brownface, portraying a Mexican-American cop?
At least he got equal screen time, I guess.
Posted 13 Jan 2009 at 1:02 pm ¶
alice wrote:
i have seen the lana turner move in fact i have the movie, a lot of things went threw my my mind when i watched it, but things are changing and i am glad for i feel we dont have to be servants any more, so now you know my feelings on that movie, and i will never watch it again.
Posted 13 Jan 2009 at 5:57 pm ¶
R wrote:
Browne, don’t fucking assume anything about me, no it was not a fucking hobby and no it was not something I chose, not at first.
I am gay and I don’t give a shit, it is nothing like the shit I have had to put up with as a sex worker, don’t even fucking try to make the comparison.
Posted 13 Jan 2009 at 7:47 pm ¶
Miss wrote:
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to say that my mixed black/white girl friends sound EXACTLY like Sara Jane…careers are not too far off, either. They don’t utilize their true talents, brains or skills because they mistakenly believe that they are entitled to everything because they ‘look’ more white (they don’t right out and say it, but their actions imply it). 2 of them are waitresses and 1 is currently employed. They don’t seem to realize that no matter what your ethnicity, you have to work hard.
Just my observation. (I’m non-white, btw). Some things never change.
Posted 13 Jan 2009 at 9:42 pm ¶
browne wrote:
“Browne, don’t fucking assume anything about me, no it was not a fucking hobby and no it was not something I chose, not at first. ” R
I’m not assuming anything about you. If you had to be a sex worker the problem was classism and sexism and exploitation.
Sex worker, sweat shopworker, waitress, housewife they all are oppressed because they are women and in some cases poor.
People have to put up with lots of shit and have lots of crappy jobs because of things like race, class and gender discimination. If you’ve bought that whole sex workers is a special class thing, because you read it written by upper middle class women and you would like to identify with them, well if you’ve done that I understand your anger.
Not being accepted doesn’t feel good.
Browne
Posted 13 Jan 2009 at 9:55 pm ¶
bradski wrote:
Acting and looks wise, she’s believable as a light-skinned black, which wasn’t at all the case for Anthony Hopkins in 2003’s “The Human Stain.”
–Sorry, I totally disagree with you. First, “light-skinned black” is subjective. Second, Sarah Jane looks “white” because she has a white phenotype. She is only “black” because of culture and not looks.
As for Anthony Hopkins being miscast, I’ve always found statements like yours misguided in that they disregard basic genetics.
For instance, have you ever seen pictures of the actress Victoria Rowell and her daughter Maya Fahey? Rowell has brown skin, dark hair, and dark brown eyes. Daughter Maya has white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes. No one meeting Maya Fahey would think that she is mixed.
However, if you look at the picture I’ve included of Rowell, her son, and daughter you should be able to tell the family resemblance immediately. Mother and daughter have the same facial structure (especially around their cheeks and eyes).
http://tinyurl.com/8bvmq6
Just because we think that mixed-race people should look a certain does not mean that nature will follow our beliefs.
___
As for “Imitation of Life,” Lora and Susie are vapid.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 1:22 am ¶
barbara wrote:
Great review, but let me point out that you are reviewing this movie from a 2009 point of view, for its time the movie was accurate. As for Lora not knowing Annie “had any friends” that is typical of what a self absorbed diva who bought into steroptypes would think in 1959. The mother/daughter dynamics transcend time, there are daughters who break their mothers hearts everyday as well as mothers that are too self absorbed to notice their daughters. Great movie.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶
Nadra wrote:
Yes, I do know about Victoria Rowell’s daughter. I wrote the line about Susan Kohner being a believable black person in response to those who kept saying she didn’t fit the part. From my frame of reference, Susan Kohner never appeared to me to be white, so the criticism wasn’t valid. I wasn’t really making a commentary on what mixed-race folks can look like. I’ve met blacks of all hair colors, eye colors, skin colors, etc. Still, from my frame of reference, Anthony Hopkins did not make a convincing black person in the “Human Stain.” A DNA analysis may in fact reveal that he has some black ancestry. It’s just my opinion.
Also, I am not solely judging the film from a 2009 perspective. There were people in the 1950s who were capable of acknowledging the full humanity of blacks. Hell, there were people in the 1800s capable of doing so. I think the makers of “Imitation of Life” were aware of some of the movie’s problems but were also aware that they had to cater to some pro-segregationist/racist movie-goers as well. Some of the commentary I’ve seen about the film discusses this.
As for the sex worker convo. Yes, whore is a problematic term, but that’s what SJ was supposed to be in this movie, so I’m not really going to sugar coat it by using a different term. She wasn’t just an exotic dancer, she was also portrayed as a sexually “easy” woman to fuel the stereotype that mulattas are inherently hypersexual with few morals.
Your point about my use of Gypsy is noted. I could have said that SJ lived a nomadic like existence instead.
Thanks for your feeback, everyone!
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 4:56 pm ¶
R wrote:
I was a “whore” and not just an exotic dancer. More later. Too much anger, have to go calm down.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 6:39 pm ¶
Strawberry Shortcake wrote:
Okay, first of all, never seen the movie, don’t plan to, but good review.
But what really got me to respond was R and browne.
I have no first-hand experience with prostitution, which I am grateful for, BUT calling that a “hobby”? really???
Scrapbooking is a hobby. Spending too much time on the internet is a hobby. Selling your body?? Not so much…
And ALOT of people are oppressed, in alot of different ways. Racism, classism, and homophobia are truly horrific parts of our society, but sexual exploitation is not too great either.
So R., I don’t know you, I don’t know what you’ve been through, but I am really sorry this has upset you.
And browne, I re-read your original response, and I guess I see a little bit where you’re coming from, like yeah, bike-riders are not oppressed and it would be kind of obnoxious (and I’m sure irritating) to hear people who CHOOSE to ride a bike say people are “bigoted” against bike riders. Damn Hippies! (just kidding, and I won’t run you off the road, bikers)
Although actually, there are some people who live in rural areas and have to ride a bike (or walk) long distances to work because they can’t afford a car, and I think those people are entitled to bitch about it, especially if its really cold/hot.
Anyway, what I’m trying to get at is: I’m trying to get what your saying, browne, but I don’t 100% get it.
Also, a little random, but “whore” is a pretty loaded word. Sure it’s not the n word or anything, but I am sure most females have been called a whore, and it is a pretty hateful word. Not the worst of the worst, but not too nice either.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 8:19 pm ¶
R wrote:
Thanks for acknowledging that “Gypsy” is derogatory.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 8:20 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“I found it interesting that all of the “white” relatives she’d found had ended up working class, or working poor, while Haizlip and her black family were upper middle class.”
It may be because once they “passed”, fear of being discovered forced them to keep low profiles. I always wondered what would drive a person to exchange the high status afforded extremely light skinned blacks in the black community in those days for life as a white person, where you start out with no connections whatsoever and could never get “too comfortable”, lest you be discovered.
Is the passing phenomenon borne from a perception of race marked by the spectre of ODR? If you have enough white lineage to appear white to the uninformed, why isn’t it considered “moving with the tide” in the same way in which a mixed person who appears black and as a result, identifies as such would be, especially if the person would automatically recieve many of the benefits of whiteness due to the assumptions of others, and therefore have different experiences and a different perspective than a black appearing person w/black lineage?
I’m talking about in less extreme examples than in the movie, where the black relatives aren’t consciously hidden from view — when the person just fails to “correct” people about the full extent of their racial background.
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 8:44 pm ¶
R's partner wrote:
Browne,
First of all, How was “R”’s comment comparing sex work to race or sexuality? Or you??
Second, whether in US, or Brazil, or Cambodia, sex workers don’t talk civil rights, they talk about human rights.
Third, poor people involved in criminalized parts of sex trade ARE a special class because they are CRIMINALIZED and stigmatized for what they do to survive.
Yes, some sex workers are relatively privileged compared to other sex workers–thats true of any single identity. But that has nothing to do with fact that they need rights and respect. So they can’t be raped by clients AND cops with impunity. Rounded up in raids or off the street and thrown in jail. Or murdered by clients and left in dumpsters. And have no legal options when any other fucked up thing happens to them.
R got involved in survival end of sex industry. She is still struggling with PTSD and depression because of it. And probably she would have been worse off if she didn’t get involved in industry. Sex workers rights is not a joke. We live with consequences of that stigma every fucking day. It is true she experienced bad things that led to her being in the industry but she also experienced a lot due to the stigma, the criminalization, the lack of respect and value ppl have for sex workers, while she was in it and after she got out. Its wrong to say that “the problem” was only what pushed her in.
“If you’ve bought that whole sex workers is a special class thing, because you read it written by upper middle class women and you would like to identify with them, well if you’ve done that I understand your anger.” And wtf do upper middle class women who write about sex work have to do with this. Theres a sex workers rights movement because theres a group of ppl experiencing violence that grouped together to resist it. Just like any other “special class.” Classes of people don’t group together in political movements because of how they are born but because of what they experience after there born. Shit, would you say the same thing about homeless ppl. That they aren’t a real class deserving of rights and respect if they weren’t born to be homeless. Or they are a real class cuz they were?!?
Its ironic that your trying to say sex workers rights was made up by upper middle class academics when your the one getting all theoretical like some college brat pretending you know all about something cuz you read it in a book. Trying to explain how real people involved in a real struggle actually don’t exist.
R’s partner
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 9:40 pm ¶
Strawberry Shortcake wrote:
R’s partner:
EXCELLENT point about homeless people being a marginalized and oppressed group, despite the fact that many homeless people were not born homeless.
Also many disabled people are not born disabled. People who are discriminated against for their immigration status were not born immigrants. I’m sure there are many many examples to further illustrate this point.
I think that having sex for money is a pretty desperate act, and saying someone forfeits their civil rights because they “chose” to do it seems like blaming the victim.
Sex workers rights and the race and class context of sex work seems like it would be a good topic for a post. I’d be interested. Latoya?
Mod Note – Yes, it would be a good topic. Andrea, as our sexual correspondent, works that beat. I’ll give her a reminder. – LDP
Posted 14 Jan 2009 at 11:49 pm ¶
R wrote:
Thanks, Strawberry Shortcake, for the support. I really appreciate it.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 2:00 am ¶
browne wrote:
R’s partner,
The reason that her comment reminded me of race was her referring to the discrimination that sex workers experience as bigoted. To me that is a term that I thought was reserved for oppressed ethnic groups. Do people say people are bigoted against teachers, housewives, sweatshop workers, lawyers…no only slumming upper middle class sex workers (or people who desire that status) use this kind of language.
“…poor people involved in criminalized parts of sex trade ARE a special class because they are CRIMINALIZED and stigmatized for what they do to survive” R’s partner.
See that’s where we differ. Poor people are criminalized because they are poor. Now poor people do different things, some say victimless crimes, sell drugs to adults, sell their bodies or others, they work for little money for under the table wages in sweatshops, factories, in the fields, in rich people’s houses in dead end customer jobs.
Now this has nothing to do with morals. I’m pro sex, but I’m not pro classist bs. And this sex worker right’s thing seems real classist to me, at least the American version of it. I don’t see too many papers written on black women who are prostitutes or porn actresses who don’t have degrees and the working class type person in the sex business.
I’m not into compartmentalizing the human right’s movement any more than it already is.
There are the feminists, the third wave feminists, the light greens, dark greens, lesbians, bisexuals, new agers….various racial identity movements and I’m personally just sick of it.
Sex workers you are the same as sweatshop workers, that’s what they are. There is nothing special or glamorous about what you do, you are simply a side effect of capitalism and imperialism. You are in the same category as people who pick grapes. You are in the same category as the person stuck behind a register at 7-eleven now if you want to think you are better than that or make another category then do that, but I’m not putting you up on some pedestal. Sex workers, the people who have to do it are just like that rest of poor, working class types. People in the sex industry just get exploited while they are nude or semi-nude.
I think that is a rather progressive view. I’m not morally judging you, but remember you are treated badly because you are woman and a lesbian and maybe a minority and your partner is not treated badly because they are a sex worker, your partner was treated badly because poor women get treated badly in whatever they do and there is nothing special about the sex industry.
I think this idea that the sex industry is this special thing is a thing that should be killed. Sex isn’t different than any other exploitation.
I think this desire to make it special, even though it’s heinous is rooted in wanting to be accepted. In the days of imperialism and slavery women of color and poor women from the “wrong” families where only able to attain a status of a little more value through sexual favors. I think many women of color and poor women still get sucked into this world through that desire of acceptance, but once they do it they realize that it’s not like that at all, so they lie to themselves.
Being exploited isn’t beautiful, it’s not like being black or asian or latino or bisexual, their isn’t any honor in having to sell yourself on the cheap whether it be showing people your vagina or bending over in the fields picking grapes and as a woman of Nigerian and Honduran descent I am insulted by academics comparing me and my experience to a damn job.
So I’m a little mad too, but my anger is a bit more tempered since I understand history.
Browne
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 2:03 am ¶
browne wrote:
“Its ironic that your trying to say sex workers rights was made up by upper middle class academics when your the one getting all theoretical like some college brat pretending you know all about something cuz you read it in a book. Trying to explain how real people involved in a real struggle actually don’t exist.”
Just for your info I have worked in the sex industry because I needed money, but you know we’re online. I’m not too into this you can only talk about a certain topic if you’ve directly experienced, but since you think I have only read about it I’m going to give you a heads up that I know because I read about it and have worked in that industry.
I have also worked as a maid, dishwasher, but my jobs to me are just what I did to make money. It didn’t become my identity. My identity isn’t based on a job where I know I’m getting exploited, but I have to do it because I need the cash.
Life is hard. People need to be a little tougher. Screaming with fake names onlines isn’t really productive. If you want to convince people outside the world of progressive women you are going to have to come at people alot differently, but if this is about you and not human rights in general you go right ahead and scream. We all need to scream into nothingness sometimes.
Browne
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 2:25 am ¶
R wrote:
Who’s asking for “special” rights? Are you serious? Thats how religious right attacks gay rights.My partner is the last person to say sex work is “special or glamourous”. And To be put up on a pedestal?? She doesn’t want anyone outside of other activist to know her history.
I’m sorry if you’re “sick of it” but certain groups of ppl face unique problems and rally around those problems. Its that simple.
Its not about identity. its about common experience.
My gf never picked grapes so she’s not really going to know jack about what migrant farmworkers need or what its like to be considered “illegal” because of where you live. Its disrespectful to sex workers and farmworkers to dismiss the unique forms of violence they face as being all the same.
Your calling the sex workers rights movement classist. So is the gay rights movement, feminism and probably every other movement that isn’t rooted directly in economic justice. And it sucks but it doesn’t in any way invalidate the need for sex worker rights. It means theres a lot of work to be done within movement.
And if your judging it by academic papers you read. Of course its going to sound classist because thats who rights academic papers!
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 10:32 am ¶
R wrote:
“I’m not too into this you can only talk about a certain topic if you’ve directly experienced, but since you think I have only read about it I’m going to give you a heads up that I know because I read about it and have worked in that industry.”
But I’m not saying whether you can talk about something or not. You ARE talking about something. And you will if you want to. Only the moderator can stop you, not me.
My point has nothing to do with who you are or what your experience are. its about the argument your making. Maybe you were never even in college but you sound like some theorizing academic pretending your an authority on why this isn’t what it is. how its really that because of the capitalist imperialist power structure or whatever. And you sound just like the “upper middle class” women your accusing that sex workers rights was invented by.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 12:29 pm ¶
R wrote:
The last two posts are by R’s partner, not R but posts won’t go thru with that name.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 1:34 pm ¶
Strawberry Shortcake wrote:
Okay, so to be honest, I haven’t heard much about sex workers rights before reading these comments, but I have heard of
-Farm workers rights
-Drug users rights
-Prisoners rights
Maybe its just me, but I never had a problem with the terminology, or felt like, for example people are saying that farm workers are a “special class.” Or that people who pick fruit are more “glamourous” than people with other crappy jobs, I think they’re just saying this is a group of people who’s rights are often and systematically denied, and that’s a problem.
I don’t know browne, I was trying to see what you’re saying, but maybe I just have a different view of the world. You say “Life is hard. People people need to be a little tougher.”
I say: Life is hard. People need to be a little nicer.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 2:18 pm ¶
Nadra wrote:
I’m sorry there are some hurt feelings here, but I feel this conversation has been derailed by the sex worker angle. I just want to post a statement from my article in which the word “whore” was used.
“Rather than give Sarah Jane any worthy motive for passing, the filmmakers chose to exploit the stereotype of the mixed-race woman as whore.”
I’m talking about stereotypes here. There’s the virgin/whore stereoype or the mammy/jezebel stereotype. I’m not really discussing Sarah Jane as being a sex worker. She dances, yes, but I wouldn’t put her in the sex worker category. I was discussing how the filmmakers presented her as a “whore” because that’s what they think happens when white blood mixes with black blood. The filmmakers weren’t commenting on SJ’s choice of work as much as they were on the notion that mulattas are naturally oversexed and immoral. We see SJ presented in this manner even when she’s not at work. In contrast, her white foils in the movie, Susie and Lora, are virginal and moral, and her black mother is totally asexual.
In short, in “IOL,” we have the mulatta as “whore,” the white woman as “virgin” and the black woman as “mammy.” These are all sexual stereotype tied to race.
Posted 15 Jan 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶
browne wrote:
Nadra,
I think in a way the conversation that I’m having on jobs and black women go hand in hand with your post. I think black women are exploitatable, so exploitable and non human and tool like in fact that it seems perfectly acceptable to equate our experience as not a human experience, but a job related to capitalism.
Stripper, black woman…same thing and I say no to that. That is not the same and I will say it over and over again I don’t care how mad it makes people.
No one would equate the white woman experience as being that of a prostitute.
The reason it’s so easy for filmmakers to stereotype women of African descent is because we’re not viewed as anything more than tools.
We’re not women.
We’re prostitutes, nannies, welfare recipients, video dancers, drug addicts, at least on TV and movies and the types of entertainment discussed on this blog.
We’re never the girl next door, the most human we can ever be is maybe the asexual best friend. This is why I refuse to watch TV or movies, because I refuse to get used to my experience being equated to a stereotype or job. I like myself and I will never be ok with people thinking that my cultural experience is the same as a job that someone gets paid less than a fair wage to do.
Many women of color will accept anything, as long as it’s a representative of us and I am not of that school of thought. If the only way I get to see us portrayed is as a stereotype or a one dimensional character, then I don’t care if I ever see a woman of color on the big screen, magazine or TV again. I hope I don’t. Corporate entertainment is just a tool to make you hate yourself and buy things to fix what is not broken.
I don’t take sloppy seconds that have been in the fridge and reheated.
Browne
Posted 16 Jan 2009 at 10:10 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
Nadra, I’m really late on this b/c I hadn’t seen the film, but I put it on my Netflix list and bumped up to the top to watch. I saw it last night and though I concur with most of your characterization of the the film, I rewound the part where they are discussing whether either of them were good Mothers and when Sarah Jane’s running away twice and what Lora seems to be saying is that Sarah Jane has real problems, but Susie doesn’t so why is Susie so upset. I don’t think she was dismissing Annie just saying that Annie was a good Mother but SJ had real problems whereas with Susie Q she didn’t have any problems so why was she in such a snit.
The movie wasn’t as bad as I thought it might be based on what I saw on here and I have the 30’s version on my list. I have watched a decent number of older movies from the 40’s and 50’s so I’m familiar with their style and how black people are treated and really for its time it isn’t too bad and though Annie is a maid she does get more dignity and screen time than one would expect. She may be a little bit mammy like but at least she speaks well, isn’t overweight, and doesn’t carryon talking a lot of nonsense like say a Butterfly McQueen or “Ms. I ain’t no nothing bout birthin no babies.” The end really made me cry as did the hotel scene. SJ was in a lot of pain and didn’t know where she fit in the world and she was only 18 and lots of 18 year olds with much fewer problems behave much much worse.
Poor thing thought she had all the time in the world and I think she might have eventually come back to her Mama but it was too late. And poor Annie b/c she loved that child so much and didn’t get what she deserved.
I also agree that it would have been nicer if there had been less on Lora and Susie Q and it had focused mainly on Annie and Sarah Jane.
Oh and thanks introducing me to this interesting movie. I found the DVD doc on it interesting and plan to rewatch tonight with the commentary as well.
Posted 23 Jan 2009 at 12:13 pm ¶
172 wrote:
” My grandfather always was mistaken for white, he had straight dark blonde hair and blue eyes. ” (Eva)
Hah. Maybe he was indeed white?
You Americans…
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 10:10 pm ¶
172 wrote:
I watched the 1934’s version. It gave me a bad impression of African-Americans because it sounded like if Peola’s mother was much more worried about preserving the purity of the white race than the whites themselves!!! (lol).
How different from the Black Panthers, how diffrent from Eldridge Cleaver who said that white people should be destroyed through impregning them with Black blood. My opinion is that Peola’s mother, far from wanting the girl to -say- “conform” with being “black”, should otherwise help her daughter to make the “pass” and go “polute” the white gene pool with her genes. Come on people, Black Americans were being treated like garbage for about 300 years when the book was written, why in the hell should Peola’s mother work so hard to defend the purity of the white race? That was stupid. Besides, not even Peola was Black. Mulatoes are not black. Only in America, where white people are all paranoid racially and would be killing themselves if they ever did a DNA scanning and found they were 0,00001% subsaharan.
Anyway, I assume the book and the 2 versions of the movie were made by whites, perhaps the whites involved were only wanting to teach the African-American that they will be the movie’s bad guys if they don’t help preserve the purity of the ‘oh so special’ white anglo saxon race.
Posted 27 Jan 2009 at 10:27 pm ¶