Final Visual Essay

One House, Two Mothers

The film “Imitation of Life” directed by Douglas Sirk is a film dedicated to the portrayal of two women of the 1950’s. As the movie tells us each woman is single and widowed at an early age, and now carries the responsibility of caring for their daughters. There is a difference between these two women however; the social status of each woman is clearly marked by the color of their skin and the fact that one woman has a place to live in and the other does not. From the very beginning of the film, a person who is looking for a great sociological exploration into the lives of these seemingly similar women will get what they ask for. Although the film is a remake, is had perfect timing in regards to the social climate of America. Women were starting to be thought of as equals in society and at the same time African Americans were starting the battle to become equal in the eyes of society. It was a difficult movie to undertake due to the social regards of the film however a German filmmaker had just the style of filmmaking to make Imitation of Life a true masterpiece. The direction that Douglas Sirk takes is clearly different and is shown by his mastery of the screen and camera. This essay will look at the different roles the two women find themselves in, focusing on the way they function in one household raising two daughters, while coming from two completely different backgrounds. Discovering their roles taken up in the household can carry over into the roles that society has delineated for the women of our story.

In the mid to late 1950’s the culture and civil climate was changing. There were changes not just in the governmental realm but also in the societal realm. There was a deep need for social justice to break free and be allowed to grow unhindered by the government’s institutions of the time. In May of 1954, The United States Supreme Court declared that schools should not be segregated by color, and that the old adage “separate but equal” should be abandoned as a disrespectable way to treat human beings. Not being separate from society, Hollywood wanted to continue its task on being relevant in the public’s eye. Douglas Sirk was also aware of his adopted countries social change and he wanted to take the time in this film to show how Lora Meredith and Annie Johnson was “every woman” in this new awakening in America. From the very beginning of the film we are introduced to these two women who are going to go through this social change together. The two mothers in Imitation of Life can be looked at in one of two ways. The first way is to look at them as a white women and her black friend who lives with her. A person may be able to view this film and stay generalized and not get beneath the surface to discover the true meaning of the film. If this was the case they may see Imitation of Life as simply a story of two friends who live out their lives together and one woman carries on the legacy after the other is gone. In reality there is much more going on in this film. Fred Camper writes in the [1]Epistemologist of Despair that the true premise behind the film is that “characters discard true human connections, including with themselves, for material goods and the sake of appearances.” Camper believes that underneath this friendship there is a tragic struggle for each woman. Lora cannot realize that she has subconscious beliefs about where black people should be in society, and Annie has a crisis of raising her daughter to be healthy with a roof over her head, while at the same time helping her daughter understand the black/white world she lives in. This first way of looking at the films characters will illuminate hidden prejudices and personal awareness that may not be so evident just watching the film thinking that the two women are friends and their relationship is perfect. The second way to look at these two women is from the gender side of the current social change. We have two women who are raising two daughters and the one question that may surface while watching this film is; who is the father and who is the mother? Lora Meredith and Annie Johnson have two clearly distinct roles in the Meredith/Johnson household, and have two clearly distinct roles in the raising of their two daughters Sarah Jane and Susie.

The hidden prejudice and personal awareness can be seen by looking at the scene immediately after the beach. It is the first time that Lora and Meredith go to Lora’s apartment and we get to see their living space. In the beginning Lora is very much in charge of this space of her apartment. She turns on the lights, turns the fan on and is doing things for herself and the betterment and comfort of everyone else. Then later in the film, after Lora has become super-star, she has people set up the house and turn on the lights for her. Just as Lora accepts the servants later in the film doing things for her now Annie is allowed to just accept the things that Lora is doing for her. She shows Annie where the linens are and where their bedroom will be for the night.

However as you watch the film the tone does not feel as though Lora is showing of the house for just one night. It is almost as though she is showing Annie where everything will be in the future for when she begins working for her. They dwell in the back room long enough for Annie to look around and give Lora validation that the room will be just fine for Annie over the next ten years. If Lora had intention of Annie only staying one or two nights she would have made up the bed for Annie and wouldn’t have given her the grand tour of the apartment. It is clear from the few words that Annie speaks in this scene, is that she is accepting all the “benefits” that Lora is giving to her for working for her. Now understanding this scene is not to suggest that Lora has ulterior motives from the beginning, and wants to subject Annie to be her free house servant. We take from this scene an understanding that Lora so easily allows Annie to fit into the role of caretaker that society has declared is the only job fit for a black woman in the fifties. Lora seems oblivious to the very deferential body language that Annie is giving to her. Even the words that Annie says to Lora suggest that she will be just fine working here for her. Lora was at first adamant when she said “you must understand that...this arrangement can only be for tonight”, but by the time the door had been unlocked to the apartment Lora had already submitted to the inevitable that Annie would be living with her. It is comical to watch the next few days with the two women because it further cements the two-tiered relationship of Lora and Annie. Annie knows that this arrangement is master and servant, while Lora would like to think that it’s two women friends who live together. Annie is just a guest in her home for the next ten years and who just so happens to be cleaning her house and taking care of their girls.

The level of master and servant relationship can be found throughout the length of the film, where Lora and her career is forefront and Annie and the children are secondary. Then about two-thirds through the film Lora is awakened, or brought out of her haze or unawareness in the scene where Sarah-Jane brings out a food platter for Lora and her movie star guests. Lora is shocked when Sarah-Jane acts like an indentured servant towards her and goes right to the kitchen to confront her. In this kitchen scene the truth of all ten years, and their living arrangement comes to a head.

Lora is scolding Sarah-Jane and she asks Annie if she heard what Sarah had said. Annie answers the question in a painful and revealing three words “I heard Her”. These three words are paramount, those three words are lifting the veil that has separated Annie and Lora; the veil of servant and master. Annie knew this veil existed from their first meeting in the kitchen, but now Lora is let in on the “secret”. It has been understood that Annie and her daughter are second class citizens. They are reserved only for the kitchen and the back servant staircase. For ten years Lora has thought that Annie was just her friend who did everything for her because Lora provided a roof for Annie and Sarah Jane. Annie being humble and kind allowed Lora to assume her role as servant, in order that she could take care of her daughter Sarah Jane. Annie, in her response to Lora in the kitchen, is full of remorse for what has just transpired. She would have liked to keep things just the way that they had been for the past nine or ten years; Lora thinking one thing, a lie, and Annie knowing another, the truth about their relationship and their roles. Lora now has the job of understanding and coming to terms with how things have been for the past ten years.

While watching this film in the beginning we have an understanding that there is little male interaction with the characters of Lora and Meredith. However in the time and social climate of the film these two women were living in a male influenced society. There are stirring and emotive references to who in this dyad of parents the mother is, and who the father is. If we start in the kitchen scene from the very beginning just imagine that Lora is the father and Annie is the wife. Showing of the house and where she will be living is not far from the way women were portrayed in the fifties and early sixties. Lora is the “breadwinner” and Annie is the little housewife who takes care of the kids and settles their quarrels and makes them behave as to not upset “father figure” Lora.

One scene in particular that has references to an old [2]1955 Housekeeping Monthly article entitled the good wife’s guide where women are encouraged to quiet the children for the husband. This is manifest in the scene where Annie has told the children to be quiet so that Lora can have a nice sleep. This relationship also goes on unnoticed to Lora but very aware to Annie.

The very essence of a household in the thirties, forties, and fifties was that there were two different roles in the household and that one role was unimportant, the role of the mother, and the role of the husband was superior. Unlike today where the role of parent, breadwinner, and caretaker of the house are equally shared and valued as equal while remaining intrinsically different. Lora is like the husband in the household and Annie is like the mother. If you watch the film, look for this other level of subversive behavior between the two women.

Sirk was a master of the complex character. The two-faced character that had a subconscious level unaware even to themselves and it is made evident to the audience at the same time as it is made aware to the character. Sirk has at many times referenced the ideas of Bertolt Brecht and his theories of theatre and the nature of the character. In Brechtian thought the story and idea is paramount and the actor or character should be only a vessel to allow for the thought and story to come across. The character of Lora is very self-aware at this point and is now almost looking towards to audience for validation for her actions. Annie has been a poster child throughout the film of social injustice and the audience knew it. Brecht once wrote regarding his play [3]The Threepenny Opera “Today when human character must be understood as the 'totality of all social conditions' the epic form is the only one that can comprehend all the processes, which could serve the drama as materials for a fully representative picture of the world.” This is the exact definition of Annie’s role in the film from beginning to end. In today’s terms she would be illustrating absurdity on the big screen.

---

[1] Chicago Reader, 2006

[2] House Keeping Monthly, 13^th May, 1955.

[3] A three Act Play by Bertolt Brecht

Visual Essay #2

One House, Two Mothers

The film “Imitation of Life” directed by Douglas Sirk is a film dedicated to the portrayal of two women of the 1950’s. Each woman has a daughter and the responsibility of raising their child. The two women are alike in many ways when it comes to their home life and living situation, but there is also one major difference between the two women, one is black and the other is white. The direct difference of the phenotype is clearly marked in the history of America and is a classic subject that has been undertaken by many a director and studio. The direction that Douglas Sirk takes is clearly different and can only be done by his mastery of the screen and camera. This essay will look at the different roles the two women find themselves having, focusing on the way in which they function in one household raising two daughters, while coming from two completely different backgrounds. Discovering their roles taken up in the household can carry over into the roles that society has delineated for the women of our story.

In the mid to late 1950’s the culture and civil climate was changing. There were changes not just in the governmental realm but also in the societal realm. There was a deep need for social justice to break free and be allowed to grow unhindered by the government’s institutions of the time. In May of 1954, The United States Supreme Court declared that schools should not be segregated by color, and that the old adage “separate but equal” should be abandoned as a disrespectable way to treat human beings. Not being separate from society, Hollywood wanted to continue its task on being relevant in the public’s eye. Douglas Sirk was also aware of his adopted countries social change and he makes his points very clear in the characters of Lora Meredith and Annie Johnson. From the very beginning of the film we are introduced to these two women who are going to go through this social change together. The two mothers in Imitation of Life can be looked at in one of two ways. The first way is to look at them as a white women and her black friend who lives with her. This first way of looking at the films characters will illuminate hidden prejudices and personal awareness that may not be so evident just watching the film thinking that the two women are friends and their relationship is perfect. The second way to look at these two women is from the gender side of the current social change. We have two women who are raising two daughters and the one question that may surface while watching this film is; who is the father and who is the mother? Lora Meredith and Annie Johnson have two clearly distinct roles in the Meredith/Johnson household, and have two clearly distinct roles in the raising of their two daughters Sarah Jane and Susie.

We will start our discussion about the hidden prejudice and personal awareness by looking at the scene immediately after the beach scene. It is the first time that Lora and Meredith go to Lora’s apartment and are shown around the place. In the beginning Lora is very much in charge of this space of her apartment. She turns on the lights and is doing things for herself and the betterment and comfort of everyone else.

She shows Annie where the linens are and where their bedroom will be for the night. However as you watch the film the tone does not feel as though Lora is showing of the house for just one night. It is almost as though she is showing Annie where everything will be in the future for when she begins working for her. They dwell in the back room long enough for Annie to look around and almost give Lora validation that the room will be just fine for the next ten years. If Lora had intention of Annie only staying one or two nights she would have made up the bed for Annie and wouldn’t have given her the grand tour of the apartment. It is clear from the few words that Annie speaks in this scene, is that she is accepting all the “benefits” that Lora is giving to her for working for her. Now understanding this scene is not to suggest that Lora has ulterior motives from the beginning, and wants to subject Annie to be her free house servant. It is only understand that Lora so easily allows Annie to fit into the role of caretaker that society has declared is the only job fit for a black woman in the fifties. Lora seems oblivious to the very deferential body language that Annie is giving to her. Even the words that Annie says to Lora suggest that she will be just fine working here for her. Lora was at first adamant when she said “you must understand that...this arrangement can only be for tonight”, but by the time the door had been unlocked to the apartment Lora had already submitted to the inevitable that Annie would be living with her. It is comical to watch the next few days with the two women because it further cements the two-tiered relationship of Lora and Annie. Annie knows that this arrangement is master and servant, while Lora would like to think that it’s two women friends who live together. Annie is just a guest in her home for the next ten years and who just so happens to be cleaning her house and taking care of their girls.

Another level of master and servant relationship can be found throughout the length of the film, where Lora and her career is forefront and Annie and the children are secondary. Then about two-thirds through the film Lora is awakened, or brought out of her haze or unawareness in the scene where Sarah-Jane brings out a food platter for Lora and her movie star guests. Lora is shocked that Sarah-Jane acts like an indentured servant towards her and goes right to the kitchen to confront this.

Then while in the kitchen the truth of this whole ten years comes to a head. Lora is scolding Sarah-Jane and she asks Annie is she heard what Sarah had said. Annie answers the question in a painful and revealing three words “I heard Her”. These three words are the undoing of the veil that separated Annie and Lora; the veil of servant and master. Annie knew this veil existed from their first meeting in the kitchen, but now Lora is let in on the “secret” that she has been thinking of Annie and her daughter as second class citizens. Annie, in her response, is full of remorse for what has just transpired. She would have liked to keep things just the way that they had been for the past nine or ten years; Lora thinking one thing, a lie, and Annie knowing another, the truth about their relationship and their roles. Lora now has the job of understanding and coming to terms with how things have been for the past ten years.

After understanding there is a clear message of roles between these two women we can look at another level to the complexity and timelessness of this film. While watching this film in the beginning we have an understanding that there is little male influence on there characters. However in the time and social climate of the film these two women were living in a male influenced society. There are stirring and emotive references to who in this dyad of parents the mother is, and who the father is. If we start in the kitchen scene from the very beginning just imagine that Lora is the father and Annie is the wife. Showing of the house and where she will be living is not far from the way women were portrayed in the fifties and early sixties. Lora is the “breadwinner” and Annie is the little housewife who takes care of the kids and settles their quarrels and makes them behave as to not upset father figure Lora.

One scene in particular that has references to an old 1955 Housekeeping Monthly article entitled the good wife’s guide [See Attached] where women are encouraged to quiet the children for the husband, is the one where Annie has told the children to be quiet so that Lora can have a nice sleep. This relationship also goes on unnoticed to Lora but very aware to Annie. The very essence of a household in the thirties, forties, and fifties was that there were two different roles in the household and that one role was unimportant, the role of the mother, and the other role the one of the husband was superior. Unlike today where the role of parent, breadwinner, and caretaker of the house are equally shared and valued as equal while remaining intrinsically different. Lora is like the husband in the household and Annie is like the mother. If you watch the film, look for this other level of subversive behavior between the two women.

Sirk was a master of the complex character. The two-faced character that had a subconscious level unaware even to themselves and it is made evident to the audience at the same time as it is made aware to the character. Sirk has at many times referenced the ideas of Bertolt Brecht and his theories of theatre and the nature of the character. In Brechtian thought the story and idea is paramount and the actor or character should be only a vessel to allow for the thought and story to come across. The character of Lora is very self-aware at this point and is now almost looking towards to audience for validation for her actions. Annie has been a poster child throughout the film of social injustice and the audience knew it. Brecht once wrote regarding his play The Threepenny Opera “Today when human character must be understood as the 'totality of all social conditions' the epic form is the only one that can comprehend all the processes, which could serve the drama as materials for a fully representative picture of the world.” This is the exact definition of Annie’s role in the film from beginning to end. In today’s terms she would be illustrating absurdity on the big screen.

My First Film 320 Essay

Fascination and Massacre

“I'm gonna kill her. I'm gonna kill her with a .44 Magnum pistol.” These are words uttered to Travis Bickle in his cab on a lonely night, on a lonely street corner. The man who said these words, Martin Scorsese, well not really, the viewer is only to know him as “the fair”. These words said to Travis Bickle do more than just carry a tingle down his back, as he repositions his mirror. These words set off a motion of events in the mind of Travis Bickle, just as though someone unhinged the gate to an angry raging bull. The character of Travis Bickle is one of a suppressed man who has an idealistic view on how the world ‘should’ be. In this scene between director and actor, Martin Scorsese takes Travis to the next level in his objects of fantasy and fascination. Scorsese unleashes, with eloquent words of hate and destruction, the next path that Travis Bickle must take towards the town of New York; Massacre. In this essay we will discuss and uncover Martin Scorsese’s scene that took Travis Bickle from the man of fascination to the man capable of massacre. From the first time that Travis is seen in his taxi, as he goes throughout the city we get a glimpse and almost a foreshadowing of the events that are to come later. We see the words “Massacre” and “Fascination” along the way of an unknown New York street. These words are a subliminal ticking time-bomb that lines the streets of Travis Bickle’s New York City. Travis is under the constant neon glow of the world around him.

As the scene begins we have an already vulnerable and upset Travis, who has just destroyed any chance of a relationship with a woman that he thinks, is pure and above the rest of society. Then the ‘fair’ begins to talk about the reason we are sitting at this street corner. He prods Travis to look up at the window with the light on. In this scene Travis is being asked to look at something and someone. The continuous invitation to look at images in the film makes us, the viewer, aware that we are to pay attention to everything that we are being allowed to see. We are encouraged to have a voyeuristic bend throughout the entire film, and now even the director of the film is asking us to specifically look at the window. The shapely figure that comes into view, after we tilt up the building and pan right is in silhouette. This very basic of images makes the eye to look for detail; the camera’s gaze is intent on the fascination aspect of this scene. After a moment of mind-wandering Martin Scorsese brings the focus back into view, by telling Travis he is going to kill her. The object that he was just allowed to gawk at is now at the threat of loosing its life. The transfer of fascination to a point of massacre is made evident in the text of the ‘fair’. This conversation has transference into the mind and life of Travis Bickle.

Lesley Stern, in her essay “A Glitter of Putrescence” states that ideas and images that are seen in a film, can trigger other images and ideas that have been brought up throughout the film and in other films. When we watch a moment in a film and we have a fleeting feeling that we have seen this somewhere before, most likely we have had an involuntary memory come to the forefront of our mind regarding this particular scene. If the case is that we have seen a film many times, this involuntary memory can greatly increase our understanding of the whole of the film. In the case of Travis Bickle and the ‘fair’, this scene begins a great divide in the film, a turning point one could say, where the character we once knew, and were beginning to understand, now is going to take and turn in a different direction.

When we look at the whole of the film surrounding the scene of Travis and the ‘fair’ we can look back at other areas where we may have been given a hint towards this revelation. One such area of the film you could look at is the relationship between Travis and Betsy. Their relationship was birthed from a conversation awkwardly initiated by Travis and the date that came from that conversation was purely out of curiosity. Travis Bickle was fascinated by this girl whom he thought was a bastion of goodness and purity. As an aside again we see the influence of the director who took a scene to look at Betsy as she walked into the Palantine campaign headquarters. Here we were encouraged to be fascinated by this beautiful woman walking gracefully, and in slow-motion, into her job. Betsy was fascinated by this man who she considered a “walking contradiction”. The brevity of the relationship could easily be because it was built on nothing more than curiosity and not a need for one another. As their relationship ends we see how Travis takes Betsy of her pedestal of purity and puts her on the ground when he says she is “like the rest of them”. The “them” he is referring to are all the people that fit into the neon glow world that surrounds Travis in his cab.

Gilberto Perez wrote in “Toward a Rhetoric of Film: Identification and the Spectator” that people sometimes have a connection with characters in films if not on the level of identity, but at times on the level of identification with a characters feelings. A connection between identity between the film world and reality collided in 1981 when John Hinckley Jr. tried to take the life of President Ronald Reagan. The person John Hinckley was personally fascinated by the film Taxi Driver and its character Travis Bickle. So much so he believed that he had a personal relationship with Jodie Foster, the woman who played Iris. He continued to pursue Foster and when he realized that he would never be able to be with her, he snapped. His attention went to fascination of Jodie Foster to the massacre of people he despised, for his personal gain. The real life Travis Bickle, embodied in John Hinckley allows us to see the slipping of a person’s mind that could lead them down a path of destruction.

Now in the cab with the ‘fair’, Travis realizes that there is no place for fascination any longer and if he wants to end the world of chaos and fascination that surrounds him he needs to take it to another level. This level that he wants to take the fascination to is the level of massacre and death. His anger and disgust for the people of New York is still a new subject for himself. Just as someone can’t jump into a pool of freezing cold water without feeling shocked, Travis’ decent into the massacre world he surrounds himself with is not an easy one. He becomes uneasy in his own cab, and uneasy with the ‘fair’ himself.

The next course of action Travis Bickle goes to is a complete regiment of revenge towards massacre. He has his mind set on the goal of killing people responsible for making the town the way it is. His fascination has now changed from pleasure and happiness to the fascination of death. Just as the ‘fair’ says “I’m gonna kill her” Travis feels in his heart “I’m gonna kill them”. The rest of the movie is centered on and leads towards an eventual release of Travis’ restraint towards the scum of the city. Now that he has the idea of massacre and death on his mind, he is allowed to once again be fascinated. He became transfixed with getting his body into shape and becoming a force to be reckoned with.

The story of Travis Bickle however becomes even more complicated, his fascination of death and destruction will definitely be fulfilled, but he starts make a move towards helping another person who has fallen completely to the level of the sick people he wants to kill. Understanding the relationship between Iris and Travis through the lens of fascination and massacre takes us a step past the hopeful outcome of his massacre. Travis believed himself to be a freedom fighter, by saving the world from people like Palantine and Sport; he would become a hero to some. The idea of killing a politician and getting away with it was certainly absurd as Travis found out. However the killing of pimps and profiteers, and the saving of a child was an advantageous result of his massacre. If we stepped back at the end of the film and reviewed all the actions taken by Travis, post-‘fair’, we could say that he was fascinated by the idea of himself. He would transpose the ideas of fascination and put them in context for himself. Travis Bickle was fascinated by himself, by the idea of becoming a freedom fighter.

As the movie comes to the end and we get to the actual act of massacre, Travis once again becomes nervous about the acts he is going to commit. The act of massacre is almost secondary to the way Travis went about it. At the end of his rampage we see Travis sit down next to his scene of carnage as if he wants to watch and wait until someone can see what has gone on. His focus is not on Iris whom he just took out of a bad situation. His wants the police who have come in to see what he did. His look is almost one of “look what I did for you”. Just as the ‘fair’ talked about how sweet it would be to kill a woman with a .44 magnum, and how Travis should see that happen. Travis looks to his viewers in the brothel as thought they should be thankful to him for what he did.

Travis Bickle saw himself as one who was above the scum of the streets, and his descent into anger and massacre allows us to see the complexities of the character who, some would say became the problem. Martin Scorsese’s delicate balance between the fascination and the massacre make for another enveloping character study where we can learn and gain knowledge from.

To get a copy with the pictures click here