春风秋雨 Imitation of Life(1934)

编剧: 范妮·赫斯特威廉·赫尔伯特普莱斯顿·斯特奇斯芬利·彼得·邓恩沃尔特·费里斯 Bianca Gilchrist 维克托·赫尔曼萨拉·Y·梅森塞缪尔·奥尼茨阿瑟·里奇曼

主演: 克劳黛·考尔白华伦·威廉罗谢尔·哈德森内德·斯帕克斯路易丝·比弗斯弗雷迪.华盛顿 Juanita Quigley 艾伦·海尔亨利·阿尔梅塔 Wyndham Standing 曼雅·安德烈 Alyce Ardell 威廉姆斯·奥斯汀 Dorothy Black Edna Bowdoin Tyler Brooke Daisy Bufford 乔伊斯·康普顿奥利弗·克罗斯威廉·B·戴维森 Sayre Dearing Norma Drew Jean Fenwick 诺埃尔·弗朗西斯迪克·戈登 Jesse Graves G·P·亨特利玛西娅·琼斯 Tiny Jones Marilyn Knowlden 亨利·科尔克尔列尼塔·莱恩 Ula Love 海蒂·麦克丹尼尔斯克莱尔·麦克道尔哈罗德·米勒朱利叶斯·莫尔纳伯特·穆尔豪斯埃德蒙·莫蒂默 David Newell Barry Norton Edgar Norton 丹尼斯·欧基夫富兰克林·潘伯恩保罗·波尔卡西 Ronald R. Rondell Gay Seabrook 泰鲁·岛田绅助拉里·斯蒂尔斯 Madame Sul-Te-Wan Ethel Sykes Libby Taylor Alma Tell Fred 'Snowflake' Toones 马丁.图尔纳 Walter Walker Bruce Warren Clarence Wilson 简·维特尔斯

类型: 剧情爱情

制片国家/地区: 美国

上映日期: 1934-11-26(美国)

片长: 111 分钟 IMDb: tt0025301 豆瓣评分：7.8 下载地址：迅雷下载

简介：

两位单亲妈妈不期而遇并决定一起居住。碧翠丝（克劳黛·考尔白 Claudette Colbert 饰）是一位白人妈妈，有一天她在偶然之中尝到了黑人妈妈黛莉拉（路易丝·比弗斯 Louise Beavers 饰）做的煎饼，对此赞不绝口。因此，碧翠丝萌发了开设自己的餐饮事业的想法，并成为一位事业上非常成功的女强人。

演员：

影评：

好莱坞“环球”公司百年庆，在美国一些电影院放映胶片修复后的老电影。芝加哥艺术学院附属Gene Siskel电影院周日下午总有双片连映。此次看的是John M. Stahl导演的“母性情节剧”（maternal melodrama）《春风秋雨》（Imitation of Life, 1934）（此外还有道德拉斯·塞克导演、拉娜·特纳主演的1959年版本）。本片根据女作家Fannie Hurst同名小说改编，除了编剧，还有另外八位未署名的编剧参与，无怪情节发展丝丝入扣、人物情感细腻动人。导演、表演也多有精彩之处。以影片开头为例，有声片早期，影片注重以景框外声音及场面调度/人物走位来暗示更大的画外空间（楼上浴室、门厅听电话、厨房煮咖啡、有人敲门等），此外，寥寥数笔，非常经济地交待单身母亲生活之不易。

此片也是性别与种族研究的完美范例：一黑一白两位单身母亲各自与女儿相依为命，后合开饼店致富，女儿也长大成人，一个遭遇种族歧视和身份焦虑（黑人母亲Delilah女儿Peola因肤色白皙而疏远前者）令母亲心碎，一个不明就里爱上母亲男友而令母亲痛下决心为女儿牺牲个人幸福……这种以母亲为主角、以女性为观众的“母性情节剧”的另一经典范例是《慈母心》(Stella Dallas，有1925和1937年两个版本)，底层母亲为“上流社会”的女儿有好的归宿而自我牺牲的故事。《春风秋雨》1934年获得三项“学院奖”提名(包括最佳音效)，2007年被《时代周刊》选为“关于种族问题最重要的25部电影之一。”
Double bill time! Two film versions of Fannie Hurst’s contentious weepie IMITATION OF LIFE, poignantly touches the raw nerve of the star-spangled, inveterate racial discrimination through a brace of mother-daughter dyads, one white, one black, but the latter is stigmatized with a more taxing streak.
John M. Stahl’s 1934 Black-and-White version (both versions are made from Universal pictures, incidentally) sticks to the milieu of the source novel, business-savvy white widow Bea Pullman (Colbert) takes in black housekeeper Delilah Johnson (Beavers), and capitalizes on Delilah’s secret family pancake recipe, she leapfrogs from a dead-end maple syrup peddler to a high-flying entrepreneur of pancake flour within a 10-year stretch, meanwhile vouchsafes a 20% interest to Delilah, whose modest make-up prefers maintaining the status quo to take care of Bea and her daughter Jessie (Hudson, a doe-eyed smart alec). Notwithstanding that the life of Delilah and her daughter Peola (Washington) is on the easy street by then, there is a catch here, Peola is a fair-skinned girl, who spurns her black parentage and tries every fiber to pass as a white girl, often her act is thwarted by Delilah’s presence and the tension aggravates through time, until a harrowing aftermath in the wake of Peola’s go-whole-hog severance, designated to turn on spectator’s waterworks.
There is a deep psychological causation in Peola’s plight, which might elicit different reactions, her identity limb is caused by the effacing of a skin-deep, visual distinction that makes her an outlier who doesn’t know where she belongs, is it entirely her fault to pursue the entitlement she isn’t bestowed? Certainly not, her outrageous hatred of being black is the fruit borne out of a sweepingly toxic, white supremacy-breeding environment that has no place for her ilk (especially for girls, whose main perspective is to marry well), like every marginalized individuals, she is punished for who she is and it is understandable during the pre-civil rights era (the novel was written in 1933), the story beats the drum for the thicker-than-blood maternal sacrifice and belated repentance in lieu of a more progressive message catering to today’s taste (for instance, what could have happened if Peola chooses to embrace his blackness for a change?).
In Stahl’s rendition, Peola’s selfish determination comes off more intrinsic because little contextualization is applied to lend her any amount of sympathy, although Fredi Washington (a real-life light-skinned black girl and the movie would virtually hamper her big screen career) has a fiery disposition brimming with indignation. Louise Beavers’ portrayal of Delilah, after watching her counterpart in Sirk’s remake, is at best serviceable, one gnawing fact is that Louise is too young for the role (she was only 31 years old), and her lack of conviction as a middle-aged, heartbroken mother is not helped by the fact that Fredi is only one year junior of her, regardless of their complexions, they do not register as a mother-daughter pair, period.
So, the 1934 movie leans more towards a posh star vehicle for Claudette Colbert, the sympathetic white Good Samaritan, fulfills her all-too-easy American dream by riding on a gravy train and soliciting free advice (the operative words are “bottle it!”, Ned Sparks has a wonderful time being all piqued and sarcastic as Bea’s business counselor) and spreads her gratitude without condescension, on paper, it seems a tough nut to crack, but Colbert holds court thoroughly and charms us with spectacular alacrity, especially when she is coupled with an impeccably debonair Warren William as her love interest Steve Archer, who equally effortlessly, albeit obliviously, excels in getting Jessie head over heels for him. But compared with the life-and-death separation between Delilah and Peola, their strife can be ironed out with a bantamweight sacrifice which only requires the man to cool his heel for some years, the irony is pungent, not to mention a particularly telltale scene of an ascending Bea and a descending Delilah on the spiral stairs simultaneously, genuine friendship can sprout out of two disparate souls, as long as it is the white matron who holds the upper hand.
The auteur maudit Douglas Sirk bowed out the Tinseltown and returned to his homeland Germany after this remake in 1959, which becomes his swan song, in his glittery (diamonds are in the background of the opening credits) re-imagination, the capitalistic fairy-tale is wholly jettisoned, along with Steve’s quaint ichthyologist vocation, the story-line is transposed to the 50s, widow Lora Meredith (Turner, enterprisingly changing her high-end wardrobe as frequent as her character’s required moods) is a struggling Broadway actress and doesn’t need the help from her black help Annie Johnson (Moore) to attain her johnny-come-lately success in the cutting-edge, squalid showbiz, remarkably with her integrity intact all the same, rebuffing the advancement of the unscrupulous agent Allen Loomis (Alda) with a virtuous face does all the trick. When her on-and-off boyfriend Steve Archer (John Gavin, or is it Louis Jourdan? I see doubles!), a photographer-turned-businessman, gets her teenage daughter Susie (Sandra Dee, spirited with her wonderful faux-naïf earnestness) infatuated, she doesn’t have the luxury to play martyr and their conciliation has a more perceptive leaning that outstrips the original, and curiously mirrors Turner’s own turmoil, she was freshly underwent through a daughter-and-stepfather tragedy in real life.
Of course, the scrumptiously soapy flee-and-catch go-arounds between Annie and her light-skinned daughter Sarah Jane (Kohner, a white girl passes as mix-raced) upstage anything else, this time, Sirk and his writers enrich Sarah Jane’s misery with enough gusto, including a startling violent outburst (in the hand of a cameo by none other than Troy Donahue, a soon-to-be celluloid heartthrob), hammering home the elephant-in-the-room behind Sarah Jane’s steely repudiation of her origin, and the two-hander between Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner, reaches its crescendo in their tearful valediction, amped up by Sarah Jane’s mouthed but unuttered “mama”, which veritably can leave the flintiest soul with misty eyes, if soapiness can be this good, just let it swamp this reviewer all over! Both actresses are Oscar nominated, but Moore can walk away with the plaudits as one of the best screen performances ever, and teaches Viola Davis a wise lesson about how to be dignified, agonized and restrained at the same time without the aid of undue theatrics.
Sirk also downplays the fawning-over, reduces the foot-rubbing to one casual scene, but majestically plays up the funeral procession, gospel belter Mahalia Jackson pulverizes us with a soul-shattering TROUBLE OF THE WORLD, all prompts audience to ponder why Annie/Delilah’s sole wish in this world is a fancy funeral, why are their lives so benighted that nothing else can fulfill their breathing days other than a pious devotion to the afterlife? The answer is clear as day, though. A final consensus: both films are worth their salts, and in Sirk’s case, an apposite lush jewel in his crown to conclude a luminous (if woefully shortened, Sirk was 62 then and would live another 27 years in retirement) career.
referential entries: Sirk’s ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS (1955, 8.4/10), WRITTEN ON THE WIND (1956, 8.0/10).
50年代版本看的时间有些早（不过碟是一起买的），给了它一个不错的评价，只是觉得那个故事有些杂，两对母女各自的故事精彩，但是互动就有些牵强，而且重心落在了拉娜透纳的身上，使得这个故事仿佛更多的是在讲述一个单身妈妈如何奋斗成为大明星并收获美满和幸福。
今天看完1934年的初版，感觉这个比较靠谱，Fannie Hurst的原著没有看过，但是以前听说过。故事其实并不是算复杂，一黑一白两个单身母亲为事业的奋斗，她们的友谊以及各自与女儿的矛盾构成了一个丰满的故事，看似美国梦的缔造却又有着复杂的社会映射。
在30年代就拍出这样的电影，不得不令人敬佩，那个时代的主流是轻松浪漫的爱情喜剧，女人再聪明伶俐也得暗藏于倜傥男人的身后（比如考尔白同年公映的让她成为影后的《一夜风流》），所以这里的女一号能够在男人占领一切的商业社会开创属于自己的事业就是一种奇迹，想想15年后的翻拍只是让女一成了一个大明星而已。
至于黑人母女因为肤色问题而出现的矛盾则没有50年代版本那么突出，后者有女孩约会白人男孩而遭遇白人打骂的镜头，展现了当时社会上对这种非黑非白混血儿的歧视，这个女演员本身是民权运动者，后因为此片中角色的态度遭到黑人团体攻击，使得银幕生涯过早结束（1940年代后基本从事舞台表演），也导致了电影公司拍摄此类电影时不敢再冒险启用混血儿
这是我对59年版的评论概括起来就2个字“虚伪”。

前面59年，我就说 “想不到那么早就有这种片子了”（我更想不到这2个片子我都是第一个发表评论。。），现在34年，又早了25年。。不过拍摄的却比59年那个要真实可信。虚伪程度相对低了不少。如果照这个类比现在如果再重拍，那可以说是虚伪的无边了。。。。。。。

为什么我说虚伪，其实核心问题就是夸大了黑人白人之间的问题。试想下，不管在什么年代，如果一个黑人有钱有地位（甚至相貌），完全可以获得比一般白人更高的待遇。那么种族就不是问题了。种族远远不是根本问题。只是决定一个人一生不超过 5%的影响因素。可以忽略不计。但是在电影中被无限放大。。。。还记得59版，男的在知道女友有黑人血统后，痛打她吗？，这根本不可能，即便是纳粹。。。。

我始终的观点是黑人（或者类比各种族在不同国家地区）受到不好待遇的原因是自身实力问题。比如，我拒绝给一个黑人一个工作不是他是黑人，而是因为他没这个实力，而他没这个实力的原因的确是因为他是黑人。。。。但我也没办法。假如他有这个实力，我可以给他工作，即使他是黑人。。。。但是作为黑人，他又是不大可能有这方面实力。。除非。。所以说"pass for white" 就这样产生了。是黑人，但是又具有黑人没有的能力的人的其中一种类型。

再比如说智商，我不给一个黑人某个工作，因为他智商低，不是因为他是黑人。但是他智商低的因素是因为是黑人。。。。如果他碰巧是个高智商黑人就一点问题没有。

套用，我不喜欢一个黑人，因为他丑，不是因为他是黑人。但是他丑的因素是因为是黑人。。。。如果他碰巧是个漂亮的黑人就一点问题没有。

套用，我不献媚一个黑人，因为他没钱地位低，不是因为他是黑人。
但是他没钱地位低的因素是因为是黑人。。。。如果他碰巧是个有钱有地位的黑人就一点问题没有。

所以种族永远都不是个问题，笨人，丑人，穷人倒了霉，这些人倒是
可以形成某种整体去谋求什么利益。。只不过现实中这些关系并没有被控制社会的大佬们拿出来用。取而代之的是种族关系。这也使得美国少数族裔，尤其是黑人以此之名获取了大量他们本不该属于他们的巨大利益。笨人，丑人，穷人成了他们的牺牲品和一到屏障。