"Imitation of Life", the 1934 version, reflected the attitude in the country toward blacks. This movie wouldn't have had a chance of being made in the present climate of political correctness. This movie shows how Hollywood dealt with the racial issues back in those years. John Stahl directed the film, which stands in stark contrast with the Douglas Sirk's take in 1959 which presents a glossier vision of the Fanny Hurst novel, in which it's based.

Between the two versions, this one seems to make more sense, in spite of the incredible jump from rags to riches Bea Pullman experiences. Claudette Colbert makes Bea more accessible to us, in contrast with Lana Turner's blonde goddess looks. This Bea Pullman is easier to take because the way she makes her money by going into business, capitalizing on Delilah's idea about the marketing the perfect blend for pancakes.

Warren William plays Steve Archer, the man who falls in love with Bea while not suspecting the effect he causes in young Jessie, Bea's daughter. Louise Beavers is Delilah; she is made to speak broken English to show her ignorance, which was the thing expected every time black characters were shown in movies of that period. Ms. Beavers' role was made bigger in the 1959 remake, but Juanita Moore, who played the part, was not subjected to her predecessor's fate. Rochelle Hudson, Ned Sparks and Fredi Washington round up the supporting cast.


I find the movie aptly named. My motivation for responding is due to an earlier opinion on this movie, specifically: "the central character of Delilah is the worst kind of racial stereotype; a relentlessly cheerful mammy, perfectly satisfied to spend her life tending to the needs of her white employer". I am an American Black (African-American) and I do not find Delilah offensive. In fact I applaud the reflection of honesty that this 1934 film attempts. The "mammy" of that time period had very few choices. That she was happy to help her very nice white employer for the safety provided does not make for a hate figure by Blacks. It makes for a reminder of the intense level of crap Black folks went through and how they dealt with the pain of it to stay honest, kind and helpful people. Should Delilah lived in the streets and hated white people the rest of her life? Should she have not had the fortitude and insight to find a situation with another caring human being, albeit this other human was white? And for this she is lauded as a the worst kind of racial stereotype? No. The answer is a resounding NO. Now if Delilah was beaten and raped on a regular basis and still wanted to please her white employer while denying her race the previous poster would have had a point.

Okay, I really didn't like the mournful gospel music, R&B would have made this movie perfect to me but that's just me. Live and Love. There is no shame in being a good person.


People, people, why does everyone judge this movie confection through the looking glasses of 2006?? There was probably some "imitation of life" to the movie when it was made, no matter how silly or stereotypical it might have been, even for its time. If anything, this movie at least attempted to show two women in business being rewarded for their efforts and hard work. Yes, the 20/80 split when the pan cake business went incorporated might seem unfair now, but it was better than the 1950's film where Annie just waits on Ms. Lora, dolling out wisdom with a spoon full of sugar. I was much more perplexed why Jessie would be interested in a fish scientist who said he was 37 but looked more like 57!


Let's get down to it! Here's Hollywood's best pre-WWII effort to portray not only white-black racism, but its subtleties. I doubt many women shared the caring relationship of Bea and Delilah.

What offends some I strikes me as honest. For the one or two absurd moments (e.g., the faithful, mourning Negro servants in the you-know-what scene), many more are deft and moving. The lavish 1959 version cannot compare.

(Love Lana Turner, but she and Juanita Moore are wooden and embarrassing in the remake; it's worth seeing for Mahalia Jackson and of course, Susan Kohner's scenes at the cocktail party and getting beaten in the back alley. Susan's scenes are so showy that they kill any hope of honesty, which was never in the script to begin with)!

At the beginning of this version, do you remember Delilah's response when Bea asks why she hadn't taken the streetcar? Racism is accepted as a given; the characters cast their lot from there. Both women have seen tragedy, and The Depression looms. In this crucial aspect, Bea and Delilah are equals. But to get anywhere with such a touchy gambit, the lead performances had better be good.

Louise Beavers is mesmerizing. I cannot say she gives the best performance I've seen on the silver screen, but it's hard for me to name a more focused one.

It is easy to dismiss her lines as demeaning or simple-minded. With each viewing, I see a woman whose circumstance and inner strength enables her to look beyond the mortal sorrows of this life. Doesn't she ring a bell, especially if you grew up black in the South? She was so many of our mothers, aunts and grandmothers. Ms. Beavers nails it.

In this plot, she's more: She is a a mystic whose spirituality not only complements but critiques Bea's get-ahead pragmatism. Pre-feminist themes ricochet in this picture: successfully, I think.

I'm gonna get slammed for my only significant reservation: I don't feel Fredi Washington's performance. She's more than adequate, but in no league with Louise Beavers or Claudette Colbert. From all that I have read and heard about her, I conclude that Ms. Washington let her own good taste get the best of her. She seems to underplay on purpose, to evoke a smoldering quality of rage. If I am correct, I appreciate her instincts, but they cannot work over every scene she has in this potboiler plot.

Nothing about this movie is weak. Even the few headslapping moments are so sincere that they come off as camp, at worst. Frankly, I'm not sure I could otherwise bear Louise Beavers' last scene.

Notice that her face is almost immobile; a single glycerin tear rolls down her cheek; her final, wrenching line reading is actually disembodied, off-camera (a master stroke of direction).

This, folks, is the killer scene for me -- not the histrionics at the hearse, which grabbed me mainly inasmuch as they showed an unqualified moment of dignity in black America, rare for 30's Hollywood. Note the sympathetic white mourners who have a line or two...

Claudette Colbert is radiant, as previous posters have said. Her performance is less memorable than Ms. Beavers', yet she hits the bull's-eye. Bea is warm but just distant enough to put across a real woman of her time, a white one who can never hope to understand black folks or the many contradictions of her relationship to them. In her best moments, which are without dialogue, Colbert conveys this delicate point. (Anyway...Bea has her own slutty daughter to worry about, right?)

It was said that Ms. Colbert had the best figure on the Paramount lot -- not lost on Universal, which dressed her to the nines in scene after scene.

It's hard to believe Colbert was barely 30 at the time. She looks no older, but acts as if she were going on a hard 50. And what a year for her! She won the Oscar for "It Happened One Night," and also scored this second huge hit, which artistically speaking is hardly chopped liver.

She made both movies on loan to other studios after Paramount suspended her! Talk about having the last laugh: if only Louise Beavers could have shared it in her own career!

I first saw this film on the big screen about 20 years ago at a now-defunct repertory cinema in Chicago. The matinée comprised me and a handful of elderly black women. We applauded as the curtain rang down; the clapping had the satisfied quality that follows a parable.


I purchased this movie because of Louise Beavers. I was impressed with her performance in Mr Blandings Build His Dream House where she does more than hold her own in her all too short appearances with stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and Melvyn Douglas. And I was not disappointed. She really is the solid center of this movie and its true star. She is like some sort of early method actress with a terrific screen presence, and her stile of acting differs remarkably from the more affected ones of her acting colleagues in this movie who come through as real airheads (or, shall we say designer products?) in their imitation of life.

Basically I think this is less a movie about race but about Delilah's values  and in this aspect it is an entirely different movie than the remake of 1957. Although beset by a hard and difficult life, Delilah is a balanced person of principle. And she has knowledge, on philosophical as well as practical ways. She accepts her place in society (that is a personal choice, mind you) and aims to make the best out of it. The world of Big Dreams is not hers. Her meeting another women with the daring and the tenaciousness of a dye hard capitalist is, seen in that context, a sort of an accident. This other woman discovers and exploits Delilah's knowledge, first on a small then on a very large scale. Delilah's values lead to commercial success, Delilah's portrait becomes literally a brand (incidentally, a beautiful Art Deco design, not unlike Uncle Ben's). She takes success gracefully, although she does not really care about it. And she knows, there will always be things money can't buy and they most probably will determine your personal happiness. The daughters of the two single mothers seem to symbolize the mean truth, that there are issues that are simply beyond a mother's will and have to be left to godly powers. Delilah's daughter just wants to be an airhead too (that is a personal choice, mind you). She is most happy blending in with the anonymous general crowd of our modern times selling cigars in a store (Fredi Washington's best scene). There's nothing her mother can do about it.

MINOR SPOILER AHEAD At the end of the movie, Delilah dies, probably of a broken heart. The world of airheads was too much for that archaic type of good, motherly woman. She leaves a vacuum behind, and people wistfully watch her stylized portrait eternally turning over flickering electric pancakes on the huge billboard on a rooftop. This will forever be a truly modern movie.


This is not a great movie but it's a very good one. Its racial views are somewhat of its time but it is also very forward-looking. Little need be said of the remake other than that the original is superior in every way. Most interesting, though, is that the daughter passing for white is played here by a black actress, whereas in the version almost three decades later the character is taken by a Caucasian.

In many ways, the truly heartbreaking story of Louise Beavers's character's love for her conflicted daughter is like something from a "race picture." It has a feel of authenticity.

Ms. Beavers looks very pretty, though she is heavy. It's a shame that in her big scenes, the camera is focused on Claudette Colbert or Rochelle Hudson -- the white mother and daughter in the considerably less interesting intertwining plot.

Colbert looks good, though this was a little before she had hit on her trademark look with bangs. The scenes in which Beavers massages her feet seem a little risqué, intentionally or otherwise.

My mother, who was a child when this came out, used to talk about seeing this several times and crying each time.

And speaking of children, the opening scenes in which the daughter is an ostensibly adorable child and Colbert addressees her comments about her wanting her "quack-quack," it's hard not to think of the scene in "Midnight," a later and different but far better movie, in which Colbert speaks on the phone to her nonexistent little daughter's illness, with John Barrymore speaking in falsetto about a hangover at the other end.

Frerdi Washington, as Beavers's daughter who is passing for white, is lovely. She has a beautiful mezzo voice and acts this melodrama as if it were O'Neill.

Colbert's daughter's crush on Warren William seems uninteresting and possibly -- I have not read and never will read the original -- that aspect of the plot was trimmed or censored.


One can make a case that this film about the African - American racial realities of the New Deal period is the equivalent of "House Of Rothschild", a contemporary movie regarding Jews and anti-Semitism. Both movies are very well-intentioned for their day, but are somewhat appalling for the present day. "House Of Rothschild" had great performances by George Arliss as Nathan Rothschild, and Boris Karloff as his German foe, the bigoted Baron Ledranz. But it suggested that the key to the emancipation of the Jews (and their acceptance by gentile society) was tied to economic success and power. This ignored the roots of anti-Semitism in economic jealousy by non-Jews. In "Imitation Of Life", we see two poor single mothers, one white and one black, each with a daughter, who form a partnership that enriches them with an "Aunt Jemimah" baking empire. But in the real world, how frequently did white and black people cooperate that closely when millions of dollars were at stake? The ideas, however, of this film are not easy to reject totally. Forgetting the idea of inter-racial economic cooperation and money making, the idea that a white and a black woman could become close is not totally impossible, and the issues of the problems both women have with their daughters are still relevant.

Claudette Colbert (Bea Pullman) and her daughter Rochelle Hudson (Jessie) find that they become rivals for Warren Williams (Steve Archer). The rivalry of the pair for the same man is not uncommon, and the sad resolution of the problem seems unfair to Bea. Wisely the script does not settle what the future will prove about this collision of sexual hopes.

No such problem faces Louise Beavers (Delilah Johnson) and Freddie Washington (Peola). Beavers is a hard working, decent woman who is fully aware of what the average White person expects of a Black person's "attitudes" in the America (or Western World) of 1934. Subserviance is the key for survival. Beavers, in the story, is luckier than most of her people because she has made a large amount of money as Colbert's business partner. But she can only get so far with that advantage - she can't live in a mansion and hobnob with the social elite. But she doesn't really seem to care to. The old (and infuriating) phrase about "knowing her place" is acceptable to her. But Peola is light skinned, and can pass herself off as white. She desperately wants to do so - to "sneak" (for want of a better term) herself into the majority of the population, with all the attending economic, political, and social advantages. And Bea wants Peola to accept her racial difference.

Today, of course, we feel that it is the sin of the society penalizing millions of non-whites that is the terrible wrong, not Peola's desperate attempt to grab at happiness. But in 1934 it was Peola who was found to be wrong. Her selfishness leads to killing the saintly, decent Delilah, and Peola realizes this at the conclusion - at her mother's funeral.

Before leaving this I have to point out that Peola's gamble probably would have been difficult in the long run. In the 1920s, New York society was shocked and titillated by the Kip Rhinelander Divorce Scandal. The son of a wealthy old New York family, Rhinelander married a very attractive woman. Then their child turned out to be African-American. The resulting divorce action was very ugly. If Peola married a white man, she would run a similar risk (as would all "white" descendants of the couple) due to genetics. Oddly enough, this particular situation is not a dated story theme. On an episode of LAW AND ORDER about six years ago, the murder of a woman was tied to her trying to regain her son by her ex-husband: the husband (like Peola) could pass himself off as white, and was a high ranking business executive with a new wife, who was white, and also a bigot.

Among other things to note in this film is the use of the "Aunt Jemimah" clone in 1934 - a key to the long term success of that brand with the American public (and one that still exists), and the business deal that Ned Sparks and Colbert are negotiation with a clone of General Mills or some other food conglomerate. The funeral of Delilah also is notable, for the appearance of members of the Black Middle class in the scenes, in particular the men in quasi-military uniforms who must belong to some "mason" like club, and who give the deceased a goodbye beneath their outstretched military sabers. The appearance of Preston Sturges as one of the screenplay writers suggests some of the touches - Sturges liked to poke fun at well known brand names. In "Christmas In July", for instance, the coffee company is Maxford's (like Maxwell House).

I find this a well acted and thoughtful movie for 1934, and yes, Louise Beavers did give her most tragic performance in this film. But the acceptance of racial inequalities that really are not acceptable anymore (although much improvement is still needed) does stick in one's craw.


I purchased the Imitation of Life a few months ago, but in the DVD, I found that there were two versions of the movie and I never knew about the 1934 version. I watched it first and fell completely in love with it. I mainly payed more focus to the warmth of Bea Pullman and Delilahs friendship as it progressed over time. When one was down, the other helped build them back up and it stayed that way until Delilah gave her very last breath. Of course, some say that back in the 30's you never found blacks and whites to be so close, (but indeed there were some and Imitation of Life proved that.) As far as Fredi Washingtons character as Peopla, I found myself keen to her more so than any other character. I understood why she felt the way she did about outwardly appearing caucasian on the outside and being African American by race. It does hurt me to see her turn against and deny her mother as the movie ends, but when her mother then dies, it's even more sorrowful that Peola never has the chance to tell her, "Yes I did love you and I should have claimed you as my mother from the start" For anyone who loves a warm, heartfelt classic, you should certainly see Imitation of life (The year 1934)


By far better than the remake. Although I love the remake also, but this one is much better. Claudette Colbert is one of my favorite actresses. She is great in this one. Louise Beavers is wonderful as Delilah. It just makes you want to out and buy some pancakes. The story, although dated now, was great. As I said before, better than the remake.


I knew I had seen it on tv many years ago, guess it's not shown anymore, possibly because of racial overtones. Lana and Sandra Dee were great, but not the actress Claudette Colbert was. Wonderful drama, but Claudette is my favorite. Her partner and Steve, as well as the costumes are memorable. It's a period piece - life in the USA the way it really was. I award the original a 9, the remake, although updated and excellent, a 7.


When Imitation Of Life came out in 1934, Fannie Hurst was at the height of her literary reputation having had her two best works this one and Back Street, come out back to back as both novels and movies. Both stories are about a women's sacrifice.

One day before World War I, Louise Beavers comes looking for domestic work and gets the wrong address and comes knocking on Claudette Colbert's door. Colbert is a recent widow with a child and Louise has a child the same age. Colbert can't afford any salary, but Louise is willing to work cheap, just for room and board for herself and her child.

This starts an unusual partnership both personal and business because Claudette's late husband was a seller of a cooking syrup and Louise makes a melt in your mouth type of pancake. When passing stranger Ned Sparks tells her one day to package the flour, this makes both Colbert and Beavers millionaires overnight. Beavers can't see it however and passes up her own household to stay with Claudette.

A lot of people today look at Beavers's character and say this is a racial stereotype that Hurst was perpetrating. Taking the racial component out of it, I've seen several people who are just like Beavers in their own way. Clark Gable had a father who could have lived quite well off his son, but couldn't deal with the Hollywood lifestyle and actually told his son they ought to resume their previous occupations as oil roughnecks. Stan Musial when he was making big money as a baseball star had a mother who took in washing back in the little steel mill town of Donora, Pennsylvania where he came from and not because he wasn't willing to provide.

And I had an uncle who worked hard at Kodak and also built up a milk delivery business of his own and at an age where he could have just relaxed and taken it easy, he was out working at close to 80 at a tool and die plant. There are folks out there who shy away from the outward trappings of success like Beavers. And there are those stubbornly over-committed to a work ethic when they don't have to be.

Both Colbert and Beavers are just moms with problem daughters on their hands. Daughter Rochelle Hudson is crushing out on Warren William who has his eyes on Colbert. But Beavers has bigger problems.

Remember these girls were literally raised together with their mothers in business. Fredi Washington sees the white world, she's light skinned enough to pass, she wants what's over in that world. But her denial of heritage hurts Beavers more than my words can describe. But Hurst's words in the novel and the screenplay betray a rare understanding of racism during her time.

Imitation of Life got three Oscar nominations including Best Picture. It's a dated film, but that fact alone makes it worth watching as a glimpse of the racial picture in America in the Thirties.


Watching the beautifully restored print on TCM, I had to remind myself that this was the early 1930's; it has a certain contemporary feel, which belies the fact the film was made 70 years ago. What seems "blatantly racist" in 2004 was really quite realistic in 1934, not to mention that the novel was written some years before that. An audience needs to accept the storyline as is, and marvel in the excellent production of the picture and the marvelous performances. I found it to be historical rather than dated...although that last line is, inarguably, ridiculous.

Watch it, enjoy it...that sure don't make 'em like THAT any more!


This great film also deserves a Musical Review if that's all right with Tom Jones....

Early one morning, Miss Bea labors bathing her daughter / Jessie the Baby must go off to day nursery / Bea was a widow / Peddling her syrup to purchase her daughter fine things.

There at the door of the kitchen knocks a poor mother / Willing to work menial task to provide room and board / For her young daughter / Light like her father who took off to run his own way.

Please, don't sigh, Delilah / Fry, fry, fry, Delilah / She would watch Jessie all day / Content to do much with slight pay / And cook up some pancakes to send Bea along on her way.

Five years soon pass, and the bills are paid up at the restaurant / Rain on the boardwalk keeps customers staying away / Enter poor Elmer / For two stacks of pancakes, he'll gladly soon make it all pay.

Meanwhile, Peola is passing for White in the third grade / Storm's coming down, and she'll soak without boots and her coat / Here comes Delilah / Claiming Peola, and giving her cover away.

Cry, cry, cry, Peola / Why, why, why, Peola? / Your mother is not to blame / For there really is nothing to shame / She is your mother, but you hate her deeply the same.

Ten more years pass, and Miss Bea throws an orchestra party / Money pours in, and they really receive their just fee / In walks Steven Archer / A promising suitor fantastically smitten with Bea.

Peola is missing from school somewhere down in Virginia / Bea then tells Steven she must soon assist in the search / But there is Jessie / Who complicates matters and leaves Steven deep in the lurch.

My, my, my, the turmoil! / Why, why, why, the turmoil? / Heartbreak, frustration and strife / Yield a true "Imitiation of Life" / Forgive them, Delilah; they just couldn't take anymore. / Forgive them, Miss Beatrice; they just couldn't take anymore.


117: Imitation of Life (1934) - released 11/26/1934, viewed 9/9/08.

Cole Porter's 'Anything Goes' premieres in New York City.

KEVIN: This surprising eleventh-hour addition to the list left me wondering what could possibly compel us to skip it in the first place. Claudette Colbert (playing Beatrice, in her third film this year) teams with Louise Beavers (as Delilah) in an absorbing drama about two very different single moms, their daughters, their successful pancake business, and a lifetime of friendship. At the center of the movie is the relationship between Delilah and her light-skinned daughter Peola (played by Fredi Washington as an adult, in pretty much the role she was born to play). The drama of this story is so powerful, that all the other subplots take a back seat, including the plot of Bea and her daughter Jessie (Rochelle Hudson) falling for the same man. This is the one film that dives in head first with the hard questions for which there are no easy answers. I would like to have seen more scenes between Jessie and Peola interacting as grown women. My only problem with Fredi Washington's performance was that it was hard for me to buy that she was 19 years old. Other than that, her performance is so gut-twistingly poignant that it was sometimes hard to watch.

DOUG: A chance meeting between two single moms leads to a lifelong friendship in Imitation of Life, a movie that was a rather late addition to the Odyssey, but one I'm very glad we looked at. Not since Little Women have I seen a melodrama where everyone is so nice to each other. We've already seen Claudette Colbert in a wide variety of roles in a short amount of time: conniving Roman queen, scheming Egyptian queen, spoiled runaway heiress, and so forth. Here we get to see another side of her: loving, working mom. Louise Beavers as Delilah paves the way for African Americans in the cinema. The movie deals with a lot of dodgy territory for the mid-30's, and putting a black woman in a front-and-center supporting role is just the start of it. Delilah's daughter Peola (Fredi Washington as a teenager) is a mulatto, and deals with alienation at trying to relate to her black mother but preferring to pass as white. Contract Player Alert: Warren William joins Claudette on screen again after playing Caesar in DeMille's Cleopatra. Another welcome contract player is Ned Sparks (42nd Street and Gold Diggers of 1933), who plays a passing business man who helps put Bea on the right track. **SPOILER ALERT**Other dramas develop as Bea's daughter Jessie falls for Steve who is after Bea. After sizing up her daughter's interest in Steve, she begs him to keep his distance (she must have seen Mildred Pierce already). I will say this though: I've heard that most guys, when they grow up, fall for women similar to their mothers. If the reverse is true for girls, then Jessie falling for Steve kind of indicates that he's the right guy for Bea. **END SPOILER** Great performances and good drama attached to the script based on Fannie Hurst's novel lead to a high recommendation for this one.

Last film: It's a Gift (1934). Next film: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934).


Fannie Hurst's tear jerking 1933 novel about the sacrifices mothers make for their daughters spawned two popular movies separated by a quarter century of glacially-changing social attitudes - a highly regarded 1934 version that remains faithful to the book's narrative and an elaborate 1959 remake which changes certain plot details to service German-born filmmaker Douglas Sirk's heavily Baroque style of film-making. Both films maintain the same basic time-spanning storyline of two widows - one is a white woman who finds professional success but at a price that causes an unintended estrangement from her daughter, while the other is a black woman whose light-skinned daughter causes nothing but grief for all concerned.

Directed by John M. Stahl, the black-and-white 1934 version focuses on Beatrice Pullman, a downtrodden white woman who bonds with Delilah Johnson, a cheery black woman, and opens up a waffle shop to support their daughters Jessie and Peola respectively. Their business becomes such a success that it gets franchised into a chain of coffee shops that market Delilah's waffle recipe and then turns into a major business venture producing the waffle mix en masse. Meantime, Delilah stays devoted to Beatrice as her maid (despite earning twenty percent of the company's profits), and together they raise their daughters. Beatrice eventually finds love with Stephen Archer, an ichthyologist for whom Jessie develops a crush. Far more seriously, Peola runs away to escape her black identity and puts Delilah into an emotional tailspin.

In the same year she made "It Happened One Night" and DeMille's "Cleopatra", Claudette Colbert shows her trademark natural élan which allows her to be the emotional gravitational force her character Beatrice requires her to be. Louise Beavers, who made a career of playing sunny-faced maids, gets her one shot at a first-class role and plays Delilah with great poignancy despite the inherent racism behind the conception of the role. The rest of the cast is adequate, though the real standout is Fredi Washington, a seminal black actress who portrays Peola with searing resentment and deepening regret.


I really like this movie, but it sure brings me close to tears since the movie sucks you in as well as it being so heart-wrenching. Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers star as single parents struggling to raise their daughters. Beavers is an excellent cook and Colbert has the great idea of opening a restaurant--so with Beavers' cooking and Colbert's energy and know-how, they become quite successful. Years pass, and you see how their rising fortunes have changed their lives as well as the daughters. Colbert's is pretty decent, but Beavers' daughter is ashamed of her black mom--especially since this daughter is so light-skinned that she can, and does, pass for white. Beavers eventually discovers this AND is shunned by the daughter--pretending in front of her friends that her mother is the hired help! And, the shock is overwhelming and brings the movie to its conclusion.

Both leads do an excellent job. The movie also must be applauded for being an early forum concerning race relations. It might seem a little bit tame today, but in its day it was a powerful film and took some big risks. Plus, for once, Ms. Beavers did not play a maid but was able to show she could be a darn good actress. A nice job by all.


A radiant Claudette Colbert stars in this first version of "Imitation of Life" along with Louise Beavers. The movie seems more earthbound and realistic than its more well-known, glamorous Ross Hunter remake. The stories differ as well. In this version, Colbert is not an aspiring actress, but a saleswoman who enters into business with Beavers, who, though it's her pancake recipe, for some reason is entitled to only 20% of the profits. As a black friend of mine described this story, "Claudette Colbert steals Louise Beavers' pancake recipe but allows her to live in her home." Not actually true as the Beavers character refuses to take any money or establish herself in her own home, and Colbert must bank the money for her. Sadly, this seems to be because the Beavers character has accepted her downtrodden role in life.

Some of the dialogue by today's standards is truly shocking and, let's face it, politically incorrect as well as downright insulting to Afro-Americans. For this reason, it is an interesting look at life for blacks in those days and makes a disturbing statement. However, the affection the women have for each other, the confidence-swapping friendship, the fact that they do go into business together, and their daughters' friendship speak of things that transcend race and make a wonderful, contrasting statement.

There are excellent performances by Ned Sparks and Warren William. William is another interesting artifact of the time, the mustached, elegant leading man in the tradition of John Gilbert that went out of style eventually.

In real life, the beautiful black actress, Fredi Washington, who played Peola, refused to "pass" and lost out on a huge career, as she was told by producers that, if she passed for white, her star would shine as bright as the biggest stars of the day. Because she did not play white characters, Fredi Washington had to darken her skin with makeup in films so that she could play blacks. Hallie Berry can thank Washington for her career along with Dorothy Dandridge.


Claudette Colbert plays a widowed mother trying to run her husbands business after his death. She takes in a black woman (Louise Beavers) and her fair-skinned daughter to help. She loves Beavers' pancakes and gets her to start a successful business with her. The movie skips ahead years later when Beavers' daughter (Fredi Washington) is trying to pass herself off as white...and things go out of control.

This is important as one of the first movies to deal honestly with racism and the self-hatred of fair-skinned black people. It is well done and Colbert and Beavers are excellent...BUT this is very dated. Colbert convinces Beavers to sell over her pancake recipe and has her doing all the cooking for the shop! Later, when Beavers is getting rich, she refuses to get her own house and insists on staying with Colbert--living in the basement no less! And Beavers is ridiculously nice, sweet and kind ALWAYS (credit Beavers to pulling it off). Also it hits you over the head with sentimentality. Nothing wrong with sentimental movies but really--this one over does it! Some scenes with Washington were so overdone I thought they were kidding.

So this is historically important but just too dated and slow to really be enjoyable. The Lana Turner remake is much better.


this movie is pretty cool, i was just flippin through channels, and it caught my eye on the Turner Movie Classics. and the actors were really good. Rochelle Hudson was good, she's so pretty. and Claudette Colbert is so pretty too, her eyes are gorgeous!


For its time, this was a difficult topic to address in film, and though it was a touchy subject, I am sure many will disagree with my review of the film as an entire piece of work instead of focusing only on the subject matter. If you wish to know what a filmmaker thinks about the film as a whole as opposed to the significance of the subject, then please read on.

What was Universal thinking when they wasted their time and budget on this waste of film? Struggling from money problems from flops and upcoming big budget films, they should have reconsidered this one. It was obvious the studio had other things on its mind and possibly only wanted to cash in on Colbert's name and stardom. Be advised. Watch it only if you don't care at all about quality film-making.

ACTING: Poor Claudette Colbert, nominated for Oscars in 3 Best Picture selections in one year, was the only person who could act in the entire film and had to overact to pull the film along for all the other under-actors. Ned, portraying Elmer with a gruff stodgy almost constipated voice, was supposed to be comedic and for the first 3 lines it was a cute gimmick, but he continued on with monotone recitation without any screen presence or semblance of acting. If he was a minor character, it wouldn't have been as grating but he had a great many painful scenes to endure. Louise as Delilah, though she had a difficult and groundbreaking role to play in Hollywood history, when compared to one that may be as difficult if not more so as Hattie McDaniel in GWTW, she pales shamefully in comparison and her abilities as an actor (if any) simply don't come across. Though Juanita as Baby Jessie has a few cute moments at the start of the film, I won't go further into the child actors save one grievance: unprepared wooden pathetic attempts to act and having to look off camera for their lines and those looks retained in the final cut out says enough. The children as adults, Rochelle as Jessie and Fredi as Peola, were melodramatic at best, with Fredi's "talents" being geared more for silent films and Rochelle's simply tolerable. Warren, as Steve, tried, he did try, I will give him that, but he was unappealing and bland at best.

SCRIPT: Scenes are entirely too long with moments that drag on and on and on and on. This is one of the wordiest films I have ever seen. Not only do they drag the viewer through the initial festering dialog, they feel the need to recap nearly every "plot point" several times immediately after. The dialog was unnatural. The lines were difficult at best and almost unplayable as the actors (I'll give them credit for now) demonstrated with efficiency. Slow, useless, unnecessary and unnatural dialog only serves to slow the film down and make it seem to drag.

EDITING: Did they use every single frame of film shot in this movie? Was it edited or simply pieced together? This film would be a whole lot better if 20 minutes of useless and poorly acted footage was removed. I am not an ADD viewer, as I love a scene that plays out for 4+ minutes with minimal cutting, but this film seriously needs editing. Edit out the kids looking off-screen for their lines. Edit out the unnecessary walking. Edit out the unnecessary conversation irrelevant to the film.

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Boring, unexciting, visual death. It is the job of the DP/Cinematographer to make the scenes visually interesting while capturing what the Director wants from the actors. Framing could have been considerably better. Lighting was par for a B/W film, but nothing beyond ordinary.

DIRECTION: With the bulk of his director's credits being B movies and shorts about chimpanzees in "chimp comedies" (monkeys chewing gum w/ actors' voices dubbed over), I can see why the human actors probably didn't get much direction. Poor acting is often as much the fault of the director as the actor, because it is the skilled director's job to "pull" the performance from the actor no matter what it takes.

Oscar NOMINATION: The only reasons I can think of for this movie being nominated for Best Picture in 1935, (before there was a limit placed on number of nominations) are (1) the groundbreaking nature of the subject matter vs the times, (2) this was a vehicle for the popular Claudette and (3) that it was based on a highly regarded book at the time. It didn't win anything, which indeed speaks for itself.


The shame in Delilah's portrayal in this movie is not so much in her being a good person as in her being a non-person! She might as well be Lassie or Rin Tin Tin for all the individuality and power to act independtly she has. She is simpleminded, seems to be able to function only in a relationship of dependency, as is illustrated when she turns down Miss Bea's offer of a 20% stake in a multi- million dollar business that was based on her pancake recipe because she wants to stay a housekeeper. A moment earlier on in the movie is particularly offensive when she is asked to hold a goggle eyed, smiling "darkie" pose to model the sign for the pancake business. While the moment was clearly for comic effect, her staying obliviously frozen in the pose long past what was needed is to me emblematic of the frozen stereotype that her character was, and it is not fair to say that her character was simply all the "Mammie" could be. Just look at the work of Hattie McDaniel or Ethel Waters to see that despite its limited range, the Mammie could be something other than a simpleminded "faithful soul." On an up note, despite all of this Louise Beavers does a good job in this very limited role, and I've always been a fan of Claudette Colbert. In addition, I know Fannie Hurst was genuinely trying to be sympathetic in her novel upon which this film was based, so I can see someone enjoying this, but please don't miss the reductive stereotyping.


You can find my review for the 1959 version by clicking on my name.

I am not a fan of the Douglas Sirk remake of Imitation of Life (1959). It was the third film from that director I saw, and I felt that he was trying to play it straight, make a prestige picture, denying the insanity of classics such as Written on the Wind. Seeing the 1934 version of this film, I only find my opinion of the 1959 version reinforced. Sirk barely changed anything. He doesn't crank it up a notch. He changes the main white character's profession (Claudette Colbert, 1934, and Lana Turner, 1959). In the older version, she (with the help of her black maid (Louise Beavers, 1934, Juanita Moore, 1959)), establishes a pancake restaurant. One day, a customer (character actor Ned Sparks) suggests that they start selling the pancake mix in boxes, which will (and does) make them rich. In the 1959 version, Lana Turner, as I remember, is an actress of some sort. I suppose I prefer the pancake story better, because I get sick of seeing pretty women become successful actresses in movies. Weighing the two films against each other, they do come out pretty even. For example, the conflict of the young, light-skinned black girl (played by Fredi Washington in 1934, Susan Kohner in 1959) is much more fleshed out in the later version, and it just works better. Kohner is a better actress than Washington, as well. The main white character's daughter (Rochelle Hudson in 1934, Sandra Dee in 1959) works better in the earlier version, as Hudson is a better actress than Dee. Louise Beavers and Juanita Moore come out as a dead heat. They're equal. Too bad neither of them are that good. I suppose the original novel must be to blame for this; the black maid character is very poorly developed in both films (so I assume it was the same in the novel), and, in the end, they both lack focus. I suppose it comes down to the last race, Lana Turner and Claudette Colbert. Well, now here, in the films' main characters, we find a clear winner. Personally, I just don't like Lana Turner. I thought she was poor in Imitation of Life (it's the only film I've seen with her, and it makes me want to avoid others). On the other hand, Claudette Colbert doesn't have a great track record with me. However, I really thought she was great in Imitation of Life. She's utterly charming, clever, and gorgeous. Blondes are overrated anyhow. I much prefer Ms. Colbert's doe eyes. 1934 was really Colbert's year, with this, Cleopatra, and her Oscar-winning role in It Happened One Night (which I'll watch in the next couple of days, incidentally). So 1934 Imitation of Life ends up winning by a nose. Neither film is great, mind you, but both are worthwhile. 7/10.


This film is historically significant, but come one, you guys. It's an embarrassingly racist drama that pretends to be racially progressive. Louise Beavers' character, Delilah, is one of the dumbest and most marginalized movie characters ever. Audiences in 1934 hailed this role as a breakthrough for black actresses, but a modern audience should see right through it. The really terrible thing about this movie is that it pretends to be solving the world's race problems, but it actually is making them much worse. (spoiler) Bea basically steals Delilah's pancake recipe, uses her image to sell pancakes, and makes a load of moolah, while Delilah, like a good slave, doesn't mind and turns down a cut when offered. A few scenes and shots are interesting, but unless you're a writing a dissertation on films of the early 30s (or you enjoy getting angry), don't bother.


Fannie Hurst's novel came to the screen in 1934.

I have to say that while the picture was good, the 1959 remake with Lana Turner was far better. That one really drained you with the emotional stops pulled out by Turner, Susan Kohner and Juanita Moore. With the exception of Louise Beavers, that emotional drain is missing.

Warren William who played Colbert's love interest was as stiff as a board. He was very similar to John Barrymore in appearance but that's about it. Colbert did not show what I call a sharp range in this film as did Fredi Washington, as the daughter who was ashamed of being black.

The story line was better here in that it allowed for both women to go from poverty to wealth.

The film literally dealt with two women who made a success for themselves financially but were unable to cope with motherhood. It's really a shame that Hurst had Colbert taking advantage of the Beavers character by offering her only a 20% share of the business.

I never believed that the daughter was ashamed of being black, rather, she was angry at the fact that black people did not have the same opportunities as whites.

The scene in the classroom and that funeral will forever tug at your heart.


I found this version of the movie inane. Even though the whole tragic mulatto concept is quite ridiculous, I find the 1959 version a much easier one to take. Whenever there has been a movie about a black person "passing" for white to enjoy a better life, the character is punished for being duplicitous. How primitive.


I'm sure when this film was made in 1934, it was considered a breakthrough and sympathetic. But viewing it through my 21st century perspective, sympathetic to whom. The story of an African American, women (colored then), devoted to a single parented, white women that had taken her in and her "white" looking "black" daughter (if you add two drops of chocolate syrup to a glass of milk, is it chocolate milk? Ah, the myth of white purity). Delilah Johnson (Louis Beavers) is devoted to the white women so much to the point of infantine behavior. With every phrase of this film I hear racism and condescension. The preposition is Claudette Colbert is doing Louis Beavers a favor by giving the homeless single mother a place to stay. For this Beavers's character (and characters Beavers's depicts throughout her acting career) subjugates her humanity. Beavers's character fauns over Colbert's character to the point of, "enough already"! Delilah gives Beatrice Pullman (Colbert) her family's, passed-down-for-generations secret pancake recipe after just telling her she would take it to her grave. The nexus for the series of events to follow is the delicious pancake recipe held by Delilah Johnson and her descendants. Beatrice Pullman is portrayed as the financial wizard in taking the idea to commercial success (something a black women was incapable of doing, see Madam C.J. Walker). A fortune is made on Delilah's recipe and when Delilah is asked to sign for 20% of the proceeds that her recipe created she states that money is not important to her, but, she would like enough money set aside so she can have a grand funeral, "I loves me a good funeral." Peola, Delilah's "high yalla" daughter is in constant torment, because Jessie, Beatrice's daughter of the same age as Peola makes her aware that she has a percentage of black "blood." Peola is portrayed to have a high level of intellect which will aide her to deal with her curse of having partial black blood coursing though her veins. As a young woman, Peola is sent to a "high tone" (Negro) college "down south, no doubt to be surrounded by other not-quite white tormented souls to be trained to pass in American's Negro class. I can go on about the insulting, racist precepts this movie is all about. I guess at the time this movie was made, this was Hollywood's attempt to offer an explanation about something about racial tolerance in America. To the films credit, an Asia man appears in the pancake restaurant in a non-stereotypical character, in the briefest of speaking roles. Very radical for sure in 1934 (of course this was pre WWII)! Was it to say that if you are a black person that appears "white" looking, you should hate your African genetics and accept your burden? Or if you are a white person, that you are vindicate from the physical, social, cultural, economic and human brutality that has been heaped on people of African decent by white supremacy as long as you rescue the "Negros" from their ignorance? I guess the ultimate message of this movie was to not deny who you are. Typical of white America to preach to people of African decent!


Imitation of Life was one of the worst films I have ever seen. I didn't particularly care for the plot, and it is ironic how the film tries to show that women can be independent (a big theme for the 1930's) but at the same time it portrays white women much more superior to black women. The Aunt Jemiama stereotype that is put onto Delialah proves my point. Audiences in the 1930's might have appreciated this work because of the rights of women suffrage but it totally dismisses the black struggle. Needless to say, this film fits into 1930's American Society. I have yet to see the 1960's remake (or 1950's?) but I would definitely check the remake out for changes in plot and theme because of social change (the predominance of the civil rights movement.) -Joe.


Erotic titling and opening scene of a prostrate naked woman sets the mood of an oft-told theme. "Do you love me?" asks the woman of her lover. And when he returns to his household and family "Do you love me?" asks his wife. The possibility of his furtive little game being found out adds to his sexual excitement. And this is an absorbing and titillating situation for the viewer as well. So we wait and see....

The lovers secretly meet in an upper room in a hotel...the so-called blue room...usually on a Thursday when the coast is clear. But quite a few of the locals have figured out what is going on. Disregarding advice from his friends,Tono recklessly continues his love-making. It is pretty obvious he is playing a dangerous game and will get caught sooner or later.

When the husband of his lover unexpectedly dies and later his own wife, Tono becomes prime suspect and is arrested on two counts. The film at this point becomes more interesting as the tension mounts.

I don't understand the judicial system in Mexico but it looks pretty casual judged by this film. The investigating policeman demands the truth from the accused who continues to insist he is innocent of both crimes.

The local baker is an expert bread maker but a woman full of hate and constantly pointing an accusing finger at Tono the wayward husband. Her sinister character is somewhat over-played I thought.

The story is told in flashback behind prison bars as the police investigator probes for the truth. Important events in the story are then played out by the characters.

There is a sudden twist in the story right at the end of the film that is bound to surprise. What follows is left to the imagination.

Definitely worth watching.


I always watch a Mexican movie with some of condescendent attitude, lowering my expectations so I cannot be too tough in my final judgment. I had no idea what the plot was and the very tag line plus today's Mexican show business hype promised something like an "evolved-but-limited" achievement.

But this movie impressed me *a lot*. I, as a Mexican person, love intensively those movies in which characters are developed in such way I catch myself thinking something like "yeah, that folk is like my old pal Miguel", or "those places definitely remind me childhood", and not that kind of plots with funny acting clichés that are intended to muck American movies.

Erotism has been a prime element in Mexican movies for so many years... but now we can thank G-d the days of cabaret, double-sense talk, erroneous poverty portrayals and sex with no obstacles are past.

In this movie, sexual intercourse is not of a climatic taste, but the seed of inevitable events whose consequences are rather bizarre.

I would spoil it if I said more. See it, enjoy it.


La habitacion Azul is an everyday story, it shows us nothing different from real life events. The rhythm is incredibly monotonous and totally predictable. The cast is OK but I think mexican productions are in great need of new talent, the same actor appear in several movies and all of a sudden you don't know you're watching a different one. I like to go to the movie theater to see something different, out of the ordinary, stories that challenge the imaginations, that go further than what we live.


If you ever had the chance to watch more than one episode from a mexican soapbox opera, then you've seen this movie already. This "film" caused such a bliss here in México just because the female lead role, Patricia Llaca, appears full naked at the beginning; you wanna know what's the worst thing about it? that the nakedness doesn't play any key role on the developing of the plot beyond letting us know that two people are having a sexually driven affair. The same dialogue could have been chat in a café, playing tennis or just smoking, and everything would have been the same. And both parts are married by the way, and I'm not quite sure if that's why the producers said that the film was on the brink from being censured (?), or was it because the movie poster has a photo that shows Llaca's butt cheeks? I mean, come on! I really hope that any foreign people who get to read this doesn't get the wrong impression of mexican culture, thinking about us as retrogressive people 'cause we're not. Well, maybe just a little fraction of our society. But let's move on to the film.

First of all, I wanna let know that there's some very good mexican movies out there that I love, so it's not that I dislike in prejudice everything done in here, but, really, watching La habitación azul was a big mistake. Most part of the actors are from the soapbox opera mafia that controls our TV media -which means they can hardly act-, so I should've been warned by that; but then, there´s also in La habitación... a couple of good actors -like Damián Alcázar- that I enjoy watching at work. But then again, it seems that mediocrity -starting from the director´s own- surpassed by much the talent of the few brilliant involved, so the result is a boring movie that even some people have the nerve to call "a thriller". Is La habitación azul a thriller? then where was the thrill? or did I get lost? when? Suspense has the book The blue room by George Simenon, in which the movie is based upon, but this film a thriller? I don´t think so. It's nothing but a bunch of fake drama and zero suspense, no twists, no key parts demanding our brain to work, and no thrills at all!!!!! By half the movie we had lost any interest we may have had about the characters and their so in risk future. Of course there are some minor intrigues, absurd killings, and shallow secrets, but that doesn't create suspense by themselves, these are just TOOLS waiting for someone that can handle them in a wise manner, and based on the facts, Doehner couldn't. La habitación azul is nothing more than the usual stuff we get to see via those brainless, dramaless and hollow episodes of each soapbox opera that our TV networks puts on the air.


This is an animated version of Tolkien's Return of the King and parts of the Hobbit. It is not overly accurate nor thorough, but it is still quite memorable and enjoyable.

The movie starts with Bilbo's 129th birthday celebration. The guest list includes Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Elrond and Gandolf. The Minstrel of Gondor comes out and proceeds to sing. From there we are treated to flashbacks. First a flashback of events from the Hobbit, followed by events from Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers. The story picks up during Sam's rescue of Frodo from the tower. We are treated to the Battle of Gondor, Frodo & Sam's trip to Mount Doom (through the lands of Mordor) and the Battle at the Black Gate.

This movie is mostly a patchwork of elements from the novel. There are some good voice talents being used. First and foremost is John Huston as Gandalf (and the narrator). One can also recognize Roddy McDowall as the voice of Samwise Gamgee. The voice of Gollum is also memorably done by Brother Theodore. These three characterizations (and voices) along with the music is what makes this movie truly memorable. The music is just so wonderful. I fondly remember my childhood watching this movie, in syndication on television during the mid to late 80's, and being simply captivated. It is quite evident that the target audience for this movie is children. While this movie is not perfect, it definitely opened the door for me to read the books and learn more. I highly recommend this movie to everyone.

-Celluloid Rehab


It was the first time that Rankin/Bass had dared to take on a two-hour special. But, having plunged into Tolkien's Middle-earth once before, it was a challenge they could pull off with the expertise R/B fans had always expected of them. Hence, The Return of the King: A Story of the Hobbits, to give the film its full title.

One wonders, I'm sure, what inspired Romeo Muller to change Bilbo's age from "eleventy-one," as Tolkien wrote the number, to one hundred and twenty-nine. Still, it was a thrill having most of "The Hobbit"'s vocal contributors back: Orson Bean, John Huston, Theodore, Paul Frees, Don Messick, Glenn Yarbrough --- and adding Casey Kasem, Theodore Bikel and Sonny Melendrez to the mix, too --- to take us on the journey that Ralph Bakshi should have finished, but didn't.

Many are the tales told about how Bakshi was only given enough financing to see us through most of The Fellowship of the Ring and approximately the first half of The Two Towers. When it became apparent, though, that the second Bakshi Ring movie would never come to pass, that made it possible for the folks at Rankin/Bass to seize a golden opportunity. And this they did, as we know by now, with a vengeance. Playing the story straight, as they did with "The Hobbit," the R/B team set out to take all the best elements from Return of the King and begin the film in flashback, with Bilbo's 129th birthday party, as he, Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf and Elrond look back at the good times and excellent adventures that culminated in the end of the Third Age of Middle-earth ..... and with it, in Gandalf's words, "the beginning of the New Age of Man."

Again, as I did with Peter Jackson's version, I will dispense with a plot synopsis, assuming that you are already familiar with the legend without having to hear me tell it to you. Among the several strange moments that one does not notice about Rankin/Bass' Return of the King occurs during the sequence in which Gollum battles Frodo for control of the One Ring of Power. In a move considered unprecedented at the time of its original showing, Rankin/Bass decided to depict this climactic showdown graphically. The closeup of Frodo's just bitten hand shaking as though it were an earthquake monitor was, for its time, the most horrifying scene R/B's animators had ever attempted. To this day, one shudders in surprise that this scene was even cleared by ABC's censors!

In place of Tolkien's original songs, Maury Laws and Jules Bass save the day again (assisted partially by Bernard Hoffer, who would later write the score cues and theme songs for R/B's classic 80s series, Thundercats, Silverhawks and The Comic Strip). "It's So Easy Not to Try," "Small Things," "Retreat!", "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way" and "The Ballad of Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom" are all singable, they help the story along (indeed, in the case of "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way," it has the proverbial great beat you can dance to --- or, one presumes, torture your enemies with!) .... and they're songs you can believe in!

But no one sequence in the film is as deeply powerful visually as Aragorn's Coronation Procession, set to the film's title song. Here's something you didn't know: For one short panning scene, the animators went to Jerusalem, where they shot live-action footage of people cheering. The footage was then studied and brilliantly rotoscoped, so that it actually looks like there are citizens of Minas Tirith cheering on the coming of their King!

Once again, we see that the Rankin/Bass team were second to none in their constant efforts to share with their audiences adventures unlike anything they had previously experienced. And because they were the only production entity that had pioneered the "dramatic animated television special," they could take this type of story and put it into the context that was its rightful due.

This, then, was the power behind The Return of the King --- a simple, straightforward saga that would not bow to the attitudes of so-called sensationalism, but would nevertheless be the only Tolkien adventure that one could truly believe in.

And then, as the world knows by now, came a man named Peter Jackson. But that, again as they say, is another story.........


This is another good animation. Unlike what Bakshi tried to do which was try and make a blockbuster out of a cartoon LOTR, Rankin and Bass just tried and make a nice cartoon that kids can enjoy, and it wound up being excellent.

If you read my review on the Hobbit, then you know that the artistry lacks a little. Though, Aragorn looked pretty decent. My only real complaint here is that (spoiler here) Frodo puts on the Ring halfway through the story, when Theoden dies. Although, I suppose it would have been difficult to have it on the correct timeframe since they kind of skipped some stuff that happened in line with the other characters. Also, there is a noteable lack of Gimli and Legolas in here. But then, we might not have wanted to see Legolas since in the Hobbit, they portrayed Elves with blue skin, very long ears and pointy fingers. But on a high note, they did show the reason why Denethor went mad, and that was something PJ hasn't done.

In a nutshell, very nicely done, kids'll like it and so will their parents. Like I said with the Hobbit. if you see it on the shelf in a store pick it up. You might be surprised.


Ahead of the upcoming release of what will hopefully be the definitive film version of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Warner Bros has released the original 3 Tolkien films: The Hobbit, The Lord Of The Rings, and The Return Of The King.
The Hobbit was simple but quite good; The LOTR (made by an entirely different set of film-makers) seriously flawed but ambitious; but this, the little-seen finale, is simply atrocious. Intended to wrap up the story-lines of the incomplete Ralph Bakshi version of The LOTR, it fails because for some unfathomable reason it omits a HUGE chunk of the storyline following the point where Bakshi's film quit. i.e. The LOTR film finished about halfway through the trilogy, but this starts at about the three-quarters mark of the story! Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever most of the time. Those who've read the books will know what's going on, but those who haven't -- even those who've seen the first 2 movies -- won't have a clue!!
As if the incomprehensible jumping-on point wasn't bad enough, we're also subjected to some truly horrendous songs, bad dialogue, poor pacing, very basic animation, etc. Truly a waste of time -- don't let that time be YOURS!! The other 2 films are worth a look (as average as they are), but this will only frustrate and depress you. I'd rather have lunch with Sauron than sit through this again!!!


First of all, let me say I'm a big fan of the other Rankin/Bass Tolkien film, "The Hobbit." Not that "Hobbit" is ideal in a lot of ways either -- the story is truncated (although not much changed), the music is quite cute and dated (my girlfriend always says it's like James Taylor's stunted half-brother). But at least it has a complete story to tell, and even the annoying music at least preserves more of Tolkien's poetry than the more ambitious Peter Jackson films of "LotR" managed to. I can't really get behind this "Return of the King" though.

Maybe it would have been different if Ralph Bakshi hadn't won the contract to do "LotR", a job that he was clearly not equipped to accomplish. I can understand why the people who controlled "Lord of the Rings" used Bakshi instead of Rankin/Bass. Rankin/Bass are very decidedly kiddie-oriented, even if "Hobbit" is more mature than their holiday specials. That treatment was appropriate for "The Hobbit" which is more of a children's tale although of course it's pleasing to people of all ages. However "Lord of the Rings" is a darker tale and deserved a more adult treatment. Bakshi's "Wizards" is very impressive, melding documentary footage of nazi war machines with fantasy animation of faeries and goblins. He was given the job of doing "Lord of the Rings" basically on the strength of that film.

With all of this in mind though, in retrospect it still might have been better if Rankin/Bass had done the whole thing. Bakshi ran out of money in the middle of making his movie, defeated by the demands of rotoscoping technology that had to be invented just to be used for the film. His version was perhaps too ambitious, and when the money ran out they had to cut short the process and the resulting film is not what Bakshi planned nor what fans wanted. It also failed to include this final chapter of the story -- Bakshi had hoped that if his first film made enough money there would be impetus to finish it. So Rankin/Bass was given the sloppy seconds, and they produced a sloppy film that probably doesn't really represent the scope of what they had hoped to do with "Lord of the Rings" themselves in the first place.

Where Bakshi's attempt was sprawling and relatively faithful, this R/B version of the final chapter paints in very broad strokes. Legolas and Gimli are never even on screen, and Aragorn appears less as a character than as a concept. Considering the length of the movie, such truncations are perhaps necessary. But it's very disheartening for example to hear Frodo yell "Out of my way, you scum!" to Gollum, all the depth and nuance of their relationship totally gone. This is not a case like with "Hobbit" where leaving out a particular story element like the Arkenstone or Beorn leaves the whole still intact -- with a lot of things missing, even the elements that remain only appear in a warped and inappropriate form.

Worthy of praise is much of the voice work on this film, with John Huston returning to anchor the film as Gandalf and narrator, Roddy McDowall lending nuance to Sam, and Theodore is priceless as Gollum even if the character is here robbed of the pathos that he deserves in the books and that he showed in the Rankin/Bass "Hobbit." But some of the voice talent is questionable... perhaps it's just a function of his fame, but it's jarring to hear Casey Kasem as Merry. I think they should have avoided people who had done a lot of voice work in the past and would be recognizable even to children.

Much of the actual animation is very poor compared to "Hobbit", with only the close-ups having the good quality Japanese style that elevates that film. Whenever characters are seen in a long shot in this film, they look like a children's coloring book. The ringwraiths look comical, like Scooby Doo villains, except for the Witch King who for whatever reason still resembles the scarier wraiths from the Bakshi version. A lot of elements that could have been very cool, like the Army of the Dead, are completely missing from this film and I have to assume it was because they would be too costly and difficult to animate.

We're left with a very inadequate film, although it's still good that they finished the trilogy. When I was very young, I had seen these films and could enjoy Tolkien's story through them even though I was too young to appreciate the books. This film in particular was very sought after in the 1980s, because unlike the other two it was not widely available on video. I remember my brother and I had a copy that we had taped off TV which was missing the beginning of the film, and that was the version we had to live with for years. For those who might have spent years searching for it, this version is certainly a disappointment. But it leaves me wondering mostly what the Rankin/Bass effort would have been like if they had been able to do the entire trilogy. Maybe they could have put more effort into some of the characterization and animation. And hopefully someday we will see the books adapted into a really excellent animated film.


I will ignore the obviously superior films by Peter Jackson when evaluating this low-budget cartoon.

So ... I think that the team behind this had a success with The Hobbit, even though the animation was horrible. Orcs do not look like toads, Elrond does not have a goatie and stars around his head, gollum does not look like a fish etc. (even if it got worse here when the skeletor-nazguls showed up) Still, The Hobbit (1977) worked in my mind (I gave it an 8 vote here), Glenn's songs were great there, the voices were very good, the story was a children's story, my 4-yr old girl loves it (I saw it for the first time just a month ago). So, The Hobbit was great.

How can this fail so miserably? Of course, the whole idea of omitting almost everything in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers does not work very well. Who is this Aragorn dude who is made king? We feel nothing for him. Galadriel? Whatever. Theoden? Some guy who falls from a horse and dies. He should have had a better horse. Eowyn? Some random girl who gets lucky.

Glenn's songs are also worse in this one, including only two numbers I really liked (Frodo of Nine Fingers and Where there's a whip). The folksongs seems much better suited to the children story in The Hobbit.

I gave this a 4 ... only because it is still Tolkien somewhere there in the background. It is still the battle of Pelennor fields (and they don't show it just like dots as they did in the battle of five armies). Perhaps I am being too kind to the film.

And whoever decided to make Sam a Christian? That was just plain weird.

Having said that, the film works best when it deviates from the original story, as with the singing orcs and the dream sequence with the waving orcs or when Sam conquers Mordor.

This film is only for the die-hard Tolkien fanatics who just have to see it. I don't think I will even show it to my daughter.


When Rankin and Bass unveiled their version of Tolkien's "The Hobbit" in 1977, it was a charming if abbreviated made-for-television animated film that was fun and even a bit scary. Their voice casting choices were fine, especially Richard Boone, whose cancer-rasped voice brought the dragon Smaug to life, and Theodore as the creepy and loathsome Gollum, who evoked fear and disgust but little pity. In 1978, Ralph Bakshi attempted to bring the first half of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy to the big screen in his lushly animated epic. Unfortunately, his big-budget film flopped, much to the disappointment of Tolkien's fans, and Bakshi would be unable to make his sequel. In an effort to finish off the unfinished series, Rankin and Bass tried to make their own version to satisfy the audience who wanted to see closure. It was and remains an unmitigated disaster.

Why is this cartoon so awful? Well, the answer lies mainly in the word "cartoon". Unlike The Hobbit, which featured beautifully painted scenery that evoked delicate watercolors and ethereal linework, which had so evidently been crafted with loving care and cast with thought to matching characters to actors, The Return of the King had all the earmarks of having been hastily cobbled together. It wasn't so much an animated homage to a great writer's work as a hatchet job. A huge chunk of the events in Tolkien's books were missing between where Bakshi's fairly faithful rendition ended and this abomination began. The drawings were slapped together and were often repetitious and ugly. Voice actors from the first film returned and some of them worked: Orson Bean was fine as Frodo, Theodore was again great as Gollum, Theodore Bikel did a fine job as Aragorn, and Roddy McDowall was wonderful as Samwise Gamgee. The rest were abysmal. Instead of hiring actors to do the characters, cartoon voice actors such as Don Messick (Scooby-Doo) and Casey Kasem (Shaggy) were cast. It was downright painful to hear a Nazgull being done by Scooby Doo through a distortion filter. Many characters integral to Tolkien's story were cast away: Where was Gimli? Faromir? Any of the elves (other than Elrond) such as Legolas or Glorfindel? How about the Army of the Dead or Sauroman? Merry and Pippin didn't develop as characters; Gollum remained merely vile, as if Bakshi's attempts to show this tortured being's strangely noble and pathetic side never happened. The dialog was stilted and sometimes unintentionally hilarious ("As the flag's standard broke the wind. . ."). It was awful beneath description from beginning to end, appearing to be a shameless attempt to cash in on the hopes of frustrated fans who'd wanted the second animated movie made.

That, of course, was the entire problem. This cartoon was, despite its trappings and claims, just a cartoon, less charming by far than The Hobbit and far less noble than Bakshi's film. Both of those were honest attempts at creating art, and each succeeded in its limited way until swept aside by Peter Jackson, who finally gave Tolkien's opus the treatment it deserved. The two earlier films merit a place of honor for trying to achieve cinematic beauty. Rankin and Bass's The Return of the King deserves to simply be forgotten.


For whatever reason, somebody decided to finish Ralph Bashki's "Lord of the Rings" movie. The movie itself was awful, not to mention incomplete. There was supposed to be a conclusion movie, which was never made. For good reason. The primary failure of this movie was that it (A) Assumed you hadn't seen the first movie and (B) Assumed you had. Confused? Go see the movie, then you'll really be confused. The movie retells the entire plot of the "Lord of the Rings" in the form of a very long and confusing song which fails to either fully bring you up to speed on the plot or entertain you very much. The characters are then thrown headlong into a poorly animated rendition of the last book of the story, through a blazing and mainly incomprehensible series of events which make no sense unless you've either read the actual book, or are psychic and can pull plot points out of the aether. Regardless, the movie fails in its attempt to complete the story, which isn't surprising considering the quality of the first movie. Read the book.


I bought this movie. I had never seen it, but I figured since it had the "Return of the King" name it would be decent. I was horribly mistaken. I have tried to watch this movie about 3 times. Every single time I have fallen asleep only to be woken up by terrible music. IF you must see this film, rent it. Do not buy it. Save yourself from the torment of actually owning this movie.

Why is it so bad?

1) Terrible music sung by a guy with a terrible voice.

2) Really doesn't follow what happened in the book (I know that sometimes movies cant follow a book exactly, but this movie doesn't even attempt to do so). 3) The music was terrible. 4) Very bad animation. Speed Racer has better animation.

5) Bad music. 6) Did I mention the horrendous dialogue? Sam has around 15 minutes straight of dialogue that makes almost no sense. 7) I really hope I mentioned the horrific music.

Those are only 7 of the many reasons I have for not liking this movie. It really is not deserving of having any name that deals with any of J.R.R. Tolkiens works. This movie is a scar for anything that deals with Lord of the Rings.


I got this film yesterday and I absolutely loved it. It is very different from the other films and even the book but great animation and music made up for it by far. I especially loved the scenes with Frodo and Sam in orc clothes walking with the other orcs in mordor and also the fantasy dream scene with the smiling orcs coming towards Frodo and Sam showing the middle earth that could have been.

Also I loved the main theme song "Frodo of the nine fingers" I just can't get it out of my head.

I found the opening quite well done despite the fact that it's not in the book or the other films. The fact that there is a lot of new things in this film is by no means a bad thing if you keep an open mind. So sit back, relax, shut up and enjoy the music!


I don't believe people are giving this movie the benefit of the doubt, because it seems simplistic compared to the Peter Jackson extravaganzas. What people also have to remember is that, unlike the Jackson renditions, this and 'The Hobbit' were made especially for children. The characters designs and the story itself have to be toned down so that children (or stoners) can follow the story without becoming too freaked out by orcs.

Roddy McDowall is pretty much the most hilarious sounding Samwise ever, and the character design fits him perfectly, and both elements create a character of great vulnerability. For a 'Rings' movie this short, we are still able to sympathize with Sam. This is not just because of the well-compressed storyline, but because the design for both Frodo and Sam is just so cute. They look like a cross between puppies and elves. And that's cute.

I recommend this to anyone with an open mind about an alternate version to the final chapter. It won't really ruin the story for you, it'll just show how this story was made into a film before the use of CGI and before movie studios started puking money at Jackson.


Oh man. This movie is so bad, it makes me laugh. Here's why...

Frodo and Sam seem to be the only characters who do ANYTHING in the film. The animation's so bad. Seriously, Gollum looks like a mutated frog. Hardly anyone else but Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Gollum and the creepy Minstrel has more than five lines. The orcs (who aren't even the least bit scary) sing the dopiest song in the film. Legolas and Gimli aren't even mentioned, let alone in it. And Faramir gets a ten second cameo, only 'cause he's Eowyn's boyfriend. You don't even see the two have a moment to know that. And if you've never read the book, or seen the new movies, you wouldn't even know who that guy was. It was just bad.

The only good parts? Eowyn gets to kick the Witch King's butt. Sam's little dream of Rosie is just cute. And the Eagles rock.

But seriously, if you want to see a good animated adaption of J.R.R. Tolkien's works, get Ralph Bashki's "Lord of the Rings". But if you want to see this wad of crap, it does make a good comedy.


This is horrible, even for a children's movie. The animation is much too cartoony for a story this dark, and the voice acting is so bad not even John Huston's Gandalf can save it. The Rankin/Bass Hobbit was a good children's movie, Ralph Bashki's animated Lord of the Rings was a hugely ambitious project that didn't quite work out, but this is just garbage. The songs are terrible, (unusual for a Rankin/Bass production) the plot makes no sense at all, and worst of all, the elves look as deformed and hideous as Gollum. There is absolutly no reason to see this, it's not a "so bad its good" movie like The Hobbit, it's just bad.


Now I'm really glad that New Line is coming out with this new trilogy because Return of the King was a farce. At least in LOTR I could laugh at the limping Nazgul, Aragorn in his mini skirt and Boromir the Viking. This movie did not have such niceties. It was one atrocious scene after another. I have to say than when I pictured Orcs, they did not dance and sing a song called, "where there's a whip there's a way". But the new musical sequences were only a minor problem.

This movie cut out a huge section from the middle of the book (namely Faramir, Shelob, and Gollum's treachery) which is actually REALLY important. I was also not a fan of the way they reversed Frodo and Sam's characters. Last time I checked Frodo was the doom sayer and Sam tried to be optimistic. They also skipped really quickly over important scenes and yet took ten minutes on the Samwise the Strong scene which, while important should not take up quite that much time, especially since they had to cut the book down so much to fit it into a movie. There are also several events that really didn't happen in the book that they put into the movie (but some of them would ruin the end so I won't say incase any pain seekers actually want to see it). I've heard of artistic license, but...

If I wanted to be really picky I could go on about how Gandalf sounded all wrong and how Bilbo looked like old Mother hubbard. But Mainly I need to say that Glen Yarbourgh is the WRONG person to write music for the LOTR. His folk music twang has no place within a hundred miles of this movie. People shouldn't even listen to it when they read the book.

Anywho, my advice to everyone is that if you want a good laugh check out the first one (LOTR) and if you seek torture then by all means, see the Return of the King.


The Hobbit gave a brief glimpse at what could be expected for this version of The Return of the King. What it really is, is one of the worst adaptations laid upon one's eyes. Absolutely dreadful.

The thing's that lost me were the asides made by some of the characters, especially the vision Sam has with and without the Ring -- he has a vision of playing with the Orcs in a merrier time than the current predicaments at hand... dear me, seriously?! Also, the time-line of this film is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Frodo's capturing is so rushed, that they had to reduce it to a few lines of dialogue voiced by Sam. The dialogue itself is cringe-worthy. For an example of complete over the top lines would be "Eowyn am I" or "You lost the very finger upon which it rode?!" As much as it is an interesting idea to use the events of the War of the Ring in flashback, its execution literally is execution. It's terrible the way they utilized the story into such a lackluster and unfaithful version of Tolkien's tale.

The acting is wretched. Credit which can go to the screenplay.

The music... makes one want to put a gun to their ear. It's completely sleep-inducing.

Overall, this is one terrible adaptation. Rivaling the equivalent of what the Sci-Fi Channel would've done had they adapted The Return of the King into an animated feature, Rankin Bass's version is one many people wish they could get out of their heads. This is one HUGE disappointment.


First of all, I'd like to express how much I love The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Tolkien was a genius. Peter Jackson did a great job on the films, I think. But Rankin-Bass, however, did not.

SPOILERS

The thing that bothered me a lot in this movie was the music. It was annoying, and ends up getting stuck in your head. Right now I'm trying to get rid of the one about Frodo's Nine Fingers. The animation is awful. There were also several elements of the story that bothered me, in animation, and in plot. For example, why did Elrond have a beard? Elves don't have beards. They are clean-shaven, always. Why did Merry and Pippin meet on the Pelenor DURING the battle? Where are Legolas and Gimli? What's with Denethor? The orcs looked much too top-heavy to be able to walk. The Nazgul were terrible. (They were on flying horses.) Denethor was bad, as well, as he just looked like a crazy old man with a back problem. He didn't look strong at all, as he was portrayed in the books and the recent film by Peter Jackson. Gollum looked as if he were pregnant, and sounded like a guy clearing his throat. And Sam's frequent exclamations of, "Oh, my God!" and "Lord, help me!" were not true to the books. (Although Tolkien was a Christian and so am I, the phrases should not have been in the movie.) And the battering ram, Grond? The thing looked as if strangely colored drool was coming out of its mouth rather than fire.

This was overall the worst adaptation of anything I have ever seen. It was, truly, painful to watch.

No, really, I was writhing in agony. Good thing the library rents out tapes for free.


In spite of what some of the other user comments state, this film, made for TV in 1980, has nothing to do with the never finished Lord of the Rings movie by Bahksi from 1978.

That is, nothing except that it tries to tell the rest of the story. Unfortunately Bahksi did exactly half of the story, so when the return of the king continues with the last, third part, some of the most important pieces of the story are missing.

Bahksi left most of the story intact but had such a bad result that he never finished the movie;

Peter Jackson had nicer pictures but he actually got an Oscar for torturing a great story into something much less;

The Rankin-Bass team managed to do both: they killed the story and it didn't even look good.

The voice-overs could have been good but they take far too much time and they are too pretentious. The 'cast' of cartoon characters? Sam looks like a potato, Bilbo like a granny, Elrond is a Christmas tree, the nazgûl are akin to skeletors, gollum is a toad. Only Aragorn looks like something decent. There are only two soldiers and only two orks, just cloned a lot until there is an army of the two of them.

And also there are some strange mistakes in the story logic, one example (NO SPOILER) that Frodo and Sam spend several days waiting for Aragorn to charge the Black Gate. And the songs... better not mentioned with one strange exception.

This movie will always come last with a great distance after all the other adaptations ever made of Tolkien's work.


yeah it's horrible but considering who made it and the time it was made, it was the funniest animated film that I ever saw(the frigging orcs singing!!hahahaha!,the dream sequence of the hobbits where the orcs waved at them!hahahaha!) and I don't even think that was it's main purpose. For the story I gave it a zero rating but from a comedic standpoint it gets 10 out of 10!


After I saw the animated version of Lord of the Rings by Ralph Bakshi, I was pretty upset. Now that I've seen the animated version of Return of the King, Bakshi's version seems like Oscar material compared to this drudgery.

I'm sure enough people have seen the new versions of Lord of the Rings to know that it's not impossible to make a good film adaptation of the books. However, it is mind-boggling to wonder how and why the people that made Return of the King couldn't come close to making it even remotely enjoyable. There is NO cohesion to the story, as the movie starts out with Frodo and company sitting around and talking about how glorious their victory was. WHAT victory? The movie just started! Then we see the hobbits running around Mordor without any understandable explanation to how they got there. Granted, I read the books and knew why, but you can't just leave the narration so open-ended like that.

I need to take this next paragraph to smash on the music alone. It is SO horrible. I wanted to smash myself for letting my ears be raped with such aural torture. The story has some made-up character called "the Minstrel of Gondor" sing most of the narration, and therefore we hear repeated lines such as "why does he have nine fingers??" on the soundtrack.

This is probably the most deplorable movie I've seen in a very long time. I would recommend it only to those who need to understand what a bad movie really is.

1-10 Scale Overall-2 Direction-2 Animation-3 Music-1 Story-4


What the heak do they think they are doing turning 'The Return of the King', a great book by J. R. R. Tolkien, into a giant nightmare of a musical. I myself am a giant 'Lord of the Rings' fan. The books are great and the hobbit was done moderately well. But The Lord of the Rings was done very well. Note that the 'The Hobbit' and 'The Return of the King' were done by the same animation company. The 'Lord of the Rings was done by an entirely different company.

I hated the opening sequence at rivendell then the flashback to the story which didn't even start when 'The Lord of the Rings' ended and that was why the movie was made so it could finish the story. If i hadn't read the books i would have been utterly confused.

The Ending was just awful. The conversations of the characters should of with out a doubt been omitted.


i enjoyed reading the books more than watching the same tired old animation by rankin bass...fine for kiddies but still below par animation...why they went back to this low grade animation after ralph bakshis fantastic animation in the lord of the rings beats me. and the voice-overs were done by the same people from the hobbit..i think they were way below the voice-overs in the lord of the rings movie .. the hobbit was neat in its time but the return of the king is an unfair adaptation of the remaining 11/2 books ...i heard they are making a live action version of the lord of the rings in 3 parts i hope they use generated effects for some of the characters because midgets arent the same as hobbits ...i look forward to seeing all 3 movies


This movie butchers The Return of the King, and doesn't stand well on its own. The transitions between Gondor and Mordor are sloppy. At one point, the scenes in Mordor get so far ahead of those in Gondor that they had to add narration at Mount Doom saying "Sam searched for Frodo for days..." when the subsequent events took place only seconds later.

The narration could have been far more effective. In this movie, there is a lot of narration, but it is usually pointless. They cut a lot of the book out, yet fill in few of the gaps with explanations.

And the songs..."where there's a whip, there's a way" has to be a low point in cinema.


I never thought I would be forced to rate anything this low, but my respect for the book compels me to just that. This is the worst crap I have ever seen. The makers should be crucified. J. R. R. Tolkien, rest his soul, would cry in the view of this utter destruction of his phenomenal work. I weep while I force my self to watch it to the end. Why it was made in the firs place one can only wonder. Characters personalities are warped, they are used in wrong context and even left out. The meaning and point is lost. What is left is a dish without texture and taste which should never have been. There is but one reason to watch this and that is to know how it was utterly destroyed.


Some of you may have read my review of 'The Hobbit' on IMDB. If not, I suggest you do, as I think it brings up some things that should be realized.

Like it's prequel, this movie has been plagued by bad reviews by mainly Tolkien-fans who believe that it oversimplifies the story, and that it takes things away until it has transformed their much-loved story of the beginning of the age of man into a kids-movie with no more value than being such.

I strongly disagree. This movie is far from being a children's-film, though it is definitely enjoyed by many. As a child I watched it many, many times, until the point that the tape lost quality. And yet, after all those viewings, I didn't realize the important lessons it teaches.

This movie tells a lot of its lessons through song. These songs can mean different things to different people, as all things in all movies do. The story, also, means different things in different perspectives -- to some, the loyalty or realizations of Samwise might be familiar to their own personality, and they will see what he goes through as their lessons. Others will see themselves as Frodo, having to go through a time of not only global(outter)-conflict, but inner as well, as they travel through that time and end up changed, and then have to move on past the troubled times they've triumphed over. Or it could be more complicated, those combined, or maybe also with the Ring becoming something they know.

There's a lot to be learned from this movie, however you look at it, so long as it's not looked at with eyes that are searching only for the story from the book. If you watch it with an open mind, you'll learn something that will help you.

I don't go into as much detail as I did in my review of the Hobbit, as this movie's lessons are much more broad, with there being more going on than in the prequel. It takes a mind looking for answers to see them in this movie, as everyone who looks at it with their different life-experiences and personality will interperet the songs and actions and deeds of characters differently.

This movie and its prequel are wonderful things to experience for people of any age.

"...and they [humans] may wonder... Is there 'hobbit' in me? Well, is there?"


While Godard and co were still in diapers,Duvivier,Renoir and Carné were inventing the best French cinema that had ever been. I would trade you all M."A bout de soufflé" filmography for "un carnet de bal"

Leonard Maltin gives a four stars rating to this 1937 movie,and all we can do is approve of his judgment.The movie of nostalgia,of time passing by,of disenchantment,"un carnet de bal" is all this and more.

On the banks of a lake -the romantic place par excellence-,a woman is remembering her past.Her madeleine de Proust is her dance card ."Memories tumbling like sweets from a jar".But these sweets leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

She goes back in the past,in search of her long lost dance partners. She will have to delude herself:what she discovers is ruined lives,regrets,embittered characters,human wrecks.Time is a hard Master and it leaves no one unharmed.As always in Duvivier's work,the harder they fall,the better the sketches are.For it is basically a movie made up of sketches,Julien Duvivier's métier.All youth ideals have gone down the drain:the brilliant medicine student has become an abortionist;the lawyer with bright prospects now has a lousy shady cabaret;one of the woman's beaus is dead and his mother gone nuts acts as if he's still alive.Two of them have escaped to a doomed fate:but one has become a priest and the other keeps his love for something else than women .

The movie made up of sketches ,as I said, has always been Duvivier's forte.Here ,there are seven flashbacks,one prologue and one short epilogue :strange how this final resembles that of Mitchell Leisen's "to each his own" (1942),when the boy says to Olivia De Havilland:"I think it's our dance mother".Having directed with a topflight cast "tales of Manhattan" (1942) in America,Duvivier went even further in the "sketches movie":in "sous le ciel de Paris" ,he used intertwined little stories till all these subplots became a seamless whole.

Yes ,Julien Duvivier's importance in the seventh art is incalculable.


i saw this film for the first time 1946, and was completely spellbound. last time i saw this film beginning of March 2003. the magic was still there. i understood the film much better,enjoed it more. Who can ever forget the haunting melody of the walz or the final episode with Fernandel.


the walz used in the film "Un carnet de bal" 1937 is used also for a short scene in the 1936 film "Meyerling" . the scene is where Charles Boyer and Danelle Darieux take a walk in the Vienese Prater. The name of the walz is "The grey walz".


This is one of the quintessential films of the classic age of French cinema. One just has to look at the credits: directed by Duvivier, with Fernandel, Baur, Jouvet (one of his best roles), Marie Bell, Francoise Rosay... all of them at the peak of their form. And held together musically by Jaubert's haunting theme melody, which I can still hum in the nostalgia cupboard of my memory fifty years after I first heard it.

The story is slight. Actually it is a series of vignettes, strung together by the bittersweet pilgrimage of a woman who sets out to find again the men who signed her first dance card. But that is just a pretext for a marvelous set of character sketches played by a marvelous cast of character actors served by a great character director.


This is one of the Great ones: In terms of French cinema in the first full decade of Sound it belongs right up there with Marius, Fanny, Cesar, Quai des Brumes, Le Jour se leve, La Femme du boulanger, La Grande Illusion and you can't put anything higher than that though Duvivier's own La Belle equipe and Pepe Le Moko both come within a whisker. It's the kind of film that would be difficult to make today as would, for example, Dial M For Murder. Frederick Knott wrote Dial as a play in the early fifties and the Hitchcock film version was released in 1954 BUT the entire plot (our old friend the 'perfect' murder) hinged on the fact that in those days only the upper and middle classes had telephones at all and those were in fixed locations and in this era of jack points and cell phones the idea of someone obliged to answer a telephone located on a desk in front of heavy drapes behind which a murderer was lurking ready to strike when the phone was answered would be ludicrous. Carnet is similar inasmuch as 'dance cards' are unheard of today belonging as they do to a world of stately dancing and courtly manners where even a 'nice' girl would as soon turn up to a dance totally naked as without a 'full' dance card - many of us will remember how, in Meet Me In St Louis, Judy Garland and Lucille Bremner 'marked' the dance card of an out-of-towner loading it with every dead-beat in town. So, yes, it is archaic but fortunately those of us who care to can have archaic and eat it courtesy of the Art/Revival House, Movie Channels on TV and/or the DVD. Living by a lake a widow comes face to face with what today we would call a mid-life crisis; vaguely melancholic and slightly wistful lest she did, as she suspects, marry the wrong man, she allows her thoughts to drift to her first dance and the names on her very first dance card who, on a whim, she decides to trace. WE know of course that you can't go home again even if we've never even heard of Tom Wolfe let alone read him but thankfully Christine feels otherwise. It was a nice touch to find that the first name on the card is dead - but try telling that to his mother, the great Francoise Rosay - as if to say right from the word go that love dies, baby, if you neglect it. One by one via a night-club semi racketeer, a monk, a ski instructor, the mayor of a small town, an epileptic doctor with a lucrative sideline in abortion and a gay hairdresser the scales fall and/or are stripped from her eyes leaving her sadder but wiser. Some of the top names in French cinema step up to the plate, Harry Baur, Louis Jouvet, Fernandel etc and no one strikes out. Henri Jeanson and Julien Duvivier brought honour to the French cinema with this one that remains a must-see and before I sign off let me acknowledge a genuine altruistic contributor to these boards who, with exceptional kindness, sent me not only this gem but seventeen others. Watch this space.


"Un Carnet de Bal" is a poem made movie. Like Christine, everybody had gone into his past, looking for the point of break, which decided one way, in order to rectify ours errors.

Finally, "Un Carnet de Bal" is a film for all the time.