There has been a long history of the cinematic negation and distorted delineation of the black female body in cinema. From the myopic cross-media stereotypes of the black woman as "mammy" to silencing the pseudo "unrapeable" black woman "for the sake of racial unity," black women have been either completely erased or misrepresented so as to perpetuate the superiority of white womanhood as object of the phallocentric gaze. Recent studies have shown that as a result of this treatment of the black female body in cinema, black female spectators undergo a unique cinematic experience than that of both the black man and white viewer. Black women create what Black feminist film theorist bell hooks refers to as an "oppositional gaze," resisting the complete negation or marginalized portrayal of black women in the film and questioning this absence, becoming active participants rather than passive spectators. To better understand this notion of an oppositional gaze on behalf of the black female spectator, I will take a close look at scenes primarily from director John Stahl's 1934 film "Imitation of Life" and discuss the black female gaze and presence in relation to the phallocentric gaze and the portrayal of the two black characters, Delilah Johnson, as played by Louise Beavers, and her mixed daughter, Peola, as played by Fredi Washington. In the film, Beavers represents the marginalized Mammy stereotype, or the desexed, nurturing, and self-sacrificing servant always ready to please her white master. Black female spectators, unable to accept this stereotypical portrayal of black womanhood, must put on the "oppositional gaze" in order to "enjoy" the film. However, with the character of Peola, the tragic mulatta figure, the black woman viewer is able to at least sympathize for one black character.

Affron, Charles. “Performing Performing: Irony and Affect.”  Cinema Journal Vol. 20, No. 1 (Autumn, 1980): pp. 42-52. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1224970>.

Charles Affron argues that the 1934 version of Imitation of Life does not require its intended white middle class audience to engage in “a textual deconstruction of performance” when watching the narrative. Unlike the later version, in which the spectator must personally redefine the conventions of sentimental expression, it is not necessary with the original film, at least for the intended viewers.  Affron feels that the film is straightforward in its stagings and attitudes about the emotional centers of the text, race and motherhood.  Claudette Colbert, the author believes, can easily be perceived as a model of clarity. She is intelligent, witty, and tactful.  Bea, on the other hand, seems to lacks all of these characteristics, never seeming to know where things are, who people are, and who she herself is. The film’s title bears no reference to Bea, rather it alludes to the black characters of Peola and Delilah. Through master-shots and close-ups, action-reaction shots, and the obviously codified décor, the film reflects negatively on the imitative life of the black women who doesn’t know her place.   However, the white viewer is able to overlook this aspect of the film, too engaged with the ‘white plot’ of Bea’s career success and the failure of her relationship with her daughter Jessie. 

This article affirms hooks’s notion of the “oppositional gaze.” Although it first appears as if Affron goes against her theory when he states that there is no need for a textual deconstruction of the film, the author makes it clear that he is only referring to the intended white middle class audience.  The black female viewer, unable to overlook the ‘black plot’ of the film, therefore, must redefine the storyline and relationships between the black characters on her own.