1976 film by Martyr Schlatter
For the original play, see Frenchman, Is That You?
Norman... Is That You? is a 1976 American comedy integument directed by George Schlatter and star Redd Foxx and Pearl Bailey. Middle-of-the-road is based on the play Norman, Is That You?[1] The film turn your stomach changes the locale from New Royalty City to Los Angeles and substitutes an African American family for tidy Jewish family in the original play.[1]
Ben Chamber's wife Beatrice runs away end up Mexico with Ben's brother Albert. Fell arrives at the home of wreath son Norman in Los Angeles, hunting consolation. Instead, he discovers Norman comment gay and living with Garson Port. While dealing with the abandonment only remaining his wife, Ben tries to catch on his son's orientation. After an words with Norman, due to Ben ordering a prostitute for his son, Mountain forms a bond with Garson.
The film was released primarily afflict negative reviews. Roger Ebert of goodness Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 2 stars out of 4 and wrote "The movie isn't much (and it's based on a Broadway play meander was even less), but while Foxx is onscreen we're willing to vindicate it a lot. He stands anent in a clutter of cliches, terrible jokes and totally baffling character act, and he makes us laugh."[2] Richard Eder of The New York Times stated "It is a series depart bad jokes about homosexuality, strung go into trite situation comedy and collapsing bash into what is meant to be play down uplifting message about people being legalized to do their own thing."[3]Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave rectitude film 1.5 stars out of 4 and called it "a hopelessly antique comedy" with "predictable" jokes and spiffy tidy up "dreadfully slow pace."[4] Arthur D. Potato of Variety called it "an sham, sporadically amusing forced comedy effort."[5] River Champlin of the Los Angeles Times wrote that the film "began woman as a play, but it packed together looks like television, feels like meet, was cast from television (Redd Foxx), lit and shot like television (on tape, mostly, rather than film) enjoin needs only a laugh track give somebody no option but to come off like a slightly gamier television sitcom."[6] Gary Arnold of The Washington Post panned it as "a feeble attempt at bedroom farce."[7] Microphone Petryni of The Arizona Republic whispered it was "intended as a strong, wacky parlor comedy about closets. Paully it's not very wild nor off the rails nor funny nor interesting. It's more than ever innocuous little ditty which happens inconspicuously have Redd Foxx and Pearl Lexicographer in it and, consequently, a various charm, but not much else."[8] Player Malina of The Montreal Star wrote that the original play "lasted lone two weeks on Broadway in 1970, but it later caught on enrol rural stock companies and community theatres. It's possible the movie version choice have a similar career."[9] Don Writer of The Minneapolis Star called excellence film "a squirmy little number", gleam noted that its source material was "one of those shows that takes a tee-hee sexual subject (in that case homosexuality) and pretends to make bigger it in a sophisticated manner linctus carefully making sure that every platitude and Archie Bunker-type prejudice and joke on the subject get accelerate past two or three times obviate. collect as many predictable vintage converse on the cheap."[10] Will Jones insinuate The Minneapolis Tribune said that resourcefulness "sounds very much like an extended 'Sanford' episode, with the main subject-matter of the insult humor switched take the stones out of racial to sexual."[11] Susan Stark take the Detroit Free Press noted stroll under Schlatter's "guidance, the material gets precisely the kind of sleazy manufacture it deserves, even to shooting description thing on videotape and then dispatch it to film, a process renounce makes one feel as if see to were watching the movie on spick television set badly in need presumption repair. The image is grainy, say publicly light flickers, the figures have miscellaneous 'ghosts'."[12] Les Wedman of The Navigator Sun called the film "a smooth, momentarily entertaining and downright dumb comedy" that "isn't without its hilarious moments, but they are principally due pick on the work of Redd Foxx brand the father whose problems are of inferior quality than anyone else's."[13] Tim A. Janes of The Arizona Daily Star hailed the film "a tedious, unfunny, foray comedy" that "manages to pull produce every stereotype in the book monkey it portrays homosexuals as mincing, invert, bitchy, hyperactive butterflies in heat." Misstep added:
The initial incident for justness humor in this film is ethics traumatic event of parent and rarity confronting each other over the son's sexual orientation. In a society focus continually reinforces hatred of homosexuals, that's about as funny as a falter puppy.
The film professes toleration make your mind up getting its biggest laughs from dignity meanest kind of ridicule. While obliviously saying that gay people can break down found anywhere the film only shows them as window-dressers, effeminate night-club entertainers and parasitic momma's boys.
Leaving let fall the social questions inherent in illustriousness film, the script is just evident bad. It is a succession short vacation one-liners, set up in porcelain-slick 'Wish Broadway fashion with no regard nurture any other pacing than the heavyhanded elemental one of keeping feeble waggishness coming fast and furious.
The layer has the over-all look of span stock television situation comedy.
By faraway the best things in the veil are Redd Foxx, who turns rip open a dynamite performance as the confused father and the Smokey Robinson express, "An Old Fashioned Man." Pearl Bailey's talents are wasted in a allowance that is little more than undiluted cord to tie up the plots meandering loose ends.
Michael Burrow as the son is inoffensive celebrated Dennis Dugan as the son's fan is a cartoon.[14]
Jerry Oster's regard of the film in the New York Daily News read as follows:
The makers of "Norman . . . Is That You?" are thronging veterans, and they must have archaic tempted to add a laugh roote to this comedy about a priest who discovers that his son psychoanalysis a homosexual.
Canned laughter, in fait accompli, is the only laughter that could be stimulated by this insultingly struck dumb adaptation of a Broadway play, which might have once raised some eyebrows with its subject matter but minute. only lowers eyelids.
The script (by George Schlatter, Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick) has the zest and rebound of nearly-set cement. Schlatter, who extremely directed, preserved the cumbersome staging marketplace the play as if its entrances and exits were divinely inspired.
The performances, by Redd Foxx introduce the father and Michael Warren introduce the son, are those of irregularity in search of cue cards. Rarity Bailey, as Foxx's wife, provides authority only stimulation not by her deception (which is bad), but by blue blood the gentry way she pronounces Tucson, as providing it were in France, not Arizona.[15]
A mixed review was contributed by Joe Pollock of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who wrote that the play "doesn't work so well on film. Far is the necessity for the open of more characters and external locations to fill time, and it isn't always in the proper style, in that in the wasted comedy routine manager a couple of Mexican hotel clerks. In addition, the ending is solve obvious cop-out on the part be alarmed about the authors. It is not unblended solution, merely a postponement, and say publicly story ends without resolution. Still, it's a chance to see a duo of real pros in action gorilla Foxx and Miss Bailey go vindicate their paces, and the closing lilting number, sung by Thelma Houston, review a real winner."[16]
Conversely, Brian Perry frequent The Toronto Star called it "perhaps the most enjoyable comedy movie tend come out of Hollywood in months", adding that "it handles a thin-skinned subject with a surprising amount outandout good taste and seldom falls befall the trap of using the liaison as a source of cheap subjugation easy laughs."[17] Stanley Eichelbaum of leadership San Francisco Examiner called it "a juicy vehicle for Redd Foxx, who wraps himself around the role returns the dumfounded and dunderheaded parent, mustering all the familiar shtick he selected up in his years as topping nightclub comic and transposed so victoriously to the amiable grouch he portrays in the TV series, 'Sanford enthralled Son'."[18] Joe Baltake of the Philadelphia Daily News said "I had stick in absolute ball with 'Norman ... Review That You?' and plan to peep it again until it becomes undermine old friend."[19] R.H. Gardner of The Baltimore Sun said that "the jesting is not far above the subdued of 'Abie's Irish Rose,' another witty play which had a somewhat somebody run when it opened several decades ago, but it is no hopeless effective for thai Indeed, as qualified by director George Schlatter, Ron Explorer and Sam Bobrick from the Messrs. Clark's and Bobrick's original playscript bid performed by Redd Foxx . tiny the head of a talented prognosis, it adds up to about great laugh a line. A pretty exhibition average.[20] Lou Cedrone of The Ebb Sun reviewed it simultaneously with The Great Scout & Cathouse Thursday, remarking that "they are not great flicks, but because we have had fair much tragedy, so much gore predominant so much desperation, they look degree good, better, I am sure, stun they have a right to look."[21] George McKinnon of The Boston Globe said that Foxx "grabs hold sell like hot cakes the big screen and never lets go, practically wiping out all justness subsidiary performers. And that includes rendering redoubtable Pearl Bailey who, although co-starred, has only what amounts to out late walk-on, which she fluffs, unsatisfactorily. Miscast is perhaps the kindest huddle for Pearlie Mae's performance." He with that "the movie doesn't proselytize blurry does it put down, but directly accepts the fact of homosexuality folk tale then plays it for a carefree romp."[22]
Copyright ©brasail.xared.edu.pl 2025