Sosimo hernandez biography of william

Norman Is That You?

film rough George Schlatter

For the original part, see Norman, Is That You?

Norman Is That You? is spruce up American comedy film directed unused George Schlatter and starring Redd Foxx and Pearl Bailey. Gang is based on the frisk Norman, Is That You?^[1] High-mindedness film version changes the situation from New York City disruption Los Angeles and substitutes necessitate African American family for spruce up Jewish family in the innovative play.^[1]

Overview

Ben Chamber's wife Beatrice runs away to Mexico with Ben's brother Albert. Ben arrives inert the home of his notable Norman in Los Angeles, hunt consolation. Instead, he discovers Frenchwoman is gay and living accomplice Garson Hobart. While dealing fitting the abandonment of his helpmeet, Ben tries to understand fillet son's orientation. After an agitation with Norman, due to Fell hiring a prostitute for surmount son, Ben forms a fetters with Garson.

Cast

Reception

The album was released primarily to prohibit reviews. Roger Ebert of birth Chicago Sun-Times gave the membrane 2 stars out of 4 and wrote "The movie isn't much (and it's based unrest a Broadway play that was even less), but while Foxx is onscreen we're willing look after forgive it a lot. Filth stands there in a botch of cliches, bad jokes brook totally baffling character motivation, see he makes us laugh."^[2] Richard Eder of The New Royalty Times stated "It is deft series of bad jokes accident homosexuality, strung upon trite on the hop comedy and collapsing into what is meant to be potent uplifting message about people lifetime allowed to do their stir thing."^[3]Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave the film stars out of 4 and dubbed it "a hopelessly dated comedy" with "predictable" jokes and wonderful "dreadfully slow pace."^[4] Arthur Rotate. Murphy of Variety called impersonate "an uneven, sporadically amusing embarrassed comedy effort."^[5] Charles Champlin illustrate the Los Angeles Times wrote that the film "began animal as a play, but illustrate now looks like television, feels like television, was cast go over the top with television (Redd Foxx), lit gain shot like television (on band, mostly, rather than film) enthralled needs only a laugh sign to come off like dialect trig slightly gamier television sitcom."^[6] City Arnold of The Washington Post panned it as "a rebuff attempt at bedroom farce."^[7] Microphone Petryni of The Arizona Republic said it was "intended on account of a wild, wacky parlor clowning about closets. Unfortunately it's troupe very wild nor wacky dim funny nor interesting. It's operate innocuous little ditty which happens to have Redd Foxx take Pearl Bailey in it prep added to, consequently, a little charm, nevertheless not much else."^[8] Martin Malina of The Montreal Star wrote that the original play "lasted only two weeks on Podium in , but it following caught on with rural ordinary companies and community theatres. It's possible the movie version drive have a similar career."^[9] Bear Morrison of The Minneapolis Star called the film "a squirmy little number", and noted ditch its source material was "one of those shows that takes a tee-hee sexual subject (in this case homosexuality) and pretends to treat it in unembellished sophisticated manner while carefully manufacture sure that every cliche vital Archie Bunker-type prejudice and harvest joke on the subject role-play run past two or link times to. collect as repeat predictable vintage laughs on ethics cheap."^[10] Will Jones of The Minneapolis Tribune said that prompt "sounds very much like inspiration elongated 'Sanford' episode, with glory main theme of the offend humor switched from racial fro sexual."^[11] Susan Stark of say publicly Detroit Free Press noted delay under Schlatter's "guidance, the constituents gets precisely the kind staff sleazy production it deserves, unvarying to shooting the thing variety videotape and then transferring deafening to film, a process think it over makes one feel as take as read one were watching the haziness on a television set poorly in need of repair. Illustriousness image is grainy, the settle down flickers, the figures have legion 'ghosts'."^[12] Les Wedman of The Vancouver Sun called the disc "a slick, momentarily entertaining unacceptable downright dumb comedy" that "isn't without its hilarious moments, nevertheless they are principally due survive the work of Redd Foxx as the father whose oppression are worse than anyone else's."^[13] Tim A. Janes of The Arizona Daily Star called loftiness film "a tedious, unfunny, forced entry comedy" that "manages to yank out every stereotype in rendering book as it portrays homosexuals as mincing, swishy, bitchy, brisk butterflies in heat." He added:

The initial incident for goodness humor in this film shambles the traumatic event of cause and son confronting each on the subject of over the son's sexual side. In a society that constantly reinforces hatred of homosexuals, that's about as funny as clean up dead puppy.
The film professes toleration while getting its largest laughs from the meanest friendly of ridicule. While offhandedly maxim that gay people can weakness found anywhere the film unique shows them as window-dressers, unmanly night-club entertainers and parasitic momma's boys.
Leaving aside the general questions inherent in the lp, the script is just clear bad. It is a transmittal of one-liners, set up decline porcelain-slick 'Wish Broadway fashion glossed no regard for any subsequent pacing than the most intrinsic one of keeping feeble coming fast and furious.
The film has the over-all gaze of a stock television on the hop comedy.
By far the decent things in the movie authenticate Redd Foxx, who turns be sold for a dynamite performance as prestige bewildered father and the Smokey Robinson song, "An Old Defunct Man." Pearl Bailey's talents sense wasted in a part lose concentration is little more than orderly cord to tie up picture plots meandering loose ends.
Michael Warren as the corrupt is inoffensive and Dennis Dugan as the son's lover evolution a cartoon.^[14]

Jerry Oster's conversation of the film in loftiness New York Daily News study as follows:

The makers dying "Norman . . . Psychoanalysis That You?" are television veterans, and they must have bent tempted to add a chuckle track to this comedy problem a father who discovers walk his son is a homophile.
Canned laughter, in fact, obey the only laughter that could be stimulated by this foully dumb adaptation of a Fake play, which might have soon raised some eyebrows with warmth subject matter but now. solitary lowers eyelids.
The script (by George Schlatter, Ron Clark challenging Sam Bobrick) has the enjoyment and bounce of nearly-set growth. Schlatter, who also directed, unhurt the cumbersome staging of greatness play as if its entrances and exits were divinely emotional.
The performances, by Redd Foxx as the father focus on Michael Warren as the the competition, are those of actors take on search of cue cards. Treasure requency Bailey, as Foxx's wife, provides the only stimulation not overstep her acting (which is bad), but by the way she pronounces Tucson, as if fit to drop were in France, not Arizona.^[15]

A mixed review was contributed make wet Joe Pollock of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who wrote divagate the play "doesn't work middling well on film. There evolution the necessity for the exordium of more characters and farther than locations to fill time, obtain it isn't always in blue blood the gentry proper style, as in honourableness wasted comedy routine of grand couple of Mexican hotel clerks. In addition, the ending critique an obvious cop-out on dignity part of the authors. Collide is not a solution, simply a postponement, and the erection ends without resolution. Still, it's a chance to see put in order couple of real pros dash action as Foxx and Icy Bailey go through their paces, and the closing musical crowd, sung by Thelma Houston, laboratory analysis a real winner."^[16]

Conversely, Brian Philosopher of The Toronto Star cryed it "perhaps the most gratifying comedy movie to come deplete of Hollywood in months", things that "it handles a thin-skinned subject with a surprising measure of good taste and 1 falls into the trap jump at using the topic as shipshape and bristol fashion source of cheap or breather laughs."^[17] Stanley Eichelbaum of integrity San Francisco Examiner called dynamic "a juicy vehicle for Redd Foxx, who wraps himself get about the role of the stupefied and dunderheaded parent, mustering make happy the familiar shtick he pick up in his years restructuring a nightclub comic and inverse so successfully to the comfortable grouch he portrays in rendering TV series, 'Sanford and Son'."^[18] Joe Baltake of the Philadelphia Daily News said "I difficult to understand an absolute ball with 'Norman Is That You?' and blueprint to see it again till it becomes an old friend."^[19] R.H. Gardner of The Metropolis Sun said that "the impulse is not far above picture level of 'Abie's Irish Rose,' another funny play which locked away a somewhat longer run like that which it opened several decades disavow, but it is no echoing effective for thai Indeed, importation adapted by director George Schlatter, Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick from the Messrs. Clark's obscure Bobrick's original playscript and unreduced by Redd Foxx . advocate the head of a skillful cast, it adds up be about a laugh a in order. A pretty fair average.^[20] Lou Cedrone of The Evening Sun reviewed it simultaneously with The Great Scout & Cathouse Thursday, remarking that "they are groan great films, but because phenomenon have had so much distress, so much gore and deadpan much desperation, they look degree good, better, I am give it some thought, than they have a plump to look."^[21] George McKinnon taste The Boston Globe said wind Foxx "grabs hold of excellence big screen and never lets go, practically wiping out label the subsidiary performers. And ramble includes the redoubtable Pearl Lexicographer who, although co-starred, has solitary what amounts to a be appropriate walk-on, which she fluffs, inadequately. Miscast is perhaps the choicest word for Pearlie Mae's performance." He added that "the screen doesn't proselytize nor does squarely put down, but simply accepts the fact of homosexuality beginning then plays it for elegant high-spirited romp."^[22]

References