Norman... Is That You?

From the producer of "Laugh-In", this movie is about as sophisticated as the average 70's sitcom, yet three times as long. Presented as part of MGM's "Soul Cinema" series, this black version of the classic "family discovers their son is gay" movie doesn't add anything new to the genre, and lacks any camp sensibility that might be a saving grace. There's only so many times that seeing a family "shocked" that their child is gay can be interesting - "Norman" comes off like a poorly executed issue-of-the-week movie from the bad old days. There's better queer and blaxxploitation flicks out there, I recommend passing on this one...

When Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.

Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a community theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same.

This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.

Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment.

Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like hell.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

I saw it so many years ago I remember less than I should. But I do remember liking its light-heartedness and relevance, and good structure, a very sound combination of zaniness and earnestness. It isn't as great as "The Gay Deceivers" (1969) though. How many movies are?

A genuine screaming situation comedy farce of the mid 70s this film was a HUGE hit for about 5 minutes and disappeared off the face of the earth. I am constantly amazed at some comedy films that are a big release one week and then vanish: HIGH ANXIETY, THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, THE BLACK BIRD, DON'T LOOK NOW WE'RE BEING SHOT AT.......... and have no profile at all today. NORMAN was the comedy of the month in whenever 1976 and everyone seemed to see it, laugh about it and then never ever mention it ever again. Famous for being shot on videotape and transferred to film, an experiment at the time, NORMAN is a raucous politically incorrect closet slamming farce that The Farrelly Brothers should look at remaking today. If they had made it in the first place there would be no complaints about its content and slant either. It is very funny and YES very rude and hilariously all wrong. Just as it should be. In fact as a groovy 1976 film with all those horror colours and clothes it actually works better today.

Like MOST movie critics, the opinions expressed here only serve to prove what most movie goers already know, movie critics should stay at home and read Garfield, Snoopy or the like. I attended the premier of this movie with a group of friends and we ALL laughed until our sides were sore. I guess you have to be of "average intelligence" and a movie goer of that era to really appreciate this movie. Red Foxx WAS up to his "usual potential," Pearl Baily was a bit bland, the late Wayland Flowers STOLE the movie. There were only a few "gay theme" movies that ever made it to the big screen during that time. The Ritz, The Boys in the Band, and Norman is that you? None of these movies were "spectacular" but they filled a niche. Maybe you just had to be "gay" to understand just how humorous these movies were.