Not all people can enjoy dark comedies. But to appeal to those who do, such films have to be done very well. The obvious first requirement is that they must be funny - very funny. They must be filled with humor, including clever dialog, funny antics and hilarious situations. And that means that the humor must touch even the dourest of movie goers.
If an intended dark comedy fails the comedy test, it fails period. Because its appearance then changes. It's no longer a comedy, but a mockery. Without clear and definitive humor, efforts at dark comedy become little more than insult, insensitivity and crass finger-pointing. And that describes this film, "Where's Poppa?" The very few lines and scenes with any comedy are smothered by the overall flat screenplay that mocks or denigrates various people or groups, one after another.
I doubt that many people found this film to be funny in 1970, in spite of some critics liking it. The film is based on a 1970 short novel of the same title, and its author, Robert Klane, also wrote the screenplay. The film got mixed reviews decades ago, with many critics finding more dark comedy but a disconnected script and too much deviation from the main focus.
My three stars are solely for the effort put into the performances, especially by George Segal. Ruth Gordon takes getting used to and loses her humor after several minutes of screen time. Ron Leibman's Sydney Hocheiser was the hardest to take for comedy. His jaunts through the park are not funny when he knows he will be accosted each night by the same gang of African-Americans. This comes across as racial stereotyping and a distraction from the main subject.
Many movies have been labeled as black comedies, that are more insulting mockery than they are comedy. Some movies that are superb dark comedies have become classic satires. Among the best of these are "Dr. Strangelove" of 1974, "The Great Dictator" of 1940, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" of 1949, "Death at a Funeral" of 2007, and "Throw Momma from the Train" of 1987.
When budget and box office information about a film is hard to find, it's a sure sign the movie didn't fare too well with the public. My search of the Web found nothing on the finance numbers for this film -- except that it wasn't among the top 25 films for the year in U.S. box office gross. Which means it had to come in under $1.5 million. This film is mostly a crass and crude mockery.
If an intended dark comedy fails the comedy test, it fails period. Because its appearance then changes. It's no longer a comedy, but a mockery. Without clear and definitive humor, efforts at dark comedy become little more than insult, insensitivity and crass finger-pointing. And that describes this film, "Where's Poppa?" The very few lines and scenes with any comedy are smothered by the overall flat screenplay that mocks or denigrates various people or groups, one after another.
I doubt that many people found this film to be funny in 1970, in spite of some critics liking it. The film is based on a 1970 short novel of the same title, and its author, Robert Klane, also wrote the screenplay. The film got mixed reviews decades ago, with many critics finding more dark comedy but a disconnected script and too much deviation from the main focus.
My three stars are solely for the effort put into the performances, especially by George Segal. Ruth Gordon takes getting used to and loses her humor after several minutes of screen time. Ron Leibman's Sydney Hocheiser was the hardest to take for comedy. His jaunts through the park are not funny when he knows he will be accosted each night by the same gang of African-Americans. This comes across as racial stereotyping and a distraction from the main subject.
Many movies have been labeled as black comedies, that are more insulting mockery than they are comedy. Some movies that are superb dark comedies have become classic satires. Among the best of these are "Dr. Strangelove" of 1974, "The Great Dictator" of 1940, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" of 1949, "Death at a Funeral" of 2007, and "Throw Momma from the Train" of 1987.
When budget and box office information about a film is hard to find, it's a sure sign the movie didn't fare too well with the public. My search of the Web found nothing on the finance numbers for this film -- except that it wasn't among the top 25 films for the year in U.S. box office gross. Which means it had to come in under $1.5 million. This film is mostly a crass and crude mockery.