I'd only seen "Watermelon Man" on late nite TV as a kid, obviously cut to hell, but the film always fascinated and disturbed me. I haven't seen it in literally 20 years yet I remember very specific scenes, particularly the amazing militant final scene. I finally picked up the beautiful DVD and my memory was correct. The movie is awkward in spots, but there's a vitality that pushes against the old-school studio vibe. And it still holds up as funny in many scenes. I like some of Peebles music cues although they are sometimes not apropos. There are some strong scenes dealing with suburban racial tensions and Godfrey Cambridge is terrific as he changes from a white bigot to a black man. The movie isn't as one-sided as some might think. One of my favorite films of the 70's. Check it out.
45 Reviews
No-one liked him, now they hate him!
freemanist29 January 2000
Somewhat unevenly charts the journey of a successful, loud and bigoted insurance salesman's transition from loathed go-getter to loathed gone-goner. The early twist in the tale, allows an opportunity to see a strong central character face a new challenge. However, sadly, the storyline passes up the chance to see a fighter fighting and the direction becomes bogged down in a realisation that Gerber is beaten from the very moment he is plunged into what the film perceives as an underclass. A particular shame, therefore, as it declares race crossover to be a sentence as opposed to an alternative - there is no real optimism afforded to Gerber after the key white/black event and the film might have been stronger with such an exploration.
The film can be disturbing; but with slick,in your face, stateside put-downs 'The Watermelon Man' certainly enters a sensitive subject area head-first and allows the viewer to make an early judgement.
Whilst the storyline delivers meagre reward in terms of development, there is enough here to warrant a recommendation. Cambridge is outstanding as the hounder who becomes the hounded and the spine of the film is its humour bordering on the cheap for sure, but funny, often hilarious and providing the piece with an underlying energy. Racing the bus to work on foot, crudely separating the mugs from their money, learning to take hate on the chin its all here.
The strength of the final ceremony/scene smacks of eventual acceptance, a sense of belonging and possibly a new way forward; this will shock many as it is bitter-sweet, turning laughter into cold realism. Perhaps Van Peebles was taking the easy option? I think a sequel would have been a fitting reward.
I rate it highly, even after considering its faults.
*********************************************************
UPDATED REVIEW: Today is 1 March 2005 and, courtesy of USPS, Amazon/Lasercorner.com and Travel Inn West 42nd St, NYC (long story ), I have now received the DVD of this film. I first saw it in the early 1980's and have been raving on about it ever since, saying to anybody that wanted to listen, that it was hysterically funny. It still cannot be purchased directly in England.
So today I watched it again, in the new high definition print. I want to amend my original review
The film made me feel guilty about how much I laughed when I first saw it. Yes, it still has great comic moments but there is so much more to it. Scene 11 'property values', sees Jeff Gerber's formerly pleasant neighbours confront him at home and they offer him $100,000 for him to move out of the area. This scene made me feel sickened. Firstly because it shows just how bad the racial situation was in America (surely it has improved since then??) and secondly because, on the first viewing all those years ago, I just didn't "get it" I saw an overall humour, where I should have seen the out and out bigotry, ignorance and sadness. After this pivotal scene Gerber tells his boss to stick his job and he moves on to get his own insurance business, settle into a community that he likes, reforms a long-distance dialogue with his blinkered wife and simply get on with being Jeff Gerber. In that respect my original review is seriously flawed as he is not completely beaten by race crossover at all in fact he makes it work for him and a lot of positives come out in the final analysis. It uplifted me.
Hey, enough of the deepness! It is still a great film to own, share and talk about, even after its flaws are considered. I just felt that I hadn't appreciated the finer points of it until now, many years later.
The film can be disturbing; but with slick,in your face, stateside put-downs 'The Watermelon Man' certainly enters a sensitive subject area head-first and allows the viewer to make an early judgement.
Whilst the storyline delivers meagre reward in terms of development, there is enough here to warrant a recommendation. Cambridge is outstanding as the hounder who becomes the hounded and the spine of the film is its humour bordering on the cheap for sure, but funny, often hilarious and providing the piece with an underlying energy. Racing the bus to work on foot, crudely separating the mugs from their money, learning to take hate on the chin its all here.
The strength of the final ceremony/scene smacks of eventual acceptance, a sense of belonging and possibly a new way forward; this will shock many as it is bitter-sweet, turning laughter into cold realism. Perhaps Van Peebles was taking the easy option? I think a sequel would have been a fitting reward.
I rate it highly, even after considering its faults.
*********************************************************
UPDATED REVIEW: Today is 1 March 2005 and, courtesy of USPS, Amazon/Lasercorner.com and Travel Inn West 42nd St, NYC (long story ), I have now received the DVD of this film. I first saw it in the early 1980's and have been raving on about it ever since, saying to anybody that wanted to listen, that it was hysterically funny. It still cannot be purchased directly in England.
So today I watched it again, in the new high definition print. I want to amend my original review
The film made me feel guilty about how much I laughed when I first saw it. Yes, it still has great comic moments but there is so much more to it. Scene 11 'property values', sees Jeff Gerber's formerly pleasant neighbours confront him at home and they offer him $100,000 for him to move out of the area. This scene made me feel sickened. Firstly because it shows just how bad the racial situation was in America (surely it has improved since then??) and secondly because, on the first viewing all those years ago, I just didn't "get it" I saw an overall humour, where I should have seen the out and out bigotry, ignorance and sadness. After this pivotal scene Gerber tells his boss to stick his job and he moves on to get his own insurance business, settle into a community that he likes, reforms a long-distance dialogue with his blinkered wife and simply get on with being Jeff Gerber. In that respect my original review is seriously flawed as he is not completely beaten by race crossover at all in fact he makes it work for him and a lot of positives come out in the final analysis. It uplifted me.
Hey, enough of the deepness! It is still a great film to own, share and talk about, even after its flaws are considered. I just felt that I hadn't appreciated the finer points of it until now, many years later.
Melvin Van Peebles' Watermelon Man starring Godfrey Cambridge provides plenty of ironic humor concerning stereotypes
tavm27 February 2011
Continuing to review African-Americans in film in chronological order for Black History Month, we're still in 1970 when director Melvin Van Peebles makes his first major studio feature having previously done a critically acclaimed independent one called Story of a Three Day Pass. He casts comedian Godfrey Cambridge as Jeff Gerber who we initially meet as an obnoxious white insurance man-along with wife Althea (Estelle Parsons) and their two kids of different genders-who likes to run when leaving for his job in order to beat the bus. By the way, the light-skinned makeup on Cambridge is about as convincingly white on him as it was on Eddie Murphy in the "White Like Me" short film he did on "Saturday Night Live", that is, not much. Anyway, when the change comes, well, that's when all hell breaks loose! Now, knowing what I know about ironic humor concerning stereotypes, I found the whole thing just a little over-the-top and, you know what? I also found the whole thing hilarious! I mean, how can you not laugh at the attempts Godfrey keeps making to turn himself "back" like drinking lots of milk or putting his face in plaster. Plus, there's many funny sudden turns from now-"brothers" like the bus driver played by D'Urville Martin who claims to be Hispanic or Mantan Moreland as the counterman at his regular eatery who, when asked to look at his skin, says, "I don't need to look at your skin, I can see my own!" And wait till you see how Three Stooges regular supporting player Emil Sitka reacts when he gets attacked by Jeff over some new sunlamps! Not to mention Jeff's bed scenes with a flirtatious secretary named Erica (Kay Kimberly). I think I've said enough so all I'll say now is that Van Peebles provides much funny stuff from Herman Raucher's script in addition to his own contributions with his occasionally distorted score. So on that note, Watermelon Man comes highly recommended. P.S. It's quite interesting seeing who's also in this movie besides those I've already mentioned like singer/songwriter Paul Williams-here credited with the middle initial H-as an employment clerk or a young girl named Erin Moran-later to portray the teen Joanie Cunningham on "Happy Days"-as daughter Janice Gerber.
An important (if dated) comedy
UNOhwen21 June 2010
First - WHO's Godfrey Cambridge?!?! Yeah - he was a comedian. And a VERY funny one. Sigh.
OK, now that I've said that, let me make a couple of things understood. A lot of people who've written comments about this are either too young to remember the 60's/70's or are trying to relate to this film from today's perspective.
This film was written/directed by Melvin Van Peebles, who - at the time - was (and, by some - unfortunately) considered a 'controversial (black) artist. Second; yes, the makeup is not as good as the wonderful job done on Eddie Murphy in various films/skits, or the Wayans' brothers, but - for the make-up tech of the day - it was VERY good (look at the scene in the beginning when Godfrey's exercising (naked!), and then going to the shower. I just watched it on HD, and it still holds up VERY well (and as an aside; I saw this film first when I was about 10 - on TV. I thought upon seeing it that REALLY was a white man who became black. So, just remember that while you might not think his make-up's up to snuff now, it sure did convince an earlier generation).
Understanding when this film was made, the 'situation' of race relations at the time, and the ability for a (black) artist like Mr. Van Peebles to MAKE this film is necessary in understanding how shocking this film was - in all those areas.
Yes - the film's a bit dated (but who isn't?). But watching this film - and understanding what I've just explained makes it all the more extraordinary. Alex P (miskatonic86), and Definitedoll (just to name a couple) are some of the few who understand this film's importance.
Mr. Cambridge is/was one of the best comics. His 'babbling' - or more accuratley, his riffing on a subject was part of his stand-up style (if you'd like to see Godfrey not as a 'babbling' person, but as a (slightly ominous - and funny) character, check him out in THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST, or in COTTON COMES TO HARLEM. , amongst other appearances.
He's sorely missed, by me and many others who've seen him either on such shows as ED SULLIVAN, THE MERV GRIFFIN SHOW CAR 54 WHERE ARE YOU, THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, I SPY amongst MANY other shows. If not, you can see this huge talent's work on YouTube (YouTube's a GREAT resource for educating yourself about not current performers and artists. It's NOT just a place to look at ...cat's playing pianos, and other garbage).
As a glimpse (by a black artist!) into the 'white man's world,' and the world in general - at that time - Mr. Van Peebles should be given his deserved recognition (and Godfrey, we miss you!).
OK, now that I've said that, let me make a couple of things understood. A lot of people who've written comments about this are either too young to remember the 60's/70's or are trying to relate to this film from today's perspective.
This film was written/directed by Melvin Van Peebles, who - at the time - was (and, by some - unfortunately) considered a 'controversial (black) artist. Second; yes, the makeup is not as good as the wonderful job done on Eddie Murphy in various films/skits, or the Wayans' brothers, but - for the make-up tech of the day - it was VERY good (look at the scene in the beginning when Godfrey's exercising (naked!), and then going to the shower. I just watched it on HD, and it still holds up VERY well (and as an aside; I saw this film first when I was about 10 - on TV. I thought upon seeing it that REALLY was a white man who became black. So, just remember that while you might not think his make-up's up to snuff now, it sure did convince an earlier generation).
Understanding when this film was made, the 'situation' of race relations at the time, and the ability for a (black) artist like Mr. Van Peebles to MAKE this film is necessary in understanding how shocking this film was - in all those areas.
Yes - the film's a bit dated (but who isn't?). But watching this film - and understanding what I've just explained makes it all the more extraordinary. Alex P (miskatonic86), and Definitedoll (just to name a couple) are some of the few who understand this film's importance.
Mr. Cambridge is/was one of the best comics. His 'babbling' - or more accuratley, his riffing on a subject was part of his stand-up style (if you'd like to see Godfrey not as a 'babbling' person, but as a (slightly ominous - and funny) character, check him out in THE PRESIDENT'S ANALYST, or in COTTON COMES TO HARLEM. , amongst other appearances.
He's sorely missed, by me and many others who've seen him either on such shows as ED SULLIVAN, THE MERV GRIFFIN SHOW CAR 54 WHERE ARE YOU, THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, I SPY amongst MANY other shows. If not, you can see this huge talent's work on YouTube (YouTube's a GREAT resource for educating yourself about not current performers and artists. It's NOT just a place to look at ...cat's playing pianos, and other garbage).
As a glimpse (by a black artist!) into the 'white man's world,' and the world in general - at that time - Mr. Van Peebles should be given his deserved recognition (and Godfrey, we miss you!).
Not the film you expect
yv_es21 June 2020
Watermelon Man is probably not the film you expect it to be. The Watermelon Man film you expect goes like this: a casually racist white businessman wakes up one day to find that he is black, experiences life in someone else's shoes, experiences trials and tribulations, has a personal revelation, and then wakes up the next day to find his whiteness restored and having learned a valuable lesson along the way. Thankfully Watermelon Man takes such Hollywood storytelling expectations and subverts them beautifully.
While watching the film, I kept expecting one thing to happen and then being surprised (in a good way) when things went another way. For example, as you would expect the black Mr. Gerber has run ins with the police, is called slurs, and gets turned away from restaurants. But he also faces discrimination from white liberals. His coworker tries to exploit his new race for business purposes and then gets upset when he won't go along with the company's scheme to treat black clients worse than white ones. In another example, Mr. Gerber's new black body is sexualized by a white woman who only sees him as a sex object. And finally, Mr. Gerber even uses his new blackness to exploit his white neighbor's racism, forcing them to pay him a lot of money to move out of the neighborhood. These were all interesting angles on race that I did not expect going into the film.
The biggest problem I have with Watermelon Man is that it never brings all these clever subversions together to convey a larger message. I find the film is strongest while pointing out the hypocrisy of white liberals, the kind who profess to care deeply about race issues but can't handle a black person moving into the neighborhood. However there's also a strong black power bent which I wish was explored further. By the end of the film, Mr. Gerber seems to have accepted his new race but his motivations are left unclear and there really aren't many scenes of him actually interacting with other black people. It feels like the film never fully commits to whatever story it is trying to tell.
Still, I am writing this all from a 2020 point of view. Watching this film today, I found myself wanting more. I wanted the satire to be far more biting. I wanted the black power aspects to be more emphasized. It's hard to put yourself back in 1970 and imagine how this film would have been seen back then. Heck, the famous Star Trek kiss between Shatner and Nichelle Nichols was only a few years earlier.
Beyond the plot, the film itself is also unique. A mix of neat cinematography and weird editing decisions. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some of the editing and transitions in particular can be jarring in a way that makes the film feel not entirely finished.
I also find the plot spends far too much time on Mr. Gerber trying to get over the fact that he is now black. It was enough to watch him try to scrub off his blackness in the shower and try skin whiteners. We get the point. There was no need for him to bathe in milk or rage about his tanning lamp or encase himself in plaster. All this time would have been far better spent exploring Mr. Gerber's interaction with society as a black man.
Having said all that, I hesitate to recommend this film, especially to those who aren't interested in trying to understand it on its terms. On one side, some white viewers may find it too easy to laugh along at the film's many non-politically correct jokes-which are indeed funny-without challenging themselves with the uncomfortable points the film raises. On the other hand, Watermelon man is not your typical circa 2020 film about race. This is a good thing in my book, but it also means you are not going to see it on many "Black Lives Matter" watch lists. The film's name and plot alone synopsis are probably enough to ward off many potential viewers. That's a shame because I do think Watermelon Man, while certainly not without its flaws, offers a unique take on race in America, even if it doesn't go nearly as far as viewers may hope when watching it 50 years later.
PS: the song "Love, That's America" is another big highlight.
While watching the film, I kept expecting one thing to happen and then being surprised (in a good way) when things went another way. For example, as you would expect the black Mr. Gerber has run ins with the police, is called slurs, and gets turned away from restaurants. But he also faces discrimination from white liberals. His coworker tries to exploit his new race for business purposes and then gets upset when he won't go along with the company's scheme to treat black clients worse than white ones. In another example, Mr. Gerber's new black body is sexualized by a white woman who only sees him as a sex object. And finally, Mr. Gerber even uses his new blackness to exploit his white neighbor's racism, forcing them to pay him a lot of money to move out of the neighborhood. These were all interesting angles on race that I did not expect going into the film.
The biggest problem I have with Watermelon Man is that it never brings all these clever subversions together to convey a larger message. I find the film is strongest while pointing out the hypocrisy of white liberals, the kind who profess to care deeply about race issues but can't handle a black person moving into the neighborhood. However there's also a strong black power bent which I wish was explored further. By the end of the film, Mr. Gerber seems to have accepted his new race but his motivations are left unclear and there really aren't many scenes of him actually interacting with other black people. It feels like the film never fully commits to whatever story it is trying to tell.
Still, I am writing this all from a 2020 point of view. Watching this film today, I found myself wanting more. I wanted the satire to be far more biting. I wanted the black power aspects to be more emphasized. It's hard to put yourself back in 1970 and imagine how this film would have been seen back then. Heck, the famous Star Trek kiss between Shatner and Nichelle Nichols was only a few years earlier.
Beyond the plot, the film itself is also unique. A mix of neat cinematography and weird editing decisions. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some of the editing and transitions in particular can be jarring in a way that makes the film feel not entirely finished.
I also find the plot spends far too much time on Mr. Gerber trying to get over the fact that he is now black. It was enough to watch him try to scrub off his blackness in the shower and try skin whiteners. We get the point. There was no need for him to bathe in milk or rage about his tanning lamp or encase himself in plaster. All this time would have been far better spent exploring Mr. Gerber's interaction with society as a black man.
Having said all that, I hesitate to recommend this film, especially to those who aren't interested in trying to understand it on its terms. On one side, some white viewers may find it too easy to laugh along at the film's many non-politically correct jokes-which are indeed funny-without challenging themselves with the uncomfortable points the film raises. On the other hand, Watermelon man is not your typical circa 2020 film about race. This is a good thing in my book, but it also means you are not going to see it on many "Black Lives Matter" watch lists. The film's name and plot alone synopsis are probably enough to ward off many potential viewers. That's a shame because I do think Watermelon Man, while certainly not without its flaws, offers a unique take on race in America, even if it doesn't go nearly as far as viewers may hope when watching it 50 years later.
PS: the song "Love, That's America" is another big highlight.
Why was the music so horrendous?
mboaen28 August 2021
A very good, sadly forgotten satire
strausbaugh16 May 2004
Melvin Van Peebles' big Hollywood film is a very smart, funny, and in the end tragic satire of race relations in America c. 1970. Today, it doesn't get nearly the hoopla that "Sweet Sweetback" does, but in a lot of ways it's a better movie. Biting satire is often a better way to express righteous anger than simply getting all righteous, and this is an example: under the laughs, this is a deeply angry film.
Godfrey Cambridge is magnificent in his two-tone role, and the supporting cast (including a couple of routines by the great Mantan Moreland) is also very fine. The rage underpinning the whole story doesn't find full, overt expression until the very last scene, which presages Van Peebles' leap into more obviously black revolutionary politics in "Sweetback." A very good, very funny, important film that deserves to be much better known today than it is.
Godfrey Cambridge is magnificent in his two-tone role, and the supporting cast (including a couple of routines by the great Mantan Moreland) is also very fine. The rage underpinning the whole story doesn't find full, overt expression until the very last scene, which presages Van Peebles' leap into more obviously black revolutionary politics in "Sweetback." A very good, very funny, important film that deserves to be much better known today than it is.
Dose of Comeuppance
bkoganbing31 July 2014
Melvin Van Peebles must have loved Finian's Rainbow with its Senator from the glorious state of Missitucky turning black to see how the other half lives. But what was done with some whimsical humor in that classic musical, Van Peebles give us with a sledgehammer in Watermelon Man.
Godfrey Cambridge whom I remember so well from his stand up bits on the Ed Sullivan Show stars in Watermelon Man about a self satisfied average white guy, wife and two kids and a nice house in the suburbs who one day wakes up and he's black. A shock to his wife Estelle Parsons although the kids Scott Garrett and Erin Moran seem to react with a certain equanimity. Not so everyone else he's known and worked with. Watermelon Man was at the start of the Seventies the era of black films. It's laced with humor, but also bitter irony as Cambridge who once was as blasé in his racism as everyone else really gets a dose of comeuppance.
I remember back in those late Sixties Cambridge had a bit in his comic act about a watermelon in an attaché case symbolizing as he called 'the New Negro'. From that the germ of the idea for Watermelon Man must have started. He had a good career starting in films and died too soon.
Look also for Howard Caine as Cambridge's boss in the insurance agency where he worked in a really good part and a pair of actors from the old days of the black cinema in some bits, Eddie Anderson and Mantan Moreland. A nice bridge between the old and new.
Godfrey Cambridge whom I remember so well from his stand up bits on the Ed Sullivan Show stars in Watermelon Man about a self satisfied average white guy, wife and two kids and a nice house in the suburbs who one day wakes up and he's black. A shock to his wife Estelle Parsons although the kids Scott Garrett and Erin Moran seem to react with a certain equanimity. Not so everyone else he's known and worked with. Watermelon Man was at the start of the Seventies the era of black films. It's laced with humor, but also bitter irony as Cambridge who once was as blasé in his racism as everyone else really gets a dose of comeuppance.
I remember back in those late Sixties Cambridge had a bit in his comic act about a watermelon in an attaché case symbolizing as he called 'the New Negro'. From that the germ of the idea for Watermelon Man must have started. He had a good career starting in films and died too soon.
Look also for Howard Caine as Cambridge's boss in the insurance agency where he worked in a really good part and a pair of actors from the old days of the black cinema in some bits, Eddie Anderson and Mantan Moreland. A nice bridge between the old and new.
A pointed skewering of racism with yummy grotesque flavoring
BrandtSponseller1 July 2005
In Watermelon Man, director Melvin Van Peebles expresses complex ideas about race and racism in a sophisticated but humorous way. At that, however, if you do not have a strong taste for grotesques--in a formal sense ("outlandish or bizarre; ludicrous or incongruous distortion")--you may not enjoy the film as much as I did. It is something of a surreal, occasionally psychedelic caricature, but as such, it does what all good caricature should do--it emphasizes the truth without being strict realism or "naturalism".
Watermelon Man is the story of Jeff Gerber (Godfrey Cambridge). He's something of a strange dweeb who nevertheless has a stereotypical white-bread suburban existence. He's got a wife, two preadolescent kids, a nice home with a manicured lawn, and so on. He's also something of a health nut (although humorously, Cambridge wasn't exactly in great shape when they shot the film). As the film opens, he's busy exercising while his wife is trying to capture a few more minutes of sleep. He regularly uses a sun lamp. He takes the bus to his insurance salesman job, but instead of catching it right down the street, he races it through the neighborhood every day, the goal being to beat it to the last stop before it gets on the highway.
Jeff presents himself as happy-go-lucky and quite a joker, but he's a bit obnoxious and boorish, plus he shows himself to be racist and a male chauvinist, although he's not exactly gung ho about sleeping with his wife.
Just as we're learning about Jeff's routine, something unusual happens--he wakes up in the middle of the night as a black man. At first he thinks it's a nightmare, but it doesn't go away. He blames it on the sun lamp. He blames it on food he's ingesting. The bulk of Watermelon Man has Jeff trying to at first conquer, then later deal with his newfound "problem".
If you've seen both films, you might find it odd that Van Peebles made Watermelon Man before Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971). Unlike Sweet Sweetback, which is intriguing in its own way, but not near as good of a film artistically and technically, the direction in Watermelon Man is finely nuanced and sophisticated, the cinematography is crisp and attractive and technical elements such as sound are superb. I suppose this might be an interesting lesson in how crucial budget and "legitimacy" can be for film-making. It gives access to the finest materials and resources, including a large stable of professionals with narrow specialties. At that, however, Watermelon Man is not nearly as respected now as Sweet Sweetback because of what Sweet Sweetback represents, both ideologically and influentially in the film industry. Sweet Sweetback was something of a revolutionary (and very psychedelic) cry for African-American rights, and it helped launch not only the blaxploitation craze of the 1970s, but also fiercely independent film-making.
Yet, Watermelon Man is just as unique and important in what it has to say about race, even if it's not violent or pornographic, and not bizarre in the same way. Once Jeff becomes black, everything about his life changes. There isn't a person around who doesn't relate to him differently, with many having a polar opposite reaction to him--both his white friends (and family, of course) and his black acquaintances (they weren't friends, exactly, when Jeff thought he was white). Everyone wants to exploit his newfound state, including his boss. Van Peebles makes a sly transition from the beginning to the end of the film that goes from white-bread sitcom to something of a militant blaxploitation flick in a way that you barely even notice.
A large part of what makes Watermelon Man so odd is Godfrey Cambridge. His performance is way over the top and consistently bizarre, but for some of us, in some contexts (such as for me in this context), this kind of bizarre, over the top material works extremely well--in fact, I tend to prefer this to realism. The other performances are at least interesting, even if they're not all good in a conventional wisdom evaluation, but Cambridge really carries the film.
Equally bizarre and a bit disturbing is Cambridge's make-up as a white man. The make-up is extremely well done--it's difficult to picture Cambridge as he really looks underneath it all, but given the character's disposition, Cambridge as a white man comes off as freakish to say the least.
Van Peebles' direction is extremely admirable. He's not afraid to take all kinds of thrilling chances, including such unusual moves as quick pans to go from character to character in a conversation and odd intrusions of psychedelia, such as the scene that suddenly starts flashing different negative exposure images, or the scene that stops to insert commentary that resembles silent film intertitles.
Van Peebles also did the music here, as he did in Sweet Sweetback, and it's just as weird. Near the end of the film, there's an extended version of a song that rips-off "Heard It Through The Grapevine" that features a vocal that even The Residents would raise an eyebrow to. Again, I love weird stuff, so I was happier than a pig in, um, mud.
If there's anything less than satisfactory about Watermelon Man, it's that it engenders sadness that Van Peebles wasn't able to talk the helm more often. He made a controversial move in this film by changing the ending in the original script, as he rightfully should have done (Columbia originally wanted an "it was all a dream" ending, which would have been ridiculous and insulting, to say the least), and that, combined with his independent production of Sweet Sweetback the following year, didn't exactly put him on Hollywood's successful brownnoser list.
Watermelon Man is the story of Jeff Gerber (Godfrey Cambridge). He's something of a strange dweeb who nevertheless has a stereotypical white-bread suburban existence. He's got a wife, two preadolescent kids, a nice home with a manicured lawn, and so on. He's also something of a health nut (although humorously, Cambridge wasn't exactly in great shape when they shot the film). As the film opens, he's busy exercising while his wife is trying to capture a few more minutes of sleep. He regularly uses a sun lamp. He takes the bus to his insurance salesman job, but instead of catching it right down the street, he races it through the neighborhood every day, the goal being to beat it to the last stop before it gets on the highway.
Jeff presents himself as happy-go-lucky and quite a joker, but he's a bit obnoxious and boorish, plus he shows himself to be racist and a male chauvinist, although he's not exactly gung ho about sleeping with his wife.
Just as we're learning about Jeff's routine, something unusual happens--he wakes up in the middle of the night as a black man. At first he thinks it's a nightmare, but it doesn't go away. He blames it on the sun lamp. He blames it on food he's ingesting. The bulk of Watermelon Man has Jeff trying to at first conquer, then later deal with his newfound "problem".
If you've seen both films, you might find it odd that Van Peebles made Watermelon Man before Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971). Unlike Sweet Sweetback, which is intriguing in its own way, but not near as good of a film artistically and technically, the direction in Watermelon Man is finely nuanced and sophisticated, the cinematography is crisp and attractive and technical elements such as sound are superb. I suppose this might be an interesting lesson in how crucial budget and "legitimacy" can be for film-making. It gives access to the finest materials and resources, including a large stable of professionals with narrow specialties. At that, however, Watermelon Man is not nearly as respected now as Sweet Sweetback because of what Sweet Sweetback represents, both ideologically and influentially in the film industry. Sweet Sweetback was something of a revolutionary (and very psychedelic) cry for African-American rights, and it helped launch not only the blaxploitation craze of the 1970s, but also fiercely independent film-making.
Yet, Watermelon Man is just as unique and important in what it has to say about race, even if it's not violent or pornographic, and not bizarre in the same way. Once Jeff becomes black, everything about his life changes. There isn't a person around who doesn't relate to him differently, with many having a polar opposite reaction to him--both his white friends (and family, of course) and his black acquaintances (they weren't friends, exactly, when Jeff thought he was white). Everyone wants to exploit his newfound state, including his boss. Van Peebles makes a sly transition from the beginning to the end of the film that goes from white-bread sitcom to something of a militant blaxploitation flick in a way that you barely even notice.
A large part of what makes Watermelon Man so odd is Godfrey Cambridge. His performance is way over the top and consistently bizarre, but for some of us, in some contexts (such as for me in this context), this kind of bizarre, over the top material works extremely well--in fact, I tend to prefer this to realism. The other performances are at least interesting, even if they're not all good in a conventional wisdom evaluation, but Cambridge really carries the film.
Equally bizarre and a bit disturbing is Cambridge's make-up as a white man. The make-up is extremely well done--it's difficult to picture Cambridge as he really looks underneath it all, but given the character's disposition, Cambridge as a white man comes off as freakish to say the least.
Van Peebles' direction is extremely admirable. He's not afraid to take all kinds of thrilling chances, including such unusual moves as quick pans to go from character to character in a conversation and odd intrusions of psychedelia, such as the scene that suddenly starts flashing different negative exposure images, or the scene that stops to insert commentary that resembles silent film intertitles.
Van Peebles also did the music here, as he did in Sweet Sweetback, and it's just as weird. Near the end of the film, there's an extended version of a song that rips-off "Heard It Through The Grapevine" that features a vocal that even The Residents would raise an eyebrow to. Again, I love weird stuff, so I was happier than a pig in, um, mud.
If there's anything less than satisfactory about Watermelon Man, it's that it engenders sadness that Van Peebles wasn't able to talk the helm more often. He made a controversial move in this film by changing the ending in the original script, as he rightfully should have done (Columbia originally wanted an "it was all a dream" ending, which would have been ridiculous and insulting, to say the least), and that, combined with his independent production of Sweet Sweetback the following year, didn't exactly put him on Hollywood's successful brownnoser list.
A Good Premise, Yes. But A Good Movie....?
dungeonstudio27 March 2021
I fully agree this is a daring movie that Melvin Van Peebles was the right man for, and delivered it in a thought provoking way without be overly demeaning or righteous in either skin tones portrayals of all the characters. For it's time, and early opportunity for Melvin, it's amazing this movie even got made and released!
But I found the pacing and some editing and sequences to be a little more than jarring. I get what Melvin was trying to convey, and appreciate his somewhat Russ Meyers way of imagery and such. But, Melvin, the editors and/or the studio could've and should've taken just a bit more time with it all. And maybe with budget and technical stuff at the time it couldn't be helped? But as an overall concise and clean story - I have to say it's 'six of one, half dozen of the other'.
Much like Putney Swope, which I also adore premise wise. But as a well assembled movie and story - it is not! Again, not to anyone's lack of talent - they did what they had to do with what they had. But just a little more time and care taken with the assembly and cuts would've made it SO much better! But also understand then, and even now these are 'hot button' movies that I'm sure many were uncomfortable to be involved from the get go. Be they black or white. And I'm sure if anyone were to take the scissors to them now, even in the most minute manner, there would be hell to pay for marring the true integrity of it all.
So it was what it was, it is what it is, and will be what it will be for decades more to come. Whether we laugh, cry, or finally learn from it all.
But I found the pacing and some editing and sequences to be a little more than jarring. I get what Melvin was trying to convey, and appreciate his somewhat Russ Meyers way of imagery and such. But, Melvin, the editors and/or the studio could've and should've taken just a bit more time with it all. And maybe with budget and technical stuff at the time it couldn't be helped? But as an overall concise and clean story - I have to say it's 'six of one, half dozen of the other'.
Much like Putney Swope, which I also adore premise wise. But as a well assembled movie and story - it is not! Again, not to anyone's lack of talent - they did what they had to do with what they had. But just a little more time and care taken with the assembly and cuts would've made it SO much better! But also understand then, and even now these are 'hot button' movies that I'm sure many were uncomfortable to be involved from the get go. Be they black or white. And I'm sure if anyone were to take the scissors to them now, even in the most minute manner, there would be hell to pay for marring the true integrity of it all.
So it was what it was, it is what it is, and will be what it will be for decades more to come. Whether we laugh, cry, or finally learn from it all.
Was I supposed to laugh?
ArtVandelayImporterExporter28 December 2021
If this guy was my husband, father, fellow bus rider, colleague, boss, employee, insurance salesman,etc. I would have murdered him the first time I met him. No need to spend enough time around him that I would discover he's a racist.
This movie is ''funny" in the same way as getting lectured by mouthy leftyst Mike Stivik was ''funny" every Monday night at 8.
Another reviewer compared Melvin Van Peebles RIP to Spike Lee. That's quite astute. Both are hack directors with absolutely no feel for realism yet are highly regarded. I might suggest Van Peebles has more of a sense of humour; whereas, Lee takes himself seriously.
I bet most people couldn't get past the first 15 minutes of this terrible movie.
This movie is ''funny" in the same way as getting lectured by mouthy leftyst Mike Stivik was ''funny" every Monday night at 8.
Another reviewer compared Melvin Van Peebles RIP to Spike Lee. That's quite astute. Both are hack directors with absolutely no feel for realism yet are highly regarded. I might suggest Van Peebles has more of a sense of humour; whereas, Lee takes himself seriously.
I bet most people couldn't get past the first 15 minutes of this terrible movie.
Watermelon Man Doesn't Spit out Any Seeds~~Wonderful Movie
definitedoll14 March 2007
I first saw this film on television about 7-8 years ago. It was part of a "Heritage Network" movie special. This was hosted by Ruby Dee and Ossie Davis. I fell in love!!! I had to own this film!!! How much were they holding the film hostage for???? $20 dollars??? $100 dollars?? And so I waited for a few years. My father would keep saying to me "Aren't you going to buy that movie?" I'd say "Yeah Soon", but just didn't want to cough up the cash for it. Then it finally arrived on DVD in 2004 or so. I purchased it at Media Play. And I have watched it several times. I think that it's ahead of its time. Godfrey Cambridge plays a very disciplined white man with a nice white family. He puts on his sneakers and runs down the hill as exercise racing with the bus. Just the like the Yuppies of the 80's that wore sneakers to work then changed shoes. He was doing this in 1969.. He was an insurance man and he believed in exercise, family, all the values that this country was raging against in 1969. Then he wakes up one day and is black. All the showers in the world can't wash off the color. His whole universe changes. Some for the worse, some for the better. I have a whole new respect for Godfrey Cambridge from this film. A highly intelligent man in real life, Godfrey lets this shine through in this film. Especially poignant is when he is selling insurance to young black families. He talks straight to them, and doesn't patronize them. You will see this in the film. No hard sell, No baloney. Another tidbit that you will find interesting is that the house interior they used is the same one that they used for another famous television family.....THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY!!!!!! There is a small barely audible directors commentary with the film, and you have to listen carefully to really understand it. Seems that the film company did not treat Mr. Van Peebles very nicely. And I am putting this nicely as i can. Anyway it's a gem of a movie!!!!
appreciate the attempt
SnoopyStyle27 September 2018
Jeff Gerber is an average white suburban family man. He's dismissive of the raging civil rights movement and is callous towards black people. One morning, he wakes up after turning black which he attributes to an overuse of the sunlamp and soy sauce. His desperate attempts to turn back fail and his white world falls apart.
There is something disturbing about his white-face appearance. I get the premise but a logical transformation wouldn't do anything to his hair (wig). It may be better to simply do a body swap. Of course, it would lose the silliness of soy sauce. Also this would work better if black Jeff would act white. He's better as a fish out of water in the premise. He really doesn't work. The comedy doesn't hit. The social commentary is useful but that's all there is in this. I don't think it works as a comedy and some of this is awkward stereotypes even for a satire.
There is something disturbing about his white-face appearance. I get the premise but a logical transformation wouldn't do anything to his hair (wig). It may be better to simply do a body swap. Of course, it would lose the silliness of soy sauce. Also this would work better if black Jeff would act white. He's better as a fish out of water in the premise. He really doesn't work. The comedy doesn't hit. The social commentary is useful but that's all there is in this. I don't think it works as a comedy and some of this is awkward stereotypes even for a satire.
Missed opportunity
adamsandel29 December 2021
brilliant precursor to "Sweetback"
tonypuma8 September 2000
"Watermelon Man" might throw off quite a few people with its style of cinema. It's a work of the grandfather of American independent film, Melvin Van Peebles, and with that should come a certain measure of respect. Van Peebles may not have produced dozens of films, but he certainly turned the industry on its head 30 years ago. This is an interesting arrangement on the business side- hot off the European success of "The Story Of A Three Day Pass", Warner Brothers takes on filmmaker Van Peebles for a feature film. The story of Van Peebles versus the company in filming is a conte in itself, but the film remains poignant and striking in its cinematography and theme. Aggressive editing of both film and musical inserts highlight the subtle comedy and pure desperation of the story of a bigot who wakes up Black and watches the world turn against him.
It's something of a manic ride, but Cambridge gives it all the human character it can stand. His antagonist-cum-protagonist role gives you 360 degrees of frustration and forced humility. Van Peebles presses the more unreal moments into a sub-psychedelic form. Printed messages, color fills, choppy eye-effecting shots and that insistent score remind you that this absurdity is all too real. But ongoing themes such as "He stole something.. we don't know what yet," are darkly hilarious as is Cambridge's sharp wit.
"Watermelon Man" is serious film that will still make you laugh at times. This is not the kick-in-the-establishment-a** that "Sweetback" is, but it's an important step on the way. Alongside films such as "Cotton Comes To Harlem" (also with the superb Cambridge) and "Putney Swope," this is an important part of the early end of the Black film explosion.
Look for cameos by songwriter-actor Paul Williams as an employer and Melvin Van Peebles himself as a painter. Black cast staple (and director of "Dolemite") D'Urville Martin is also on hand as a bus driver in some of the film's funniest scenes.
It's something of a manic ride, but Cambridge gives it all the human character it can stand. His antagonist-cum-protagonist role gives you 360 degrees of frustration and forced humility. Van Peebles presses the more unreal moments into a sub-psychedelic form. Printed messages, color fills, choppy eye-effecting shots and that insistent score remind you that this absurdity is all too real. But ongoing themes such as "He stole something.. we don't know what yet," are darkly hilarious as is Cambridge's sharp wit.
"Watermelon Man" is serious film that will still make you laugh at times. This is not the kick-in-the-establishment-a** that "Sweetback" is, but it's an important step on the way. Alongside films such as "Cotton Comes To Harlem" (also with the superb Cambridge) and "Putney Swope," this is an important part of the early end of the Black film explosion.
Look for cameos by songwriter-actor Paul Williams as an employer and Melvin Van Peebles himself as a painter. Black cast staple (and director of "Dolemite") D'Urville Martin is also on hand as a bus driver in some of the film's funniest scenes.
It never runs out of targets, but it does eventually run out of jokes...
moonspinner5519 June 2010
White bigot, married with two kids and living in a suburb of Los Angeles, wakes one morning to find he's turned black. Director Melvin Van Peebles' groovy skewering of racial stereotypes begins with a great joke which is then turned inside-out for a double meaning (a white man can playfully race the morning commuter bus on foot, but a black man running is cause for alarm). Peebles and screenwriter Herman Raucher reserve their best material (visual and verbal) for the first hour; the wild, post-vaudeville revue-styled humor is scattershot but often effective--and the pathos work nearly as well when one can sense a heart behind them. It's a toss-up which is the most uncertain about the film: the cinematography or the editing (or is it that the ragged editing makes the camera-work look so unsure?). The third act runs out of funny ideas (unimaginable with all there was to choose from), turning the movie into a pushing, shouting, wayward diatribe. Obviously Peebles wanted to make a point, but 'elevating' our hero to black militant goes beyond stereotyping--it pulls the rug out from the comedy and leaves the satire seeming platitudinous. ** from ****
Very Unusual Movie
tomfsloan28 September 2018
This movie is verrrrry unusual. It could have been a normal funny comedy, and if it were to be remade now, it would be. But this also has quite a dark and dramatic side. Godfrey is excellent and Estelle is just right as the wife stuck in her unique predicament. Shawn Edwards described this somewhat as a horror movie. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but he's right. It's almost like a Twilight Zone that's humorous. It makes you think "what would I do?" as either him, or anyone else he runs into. It's fun to see little Erin Moran as his daughter. Personaly, I think it is a very good and unique movie. My only complaint is the editing. There are a number of times it's choppy and incongruous. No matter what, it's worth seeing.
The cinema of Melvin Van Peebles.
Captain_Couth27 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Watermelon Man (1970) was Melvin Van Peebles' Hollywood directorial debut. Godfrey Cambridge stars as a bigoted white middle class family man named Jeff Gerber who's luck and perfect white sterile life is about to change. One day, he wakes up as a black man. This comes as a shock not only to him but his wife. His children (untouched by racism) don't even seem to care. But the neighbors and his "friends" don't like it one bit and ostracize him from the community. As we go through the picture we witness Jeff's change in attitude and ethics. He loses his family and friends and eventually his high paying job. Jeff learns to accept his change and uses his knowledge to help those in his new community.
Melvin Van Peebles took a lot of flak from his Studio company for not making a "happy ending". Mr. Van Peebles felt that their was no reason and that his movie ended on an up note. I feel the same way as well. How else could have you ended this movie? There was no other way. My only gripe with this movie was the goofy make-up job they did on Mr. Cambridge. They slathered him in peach colored body paint. Other than that nit pick, I loved this movie. Melvin Van Peebles is another one of your most underrated directors that you'll ever come across. His body of work has been sadly neglected by the viewing public.
Highly recommended.
Melvin Van Peebles took a lot of flak from his Studio company for not making a "happy ending". Mr. Van Peebles felt that their was no reason and that his movie ended on an up note. I feel the same way as well. How else could have you ended this movie? There was no other way. My only gripe with this movie was the goofy make-up job they did on Mr. Cambridge. They slathered him in peach colored body paint. Other than that nit pick, I loved this movie. Melvin Van Peebles is another one of your most underrated directors that you'll ever come across. His body of work has been sadly neglected by the viewing public.
Highly recommended.
the strange hypnosis we live under
waltcosmos11 July 2006
I don't think the attempt to make Goddfrey Cambridge white worked to any great extent. It obviously wasn't the same state of the art makeup technology we have today, that can transform the Wayans' brothers into White Chicks or turn Michael Jackson into whatever it is he has become. Plus, Cambridge always sounded black in the movie, which further made his role as a white man not even close to credible.
That said, what struck me as strange was...how odd we were all those years ago. It all started with Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to some fat-assed white man...and that led to the civil rights movement and a whole new world. There is certainly racism today, that's not really the issue and there's a good chance that racism will ALWAYS BE WITH US. But the difference is that back then, the hypnotism we lived under made our racism seem inevitable...a law of nature. Now it's just some form of almost conscious ignorance. Did you notice that Goddfrey Cambridge never actually kissed her? I mean, on the mouth? Was this in fact even a gender/race issue? Cambridge was a BLACK MAN and Estelle Parsons was a WHITE WOMAN. What if it was reversed? This was already 1970. William Shatner, a WHITE MAN, and Nichelle Nichols, a BLACK WOMAN, were the first people on television to share an interracial kiss, on the mouth, in Star Trek, and that was in 1966 so one could argue that a precedent had been reached but not the right KIND of precedent. The genders were reversed. As I watched this movie, I could see the reluctance that Parsons had with the physically intimate scenes, such as they were, she had with Cambridge.
For a movie that was 35 years old, I was actually surprised how many scenes I laughed at.
That said, what struck me as strange was...how odd we were all those years ago. It all started with Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to some fat-assed white man...and that led to the civil rights movement and a whole new world. There is certainly racism today, that's not really the issue and there's a good chance that racism will ALWAYS BE WITH US. But the difference is that back then, the hypnotism we lived under made our racism seem inevitable...a law of nature. Now it's just some form of almost conscious ignorance. Did you notice that Goddfrey Cambridge never actually kissed her? I mean, on the mouth? Was this in fact even a gender/race issue? Cambridge was a BLACK MAN and Estelle Parsons was a WHITE WOMAN. What if it was reversed? This was already 1970. William Shatner, a WHITE MAN, and Nichelle Nichols, a BLACK WOMAN, were the first people on television to share an interracial kiss, on the mouth, in Star Trek, and that was in 1966 so one could argue that a precedent had been reached but not the right KIND of precedent. The genders were reversed. As I watched this movie, I could see the reluctance that Parsons had with the physically intimate scenes, such as they were, she had with Cambridge.
For a movie that was 35 years old, I was actually surprised how many scenes I laughed at.
Somewhat dated...and that's a good thing!
AlsExGal2 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I've always looked back fondly on this film, but considering some of the language I figured I'd never see it on TV again. I was wrong. It showed up on Turner Classic Movies in a festival of films featuring African American actors and directors. That is probably the only way you could see it today.
Jeff Gerber (Godfrey Cambridge) plays an (initially) white thirty something insurance salesman. Married with two kids, he has a nice house in the suburbs. He is also not only an outspoken bigot, he is just a loudmouth in general and disliked by everyone. He pinches the behinds of secretaries at work and is rebuffed, and when he tries to invite colleagues over for barbecue they always have an excuse. His wife wants more affection, he consistently rejects her.
Then one day he wakes up black, and everything changes. His doctor tries to get to the bottom of it and concludes that Jeff must really be black - and then fires him as a patient ("You might be more comfortable with a doctor of your own race"). The Swedish secretary at work who did ignore him is now very sexually interested. He starts getting phone calls laced with racial epithets telling him to move out. His boss thinks this "switch" is great because now his office has someone to sell policies to African Americans (not the term he or anybody uses in 1970). His neighbors decide to buy Jeff and his wife out of their house and wind up giving them three times what it is worth - 100K - a princely sum in 1970. And finally, Jeff's wife, a self proclaimed liberal, decides she is not THAT liberal and does not want sex with Jeff for a change. And his jogging routine gets him almost arrested and surrounded by a mob because he must have stolen something to be running through that neighborhood. And there is much more.
So Jeff goes from being disliked to ostracized and abandoned. And yet he is a much better person for all of this because he sees what bigotry is all about. The African Americans he used to joke about he now sees up close and personal from selling them insurance and realizes they are decent people just trying to get by. I'll let you watch and see how this all turns out.
To me, Godfrey Cambridge's makeup as a white guy is just ridiculous. But after all I KNOW it is Godfrey Cambridge, and there is no mistaking his unique style of comedy and sarcastic delivery. This is a good role for Estelle Parsons as Jeff's wife who finds out she is more conventional than she thought. Mantan Moreland shows up in a cameo role, but he is given far more dignity than he got in the 1940s films he appeared in. Note that Erin Moran shows up as one of Jeff's children three years before Happy Days.
This was made in that unique era after the production code was long gone and before political correctness set in, and thus it can take some chances, maybe offend people. But it does a far better job of pointing out the stupidity of racism in a far more effective manner than some preachy but socially acceptable film of the 21st century ever could.
Jeff Gerber (Godfrey Cambridge) plays an (initially) white thirty something insurance salesman. Married with two kids, he has a nice house in the suburbs. He is also not only an outspoken bigot, he is just a loudmouth in general and disliked by everyone. He pinches the behinds of secretaries at work and is rebuffed, and when he tries to invite colleagues over for barbecue they always have an excuse. His wife wants more affection, he consistently rejects her.
Then one day he wakes up black, and everything changes. His doctor tries to get to the bottom of it and concludes that Jeff must really be black - and then fires him as a patient ("You might be more comfortable with a doctor of your own race"). The Swedish secretary at work who did ignore him is now very sexually interested. He starts getting phone calls laced with racial epithets telling him to move out. His boss thinks this "switch" is great because now his office has someone to sell policies to African Americans (not the term he or anybody uses in 1970). His neighbors decide to buy Jeff and his wife out of their house and wind up giving them three times what it is worth - 100K - a princely sum in 1970. And finally, Jeff's wife, a self proclaimed liberal, decides she is not THAT liberal and does not want sex with Jeff for a change. And his jogging routine gets him almost arrested and surrounded by a mob because he must have stolen something to be running through that neighborhood. And there is much more.
So Jeff goes from being disliked to ostracized and abandoned. And yet he is a much better person for all of this because he sees what bigotry is all about. The African Americans he used to joke about he now sees up close and personal from selling them insurance and realizes they are decent people just trying to get by. I'll let you watch and see how this all turns out.
To me, Godfrey Cambridge's makeup as a white guy is just ridiculous. But after all I KNOW it is Godfrey Cambridge, and there is no mistaking his unique style of comedy and sarcastic delivery. This is a good role for Estelle Parsons as Jeff's wife who finds out she is more conventional than she thought. Mantan Moreland shows up in a cameo role, but he is given far more dignity than he got in the 1940s films he appeared in. Note that Erin Moran shows up as one of Jeff's children three years before Happy Days.
This was made in that unique era after the production code was long gone and before political correctness set in, and thus it can take some chances, maybe offend people. But it does a far better job of pointing out the stupidity of racism in a far more effective manner than some preachy but socially acceptable film of the 21st century ever could.
Laughing through the Pain
ryanpersaud-594155 February 2024
As the disclaimer at the beginning of this film on Amazon warns us, this film is um...not going to be for everyone. Particularly, those who are easily offended by racial slurs and stereotypes. This is a movie that's bound to offend pretty much everyone, but it's doing it at a time when a lot of these sentiments were actually quite common.
I mean, we see how some white audiences react to movies like Get Out or Candyman, that use metaphor and symbolism to ALLUDE to racial injustice. Ironically, those same audiences would probably roll their eyes at the disclaimer at the beginning of the film, and celebrate its frankness and willingness to be offensive...yet, probably miss that the film is saying the exact same thing.
While Jeff Gerber (Godfery Cambridge) starts the film off as a hopelessly bigoted lug of a man who...races buses (for some reason), the white people around him are well-to-do and roll their eyes at his casual racism and disdain for black people. That is, until, he becomes black himself and feels the way, first hand, how society around him changes. Cambridge gives off an interesting performance; first he's really annoying and difficult to watch, but gradually, he's humanized and by the end of the film, it's hard not to admire how he played this. His desperation and exasperation transforms into acceptance and then disgust with the way these "nice white people" start turning on him.
At times, this movie is truly quite heartbreaking. I expected Gerber's wife to fetishize and be excited by the prospects of being with a black man (as the movie is not subtle in communicating they have a loveless marriage when he's a white man). But, her reaction is instead a mix of reluctant support to her husband and then active hatred of him, despite her expressing "liberal" views on race for much of the beginning of the movie. There's a consequential scene with Gerber's neighbours essentially bribing him to leave (as the presence of a "black family" will lower house prices) that's both funny and also really tough to absorb. That this movie lays bear the unequal and stratified society that white people were mostly content to live in is frightening and telling. At times, this film resembles a horror movie more than a comedy.
Now, while this movie is a good time capsule film on that level, on a filmic level...it's a different story. It's nice to see some of the 70s trends come up "organically" and not as a result of conscious emulation (the zoom shots, the freeze frames, the long static shots). But it's also nice (and hilarious) to see some trends that...just don't have much redeeming value. The wonky, confusing editing, the flashing coloured lights, the on screen text that comes up for no reason...yeah, this movie is going to be a hard watch for some, for that reason as well.
I also didn't find the film particularly funny; there were clearly moments intended to be comedic that really didn't hit for me. The extended sequence of Gerber trying to "whiten" himself just went on so long and, lest I reveal myself to be a snowflake, pretty messed up from a 21st century perspective. When this movie shines comedically, it's in the snide comments and fleeting bits of dialog, to be honest.
But, I can't say I didn't ENJOY this film. If you're interested in 70s film making, movies that reflect the time they were made, or just something weird that'll get you thinking...I recommend this movie. Just pack a thick skin if you're easily offended.
I mean, we see how some white audiences react to movies like Get Out or Candyman, that use metaphor and symbolism to ALLUDE to racial injustice. Ironically, those same audiences would probably roll their eyes at the disclaimer at the beginning of the film, and celebrate its frankness and willingness to be offensive...yet, probably miss that the film is saying the exact same thing.
While Jeff Gerber (Godfery Cambridge) starts the film off as a hopelessly bigoted lug of a man who...races buses (for some reason), the white people around him are well-to-do and roll their eyes at his casual racism and disdain for black people. That is, until, he becomes black himself and feels the way, first hand, how society around him changes. Cambridge gives off an interesting performance; first he's really annoying and difficult to watch, but gradually, he's humanized and by the end of the film, it's hard not to admire how he played this. His desperation and exasperation transforms into acceptance and then disgust with the way these "nice white people" start turning on him.
At times, this movie is truly quite heartbreaking. I expected Gerber's wife to fetishize and be excited by the prospects of being with a black man (as the movie is not subtle in communicating they have a loveless marriage when he's a white man). But, her reaction is instead a mix of reluctant support to her husband and then active hatred of him, despite her expressing "liberal" views on race for much of the beginning of the movie. There's a consequential scene with Gerber's neighbours essentially bribing him to leave (as the presence of a "black family" will lower house prices) that's both funny and also really tough to absorb. That this movie lays bear the unequal and stratified society that white people were mostly content to live in is frightening and telling. At times, this film resembles a horror movie more than a comedy.
Now, while this movie is a good time capsule film on that level, on a filmic level...it's a different story. It's nice to see some of the 70s trends come up "organically" and not as a result of conscious emulation (the zoom shots, the freeze frames, the long static shots). But it's also nice (and hilarious) to see some trends that...just don't have much redeeming value. The wonky, confusing editing, the flashing coloured lights, the on screen text that comes up for no reason...yeah, this movie is going to be a hard watch for some, for that reason as well.
I also didn't find the film particularly funny; there were clearly moments intended to be comedic that really didn't hit for me. The extended sequence of Gerber trying to "whiten" himself just went on so long and, lest I reveal myself to be a snowflake, pretty messed up from a 21st century perspective. When this movie shines comedically, it's in the snide comments and fleeting bits of dialog, to be honest.
But, I can't say I didn't ENJOY this film. If you're interested in 70s film making, movies that reflect the time they were made, or just something weird that'll get you thinking...I recommend this movie. Just pack a thick skin if you're easily offended.
Watermelon Man (1970) **
JoeKarlosi9 May 2010
A pretty weak comedy where Godfrey Cambridge unconvincingly plays a suburban racist white man who turns black one morning for no discernible reason. He initially wonders if he was over-using his new sun tanning lamp. He takes long milk baths to try and restore his light skin tone, all in vain. He then discovers how tough life can be in 1970 with a dark skin, as practically everyone in his life from his wife and kids to his co-workers and strangers treats him much differently. Though the potential for some really humorous situations was a natural given such a wild plot, I didn't really find this nonsense funny at all. And never once did I buy Cambridge as a Caucasian during the early segments of the story either. The movie does make its point, however. ** out of ****
The man who changed colour overnight
ShadeGrenade16 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Thanks to so-called political correctness, books/films/television shows once deemed acceptable have been idiotically re-branded 'casual racism from less enlightened times'. One such film is 'Watermelon Man'. This satirical farce was given two showings on B.B.C.-2 in the '70's, but none ( as far as I can ascertain ) since then. It is available on D.V.D. only in the States which is a shame as it is in my view one of the funniest films ever made.
The late Godfrey Cambridge is 'Jeff Gerber', an insurance agent, also a bigot and a fitness freak. He lives in a suburban neighbourhood with liberal wife Althea ( Estelle Parsons, so good in 'Bonnie & Clyde' ). He thinks of himself as a joker but colleagues and neighbours regard him as a pain. Each morning, he races the bus to work ( often beating it ). His son complains that his school friends have nicknamed him 'Son Of Speedy'! One night, Jeff goes to the toilet, only to find that his skin has changed colour. He is now a black man! No explanation is given for this peculiar turn of events. Jeff thinks it could be down to overuse of the sun lamp. When a delivery man calls with a new sun lamp, Jeff becomes angry and attacks him. Whatever the reason, he now has to adjust to a new way of life, becoming in effect the focus of his own bigotry. When he next chases the bus, the police think he is a thief. He receives abusive phone calls, he is fired from his job and neighbours pay him to move out of the area.
Herman Raucher's script is a bit 'one joke' to be honest, but the frantic exchanges as Jeff and Althea struggle to come to terms with the bizarre 'Twilight Zone'-style situation work better than the so-called satirical scenes in Jeff's workplace. Although he is shunned by his colleagues, there are compensations, such as him bedding a secretary ( Kay Kimberly ) with a penchant for black men ( and previously had wanted nothing to do with him ).
What makes the film a treat is Cambridge himself, who died incredibly young ( only 43 ) in 1976. As a comedian, he is easily the equal of Richard Pryor, and is brilliant as both the white and black versions of his character. Director Melvin Van Peebles originally intended to have a white man such as Alan Arkin or Jack Lemmon play 'Jeff' before realising - rightly in my view - that a black man would work better. Cambridge plays the first half of the film in white make-up, but when Jeff becomes black reverts to his natural colour. My favourite moment is when he loses his temper after all the skin creams and face packs he has bought fail to reverse his condition. "No wonder Negroes riot!", he bellows.
Van Peebles altered Raucher's ending ( Jeff was to wake up and find he dreamt the whole thing ) so that Jeff instead uses the money he got for his house to set up his own insurance company. If you get a chance to see 'Watermelon Man', do so. To enjoy it though you will need an open mind. It ridicules racism far more effectively than Sacha Baron Cohen's massively overpraised 'Borat'.
The late Godfrey Cambridge is 'Jeff Gerber', an insurance agent, also a bigot and a fitness freak. He lives in a suburban neighbourhood with liberal wife Althea ( Estelle Parsons, so good in 'Bonnie & Clyde' ). He thinks of himself as a joker but colleagues and neighbours regard him as a pain. Each morning, he races the bus to work ( often beating it ). His son complains that his school friends have nicknamed him 'Son Of Speedy'! One night, Jeff goes to the toilet, only to find that his skin has changed colour. He is now a black man! No explanation is given for this peculiar turn of events. Jeff thinks it could be down to overuse of the sun lamp. When a delivery man calls with a new sun lamp, Jeff becomes angry and attacks him. Whatever the reason, he now has to adjust to a new way of life, becoming in effect the focus of his own bigotry. When he next chases the bus, the police think he is a thief. He receives abusive phone calls, he is fired from his job and neighbours pay him to move out of the area.
Herman Raucher's script is a bit 'one joke' to be honest, but the frantic exchanges as Jeff and Althea struggle to come to terms with the bizarre 'Twilight Zone'-style situation work better than the so-called satirical scenes in Jeff's workplace. Although he is shunned by his colleagues, there are compensations, such as him bedding a secretary ( Kay Kimberly ) with a penchant for black men ( and previously had wanted nothing to do with him ).
What makes the film a treat is Cambridge himself, who died incredibly young ( only 43 ) in 1976. As a comedian, he is easily the equal of Richard Pryor, and is brilliant as both the white and black versions of his character. Director Melvin Van Peebles originally intended to have a white man such as Alan Arkin or Jack Lemmon play 'Jeff' before realising - rightly in my view - that a black man would work better. Cambridge plays the first half of the film in white make-up, but when Jeff becomes black reverts to his natural colour. My favourite moment is when he loses his temper after all the skin creams and face packs he has bought fail to reverse his condition. "No wonder Negroes riot!", he bellows.
Van Peebles altered Raucher's ending ( Jeff was to wake up and find he dreamt the whole thing ) so that Jeff instead uses the money he got for his house to set up his own insurance company. If you get a chance to see 'Watermelon Man', do so. To enjoy it though you will need an open mind. It ridicules racism far more effectively than Sacha Baron Cohen's massively overpraised 'Borat'.
Funny Kitschy Comedy About Very Serious Racism
thalassafischer22 February 2024
Watermelon Man is a funny and over-the-top fantasy satire about an obnoxiously racist white man - who is just an annoying person in general, including being grotesquely sexist towards his wife and women in his office - waking up one morning Black. At first he's convinced he's had an allergic reaction to soy sauce or that his sun tanning lamp is broken, and enlists the help of his liberal wife Althea in returning his skin to a whiter shade of pale. There are some laugh out loud funny moments.
But Althea doesn't support equal rights so much when there's a Black man in her bed and grows increasingly distant from her darker skinned husband as a hypocrite befitting the lyrics to the Sixties song "Love Me I'm a Liberal."
In fact everyone in Jeff's life now either hates him or wants nothing to do with him, uncomfortably avoiding contact or even threatening him with violence.
It's at this point that Watermelon Man becomes a bit too ham-fisted in its approach, especially the scenes when Jeff has an affair with a Norwegian secretary he's teased about being "a real blonde" because she sexually fetishizes his Blackness. Jeff gives her a whole speech about how she's a bigot...but just weeks before he was being a sexist pig and drooling over her Scandinavian natural light hair color and European body type, so it just comes across as preachy and hypocritical and sexist. When he's attracted to her foreign features, that's fine, but if she wants him for his body, she's a bigot? The film kind of started to lose me towards the end.
Still, I think this flick has its place in Black History and is worth watching as a cult film at least once.
But Althea doesn't support equal rights so much when there's a Black man in her bed and grows increasingly distant from her darker skinned husband as a hypocrite befitting the lyrics to the Sixties song "Love Me I'm a Liberal."
In fact everyone in Jeff's life now either hates him or wants nothing to do with him, uncomfortably avoiding contact or even threatening him with violence.
It's at this point that Watermelon Man becomes a bit too ham-fisted in its approach, especially the scenes when Jeff has an affair with a Norwegian secretary he's teased about being "a real blonde" because she sexually fetishizes his Blackness. Jeff gives her a whole speech about how she's a bigot...but just weeks before he was being a sexist pig and drooling over her Scandinavian natural light hair color and European body type, so it just comes across as preachy and hypocritical and sexist. When he's attracted to her foreign features, that's fine, but if she wants him for his body, she's a bigot? The film kind of started to lose me towards the end.
Still, I think this flick has its place in Black History and is worth watching as a cult film at least once.
Terrible direction, stupid script but sometimes it works
preppy-318 April 2001
A white bigot (Godfrey Cambridge) wakes up one morning to find himself a black man. Good idea, horrible execution. The script hits all the jokes you expect and then goes nowhere. The dialogue is terrible--people don't talk like that! Also, there's no ending--the film just stops. And Van Peebles direction is annoying beyond belief. Yes, I realize he was one of the first black independent directors--it does NOT make him a good director though. He puts annoying music on the soundtrack without rhyme or reason...sometimes it almost drowns out the actors! The color filters he uses don't help at all and scenes go on WAY too long. He's worse than Spike Lee (and that's saying a lot). Still, some of the jokes are very funny and the film makes a strong comment against racism. Also Godfrey Cambridge gives a wonderful performance--he has some horrible dialogue, but he pulls it off. The main problems here--the direction, the script and boy is it dated! However not Van Peebles worst movie--that goes to "Sweet Sweetbacks Bada** Song".
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
