Oh! Calcutta!

I rented this for the same reason people went to see it when it was filmed: I'd heard about the sex & nudity and I was curious. I got a lot more than that; it's a time capsule.

The video was made from a closed-circuit TV recording at a live theater performance. I can only assume it's a fairly honest reproduction of the real thing. It's a few nude dance numbers along with quite a few skits. The skits are comedic, nearly all involve nudity, and are all about sex in one way or another. Topics range from masturbation to swinging to kinky toys and more. They're at least as amusing as, and only slightly more sophisticated than, your basic Benny Hill Show. On face value alone it was worth the $1 rental (as long as you're not one who takes his theater experience too seriously).

Its real value comes from its representation of the sexual revolution. It's hard to imagine that it had problems with obscenity laws considering what's available from a wide variety of sources today. It was controversial simply because people talked freely about sex and were naked. When the actors were naked, they neither hid nor flaunted it; they simply were, and appeared happy to be so. They cheerfully acted out skits that portrayed sex as neither serious nor dirty but just plain silly and fun. Compared to the modern business of sex, this is a breath of fresh air which made me long for a simpler time that I barely remember (and may not have ever actually existed).

The same day I saw this was the Janet Jackson/SuperBowl brouhaha, later described as "a perfect opportunity to both sell sex and condemn it." Oh! Calcutta! does neither. The closing number has the cast stripping to nude and dancing gleefully to a song whose chorus is "I don't care what you say / I'll do it anyway / Because it's mine!" That's the sexual revolution in a nutshell; for us to deny ourselves the pleasure our bodies bring us is to remove a large part of the joy of living. But today it's just one more thing for sale.

Cast member and choreographer Margo Sappington has gone on to become a somewhat influential figure in the world of dance.

First the film, then the stage production: Okay - this was filmed long before anyone had a home video system - it was back when videotape was a fairly new phenomenon, the player/recorders were far too expensive to be considered for home use, and electronic manipulation of the images was sparkly and new. There are some annoying transition special effects, some cute double-exposure shots, a scene that takes place in a forest glade instead of on-stage, and a scene that's not shown at all - you see a long cut of the outside of a building while you hear what's happening on stage - presumably because of simulated intercourse, though that's apparently not an issue later in the play.

Side note to cinematographers who film plays - just show the audience what they'd see if they were watching the stage production. That's what they expect - it won't disappoint them. A split screen is okay if it's not overdone - but don't cut to the audience during anything but closed-curtain time, don't show closeups of a couple of actors when the whole ensemble is on-stage and moving, and please, please, don't show a line of Celtic dancers from the waist up, ignoring the footwork.

There - had to get that off my chest. Sorry.

Most of the camera-work here is actually pretty good - the annoying parts happened in editing, and the incomprehensible decision to take the one scene away from the stage and put it elsewhere - I'd rather have seen what the actual audience saw.

The stage production - a series of dance numbers and skits about sex - the pain of it, the joy of it, the general absurdity of how it's dealt with in our society. There's some pathos, lots of comedy, some dirty gleeful joy, and some of it falls flat - but some will hit you where you live. By 2005 standards, it's really pretty tame - by 1972 standards in the USA, it was outrageous and shocking. Much of the reason that it's pretty tame now is that it dared to be shocking in 1972 - those who enjoy sexual freedom today owe the folks who dared to do this then. Some of the songs were interesting, but the music was largely forgettable - not everyone has a hit every time out.

As social history, it's interesting. As entertainment, it's spotty, but very fun in parts - well worth an evening. It was really much more fun than I'd expected.

I saw the original stage version of Oh! Calcutta! when they performed in San Francisco in the early 1970s. We didn't know what to expect and were a little hesitant about going to a play that was often raided!

We paid a princely sum for our tickets - $35 and that wasn't for the first row! Our seats were second row-center and those rows were very narrow! You can imagine our surprise at being so close to the action! As soon as the production began, several people in the front row stood up and left the theater, which only made our seats that much better!

It was a great play! We loved it and laughed through most of it. The only tense part of the play was when we heard the sirens of emergency vehicles in the street outside of the theater! For a moment, we thought it was one of the raids! We held our ground and remained seated and were the richer for it!

See the movie and see a part of our sexual history! I know I will!

After the musical Hair combined a little nudity with a lot of witty, tuneful songs, Oh Calcutta came along and combined a lot of nudity with a number of remarkably dull sketches.

For the most part, these sketches appear to have a humorous intent, yet none of them come close to be really funny, although one short sketch about masturbating is mildly amusing. And at the end the actors put words in the mouths of the audience, and some of those lines are actually pretty good.

My first inclination was to stop watching altogether, but when I looked up the play in Wikipedia I saw that the sketches had been written by a number of famous people, including Jules Pfeiffer and Sam Shepard. So what I did was, I would watch the first few minutes of a sketch, fast forward when I got bored, check out a little of the sketch later on to see if it got better, which it never did, and go to the next sketch.

There are also a couple of naked dance numbers, which, like everything else, aren't especially good. And there are a few songs, co-written by the guy who created P.D.Q. Bach, that are really cheesy and bland.

In terms of the filming of the play, the beginning is awful. You see the audience (clearly not a real audience but actors chosen to look like an uptight crowd) and then backstage footage of the actors. Then there's some annoying video effects when the play starts. After that the director settles down for the most part and just lets the play unfold, but since it's a bad play, that's little comfort.

Why was Oh Calcutta one of the longest running Broadway plays? I've got to assume it's all the naked people. I think at the time it just seemed daring to go watch naked people grope each other on stage and talk about masturbation and wife swapping. It was transgressive and revolutionary. Unfortunately, it was also really bad.

It's so annoying that there's video of the original Oh Calcutta but none, so far as I can tell, of the original Hair. All we have is that horrible movie made in the seventies in which they took the name and a few of the songs and created something new and much worse. How is that fair?

Oh Calutta was edited at Teletape Studios in New York City. I was 28 years old when I edited this video. It was edited on 2 inch tape using the first electronic editing system called Editec. We spent many days and nights working on the piece. I remember my car was towed away twice during the edit sessions. The video was to be shown on closed circuit video projection to a number of theaters around the country but many had to cancel because of protests. A poor quality film was made from the video tape and shown in theaters along with "Fritz the Cat". I was surprised when I discovered the video had been made into a DVD. Where was the original tape all these years?