Oh! Calcutta!

I was 10, hiding under the dining table, while my parents thought I was asleep, I was watching Oh! Calcutta on the Dutch tv. It was an eyeopener for me, and though it caused a lot of upheaval in the media the next day, it showed that times where changing and that people no longer let there lives be ruled by others but made choices for themselves. In some ways, Oh! Calcutta was just fun. And the music was definately good. It is only a few years ago that it was first shown in Israel...a sign that in some countries of the world you are not as free as in others. Where gay marriage is normal in Holland, and gays are put to prison or to death in some other countries, sexual freedom is also not the same everywhere. Oh! Calcutta was a clear sign of the times, and still is a pleasure to watch.

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?

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.

With the Broadway revival of Hair making waves,is the possibility of a revival of Oh! Calcutta! out of the question? This play opened hot on the heels of Hair in 1970 to an eager audience,clamoring for more on- stage nudity (and more they got). Like Hair, Oh! Calcutta! doesn't have so much of a standard plot,but a series of comic blackouts/sketches,dealing with sexual issues of the era. The individual stories were submitted by the likes of John Lennon,Kenneth Tynan,and others. Several sketches contain either partial,or full frontal nudity (both male & female),but not always. The musical score was composed by a ensemble that called itself 'The Open Window',that included Peter Schekele (of P.D.Q.Bach fame). This filmed play was shot on video tape during a live performance,and transferred to film, giving it a different visual texture, than if it had been shot on standard 35mm film stock. The cast of Oh! Calcutta! are made up of relative unknowns (at least for that time),but one cast member is Bill Macy,who would become famous for being a regular in the television series,'Maude' some years later. The show also includes a few song and dance numbers that actually don't seem just slotted in for the sake of padding the show/film out (including one nude ballet sequence that really works). Let the kids spend the night at Grandmother & Grandfather's house,unplug the phone,pour a drink (or two),pop this in your DVD (or VHS video)player & enjoy! Originally given an 'X' rating by the MPAA, this film contains wall to wall nudity,strong pervasive sexual content,and naughty language.