Calcutta

You think you've got troubles? Spend a few hours trolling the crowded filth-infested lanes of Calcutta with Louis Malle's roving camera and take in the nightmarish reality that results from millions of people living in the filthiest of circumstances. Narration in this film is minimal, and images tell the story--whether pictures of the sick and dying stuffing their mouths in a death house or children rooting around in the muddy garbage with hogs, this powerful immersion in a city jammed with rootless humans struggling for survival is powerful and unrelenting.

While the arc of a story does not exist, the tale of this city is shown in vivid clarity and Calcutta is not easily forgotten; it's amazing that the film was made forty years ago: could living conditions be any worse today? (One day later--out of curiosity I looked up present day Calcutta on Wikipedia--and was not surprised to find an entirely different picture of that immense metropolis on view--an excellent way to balance the "truth"of what appears to be an objective documentary).

Reading the IMDb reviews I was surprised that some were so negative about the film and cynical about its agenda. One review chose to attack the USA as part of their consideration of the film yet had the reviewer watched closely they would realise there was some irony in the fact that the soybean oil cans were labelled in 17 languages to reinforce that they had been donated by Americans. The film had lots of implicit criticism.

The main criticisms of the film were reserved for British colonialism and the heritage it bequeathed, which was to be found alive and well in the economic elite of Calcutta. Most of the film showed ordinary people in varying states of poverty, working, cleaning and celebrating and/or worshipping. It offered special mention at times for the excluded, e.g. the lepers, the migrants from Bihari and Madras to name some. What this film does is include as many of the people who comprised the population of Calcutta in 1968 and it's not always a pretty sight. But the city is complex.

Some favourite moments: One, the jute situation. Under British rule part of the then city grew the plants from which jute is made and the other part contained the factories for its processing. Post-colonialism and the eastern part of the city, containing the farmed jute plants, became Bangladesh, or East Bengal as it's referred to in the film. The factories remained in India. So Calcutta's municipality divided the land formerly used for rice giving half of it to grow jute plants. The consequence for the population was not enough rice to feed the population! A great illustration of the ludicrousness created by partition and the effects it has on the poor.

Two, manual labour. It was plentiful in Calcutta at rock bottom costs and so the unions were keen to discourage technological advance as it would threaten employment. Meanwhile the people are working very hard for pittances. How would one resolve this? Well that's a hypothetical question as technology has advanced nonetheless.

Three, the clay potter in one of Calcutta's slums. A moment of genuine and serene beauty; watching the man artfully spin his potter's wheel and then so deftly remove parts of the clay he's formed into perfect cups. The cups are then stored on the roof of the hut to dry out thereby providing a decorative temporary roof. Temporality was one of the spiritual themes of the film.

Finally, another complaint in one of the reviews was that the film intruded on subjects' privacy. There were moments when a person spotted being filmed and tried to cover themselves. So there's some legitimacy to this criticism. BUT I wonder if the reviewer picked up this minor detail - and it was minor as most subjects were curious about the camera - because they did not want to see certain people in certain states. The camera in the film lingers on its subjects but it spent time looking with attention. Whether the attention was on faces and hands ravaged by leprosy, a man washing himself in public view, or guests at a bourgeois wedding eating. The camera attended to its subject.

If you have the opportunity to see the film then take it, as it's not easy to get hold of. I have it as part of the Eclipse volume 2box set of Malle's documentaries. The set includes Malle's lengthy documentary called Phantom India. The footage he used in Calcutta was to form part of Phantom India but when he saw what he filmed he realised it was so compelling that it deserved to be a film in its own right.

Acclaimed French director Louis Malle gives us in this documentary a very plainspoken, rather comprehensive look at Calcutta, India, in the late 1960s. We see the rich tapestry of life in the city, and all that it entails: the sick and impoverished, music and culture, labor and industry, social and political division and unrest, the divide between rich and poor, the lasting influence of British colonialism, and much more. We're given glimpses of the struggles of an exploding population, illustration of a bridge of sorts between the agricultural and urban, and the role of religion in daily life. And all this, it should be said, transpires before us with minimal input from Malle himself. In some sequences the filmmaker provides narration after a fashion, offering some explanation of the sights to greet us, or translates brief interviews with select individuals; elsewhere, his words walk a line between history lesson and commentary. For the most part, however, the preponderance of these 100 minutes are presented as unfiltered footage of the people, places, and daily life of a growing city.

Such a low-key, almost passive ethos is a far cry from the unflinching and intense or off-beat and oblique drama the man has given us in his features throughout his career, yet the result is no less fascinating. Especially coming from an imperialist culture (the United States, or really, anywhere in "the west") that constantly others and looks down upon regions outside our provincial purview, it's striking how wonderfully diverse Calcutta is. While there are common connective threads throughout much of the city as Malle's picture observes, all the same there's also substantial variety in language and ethnicity, religious beliefs and practices, economic classes and livelihoods, culture and recreation, and social and political views. Of course, within that portrait, we're also faced with the staggering poverty and appalling living conditions of wide swaths of the population, accentuated in profound contrast with imagery of a walled-off golf course within the city where the wealthy shuts out everything around them. 'Calcutta' is nothing if not eye-opening, in many different ways.

And on that note, the movie's strength is also its weakness. Malle casts a wide lens across the city, showing us as much of Calcutta for better and for worse as I suppose he reasonably could. That aim and approach is admirable, giving a no-frills exhibition of a specific place at a specific time. On the other hand, for lack of a unifying vision, thesis, or particular driving force behind the documentary, one might reasonably argue that certain difficulties raise their head. That lack of focus is more noticeable at some times more than others, and at times inculcates that the endeavor is altogether exploitative, or perhaps falls into the same trap of othering and condescension as much of "western" culture can readily be faulted with in the first place. This is especially unfortunate since there are scattered moments throughout the runtime when Malle does gloss over notions that could have easily been seized upon to center the production. Primarily, he briefly commentates at one point on the relationship between the pillaging of India of its resources by the British during colonial rule, a theft which led to the further growth of the United Kingdom as a world power. It is accurately suggested, but not outright remarked, that this exact lack of resources has contributed significantly to the state of Calcutta as it is seen here. Clearly Malle must have felt that it was beyond his scope as a documentarian to plainly draw such connections, or build a film around them. However, declining to do so, or give any more discrete core to the feature, also has its own ramifications. ("The choice to be apolitical is a political choice.")

Mind you, I don't doubt Malle's intent and sincerity, only the precise method and results thereof. Still, even as 'Calcutta' raises questions, they are as much questions about the production as they are questions for what we, as viewers, will do with the information that we now have in our possession. Moreover, with or without those questions, what the documentary represents above all is an opportunity to see a corner of the world for all that it is, and not just the worst side of it. And truly, for all the hardships put on display here - at that, surely not all-inclusive - what we see more than anything else is a city teeming with vibrant life, life that deserves to be seen and heard and appreciated all on its own. Given the nature of the movie it's certainly not something that will appeal to those who don't already favor the style, but whether one is a fan of documentaries at large, Malle especially, or just looking for broaden their horizons - though imperfect, 'Calcutta' is worth checking out if you have the chance.

I wish people who review movies would do exactly that, and not go flying off on political tangents that aren't necessary or relevant. Yes, Kolkata is different 40 years after this film was shot. What bearing does this have on a film made in 1968? And I don't know why one commenter berated the United States in such broad-sweeping terms, beginning with the false assumption that "we" don't know about our own slums-- and the implicit idea, about as inane as it gets, that American filmmakers don't make films about poverty in America. It's hard to find American films that are NOT critical of their own country-- I know this because I pay some degree of attention.

Not that diatribes against the U.S. have squat to do with this film under consideration. It is a FRENCH film.

There are plenty of sites people eager to vent their bigotry against other peoples and other nations can go, and be welcome.

As for this movie, it "speaks" for itself-- mainly by presenting the subject with as little interpretive voice-over as is possible. To see it attacked on trumped up ideological grounds-- well, it makes my jaw drop.

This is one sick & dark Documentary! Seems like they were bent upon finding & filming all the Hell that lurks in any other place, here Calcutta! Now,that place has undergone a radical transformation, first-has got its original & proper non-Englished name- " Kolkata " ..& has now,got all its positivity & charms of a sparkling Big city-all for the Better! It was Feb'1968,when the film was shot & its now 2008, more than 40 years has elapsed & generations have changed & so has the city! To all apparent views, the documentary throughout,is very vague & highlights all the abject & absolute poverty in parts of the city without any justifiable reasons for the horrid truth & chaotic state of existence of the time.It is but a failure in finding to analyze the intricacies of the soul & mind of the great city striving to survive with its millions & exponentially growing populace for more than 300 yrs!Inspite of its chaotic portrayal & shock value, the film is incomplete,with it's skewed point of view like many other superfluous mindset & skin deep research of the white skinned western world, would so much want to believe! No pity for the others & to each Best of its own-the Great Grand Kolkata lives & breathes in full life in its very own wonderful World today!!!There are many a things that does NOT meets the eye & to find that hidden beauty there,give yourself a visit to "Kolkata".