An absolute waste of money

A different way of telling a story

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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?

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.

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?

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.