Oh! Calcutta! (1972)

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.

This move is a mostly funny mostly naked satire of sexuality of the times, circa 1970, that still holds up today.The bodies are perfect and most of the gags are right on the money.It was written by some of the best writers of this century and the acting is superb.The dance numbers are some of the most innovative ever choreographed and the people are naked--isn't that what your always wanted to see in a modern dance routine anyway!Be sure to check out the "Sex Clinic" sketch, it will leave you in stitches!

Filmed record of the live stage play (complete with an upscale audience arriving confused and leaving bored). It begins behind the scenes just prior to curtain with the male and female actors in the dressing room completely naked applying body make-up to various body parts and discussing if they should invite relatives to the play which will feature scenes in which the entire cast is...naked. The play begins with the actors lined up across the stage slowly dancing...naked. What follows is a series of comedic musical sex skits (mostly unfunny) with many of the players...naked. After you see the actors cavort naked together the rest is anticlimatic and boring. Bill Macy of TV's "Maude" dangles his privates as if he were playing percussion instruments. If that's not enough to avoid this film I don't know what is. Raina Barrett and Samantha Harper are cute and nice to look at though. Nudity was a brave new world to off-Broadway and the actors were all pretty brave to risk exposure (sorry for the pun) to ridicule. It is obvious that the nude actors find support and comfort appearing in mass with the other nude actors. More than once we see them in a huddle. I saw a revival a few years back and that same uneasiness did not exist (the lead female was an ex-Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader and centerfold). Each of those actors were of the new breed which would be comfortable soloing nude on stage. The audience was expecting a strip show, and got it.Oh Calcutta! can not be revived anymore than the sixties can. The pioneers of nude theater were pioneers but looking back there's really not much to see. Oh Calcutta! still exists, without the male actors, in strip joints across America.