10 user 11 critic

Oh! Calcutta! (1972)

Not Rated | | Comedy, Musical | June 1972 (USA)
Based on the controversial off-Broadway musical comedy revue, "Oh! Calcutta! is a series of musical numbers about sex and sexual mores. Most of the skits feature one or more performers in ... See full summary »



(deviser), (contributions) | 11 more credits »


Cast overview:
Raina Barrett ...
Mark Dempsey ...
Patricia Hawkins ...
Gary Rethmeier ...
Margo Sappington ...
Cherie / Various Roles
Nancy Tribush ...
George Welbes ...


Based on the controversial off-Broadway musical comedy revue, "Oh! Calcutta! is a series of musical numbers about sex and sexual mores. Most of the skits feature one or more performers in either a state of undress, simulating sex, or both. Written by Mike Konczewski

Plot Summary | Plot Synopsis


The Broadway Show That is Still Shocking New York Is Now a Movie! See more »


Comedy | Musical


Not Rated | See all certifications »




Release Date:

June 1972 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

Merikoi to kratoun akoma psila  »

Filming Locations:

Company Credits

Production Co:

Show more on  »

Technical Specs


| (DVD)

Sound Mix:



Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1
See  »

Did You Know?


The title is a pun on the French phrase, "Oh, quel cul t'as!", meaning, "Oh, what a cute bum you have!" It is taken, pun and all, from a painting Clovis Trouille (1889-1975) "Oh! Calcutta! Calcutta!". The title is written on the original painting at the right on the lower edge. The image of the painting appears in the background in the beginning. See more »


During the finale, the camera crew is reflected in the mirrors. As the camera pans around, a crew member tries to run out of the shot. See more »


Referenced in The Simpsons: Eight Misbehavin' (1999) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

A fun bit of groundbreaking history
19 August 2005 | by See all my reviews

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.

12 of 13 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?
Review this title | See all 10 user reviews »

Contribute to This Page