CALCUTTA

US, 1946, 83 minutes, Black and white.
Alan Ladd, Gail Russell, William Bendix.
Directed by John Farrow.

Calcutta is one of a number of routine thrillers directed by John Farrow and starring Alan Ladd. While they had exotic Asian names e.g. Saigon, they are very much Hollywood studio films with conventional thriller techniques and plots. Alan Ladd was popular in this kind of role and was reasonably supported here by William Bendix. Gail Russell, who had only a short strong career, was a very attractive and sultry heroine. She worked with Alan Ladd in several films. Calcutta, while moderately entertaining in its way, now appears very dated.

1. How successful a thriller was this in itself? Was it a competent thriller? Anything special about its technique and style? How was it typical of the thrillers of the "40s and their studio-made conventions? The use of the stars of the '40s? The Alan Ladd mystique?

2. The title was Calcutta. Did the film convey at all a sense of India and a sense of the city of Calcutta? Was this important for the film? Did the studio sets confine the action too much and not give an authentic atmosphere?

3. Was Calcutta important~ for the themes of the film? For impact on characters? How stock and conventional were the characters? The tough hero, his loyal buddy, the languid heroine turning villainess, the minor stock characters in the casinos, the police, the Indians? How different was the fat woman in the bazaar with the diamond smuggling?

4. Were the situations conventional also? The gambling situations, the smuggling situations, the motivation of heroes and villains? What insight into criminal behaviour did this give? or is this asking too much of this film?

5. How interesting were Neil and Pedro as heroes? Alan Ladd's style, toughness? Alan Ladd's style strengths even in fights. and in relationship with the leading lady? Were they at all real? Have men behaved like this? Do they behave like this?

6. Your impressions of Virginia? Her quiet style and demure tone? Her tearfulness? Was she convincing when a heroine? In her love for Neil? Were you surprised when she turned out to be the villainess? Why? Was this me-rely a trick for the film? Or was it the skill of the actress?

7. These films of the '40s give an atmosphere of toughness. Of what does this toughness consist? Is it genuine human feeling? Is it a covering of real emotion? Is it too hard? The importance of comrades? The relative unimportance of love contrasting with comradeship?

8. The film had a certain amount of violence. How violent was it? How arbitrary was the violence? The shooting? How does violence of the '40s on the screen contrast with that of the '70s?

9. Have such melodramas of the '40s much value today besides entertainment? Do they portray the way of life in another decade? Genuinely? Or were they merely Hollywood styles of the times, unrelated to reality? How did such Hollywood styles mould tough heroes in the Alan Ladd style, for instance?