M*A*S*H

No, not the very wonderful TV series. The Robert Altman film with Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye, Elliott Gould as Trapper John, and Radar as Radar. This is a dark comedy, but it's a delight from beginning to end. And even more effectively than the TV show, the movie illustrates the complete insanity of war. (But even the movie doesn't depict Jesus on the cross hanging from a helicopter. For that you'll need to read the book.) Like most Altman films, this one is episodic. It's also gritty, grim, bloody, offensive, and charming. And Frank Burns (Robert Duvall) is not a character watered down and humanized for television. This is an example of a film so rich in detail (like Altman's "Popeye," come to think of it) that it demands multiple viewings.

I have to credit Robert Altman's breakthrough film MASH for at least one thing- it's one of the few films from the 70's to look at those in war not as overly anxious and gung-ho military types, but average shlubs working a particular kind of job. In this world of the military medical sidelines, where soldiers get the help they need after battle, the camaraderie is never too false, and the cast assembled is the first prime example of Altman's policy of casting being 80% of the job. The film is put together in a piece-meal kind of way, with about as loose a plot as dialog construction, where the sense of humor from the main male characters (i.e. Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland) is the kind of juvenile, sarcastic humor associated with its time. This is likely the kind of film that John Landis must have seen at least a few times before making Animal House.

But the problem for me, aside from the film's strength in breaking conventions and having such a varied cast (Sally Kellerman and Robert Duvall in the same movie, not to mention Tom Skerritt and Bud Cort), is in it working as a comedy. As a comedy in and of itself its just, well, alright. The humor and jokes in the film are a big step above the television show's lot that followed in the 70's (then again, I'm not a fan of the show anyway), but the attitudes of the characters, and the little understated bits that happen, miss marks of satire I would've liked to have seen. There's some of the human comedy that Altman's obviously been influenced by Renoir to showcase, yet I wasn't laughing at it as much as paying attention to what the conversations were going on. It's a kind of high-brow/low-brow concoction that has its moments, and then does not at the same time.

Perhaps I was expecting a little more than I ended up getting from the Golden Palm winneing, smash-hit film that jump-started the prolific director's career. And it is a good movie, no argument about that, it's got fun and shenanigans and a winning cast, and it has been created and performed enough skill and enjoyment that marks as important for all the actors involved. I just don't think it's a masterpiece.

I should probably watch this again, since so many consider it a masterpiece. Maybe I was over-prepared (Hey, it took me a second viewing of 'Citizen Kane' to get my past pre-set expectations!). But while I could see why M*A*S*H was groundbreaking and important for a Hollywood film of it's day (lack of the usual clear narrative line, anti-war stance, overlapping, improvised dialogue, sexuality, bloody operating room scenes serving as ironic counterpart, etc), it felt pretty dated and unfocused. There are some very funny moments, but a lot of the ironies seem easy, and there's a lack of a true darker underpinnings and ideas, unlike, say, 'Dr. Strangelove'.

A lot of the humor is juvenile, cruel and silly. And while I get that's the point – nothing can be more deeply juvenile, cruel and silly than war, it got repetitive and heavy handed after a while. The performances are good, but beyond Robert Duvall, none of the characters have much in the way of dimensions. People stay exactly what we think they are from the moment we meet them.

Walter Chow makes a good argument on the web site 'Film Freak Central', that the sexism, homophobia, etc are the whole point. Altman is saying we're ALL beasts at heart, even if we act like we're bucking the system. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I buy it's what Altman was intending.

I too, like another reviewer, had seen this pic only after being accustomed to the TV series. The TV show's characters had a warmth and comradeship, especially in the later seasons. Hawkeye, Trapper or BJ might have teased Frank, Hot Lips or Winchester, but always with a twinkle in their eye. In the movie however, despite Trapper avenging Frank's blaming an intern for a soldiers death and Hawkeye's helping Painless's "problem", I found the movie's characters extremely self-centered, hard-nosed, mean-spirited and hubristic. Hawkeye and Trapper just walk over anyone and everybody to have their way. I guess they feel they are such good surgeons that they don't have to obey any Army regulations. In the REAL army of that period, their shenanigans would have them in court-martial in less time than you could say "I like Ike." Everyone excepting Radar, Father Mulchay and Spearchucker comes across as stuck-up morons. The movie and TV show seem to be completely about something different. I sympathize with the Tokyo jeep driver's sentiment "Goddam Army!"

This picture is quite interesting in its portrayl of how one can cope during the stupidity of war. There is no message in this picture, there is no strong narrative, no story. It's a barrage of jokes edited together perfectly. Altman's direction is quite unique, the strong zooms, the editing, over-lapping dialogue. The fact that there is no plot throws up challenges, and I certainly admire the effort put into this by all concerned

The production values are terrific and the photography is miserable, which is perfect!

Sutherland is so damn perfect, such a terrific performance, I love the goofy style.

There are times when the picture isn't interesting and sometimes things fall flat. But there are jokes and laughs which this film relies on during the absurd war, it's the joking that keeps these characters alive.

I wouldn't say this picture features a good screenplay but the direction is so unique that it deserves to be seen by everyone. They don't make challenging works like this anymore.

Remember to watch this film in widescreen otherwise you'll miss out on 43% of the picture.