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.

And then there was Korea. In an understaffed and overstretched medical camp Lt Col Blake puts an order in for more surgeons. Dispatched to him in a stolen army jeep are Captain's Hawkeye Pierce and Duke Forrest who immediately start chasing the nursing staff and annoying their tent mate Major Burns. When chest cutter Trapper John McIntyre joins them in the camp it starts a working practice that ignores authority and tries to find as much fun as possible in the middle of their bloody war.

I had watched the TV show for a long time before I finally got to watch the movie - I prefer the cynical comedy of the film although I have always loved the more sitcom style approach of the series. Many critics have hailed this as an anti-war film that exposes the brutal effects of war; to some extent I suppose that is true but it is far from being a part of the main narrative - even to call it a theme would be generous! It does have some scenes of blood and gore but it is far from having anything substantial to say about the cruelty of war.

Instead I always find this film to be a very episodic, freewheeling comedy, some bits of which work and some others don't. On the whole it is pretty funny and uses the sort of sporadic dialogue and action to move it forward. At times it is based on imaginative banter between Trapper and Hawkeye and at others it is out and out slapstick such as the chaotic game of American football at the end of the film. The downside of this is that sections of it just don't work - Painless Paul's dilemma is pretty uninspiring at least - however, on the whole it is energetic and very funny. Altman's use of overlapping dialogue and his usual use of overlapping scenes as opposed to a traditional narrative flow is good here but it would have been better if it had been toned down somewhat.

The cast is what really carries the film - the plot is weak and they have no characters other than what they create themselves and, although the dialogue is good, I couldn't help the feeling that the cast did as much as the writers. As such the lead two of Sutherland and Gould stand out as great comedians with great witty touches, their characters are the largest and their lines are the funniest. Skerritt starts out as equal to them but quickly becomes a third wheel despite still giving a good performance. The support cast are all a good mix of characters whether they be played by actors such as Duvall and Kellerman or less well known faces such as Burghoff or Bowen.

Overall, I am still unable to see what those who call this a `brutal anti-war film' see but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it as a comedy. As such though, it is very episodic and really lacks a solid narrative flow meaning that any 10 minute period could be good or bad. Aside from this lack of substance it is a funny, enjoyable comedy but it doesn't deserve the classic reputation that it has obtained.

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.

"MASH" has always been one of my favorite comedies of all time. It isn't as funny as it is great (although it IS very funny), and the main reasons that I find it to be so great aren't even because I find it to be funny. Probably the main thing I love about "MASH" is the film's style. It broke the rules of mainstream cinema, and gave us something different, something new! It gave us Robert Altman, one of the greatest, most influential, and most unique filmmakers of all time. The way Altman made "MASH" is very important. He let his actors improvise and he used tons and tons of (hilarious and chaotic) overlapping dialogue. The film also has excellent cinematography, a fast pace, and an anti war message.

The gory surgery sequences seem like they belong in a horror film rather than a comedy, but they may be the most important part about the film. Without them, the characters aren't fully developed, and the powerful anti war message is completely removed. Those surgery scenes allow us to see the more serious side of the wacky, prankster characters. We get to see them get that big grin off their face, and replace all of that childish behavior with serious medical work.

"MASH" is one of the most entertaining and funny films ever made, but, more importantly, it's influential, intelligent, and an important part of film history, and one of Robert Altman's best and earliest films.