It may be painless...

...but suicide brings many changes.

More on the series of film commentary I'm doing on the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) this calendar year.  Rules.

Film 21

21.  "MASH" (AFI Rank #54)
I watched this film last year for the first time when I was trying to accomplish this quest, but never wrote up my thoughts.  Life got in the way.

OK.  I was raised on the television show that got its start with this film.  That television show, while similar to this film, is a much different experience than the film is, to be sure.  As such, it is hard for me to segregate the two, but I'll try.  The character choices were much different on television, that's for damned sure.

So, what are my thoughts on the film "MASH?"  Let's see.

The only reference to Korea is written in graphics at the beginning of the film.  This, from the research I've done, was done intentionally, so as to deliberately confuse the viewer into believing the film actually took place in Vietnam, a conflict going on at the time.  Frankly, the haircuts, mustaches, etc. seem much more suited to the late 60's than early in the 50's anyway.  So, let's say that this is a film about Vietnam, set in Korea.

So.  What are my thoughts?  Well.  Let's talk about a few things.

There is a running gag with the camp loudspeaker, used throughout the film to great effect.  What I love the most about this conceit is the fact that the guy behind the microphone on the speaker, never, I mean NOT ONCE, gets his announcement right without a stutter, stammer, or correction.  It's hilarious commentary on the tedium of military service, and the insane events that these people find themselves in the middle of.  Often the announcements are about such things as the film that will be showing in the camp, as we are shown a scene of intense violence wrought upon a human being.  It's a wonderful framing device, and a great bit of commentary.

The ensemble nature of this film is at once a nice commentary on the "use 'em up" attitude of the military in war time, but also incredibly confusing.  We get LOTS of stories presented to us during the film, some of which matter towards advancing whatever plot is there, most of which don't.  I read that Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould staged a coup attempt when they felt that Robert Altman devoted too much time to tertiary characters, and their efforts were thwarted.  I can see their perspective, but I don't think they got the bigger picture of the film...which is..."how the hell does this go on?"  I think Altman's refusal to focus on Hawkeye and Trapper was a masterstroke, however disjointed it leaves the film in the end.  Again, I think that disjointedness is on purpose.

The scenes of the cost of war, in human carnage, are gut-wrenching, as we see Hawkeye start with a hacksaw on a kid's leg, or see Trapper John release pressure on a spurting neck wound.  If this is comedy, there's a considerable amount of drama wrapped up in those moments...and yet...we see the humor.  And the horror.  I love that the film does that.  I do.  Really.

I also must comment on the mock suicide of dentist "Painless" Waldowski.  Nicknamed "Jawbreaker," I believe, not only for his work on the troops, but for his endowment in the penile department, the character is convinced that he is gay because he wasn't able to get it up one time while the moment was right.  The scene is pretty ludicrous, and pretty absurd, with a mock staging of "The Last Supper," but what got me...and I think...to a certain extent...offended me was the use of a nurse to "cure" him.  Hawkeye has been trying to make it with a married nurse for a while, and when she is given her discharge papers, she decides to consumate with Hawkeye.  He, however, chooses to...ask her to give in to Jawbreaker instead.  She, rightly, is leery about it...until she sees his manhood.  As she leaves camp, we see her wryly smile about the night she just had.  It's a tough thing to watch as an evolved man of the 21st Century, and, like the portrayal of Hot Lips (discussed below), is offensive to women.  Maybe I'm off base, but I don't think it's genuine.  Bah.

The film stops about 15 minutes before the end, and becomes a second film, about the camp playing a football game.  That entire sequence could (and should) have been cut.  It's like the film "Stripes," which is a tremendously funny film...until they get in the damned RV.  The football game exists, as far as I can tell, for no purpose, other than to beat up the character of "Hot Lips" O'Houlihan.  Eventually, Henry Blake resorts to calling Hot Lips an idiot.  She was not an idiot, and the film goes out of its way to make her one in this sequence.  Lose the whole thing, and I'll feel like I watched a masterpiece.  With it, I'm terribly disappointed I had to watch two films, the second of which...sucked.

Now.  Actors.  Donald Sutherland is great as Hawkeye.  His whistle, his attitude, everything about him bespeaks a burning intelligence that is being wasted in Korea.  His portrayal is delightful.  Tom Skerritt, as the forgotten character Duke Forrest is pretty good, but given very little to work with.  I find it hard to believe that he's a surgeon, having gone through the rigors of a long education.  Robert Duvall plays Frank Burns far less buffoonish than his later portrayal by Larry Linville (I said I wasn't going to get into the TV show, but how can you NOT talk about Frank Burns?), and I had a tough time getting a grip on him.  I guess the idea was that Frank was about faith, and not about science, but that may have been a miss, in terms of character.  I think Frank was a wasted opportunity in the film.  Perhaps he needed more screen time.  Elliott Gould looks totally out of place in 1950's society, but I liked his Trapper John.  He also portrayed a guy who just go shoved into something insane, and needed to get out.  I liked it.  Sally Kellerman, probably by choice of the script, was all over the board as Hot Lips.  That's unfortunate.  The character has so much potential for actual threat in the film, but winds up as the buffoon.  I'll bet Altman, if given the chance to do that again, would change it.  I'm guessing.  Maybe I'm wrong on that.  He seemed to know what he was doing, so he had a reason, I'm sure.


Beyond all that, I'm left watching "MASH" less as a comedy than an incredibly biting satire.  I know, DUH!  However, there are not a lot of belly laughs in this film.  What there are, are a lot of "Holy shit, that's funny, but I don't think I can laugh" moments.  Those are my favorite comedies, and the ones I actually laugh at the hardest.  So, what we have here is a film right up my alley, in terms of cynicism, satire, and intelligence.  I really enjoyed it this time through.  I hope you find time to watch it.

Here's Ebert's original review, from 1970.  Again, I read his missives after I write these things, right before I publish them.  He did not include this in his essays on Great Movies.

Damn me, but I hit a lot of his points here (he likes the football game though).  Roger and I were in lockstep a lot on our view of films.