« Rashomon, All The President's Men | Main | Primer »

October 08, 2004

M*A*S*H*

I'm not going to write M*A*S*H* with all those little stars for the rest of this entry. I would if I felt it deserved it, but it doesn't.

My feelings on the movie are mixed (as many critics' seem to be). For the positive, I think that a lot of the performances are wonderful, and this is probably the only film I've ever seen with Donald Sutherland in which I've enjoyed his performance (as Hawk-Eye Pierce with the trademark whistle). Many of the other characters play their performances as memorably, and part of the success is that they treat this farce on a level of reality despite the general goofiness.

The film feels like a series of situation comedies strung together, and it is no question why it eventually led to a successful TV show. You could probably split the film into four 30 minute episodes quite easily. As a comedy, it is straight Altman. Lots of stuff that was clearly improved, a very very very loose structure, some funny parts and a lot more jokes that simply crash and burn. My favorite Altman movies are the ones where he sticks to a set structure and dialogue, and puts his genious into that. I loathe Nashville and the only saving grace for MASH were its performances and comedy.

The movie, as you probably know, ends with a football game for the last 20 minutes. I realize that back in the day, this was probably cutting edge satire - go to see a war movie, and the part of the film where the chief battle should occur is occupied by a football game between different army units. Satire or not, it's a lame ending that doesn't bookend anything. In fact, the movie doesn't move forward at all. It's simply amusing situation after amusing situation. Again, maybe this is cutting social satire for the time - go away to war, and end up boozing and fucking your way through it. It's an amusing joke, but one that doesn't require 2 hours to tell.

There are some natural comparisons to be made. Catch-22 (the book) is far superior in every way, because there is just as much general zaniness, but there is also structure and forward movement. Whereas Pierce is the same guy from beginning to end doing zany screwball antics at the camp, Yossarian changes very much over the course of the book. And in the end, Catch-22 delivers a much stronger message about war with just as much (if not more) insanity.

Apocalypse Now is a film that readily comes to mind, and one that I believe is far superior. The zaniness and insanity is more subdued, but the same point Altman is making is made much more forcefully with Apocalypse Now. Dr. Strangelove also has the same wackiness as MASH, but with an actual story and structure which make for a much better movie.

On its own, MASH is a film with great performances and a lot of what comedians would describe as bits set on the backdrop of the Korean war. The philosophy behind the film, while harsh, is also very shallow, which is unfortunate because so much more could have been done.

As a professor of mine once said, Altman has made about 40 movies, and about 3 of them are good. My experience is that which three you think are good depends on the story. I like Gosford Park (hated it the first time I saw it), The Player, and Three Women. The first two have a required tighter structure; the third is pretty out there, but then again, I'm a fan of Persona and Mulholland Drive.

Oh yes. And I despise the Altman zoom.

Posted by nick at October 8, 2004 11:32 AM

Comments

Posted by: jack at October 8, 2004 04:24 PM