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.
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.