'MASH' | Critics' Picks | The New York Times
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 08. 2011
- A. O. Scott looks back at Robert Altman's irreverent film about an army hospital near the front lines in the Korean War.
Related Article: nyti.ms/n9PUre
Subscribe to the Times Video newsletter for free and get a handpicked selection of the best videos from The New York Times every week: bit.ly/timesvideonewsletter
Subscribe on CZcams: bit.ly/U8Ys7n
Watch more videos at: nytimes.com/video
---------------------------------------------------------------
Want more from The New York Times?
Twitter: / nytvideo
Instagram: / nytvideo
Facebook: / nytimes
Google+: plus.google.com/+nytimes
Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch. On CZcams.
'MASH' | Critics' Picks | The New York Times
/ thenewyorktimes - Zábava
I wonder how a degenerated man like that could’ve achieved such a position of responsibility in the army medical core? Answer: He was drafted. That conversation with Houlihan and Hawkeye sums up the movie.
So what Tony is missing is that despite the over the top satire and clowning is the story- Hawkeye, Trapper, Duke and Henry were surgeons they only cared about treating patients they didn’t care about rank or army bs. But Burns and O’Houlihan were army first patients second. Rank and regulations were their priorities. And the football game was a hoot.
Yes they were too harsh on O’Houlihan but she eventually focused on being a good nurse and won the surgeons respect. And she was a hoot during the football game as well.
The voice on the camp PA system is Michael Murphy.
The football game was in and of itself worth the price of admission.
Yeah some uptight critics disliked the movie, but there were dozens of doctors who served in wartime who said this was how it was. War is crazy, it's cruel, and it shouldn't be funny, but sometimes it is. War for those behind the front lines is mostly boring with breaks of sheer terror. You don't draft doctors away from their civilian life and dump them into a combat zone and then complain when they try to create a few comforts and normality to stay sane. Then to add to the confusion, you put men and women together who are just as bored and homesick and you get fireworks!
One of my favorites
Hawkeye and Trapper weren't entitled doctors they were doctors in the military during the Korean (Vietnam) War.
Definitely in my top ten!!!
When I was a kid, I wanted to grow up to be a pro from Dover.
Look mother, I wanna get to work in one hour...
I think that the fact that a system can deal with rebels is not the conclusion of this movie as A.O. Scott suggests. Hawkeye and Trapper John's rule-bending behavior ultimately changes the original, stricter system of the Hospital into a more laissez faire one in which their "enemys" (Hot Lips and Burns) have no more space. Burns is, through a trick, excluded from MASH and Hot Lips has to endure the humiliations "in order to survive". In my opinion MASH rather workes out the hazards of anarchy.
love the movie love the series
Donald Sutherland is now entertaining another universe outside our box of space and time.
This reviewer stops his review as soon as he gets going. Finish the review for crying out loud!!
CAN'T WOKE THIS ONE LOL
I actually prefer Mike Nichols' Catch-22 released the same year as MASH.
Then you never read the book…
Hey I got an idea. Why don’t you do a remake of Mash with Frank Burns and Hot Lips as the hero’s and Hawkeye and Trapper as the villains. Really? Come off it. It was a great movie.
You know, I think that would be really interesting!
I really love this movie, but of all the scenes to end this video on, you'd think they wouldn't pick the worst one in the whole film...
No
2:38 what is a Matinee idol?
Google defines it as a male movie star who is adored to the point of adulation by his fans..
That's it. Seeing this question made me realize how little this term is used anymore. I can't say I thought of Gould in those terms though.
To be fair I'm not American and English is not my first language so it could be just that.@@pazza4555
Imperdibile capolavoro di Altman con un Cast strepitoso. Da quel che sento è un prodotto cinematografico troppo moderno per l epoca di uscita nelle sale e per il palloso presente. Peccato
I absolutely obsessed over this film when I was 12 years old! I owned the soundtrack on an LP. I also owned Donna Summer’s “On The Radio”.
The irony of this critic's review of a 40+ year old movie is that the movies he's seeing today, in almost every case, suck. He's right that Hawkeye et. all can be dicks at times, but they were representing everyone who was of draft age in 1970 when they made it. And we loved it. One of my all-time favorites still. 10 x better than the tv series, as far as I'm concerned.
Totally gonzo
Scott misses the point here! The movie is, indeed, dismissive of women generally. And some parts would not be tolerated today. But the The movie is 'of it's time'. AND, the main point is that, no matter what's going on, the 'heroes' have their hearts VERY firmly in the right place. There's no ambiguity there. That's the point!
Their hearts were in the right place for their patients and sometimes for low ranking people who got mistreated, but Scott is absolutely right about them sometimes being entitled, frat boy jerks. Their behavior wasn't just "that's how things were," it could be cruel, especially to women. Sometimes older movies are a great reminder that things changed for a reason.
Still one of the greatest war comedies ever made!
Sorry. While the movie, and many others of that time, will always be a classic, reviewers will come and go, trying to apply 2013 thinking and standards to something 40 years old, created for the thinking and standards of that time. I think they do it now mostly just to get a paycheck in 2013 and justify their day at the office. I believe it reflects poorly on the Times, an otherwise fine organization.
The problem with your assertion is that you're assuming the standards of a period were universally accepted. They weren't. They were accepted by the people doing the mistreating, not those being mistreated. Sometimes what looked like acceptance was people just trying to cope with something beyond their power to change. The way some of the women get tested here is familiar to me because I grew up hearing women's stories about how badly they'd been treated. No, this doesn't reflect poorly on the Times. It reflects poorly on those who see the problems of the past as harmless.
Congratulations, Mr. Scott, on working so many buzzwords into your piece like "entitled," "bully" and "spoiled frat boys." It would have been better if you also critiqued the movie's glorification of "white privilege," but you can save that for your review of Lawrence of Arabia.
hit too close to home huh
geez, calm down. The characters are entitled and bullies and, at times, act like spoiled frat boys. That's ok though, you can still enjoy the movie and accept that some of the characters actions in that movie are troubling.
@@htown11465 Only if you applied them in real life, not fiction.
@@Madbandit77 na, in the fictional world, the characters are still troubling. You are allowed to judge and analyse fictional characters, kid.
@@htown11465 If you feel Hawkeye and Trapper are troubling because they defy military protocol that's insensitive to the consequences of war, there's something REALLY wrong with you, sweetheart...🙄