<><><><><><><><><><>
An Analysis of the Failure of M*A*S*H as a Foreign Relations Film
Robert Altman’s comedy film M*A*S*H (based on the novel by Richard Hooker) portrays three Army surgeons defying authority and goofing off in a Korean War army field hospital. The film received mostly positive reviews when it was released in early 1970. The movie was intended as a criticism of the then-current Vietnam War, however it has little to no value to students of American foreign relations.
Initial reviews for M*A*S*H were generally good and enthusiastic. One exception though was Roger Greenspun’s New York Times review which accused the film as “the first major American movie openly to ridicule belief in God—not phony belief; real belief.” However the reviewer does credit the movie with being humorous. The International Film Guide praises M*A*S*H for the performance of its actors but states that the movie portrays war as a “boy’s night out” and criticizes the shenanigans of the main characters. In great contrast Newsweek reviewer Joseph Morgenstern applauds, “As you sit watching M*A*S*H you can only be swept along and occasionally under by its glorious madness.” He praises M*A*S*H in almost every way, remarking on the acting, direction, realism of subject matter and more importantly the main message of the movie: the “lunacy of war.”
M*A*S*H was released at the same time that the United States was fighting its protracted and ravaging war in Vietnam. One of things that made M*A*S*H popular was that besides being a funny comedy, it also reflected popular opinion about the war in Vietnam at the time, and that most Americans were tired of war in general. The same issue of the New York Times that carries the movie review of M*A*S*H also has a story about the question of the use of biological and chemical “toxins” in warfare, the question being whether America should use these weapons before or after it is directly attacked (presumably by the Soviet Union). Interestingly enough, the other big topic besides Vietnam in the copy of Newsweek that reviews M*A*S*H is pollution, with the front cover devoted to it. By the early 1970s Americans were becoming aware of the damage that heavy industry and automobiles were doing to the environment. One advertisement in that same Newsweek is for a car with better gas mileage!
Later film historians have not dwelt on M*A*S*H. It is mentioned only in passing in texts dealing with history in film. Therefore an analysis of M*A*S*H reveals that it is not very important to the study of American foreign relations for the simple reason that it does not deal much with American foreign relations. The movie does not study the reasons for the Korean War or American diplomacy with the Koreans and/or Chinese. The only aspect of foreign relations the film does study is the effect war (foreign relations taken to one extreme) has on the men who serve in it. That effect, according to the movie is to cope in any way possible. For the surgeons at the 4077th MASH that means playing practical jokes, indulging in numerous acts of extramarital sex and getting into trouble with the Army establishment at every turn. Doctors “Hawkeye” Pierce, “Duke” Forrest and “Trapper” John McIntyre have no respect for the Army; they just want to get their jobs done and go home.
M*A*S*H takes place during the Korean War but more resembles Vietnam War era America. One noticeable clue that this is so is that the main characters’ hair is cut in early seventies style. The main point film is to be to be a denouncement of the Vietnam War, so the only time the film draws attention to the fact that it takes place in Korea is in the very beginning with a scroller caption. Otherwise the movie could be set in Vietnam, the focus of its anti-war message. That message is blatantly displayed without any subtle hinting in its gruesome operating room scenes. These scenes convey the results of war in all detail, with blood spurting from the wounds of dying people.
Another main point of M*A*S*H is to ridicule of the military, especially those in that establishment who take themselves and it too seriously. Chief Nurse Major “Hot-Lips” Houlihan annoys them with her stuffy adherence to army protocol and inability to understand their “strange” behavior, so they set out to humiliate and punish her. Those who take religion too seriously are criticized also. Major Frank Burns is pictured as a religious nut, praying in his bunk and trying to teach the local Korean houseboy to read the Bible. Hawkeye and the Duke poke fun at him and effectively call him a child. This scene may be the basis for the New York Times review of the film to call it “atheist.” However, the point being made is not that Hawkeye and Duke are atheist, it is just that they are not religious. Religious fanaticism is seen in M*A*S*H as being for the simple minded (even the Catholic chaplain at the 4077th is not as religiously fervent as Frank Burns).
The interaction between the main characters and native Koreans is kept to a minimum. Most of the action takes place inside the hospital. Only on rare occasions does the director take the audience to another location. Near the end of the movie Trapper John and Hawkeye travel to Tokyo to work on a congressman’s son. While there they spot a group of Japanese and maliciously mimic their way of speaking. This shows not only a bit of bigotry on their part but the attitudes of Americans in Asian countries (that they can make fun of the natives as they wish).
Ultimately M*A*S*H fails to be a valuable resource for those studying American foreign relations. Its main focus is denouncing warfare and ridiculing the military establishment. This makes it a good anti-Vietnam movie (or anti-war in general). However, M*A*S*H is best viewed in the end as a comedy film.
An Analysis of the Success of Patton as a Foreign Relations Film
General George S. Patton was one of the more colorful (and controversial) Generals of World War II. In his 1970 film Patton (subtitled “A Salute to a Rebel”) director Franklin J. Schaffner attempts to portray Patton and his complex personality. The film was a success for 20th Century Fox when it was released, in part because of the ambiguous nature of the message of the film. In addition to being a good biographical picture, Patton is also a good resource for students of American foreign relations.
Patton is a very confusing picture. It can either be viewed as an antiwar film (showing upper-level military officers as brutal and psychotic) or as a pro-war film (showing Patton’s successes in North Africa and France). Many reviewers of the time were of the opinion that the movie was of the latter type. Even while praising the performance of George C. Scott in the title role and the cinematography, New York Times critic Vincent Canby maintains that the makers of Patton are sympathetic to the main character. Similarly, Newsweek reviewer Joseph Morgenstern proclaims Patton as “the muddled glorification of a madman.” Many moviegoers and film analysts did not understand the films subtitle and asked what Patton was a rebel against. This is a valid question, as General Patton, being in command of many Army Divisions was a symbol of authority and the establishment itself.
Later film historians have treated Patton for the most part as the initial reviewers did in 1970. In his book Guts & Glory : the Making of the American Military Image in Film Lawrence H. Suid illustrates how the making of the film itself is instrumental to the view that it could be pro-war. He points out that the battle scenes are filmed on very wide and far shots of beautiful landscapes, thus failing to show combat on a more personal level. However, Suid also states that a movie viewer could possibly see this as an antiwar film. It’s all about the preconceptions they hold when they enter the theater: “Some went to see a major antiwar film, others to learn how war should really be fought.”
When Patton was released in early 1970 (surprisingly enough at the same time as the comedy film M*A*S*H, and by the same film studio) the United States was still involved in the war in Vietnam (the invasion of Cambodia was only months away). President Richard Nixon, who had been elected in 1968 on a platform of promising to end the war was trying to implement his policy of “Vietnamization.” This policy called for the lessening of US military activity in Vietnam and for the South Vietnamese forces to take greater and greater responsibility for the defense of their country. This would mean gradual US troop withdraws while Americans instructed tactics and gave supplies to ARVN units. The February 5th issue of the New York Times (the same issue containing the Patton movie review) has amongst its articles one which deals with the support (or lack thereof) of members of Congress for Nixon’s plan of Vietnamization. Other problems facing the nation at this time were pollution and America’s Youth. The front page of the Newsweek reviewing Patton poses the question of what should be done about the young people in the country’s High Schools. The front page article contained therein details the rising drug problem and juvenile delinquency associated with it. This problem faces America even today; it is interesting to note how little has changed since 1970.
Patton is not only a valuable insight into the workings of a (possibly insane) military mind and the military culture surrounding it but of foreign relations as well. The obvious subject of foreign relations in Patton is war itself, which is a very negative aspect of foreign relations that arises when all other more peaceful options have been exhausted. But the less obvious subject is the war Generals themselves. When one advances far enough in rank in the Army Officer Corps, their job becomes one not only of strategy and combat but of politics and (surprisingly enough) diplomacy. The Generals in this film are depicted true to life as bickering and self-centered; British Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery and General Patton are shown to argue all the time about how certain operations are to be conducted and so on. Only the diplomatic skill of Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower is able to keep them all in line and productive to the war effort. Interestingly enough, Patton is shown in Schaffner’s film to have diplomatic skill himself: after the infamous “slapping incident” in which he slaps a shell-shocked soldier for “cowardice,” Patton is ordered to apologize to that soldier and his entire unit. He does so with dignity and grace. The General is also shown engaging in relations with foreign dignitaries and rulers. He is portrayed speaking excellent French in an address praising French allies, accepting honors from the ruler of Morocco while watching a parade of Royal Guards in his honor, and orating at a gathering of British ladies in the English town where he is staying. However, Patton’s diplomatic shortcomings are revealed as well: his stated eagerness to attack the Russians after the fall of Germany and his public views about the Nazi Party (he remarks that it is like any other party, including the Republicans and Democrats).
It is interesting to note that in 1970 the same year saw the release of two films by the same studio but with seemingly different views on war. M*A*S*H is a blatantly anti-war comedy while Patton is an ambiguously pro-war film (even the makers of the film professed confusion over the subject). Even with all of its ambiguities about its subject matter, Patton stands as a good resource for a student of foreign relations. One important message of Patton, as stated near the end of the move is that Generals cannot simply be soldiers; they must be peacekeepers and politicians as well.
<><><><><><><><><><>
I love how in my essay on Patton I talk about the "still current" problem of America's Youth. Panic! Panic! Okay, okay, it was about DRUGS IN SCHOOL but still. Also, I forgot to say in my M*A*S*H paper how misogynistic that movie is. You notice how in that movie all of the nurses exist for sexual conquest and the only way that Hotlips is redeemed from her stuffy ways by the end is through the power of Duke's penis? I mean, it's still a funny movie, but damn. Sign of the times, eh?
(As we all know, there is absolutely *no* misogyny in movies nowadays)
Well, there you go... more examples of my spectacular writing from my college days (ahh, college. I miss college).
At least I can take solace in the fact that my writing has improved since then, right?
...right?
