MASH essay
2004-06-09, 5:35 p.m.

Thoughts On M*A*S*H

Replacing the Frank Burns character on MASH with Charles Emerson Winchester III was a push, as far as I was concerned. Frank was scary, infuriating, unlikable, unfaithful, a bad surgeon, and FUNNY. Charles, on the other hand, was a very likable character for me (in spite of his pomposity).

He was intelligent, articulate, erudite, a fine surgeon, and capable of emotional growth. And, occasionally, quite humorous. But nowhere near �Frank funny�. I figured it evened out, though. All in all, a fair trade.

I loved Henry Blake. The heartbreak I felt when Radar announced his death was only somewhat mitigated by the knowledge that I was witnessing great television. But Col. Potter was a wonderful addition to the cast, and making him a career army man, every bit as much a soldier as a doctor, was brilliant. It gave the show more depth, more opportunity for conflict. And less sense of �the lunatics running the asylum� as presented by Henry�s drafted civilian reluctance to do things in a military fashion. Harry Morgan�s talent, professionalism, and character were a very positive addition to the show.

While I feel Trapper and BJ were both under-developed characters, each designed to play up one particular aspect of the character of Hawkeye, I must say I prefer Trapper. The reason is simple�I prefer the Hawkeye that Trapper knew. Funny, hella good at his job, capable of constructive insanity, and highly principled�but not all that preachy. A great guy to watch and someone you wanted to know. BJ, on the other hand, seemed like a preachy prig, and due to continuity issues with his storyline, he came across as a hypocrite as well. It seemed like BJ brought out the sanctimonious side of Hawkeye, and that Hawkeye went from bipolar to merely depressed during the BJ years. Of course, these are the years when the show lost touch with its early 1950�s period setting, and became a very obvious reflection of late 1970�s Southern California sensibilities. It would be unfair to lay all of the blame with the BJ character, or with Mike Farrell, although Farrell does deserve a fair share.

While technically, Gary Burghoff�s Radar was not replaced by Klinger, that is what happened in practical terms. And it was with Burghoff�s departure that the heart seemed to go out of the show. Episodes from those last seasons seem to be a mix of slapstick and sanctimony, and both feel mediocre and half-hearted. Jamie Farr had the unenviable job of taking a 2-dimensional, comic-relief goof and trying to make a real character of him. He tried, but he didn�t have much to work with.

I don�t have major issues with the individual characters experiencing growth and gaining maturity, but as someone who grew up with the movie and the original Richard Hooker novels, I really came to miss the funny. As the lewd behavior was lost to the dawn of political correctness, the drinking remained only to serve as the focus of an occasional sermon or morality play, and the humor was felled by the increasing need to use the show as a platform for social change, my affection faded away. The change of tone took the show away from comedy, and it seemed to evolve into a completely different show. A show with a different cast, a different thrust, and only a passing resemblance to the original. A show that just wasn�t very funny, or even very good.

Back in the deep dark days of the early eighties, there still wasn�t very much to pick from on TV. A lot of us watched till the end of the series simply because it was all we had, even in its debilitated state. In contrast, I had very little problem walking away a few years later when I stopped watching �Cheers�, and even less a few years ago when �Frasier� ceased to captivate me. I�ve learned when to let go, you see. And I learned it the hard way--from watching M*A*S*H.