Monday M*A*S*H Discussions offers fans the opportunity to offer their opinions on a wide variety of topics relating to M*A*S*H. Please share your thoughts and ideas in the comments section. My hope is these discussion posts will continue to elicit comments in the weeks and months after they’re initially published. Have a suggestion about something you think might be worth discussing? Let me know and maybe it will become my next Monday M*A*S*H Discussion topic.
Today’s topic is: Who was the better adversary, Frank or Charles?
Ferret Face or Chauncey Uppercrust?
All TV shows need some sort of antagonistic force for the protagonist(s) to face. M*A*S*H had several, like the Korean War and military bureaucracy. It also had Frank Burns and Charles Emerson Winchester, III. Both characters were “villains” for our “heroes” Hawkeye and Trapper/B.J. to square off against episode after episode. Of the two, which character was the better adversary?
At first glance, the answer appears obvious. Charles was clearly the better adversary. Frank was a joke, a whiny coward who complained about everything and everyone. Hawkeye and Trapper (and later B.J.) had little to fear from Frank, other than constant annoyance. Charles, on the other hand, more than held his own against Hawkeye and B.J.
On the other hand, while Charles may have been annoying, frustrating, and difficult to live with, was he dangerous the way Frank was? Did he threaten the lives Hawkeye and B.J. built for themselves the way Frank repeatedly threatened to make Hawkeye and Trapper’s (or B.J.’s) lives miserable? Charles had no problem with the still. He didn’t care about military discipline. He didn’t try to get Hawkeye or B.J. in trouble with Colonel Potter the way Frank did. He didn’t go over Colonel Potter’s head the way Frank did.
Frank went out of his way to make life miserable for those around him. Charles, on the other hand, simply wanted his life at the 4077th to be as comfortable as possible, and that sometimes made life uncomfortable for others. Does that mean Frank was a better adversary because he was more of a threat? Or was Charles the better adversary because he was a more worthy foe?
Hit the comments with your thoughts.
Frank also had Margaret as a minion in his vendettas against Hawkeye, Trapper, and Henry. And the big element in Frank was his desire to command the 4077th. He also managed to manipulate the courts martial system to try and prosecute Henry, then Hawkeye, for imagined violations of military law.
Charles, on the other hand, never wanted to replace Potter as commander. He just wanted out of Korea. However, he grew enormously from just another foil for Hawkeye and BJ to being a sympathetic character in his own right. Admittedly, the writers never gave Frank the chance to grow out of being a whiny pinhead.
Even if the writers gave Frank a chance to grow, noone would’ve believed it! Even Margaret told him off a few times, she was – in some ways – a good influence on him, he stayed the same weasel, except for those times, when they wrote their riports to the General together. Frank’s caracter was really a pinhead, he said it right in the episode “For the good of the outfit”: “How do I know, what the decent thing is?!” – that’s Frank!
Well put!
It depends on the context of which we’re discussing. Charles was a worthy adversary for Hawkeye and B.J., because unlike Frank, he couldn’t be broken down as easily, and he was far more intelligent and clear-headed that he could actuallly – when push came to shove – fight back and present the two of them with a challenge.
Frank, on the other hand, was a wimp, and, as noted by Hawkeye, “Was more fun to be cruel to.” But, he was also the closest thing the show ever had to a villain . . . I never really considered him and outright villain, but a lot of people do, and it’s easy to see why: he was a coniving weasel and a terrible person who was also pit against Hawkeye and Trapper, and almost anybody else in camp.
But, then again, Charles could be an unlikable person as well, and unlike Frank, who was unlikable simply because he came from such a rotten homelife and had a rotten childhood, Charles could and would go out of his way to be unlikable, because he considered everyone else in camp socially beneath him, and didn’t want to develop any relationships in camp – professional or otherwise.
So, this is actually a pretty tough question.
A deceptively hard question!
Charles was certainly the more CAPABLE adversary. He was skilled in the OR, he was smart, he was confident, and he had money/family/resources to make things happen.
However, for all of his faults, as the years went by his adversarial role eroded to the point that he was really less of an enemy and more of a very snobby friend. It’s hard to imagine Hawkeye mentioning Frank during a eulogy or including him in his will, for example. Charles wound up becoming “one of the gang” in a way Frank never did, or probably would have. I think of Charles as an “antagonistic protagonist.” Sure, he could be egotistical, conniving and outright obnoxious, but he could also display examples of true caring and camaraderie. Much of his ‘good’ side was just very, very guarded.
Frank on the other hand, was absolutely less capable and nowhere near as even a match for Hawkeye and Trapper/BJ. Aside from a few rare instances where he showed himself to have a human side, be a prankster or tried to buddy up with the guys, he really didn’t have any redeeming qualities. For the most part, he was whiny, neurotic, cowardly yet egotistical, bumbling, abusive and constantly trying to make trouble when there wasn’t any need to. As we know, he was far more of a one-dimensional character than Charles.
So, it depends on how you look at it. If you’re going for smart, evenly-matched, “battle of the wits” type adversary, it’s obviously Charles. But, if you’re going for an adversary that serves little purpose other than to BE an adversary, it’s Frank.
Personally, I’m going with Frank. He was almost always the de facto “enemy” in camp.
Frank was arguably the more menacing antagonist, at least during the first three seasons. As others have pointed out, he and Margaret posed a threat to not only Hawkeye and Trapper but to Henry as well, with their negative reports and attempts to court martial them.
Once Col. Potter came it, however, Frank was largely neutered. When Margaret moved on he lost his partner in antagonism and became an even weaker character.
Winchester, OTOH, never posed the same kind of threat to the protagonists. He mostly just annoyed them with his pomposity and taste in music. The worst he ever did to Hawkeye and BJ was pull pranks on them.
During the last few seasons they all became friends, so his antagonism didn’t even last as long as Frank’s. The latter never had a chance to “evolve” the way Winchester, or even Margaret, did. He remained an antagonist for his entire time on MASH. So I’m also choosing Frank.
I’m writing a spin-off from Mash. I call it “The further adventures of Hawkeye and Ferret Face.” It takes place in the present. 99 year old Hawkeye and 109 year old Frank Burns are no longer enemies but friends.
IMO, Frank was the better adversary for Hawkeye and Trapper/BJ because he was an easier target for their pranks. Hard as it is to admit, I actually at times could give a hoot for old Ferret Face. Once Margaret got engaged, Frank became a bigger buffoon than he already was and had no recourse but leave Korea for good.
Frank was the more consistent adversary for all 5 seasons, as cartoonish a character as he was meant to project. Charles didn’t remain an adversary despite being the better equipped to be an adversary.
By the time we see Charles having a therapist’s conversation with Hawkeye comparing childhood and fathers in “Sons and Bowlers”, well that’s not much of an adversary. We’re into psychological analysis at that point. Charles went soft, Burns didn’t.
If the question was “who is your favorite adversary?,” this would be an easy question. Charles, no doubt. Even just focusing on the adversarial aspect of the character (not looking at the great character growth of the character that makes him so good), I’d still say Charles was better. Not that Frank wasn’t good in his own way, but Charles’ strength and intelligence gave him a great edge that Frank never really had.
But everyone’s made a great point that it isn’t that clear-cut. I do think Frank fits the near-villainous role really well, with his slimy, weaselly nature. He may not be able to hold his own in one-on-one confrontations like Charles, but he was a bigger threat when it came to the bigger picture.