Do you love him or hate him? he is such a j erk but i can't help feeling sorry for him. are we suppossed to not like him? i guess i'm just an old softie.

------------------
CCRYDER1968

My thinking is they wanted a completely different personality from that of Frank Burns. While Charles was pompous, he was a brilliant surgeon. Coming from a wealthy family, his getting used to conditions at the 4077th made for some interesting episodes. There were a few shows where his compassionate side came out.

I agree. I think that they were trying to move away from the one dimensional character that Frank Burns was. Frank Burns was basically a cartoonish figure. With Charles they were showing a much more realistic and complex person. As the show moved away from being simply a comedy and began to try and have a message Charles fit right in. He was not simply a god guy or a bad guy in clear definable black and white terms. Here was someone who was egotistical, selfish, and arrogant. Yet as the show progressed we saw him gradually become effected by entire sets of circumstances and people that he never would have had exposure to in Boston. While he will continue to keep up his front we are able to see that ,unlike Burns, when push comes to shove Charles is actually a very good person underneath. As the war winds down the change is that he will begin to slowly lower his facade and let other people see that side of him too.

Hi all,
According to one M*A*S*H documentary, the thinking behind Maj. Winchester was -- to provide "a more formidable adversary for Hawkeye." Frank Burns was no competition at all -- intellectually, personality-wise or of course, medically.

The best description I've heard of the Winchester character came from David Ogden Stiers himself, I believe in the same documentary. He said that Charles was supposed to be "lovably unlovable." Those rare moments when Winchester allowed the decent human being within him to show through are what made the character acceptable.

As Hawkeye once told him, "Charles . . . you're pompous, arrogant, conceited and a total bore . . . but you're all right."

------------------
Later,
Art

I think what made Charles so fun to watch was that he
was such the antithesis of all the other characters on the
show.Everyone else,including "Ol' Ferret Face" Frank Burns
was from Middle America,Charles was strictly Upper Class
Bostonian.
One of the episodes that really showed this contrast was when
he and Potter had the mumps and had to share the Colonel's
tent and Charles couldn't stand the Colonel's Zane Grey or
Country And Western music!
But despite this Charles was not only a brilliant surgeon but also
able at times to do what Frank never could:become one of the
Boys.

Originally posted by mike
My thinking is they wanted a completely different personality from that of Frank Burns. While Charles was pompous, he was a brilliant surgeon. Coming from a wealthy family, his getting used to conditions at the 4077th made for some interesting episodes. There were a few shows where his compassionate side came out.


The best episodes that show this (for me) are:

Season 9 - No Laughing Matter; The Life You Save
Season 10 - Sons and Bowlers
Season 11 - Foreign Affairs; Goodbye, Farewell and Amen

Winchester was a great addition to the cast of characters. It was a smart move to have such a diverse character with a nice mix of strengths and weaknesses.

It was interesting to watch his character develop and grow over the years. I believe the character became a better person because of his time at the MASH unit. In a sense; seeing so much inhumanity brought out his own humanity. True, he was a skilled surgeon, but as time went on, he learned that patient care goes beyond the operating room.

My two favorite scenes were from:

Death Takes A Holiday: The scene where Kilnger brings Charles a Christmas dinner and makes it known that he knows that Charles is not the selfish person everyone else believes him to be.


Sons And Bowlers: The scenes between him and Hawkeye were so well written and performed.

I think MASH lasted so long because it changed over time. Frank Burns was an incredibly funny character,but totally one-dimensional. He never had a single sympathetic moment (ironically, until his very last scene). He certainly was no match for Hawkeye, which is why it was a smart move to make Hawk's newest adversary the opposite of Frank in many ways...cultured, a great surgeon and nobody's fool. Sometimes the changes on MASH worked (Charles, Col. Potter), sometimes they didn't (B.J., the single unfunniest character ever on a comedy). But you had to commend them for trying.

No I never liked Charles at all. I can't stand him.

Ed.

My thinking is they wanted a completely different personality from that of Frank Burns. While Charles was pompous, he was a brilliant surgeon. Coming from a wealthy family, his getting used to conditions at the 4077th made for some interesting episodes. There were a few shows where his compassionate side came out.


I agree. Unlike Frank who was a waste of space, Charles was a good person. I remember that episode where Hawkeye's dad was being operated on and he was worried and Charles comforted him and saw the differences in their relationships with their fathers.

Charles: Where I have a Father, you have a Dad.

Charles is my fave main character (my actual overall favorite is Colonel Flagg.). He's very complex and pretty well fleshed out.

My thinking is they wanted a completely different personality from that of Frank Burns. While Charles was pompous, he was a brilliant surgeon. Coming from a wealthy family, his getting used to conditions at the 4077th made for some interesting episodes. There were a few shows where his compassionate side came out.

That is true, and while Frank Burns was just /never/ likable, in any circumstance, Winchester quite often was.

Hi all,
According to one M*A*S*H documentary, the thinking behind Maj. Winchester was -- to provide "a more formidable adversary for Hawkeye." Frank Burns was no competition at all -- intellectually, personality-wise or of course, medically.

The best description I've heard of the Winchester character came from David Ogden Stiers himself, I believe in the same documentary. He said that Charles was supposed to be "lovably unlovable." Those rare moments when Winchester allowed the decent human being within him to show through are what made the character acceptable.

As Hawkeye once told him, "Charles . . . you're pompous, arrogant, conceited and a total bore . . . but you're all right."

------------------
Later,
Art

You pretty much nailed it, there... the changes that were made to the basic M*A*S*H concept were best done when they were completely new additions, new characters... Klinger, Potter, Winchester, all excellent creations.

I was never so fond of B.J. but I think it was just because he was so bland, but I suppose for realism there needed to be one sane character, at least.

I think MASH lasted so long because it changed over time. Frank Burns was an incredibly funny character,but totally one-dimensional. He never had a single sympathetic moment (ironically, until his very last scene). He certainly was no match for Hawkeye, which is why it was a smart move to make Hawk's newest adversary the opposite of Frank in many ways...cultured, a great surgeon and nobody's fool. Sometimes the changes on MASH worked (Charles, Col. Potter), sometimes they didn't (B.J., the single unfunniest character ever on a comedy). But you had to commend them for trying.

Yes, the new characters were part of a nice evolution, and if it wasn't for so many of those sensitive, "politically correct" episodes rather than the brash humor M*A*S*H was founded on, I wouldn't be so "blah" about how the series evolved.