MovieChat Forums > Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman (1976) Discussion > They don't get it

They don't get it

posted 15 years ago by phrumpster
15 replies | jump to latest

I played the dvd for a friend. He couldn't even hang for two minutes. It's rarely
LOL comedy, but always makes me smile. Eff 'em if they can't take a joke.

Poets are made by fools like me, but only God can make STD.

[–] porfle 14 years ago

One of the main things people need in order to get into this show (besides an attention span) is a familiarity with regular soap operas. Especially the old-fashioned kind like "Search for Tomorrow", "The Secret Storm", "Love of Life", "The Guiding Light" and "As the World Turns." Even a passing knowledge of soaps like "The Young and the Restless", "The Bold and the Beautiful", or "All My Children" would do.

Unfortunately, less and less people today have ever seen a single episode of a soap opera, and they are dying out.

hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
myspace.com/porfle
andersonvision.com

[–] mecassid 13 years ago

I don't think that's it. Soap is a parody of soap operas, and it holds up much better than this. The main problem here is that the show is slow, a product of its time, and the actress in the main role (Louise Lasser) is out of her mind and stoned.

She stumbles over all of her lines and has a perpetual glassy look throughout each episode. It would seem funny, if one hasn't also seen the disastrous episode of SNL she hosted, which shows that she's not acting at all. She had a break down shortly thereafter, and the drugs and stress definitely show in her performance.

It's a show that might have been shocking for the time, but now just seems sad and unfunny. Soap holds up better for today's audiences.

[–] rinahammon88 13 years ago

It's smart comedy mixed with drama. People have to have some brain cells to get the humor.
This was one of the best shows ever

[–] cbest4 13 years ago

I watched Lasser's SNL episode via Netflix recently and it isn't nearly the "disaster" that it is reputed to be.

[–] culwin 12 years ago

A lot of people don't get that some of the Lasser episode was intentionally "bad"... much of it was a joke.
Although it wasn't a good episode either, and that diner film was pretty bad even if it was a joke.

--
^Signature is below here
<-- I'm the first to ever use this icon

[–] rinahammon88 12 years ago

Some people say her Saturday Night Live Performance was just that A Performance and was acting like her character. I watched the episode and she seemed to do fine it was bad writting and had nothing to do with Louise Lasser. people say she was banned because she never appeared on the SNL again but most who hosted the show also only did one time as well.

[–] Peterkoss90 12 years ago

Mhmh is suppose to be a bad parody of soaps. That's the whole point behind it. I love the show if you grew up then and get what it is to be you will enjoy it. You cannot compare mhmh and soap. I love soap but soap was broad comedy. Meant to be lol funny where mhmh wasn't. They are two different types of shows. Go on utube watch the scene of Mary having her breakdown that is great acting. Louise lasser was superb as Mary.

[–] hifijohn 7 years ago

when I first saw the show I knew the lear empire was over when mary and her friend staring at the floor and talking about a waxy buildup for 10 minutes.its a good show at 2am when youre stoned but not for mainstream america.

[–] artisan278 (106) 2 years ago

The recurring reference to waxy yellow buildup was a parody of a real floor wax commercial. It was the 70s and the jokes are of that era. Mary Hartman was expected to be a model housewife, but she was also wanting fulfillment as a person. Louise Lasser was a comedienne who used to be married to Woody Allen and you can see a similar cynical type of humor.

[–] modica (4169) 2 years ago

What are you talking about? Mainstream America loved the show back in the 70's. The show was a sensation. Just because people are not as patient or intelligent now, doesn't mean the show is bad.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8391) 2 years ago

As one who used to watch this show with my Mom and sister, it had a following. No one I knew at the time watched it, and it was not really popular in the sense that a lot of people loved it. It had a following. Far from it being a sensation. There is not a lot of meaning or point to the show. No moral lesson, it was a satirical soap opera - I think the first of its kind, so it was new, and anything new catches attention. I don't really know if it is relevant today.

[–] modica (4169) 2 years ago

Everyone I knew talked about it. It really caught on in my area. Maybe you are from an area where it didn't. The show played at 11pm and beat out a lot of the late news across the country. Your statement that there was not a lot of meaning or point just shows that you really didn't watch it. They did stories on adultery, gay marriage, spousal abuse, religious evangelicals, racist groups and mental illness. When the racist group burns a man in to death in his home and the group continues to flourish, I think there is a lesson there. When a gay couple is driven out of town after being exposed, I am pretty sure another lesson. Lots of moral lessons here with a satirical slant, but sometimes the show got down and serious.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8391) 2 years ago

> Your statement that there was not a lot of meaning or point just shows that you really didn't watch it.

Can you just for a second imagine that my opinion is honestly arrived at and not try to tell me that I didn't watch it. That is a typical MovieChat troll move. We just disagree. It doesn't mean you are more perceptive or watched it closer to me.

One point in my favor is that today no one watches it or talks about it and it is not thought of as a classic. Just because they "did stories" on certain subjects does not mean hey did they well or in a meaningful way. I live in probably the most progressive area in the country, the Bay Area, CA, and I don't remember anyone making any comments over that show at all.

This was at a time when TV and Movies had just discovered "controversy", and everything had to be controversial because they wanted viewers to see advertising, so they injected as much controversy as possible into everything. It was the spice of media, and still is to a large extent.

[–] modica (4169) 2 years ago

I lived in NYC and people watched it and talked about it. Discussion over because we will never come to any agreement.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8391) 2 years ago

The issue is your lack of ability to discuss without disparaging or dismissing the other person. To wit ...

> Your statement that there was not a lot of meaning or point just shows that you really didn't watch it.

People don't get that you cannot make assumptions, particularly dismissive assumptions about people ... without pissing them off. Maybe that is your intent, and when you cannot do that, discussion over? Is that what you do, or can you see my point?