The cast of M*A*S*H didn't learn of Col. Blake's fate until just before the scene was shot
The ending to season three was so earth-shattering to the cast, producers kept it a secret.
Widely regarded as one of the best shows television has ever seen, M*A*S*H was never afraid to push the envelope. Though a comedy series at heart, the nature of the show's setting played into the storyline frequently, with life and death situations, life-saving prodecures and very tough goodbyes.
Like any show that has success, there are times when actors want a break from the norm, to pursue other opportuniteis for their career. This was the case for McLean Stevenson, who played the beloved Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake for the first three seasons.
Not wanting to return for a fourth season on M*A*S*H, a plot was created to write him out of the show, one that was a surprise to most of the cast.
In an Archive of American Television interview from 1998, producer and co-creator Larry Gelbart acknowledged there was an opportunity, with the character of Blake, to do something that turned heads. Gelbart and co-creator Gene Reynolds both agreed something drastic would play out upon Stevenson and his character leaving the show.
"Gene and I thought that we should use the departure of the character in some meaningful fashion," Gelbart said.
The storyline up until the end of the episode was a happy one that saw Blake get discharged, allowing him to head back to his family in the States. The producers wanted a more realistic feel to the departure, knowing that not everyone who went to war came home.
"M*A*S*H was not about everybody having a good time, M*A*S*H was not about happy endings, and we decided that his character could, not should, but could die," Gelbart said.
Knowing how big of a change this would be for the show, season three's final episode was titled "Abyssinia, Henry" which is lingo from the 1920s era meaning "I'll be seeing you," says Gelbart, who acknowledged the corny meaning behind the title fit well with the character of Henry Blake.
"We assigned the script to a writing team who had done a lot of work for M*A*S*H," Gelbart recalled. "We wanted it to essentially be a goodbye episode in which people shared their feelings, no big tension no big storyline and we said we wanted him to die at the end... and we swore them to secrecy."
The ending that sees Col. Blake killed off was set to be so earth-shattering for the cast, that the producers didn't tell them their plans. Alan Alda was the only cast member that knew the way Blake was set to be written off the show was via death, in an off-screen plane crash after being discharged.
They kept it a secret by totally leaving out that portion of the script.
"When [the writers] brought the episode [script] in, we detached that page and did not distribute it. We rehearsed the episode, we shot the episode... The reason we kept it a secret was to keep the actors from being influenced by that information. If they started to film the show knowing that Henry was a deadman by the end of the episode, their performances would've been quite different."
Thus, the crew shot every scene prior to the one on the withheld script. The cast was ready to call it a "wrap" on season three of M*A*S*H when Gelbart informed them they weren't actually done yet.
"Gene and I took the cast over to one side and sat them down and said 'look, we're going to do something that you don't know about.' I had this manila envelope with the last page in it that they'd never seen... It's not often in your life that you see people stunned... They really could not believe what was on the page."
The cast went back into the studio to film the final scene of season three, where Radar comes into the operating room with a telegram saying, "Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake's plane was shot down over the sea of Japan. It spun in. There were no survivors."
In one of the most gut-wrenching episodes of the series, the cast, including Stevenson himself, didn't know the fate of Henry Blake. The move resulted in thousands of letters from fans, describing their displeasure with how Blake was written off.
Though it caused headlines, angered fans and saddened Stevenson, so much that he didn't go to the cast's "wrap party," Gelbart stood by his decision to send off Henry Blake the way he went.
"I think it was a very grown up thing to do and very sensible thing to do."

48 Comments

I don’t know how often plane crashes occur, but it seems somehow sadistic that that anyone involved in the ending did it for dramatic effect, sadly.
Personally it must’ve left everyone with a sick feeling in their stomach, not a pleasant way to end the series.
thought that Col. Potter was more strict, but later on in the series after I got to know him, I liked col. Potter better than Blake. I also liked BJ and Winchester better than Trapper and Burns, but I was disappointed later in the series and Radar left due to a discharge, but Klinger did an excellent Job filling right in as Radar's "replacement". I'm sure by now I have seen every episode and watched MASH through to the end of the series seeing Cpt. PIerce being transported off on a chopper.
Wow.
But it was an interesting and good decision to have a main character killed. They were in a war.
There. I’m no English expert. (Alas, I am one of the people of “today’s generation who can’t make a coherent statement”) but I think that this is slightly more readable.
I’d rather see Marcus Welby and Medical Center and other similar shows ad nauseam for awhile, then replace them as well.
The new marathon of shows on Sundays is brutal.
Please, no more police, lawyer, courtroom, first responders shows.
Toon In With Me, lose the awful hosts and just play the “toons” weekdays. Where’s Rocky & Bullwinkle, Fractured Fairy Tails, Jonny Quest, go lower and show the Archies.
Seems the station is against spending the money for access for rights to ANY new programming.
I’ve had my rant and I’ve vented. Absolutely nothing personal intended.
We can contrast it with Radar. He gets a discharge to help his mother, meets a woman on the way home, and lives happily ever after.
I don't think they could have killed iff a character by mortar fire or a sniper or shelling. That would be too much.
Frank goes home, likely a medical discharge
Towards the end of the episode Frank calls the 4077th and speaks to Hawkeye:
Hawkeye after his conversation with Frank tells B.J: " The army , in its infinite wisdom...
has not only cleared Frank of the charges...
they have assigned him to a veterans hospital in Indiana...
and promoted him to Lieutenant Colonel."
Frank transferred out -Charles transferred in. Funny start to Season 6, without much fanfare.
I don't think the producers had the "right" to kill off a beloved character who by his decision to leave wasn't doing so out of spite. Actors after putting in so much hard work and talent, have the right to determine their career destiny.
My father who served in WWII and was well versed in the Korean Police Action, was very level headed when it came to television (a medium in which he worked). But was personally upset by losing Henry Blake who had come to symbolize the medium between both the humanity and brutality of war. To those serving, trapped against their will, HB was a symbol of hope and payment that should've been honored.
John McIntyre's Lt. Muldoon was killed off in the first season of "(The) Naked City", because McIntyre wanted to return West. Jean Hagen exited "The Danny Thomas Show" (a/k/a "Make Room for Daddy") and Danny became a widower.
The character of soccer player Eddie LeBec was killed off on "Cheers". Charlie Sheen's character of Charlie Harper was killed off on "Two and a Half Men". Many later shows did the same. One recent example is Taraji P. Henson's character in "Person of Interest".
Additionally, many of these shows ran for more seasons without that missing cast member.
Whether for storylines, characters proving unpopular, performers leaving under various circumstances there are always some fans who are hurt, angered and unforgiving - but remember... it's all fiction anyway. In some parallel universe those characters were probably brought back in a "dream sequence" like Bobby on Dallas...
I'm not affected by TV that much, accept for a favorite show, and that’s long under the bridge in terms of what’s been established. In this case I was even using my dad’s reaction. Mine isn’t a blanket statement against doing away with characters. Some are cheats (like with Dallas) and some are due to health. And others, for the evolution of storylines. Fair enough, as many characters end up among the dearly departed.
The issue with MASH is that it was already a poignant storyline. Every episode revealed some sacrifice. The second issue is that it represented a very real experience for people. Which meant the writers were toying with viewers memories! My dad lost his best friend in WWII, and though he was well functioning, he never got over it.
Television is about 𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕. And entertainment is about lifting people up. And it's a writer's responsibility (in terms of craft) to figure out how to do that, and set a fair balance. But the medium is also about escapism. To free viewers just a bit from every day reality! To that purpose is to bring about a certain amount of joy.
And I do think fans paid their dues, suffering along with all those characters and tragic outcomes. You could pick out any one single episode to see how horrific the situation was.
The alternative point to be made by the writers, who were also 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 aware of putting that series into the history books, was the idea of the redeeming value of human sacrifice. Except for the surgical successes (obviously evident by their purpose) what 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 those redemptions?? Or was it to say the experience was all about waste? That’s not quite fair. Otherwise viewers might as well listening to the lyrics of the opening theme, as well as to the music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhAg6bA3_o&ab_channel=richardwaring
Generating entertainment has a secret, which I believe even AH honored. And that is that something has to be given back to the audience/viewer in exchange for their emotional investment. And in the case, HB was too good (meaning, character-wise, as a representation) a fictional person to receive the fate that he did, which the series didn’t deserve. Which is what the fans reactions proved.
Television has always been an intimate medium, because it's a source (meaning presentation) that's invited in the homes (and families) of viewers. Mixed audiences too. It’s not like a theater, where a movie has a bit of promotion. AH, being the exception. So the theater-goer has the option of choosing what emotional risk they want to take (via the experience). And for the reason of choosing a movie then they accept that any character can be killed. And the outcome is unpredictable. They "pay" for that.
The approach MASH took, was so emotionally charged (meaning a sensitivity that pointed to their own purpose) is that they couldn’t even let the cast OR the actor-character see the last page. If it was such a noble effort, then why? Well to avoid being leaked, obviously. But also because it was a violation of the viewer’s trust. And maybe to some extent, their own. Notice how the series never let anything happen to Radar.
Which asks the next question: what would make the producers/writers assume that the viewers didn’t already know the horrors of war?? It had been driven home for four seasons. Meaning, it's okay to knock off guest-stars who might not matter as much. (That's not very authentic). Or is it not enough to watch the “chicken” episode. Where the mother smothers her child to prevent noise leading the enemy to their hiding place, to kill all of them. (Is the message there, that a single sacrifice is for the good of the many). Or is MASH paying the price of trying to walk the line between comedy and tragedy in the first place. A lot fans see the difference between how the series started, where comedy (pranks) were justified. And how it turned into a pulpit for preaching. But I don't think any viewer was dumb enough to miss the fundamental message. Which is a show that in the beginning, could only be sold to the network, as escapist fare. And certainly, there were already enough military dramas out there (H& I is filled with them) making their own point about the tragedy of war. But that's what viewers tuned in for, and expected.
This was a television show with evidence of grandeur, making a statement at the expense of their audience. And exactly because of how it came about. Which is something that really doesn’t happen in many other formats.
Only the viewer can decide whether of not the decision was fair. And that depends on how the world is viewed in the first place. Whether people should be celebrated for the extreme sacrifices they make. Or, if in the end, that it doesn’t matter at all. Because that’s a pretty heavy message to be sharing through the intimacy of television. Where these characters (and actors as well know) end up turning into virtual friends. And become important to us, for acknowledging their death (whether before or behind the scenes) whenever we mourn their loss.
However, we may both have overlooked the most significant [and blatantly simple] reason for the writers killing off the Henry Blake character: War is hell.
In battle conficts, there are no guaranteed outcomes, happy endings are elusive and often one moment of triumph can turn into a tragedy in less than a heartbeat.
While you and I can believe each of our respective positions is the right one - only the writers can (or could have) eluded to their true reasoning for their decision... and it's doubtful this "debate" will ever be settled in a scholarly manner.
This is why I now think the "war is hell" motif might hold greater sway as to the pontificated "why"..