Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler?

"Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler?" was the 82nd episode of the M*A*S*H television series, and the tenth of season four. The episode aired on November 7, 1975. "Quo Vadis" is Latin for "Where are you going?" and is a reference to a conversation recounted in the apocryphal Acts of Peter in which Peter, fleeing his ministry and the threat of crucifixion in Rome, meets Jesus on the road, who has risen. Peter asks Jesus "Quo Vadis?," to which Jesus responds that he is going to Rome to be crucified again. This gives Peter the courage to return to his ministry in Rome, where he ultimately ends up crucified upside down.

"Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler?"
M*A*S*H episode
Episode no.Season 4
Episode 10
Directed byLarry Gelbart
Written byBurt Prelutsky
Production codeG513
Original air dateNovember 7, 1975
Guest appearance(s)

The scriptwriter, Burt Prelutsky, credited the episode with revitalizing his career. The episode was nominated for a Humanitas Prize, but lost to another M*A*S*H episode.[1]

Plot

Among the latest batch of wounded brought to the 4077th is a pilot, Captain Arnold Chandler (Alan Fudge), who believes himself to be Jesus Christ. Majors Burns and Houlihan believe he is faking battle fatigue to earn a medical discharge, and set to prove this with the help of Army intelligence officer Colonel Flagg (Edward Winter). Hawkeye and B.J. call on Dr. Sidney Freedman (Allan Arbus) to help treat Chandler.

Near the end of the episode, company clerk Radar O'Reilly asks Chandler to bless his teddy bear. Chandler blesses the bear and also blesses Radar, who reveals for the first time in the series that his first name is actually Walter.

gollark: I already knew about this.
gollark: This is mostly irrelevant to "free will", though. Even if our brains use nondeterministic quantum processes internally, I don't see "deterministic process with RNG glued on in places" as more choice-y than something just deterministic.
gollark: I know the theory gives you probability distributions over things and not some sort of deterministic function from state at t to state at t=1, but it clearly isn't complete so there could be other things going on.
gollark: It seems wrong to say that QM disproves determinism when we know that it isn't actually a complete description of physics, though.
gollark: I guess *on average*.

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.