I was particularly interested in Tom Gunning’s ideas about mischief gags in ‘Crazy Machines in the Garden of Forking Paths’, and I would like to analyse clips from Tom and Jerry (CBS, USA, 1965-1972) and Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines (CBS, USA, 1969-1970) in relation to ideas about gags and comedy chases.[1] Though these TV shows were, of course, made much later than the time period that Gunning discusses, I think that analysing them sheds light on how screen comedy throughout time has been influenced by and built on the single-shot gags of the 1890s and 1900s. I think that discussing clips from these shows can also be used to challenge some of Gunning’s ideas about the mechanisms of comedy.
This clip from Tom and Jerry (Tom & Jerry | Invisible Ink | Classic Cartoon | WB Kids – YouTube) illustrates many of Gunning’s claims and comments about the way that gags function in early silent film. While Tom’s use of the cheese and the string to lure Jerry clearly exemplifies Gunning’s notion of the ‘device’ in typical mischief gags, Jerry’s quick-thinking placement of Tom’s foot directly beneath the iron demonstrates the variation of the mischief gag in which it backfires on the ‘rascal’.[2] This is seen also in this clip from Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines (Dastardly and Muttley: Operation Anvil – YouTube) as all the ‘rascals’ end up squashed by the anvil which they designed to capture their target. Through this, we can clearly see that much later TV shows still take inspiration from early cinema and that many of the same mechanisms are used to create comedy.
However, in Tom and Jerry, variations of the gag are more extensive and perhaps more creative than those of early cinema described by Gunning, possibly due to technological possibilities. The use of the invisible ink complicates the traditional relationship between the victim and the aggressor that Gunning describes, and thereby reimagines the mischief gag trope.[3] The fact that Tom cannot see Jerry, for example, negates the possibility of punishment or retribution which Gunning describes and, rather than fighting back with a prank or plot of his own, Tom becomes helpless and confused. Moreover, several of the gags are not necessarily pre-meditated, such as when Tom crashes into the wall after sliding down the banister, resulting in the cuckoo clock crashing onto his head. This results in more dynamic and varied types of gags, showing how silent cinema’s early mechanisms are not only reproduced directly but also built on and adapted.
Based on this, I would like to challenge the dichotomy between mischief gags and comedy chases that Gunning presents: drawing on Donald Crafton’s ideas,[4] he claims that “chases create continuity, while gags are essentially discontinuous”.[5] While chase films “allowed greater narrative development, because a single overarching action of chase and pursuit could be extended naturally”, mischief gags were “structured around a quick payoff, and so could not flow easily into a longer temporal progression”.[6] However, both Tom and Jerry and Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines combine these two different forms, as each episode of both shows is a chase sequence filled with a series of mischief gags; this highlights that they are not as different and incompatible as Gunning suggests. The chase narrative, in fact, is what facilitates the inclusion of more than one mischief gag, as the gags are no longer the central element and are no longer just one-off, pre-meditated pranks, but are part of the characters’ wider goals and motivations. This allows the narrative to continue seamlessly after the gag. However, simply concluding that this proves Gunning wrong is perhaps reductive. Though such cartoon chase shows prove that the gag and the chase narrative are, in fact, compatible and very effective, it is true that this was not possible to such an extent with the early cinema that Gunning describes. One of the main reasons why the pranks flow seamlessly in Tom and Jerry is the invincibility of the characters and the lack of any real consequences that the cartoon format provides. This, therefore, re-emphasises the idea that later comedy was able to simultaneously be influenced by and build on early comedic mechanisms.
[1] Tom Gunning, ‘Crazy Machines in the Garden of Forking Paths: Mischief Gags and the Origins of American Film Comedy’ in Classical Hollywood Comedy, eds. Kristine Brunovska Karnick and Henry Jenkins (New York: Routledge, 2013), 87-105.
[2] Ibid, 90.
[3] Ibid, 90.
[4] Donald Crafton, ‘Pie and Chase: Gag, Spectacle and Narrative in Slapstick Comedy’ in The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006) 355-364.
[5] Gunning, ‘Crazy Machines’, 96.
[6] Ibid, 96.
I think this is a great example, one that fits well with the week’s topic at large and something that I was considering for my blog post as well! I find your examples that explicate the manner in which the typical mischief gag tropes are overturned quite interesting, in particular how gags become a part of a character’s goals or motivations. This also means that the characterization and character development take place through the repetition of these gags, even though we don’t fully understand how the characters may think or feel. Their actions define them more than their innate psychological thought processes. As a result, such comical gags also influence the star image of the character or actor.
While watching the Tom and Jerry clip, the sound effects stood out to me the most. It’s amusing to see that the rapid or slow movements of the character are mimicked by the fast paced or slow rhythmic beats. Even when Jerry becomes invisible, he is seen both in the way he interacts with objects but also through the use of musical beats and tunes. Even in early film comedies, like those of Chaplin and Melies, sound guides the narrative influencing the audience’s perception of it. In my opinion, sound in such comical gags becomes a character with a story of its own to tell.
I think Tom and Jerry is a great example of the mischief gag: the formula overlap between the two with the “rascal” and “victim” roles being evident, the device used for the gag, and the phases that set up the gag and show the consequences of the device are very clear. I liked the point that you made about how cartoons allow for a feeling of ‘invincibility’ in the characters with a lack of any real consequences that real acting can’t seem to replicate in the same way.
This idea of cartoon gags brings up an interesting question: are cartoons a better vessel in creating and outlining a mischief gag while keeping some continuity in story with the comedic chase when compared to real acting? I understand this may seem like a subjective question, but I am really asking whether or not you think that cartoons inherently offer more opportunities and avenues to demonstrate the comedic gag than real acting, and whether cartoons can allow for a smoother and more cohesive chase narrative with the inclusion of multiple gags. In a cartoon, you can create much more visual attraction in the effects (for example, Tom’s head getting smushed or steam coming out of his ears when he’s mad), so does this allow for a more attractive gag?
It is a very interesting example of mischief gags since there are no humans involved and thus it offers a new perspective on how we perceive this kind of humour: do we find it easier to laugh at animated characters being pranked and pranking others or at real people?
I think your analysis raises an interesting question about violence towards cartoon bodies. Are the mischief gags of early cinema funny because the human bodies involved are in some way also cartoonish? The archetypal relationship of ‘rascal’ vs. ‘victim’ seems cartoonish to me because this generalisation involves a separation from the nuances of real-life.