“Spy” (2015) uses Melissa McCarthy’s skills in comedy acting to present an array of gags, much of which would be considered slapstick. One particular scene that came to mind takes place halfway through the film, in which McCarthy’s character “Susan Cooper” takes control of the jet that Rose Byrne’s character “Rayna Boyanov” had invited her on, following the pilot’s absence. Following a sequence of typical spy-movie action, the film throws in a gag to remind the audience that the film is still a spoof. The gag shows Cooper takes her chance to get some satisfying revenge on Rayna for killing her colleague and secret crush Bradley Fine (Jude Law), by steering the plane up and down so that the dead pilot lands with his behind on top of Rayna’s head. To top this off, we hear Rayna exclaim “Oh god. One of these fuckers just shit his pants.”
In “Crazy Machines in the Garden of Forking Paths: Mischief Gags and The Origins of American Film Comedy”, Gunning suggests that gags function through a rascal and a victim. Though that is clearly still the case here, more complex tropes must be considered because of the element of revenge. In this case the rascal is the ‘good guy’ protagonist, while the victim’s fate seems deserved. Seeing such an unpleasant character face such an unpleasant situation is not just amusing gloriously but also satisfying for both Cooper and the audience. The gag also not only demonstrates but also contributes to Cooper’s ongoing character development, as we see her change throughout the film from a nervous desk agent to a confident field agent.
Donald Crafton’s “Pie and Chase: Gag, Spectacle and Narrative in Slapstick Comedy” discusses containment vs. disruption (i.e. narrative vs. gags). Disruption suggests a negative change, and containment suggests return to original state. In “Response to ‘Pie and Chase,’”, Gunning reiterates this idea, suggesting that narrative is used in gag-filled films to “regain the original equilibrium”. I would argue that the equilibrium is changed in spy – the gags are used for character development, propelling the narrative to improve the equilibrium rather than simply regain it. I think this is what gunning means when he says the relationship between “pie” gags and disruptive elements is complex. Many gags in Spy are utilised for character development, and so while much of the disruption caused is resolved, it is resolved in a way that does not allow it to return to its original state. The relationship between Bradley Fine and Susan Cooper is changed as is Cooper’s own relationship to her job.
The intersection of genres in “Spy” likely contributes to the way the narrative works towards character development, but the actual gags themselves would not be overlooked, when they can contribute more than a laugh.
This is a really interesting point about how the role of gags can be more complex depending on the genre and tone of the film/media. I also really liked your point about how gags can play a role in the narrative beyond sparking action, but as you describe in sparking character development- I hadn’t thought about it like that before!
I really like your point that the tropes within the mischief gag can be more complex and nuanced than that of ‘rascal’ and ‘victim’, especially when the gag is a key part of a films narrative development. This point makes the think of the gags in ‘Home Alone’, where Kevin, the ‘rascal’, is also the ‘good guy’, a small child defending his home against robbers, who in turn function as the ostensible ‘victims’, however, their fate also seems deserved.