S.P.Y.S.

UK, 1974, 100 Minutes, Colour.
Elliot Gould, Donald Sutherland, Zouzou, Joss Ackland, Kenneth Griffith.
Directed by Irvin Kershner.

During the 1970s comedies became more sophisticated and offbeat. But the greater the rate of experimentation, the greater the risk of the ingredients not gelling and of failure, which is the main problem with this film. The comic talents of Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland are not in doubt and the farcical spoof of international espionage (who can trust whom?) is a good topic for comedy. But, by and large, it all fails to come together, so that the most one can manage is a mild smile or a sporadic laugh (not even a-guffaw). Considering what went into the film, a disappointing comedy effort.

1. The significance and tone of the title from its spelling? The analogies with M.A.S.H.? Did it live up to these expectations?

2. Was this a successful comedy? How did it use typical comic ingredients, farcical plot, exaggerated situations, odd characters? How well did it use the spy genre and the parody of international espionage? The satire on the individuals, styles, the audience itself? What were the best features of the comedy? What were the worst? Critics said that it was heavy and tired. Do you agree? Why?

3. How attractive were the main two actors? The way that they interacted together for comedy? The Goon style comedy? The personalities and situations? How much did the film rely for its success on its leads?

4. How successful were the situations on paper, in execution in the film, e.g. the bombings, the street sequences, the hidden office, the dog with the contact lens and the examination, the wedding at the end etc.?

5. What did the film presuppose in audiences about spying? Everybody spying on everybody else? Attitudes towards the British, Americans, Russians, Chinese, French? The various styles of spying from following, bugging, bombs etc.? The various meetings for planning? The example of bargaining for the Russian gymnast and his conditions for leaving etc.? How well did the film use its atmosphere for spying for its comedy?

6. Death made appearances quite frequently. Comment on the various styles of death, the tone that the film took, the possibility of mistakes for death, computer errors? Was the point well made?

7. The comedy with the anarchists? The portrayal of them as persons and their style of life? How real were they, how well satirised? The atmosphere for love and sexuality? The jokes about this? The irony of communal living? Their relationship with money and lawlessness? At the end?

8. What point was the film making about money - deals, ideals and principles, realities?

9. How satisfactory was the ending? Did it show imagination or a lack of it? Death and explosions and comedy?

10. Was the finale satisfying - the two heroes walking along, "side by side"? Did this have any significance or was it just a way of ending the film? How did it typify the film's meaning and success?