Jaws, 1975, directed by Steven Spielberg
The Story: “Sharkkkkkkkk!!!!!!”
And yet it’s so much more than that. At its heart, of course, Jaws is a fantastic monster movie, a film that plays on fears – that employs Hitchcockian suspense and haunted house surprise to hold us in the grip of masterful entertainment. It has been blamed for a dumbing-down of movie audiences, an onslaught of blockbusters concerned only with reeling in adolescents, and a retreat from the edginess and depth of 70s cinema. Yet Jaws consistently holds human figures at its center – and not only because the mechanical creature malfunctioned through much of the production, while a 27-year-old newbie filmmaker, one Steven Spielberg, had to improvise shooting around it. At heart, Jaws is a story about people more than about a shark.
Jaws differs from present-day blockbusters in endless respects. Rather than saturating the screen with special effects it holds back; partly because of technical difficulties, partly because that’s how one builds audience involvement and identification with the characters. Its protagonists are adults and have adult concerns (at least the men; there’s one important female role, and she’s largely sidelined) – protecting one’s family, serving a professional duty, proving one’s manhood (or subverting others’ notions of such). The jokes cracked and silences brooded over are not those of cranky, narcissistic adolescents, as even middle-aged people in today’s action films appear to be – they are the coping mechanisms of responsible grown-ups with a lot on their mind.
Most of all, Jaws is saturated with old-fashioned storytelling technique, a narrative skill the film helped revive in 1975 but which has fallen out of favor today – and not for a return to the oblique strategies of New Hollywood but rather for a virtual abandonment of storytelling altogether, a stringing-together of incident in a loose framework over the development of character and the rich rewards of structure. Meanwhile, within this controlled storytelling vernacular, Spielberg fills the screen with details – as with all his early films, little domestic incidents build, characters chat away in the backgrounds, sets are filled in with loving minutia.
One could get lost in these films, wander away from the sharks and aliens to listen to a locals’ conversation, watch a child break the head off his sister’s doll, or pay attention to the TV in the corner blaring clips from old movies, “Sesame Street,” or early 80s commercials (to cite examples not only from Jaws, but also E.T. and Close Encounters). Backgrounds are not one-dimensional comic book panels meant to compound the artificiality of the world onscreen; they are living, breathing environments which pulsate with a sense of offscreen life. Always in Spielberg (especially young Spielberg) the fantastical is foregrounded in the mundane; and both achieve a transcendent power.
There’s even a moment, amidst all the blood and gore, for familial tenderness: Chief Brody is brooding over a professional failure when he catches his young son mimicking his gestures – and he plays along before asking for a kiss. But that’s about all you’ll find of the trademark Spielberg sentimentality in this film. The first killing, however famous (a skinny-dipper is drowned and ripped apart by the hidden beast), is actually somewhat silly – it’s iconic, yes, but it’s also hard to believe that’s a shark pulling her around under water. Far more gut-wrenching is the second death: a little boy swimming in the water on his yellow raft, until we catch a glimpse – just a glimpse – of some gray shape overturning him in the choppy surf.
The moment is horrific, and it’s compounded not just by the brief shot of the boy being yanked under water in a stream of bubbles and blood, but by Spielberg’s deft camerawork and editing. This is true both working up to the killing – the use of figures passing before the lens as a transitional device creates a sense of seamlessness and building anxiety in the cuts – and reacting to it – a Hitchcockian zoom (closing in on Brody’s face while the beach stretches out behind him) is one of the most emotionally effective uses of the trick outside of the master’s oeuvre. Most of all, the scene breaks the rules not just of most audience-pleasing films but of Spielberg’s in particular (though at the time, audiences couldn’t have known those particular rules; this is a rare case of later viewers being more shocked than the early ones).
The live audience at Wednesday’s screening reacted with palpable horror to the second killing; whereas the first had generally evoked campy chuckles and gleeful fleeting anxiety. Suddenly there are moral stakes in the film – the slaughter of the innocent (and Brody’s innocence) has its expected effect. And of course, the scene masterfully plays on the fears of audiences. It’s one thing to see a young female victim (such a frequent staple of slasher films) dispatched in the dead of night, quite another to see a little boy slaughtered in the midst of a mass of swimmers, in broad daylight and – most terrifying of all – not very far from shore.
Surprisingly, this incident does not lead to the closing of the beaches and the recognition that costly steps must be taken to hunt down the animal (how could it – the movie’s only just begun!). No, there must be another attack – this one on the Fourth of July, in which the shark trespasses even further, both geographically (swimming inland to a supposedly protected bay) and psychologically (now it’s not just an anonymous child the shark’s after, but Brody’s son, who is boating in the inlet and, while spared by the Great White, is sent into shock). Here the movie shifts gears with a shot, seemingly from Brody’s point of view, in which the camera peers out to sea, slowly pushing past the bridge which the shark passed beneath; having trespassed into Brody’s territory, the shark has now dared the policeman to trespass into his. A new path has opened up, and it leads out to sea.
The “two films” aspect of Jaws has been noted before – how in the first half of the story the mayor with his very human follies is the antagonist; while in the second the shark itself is the direct enemy, accompanied at times by the Ahab-like Captain Quint (Robert Shaw) whose obsession with facing the creature on its own terms leads to virtual suicide. The first movie is very much twentieth-century, with the primordial beast swimming into the midst of a settled, comfortable, modern community – while the second half seems to regress to the nineteenth, with hardy men facing the elements, proving their worth in the wilderness, barely able to overcome the fury of God or Nature or the Shark.
Ironically, then, if the first half seems to reinforce conservative notions of the comfortable community, the male protector, and the threat from without (while coupling this with a liberal distrust of authority and a cynicism about the motives of self-interested businesspeople; this is an old-fashioned, pre-industrial sort of conservatism, if that), the second half has a more subversive take on old-fashioned values. This subversion is embodied not in Chief Brody nor in Captain Quint (except indirectly) but in Hooper, the marine biologist who is brainy, whose hands Quint calls “silly,” and who has a quip for every putdown (most famously when he crumples up the styrofoam cup in response to Quint’s crushing of the beer can).
Critic Pauline Kael noticed and celebrated the film’s satirical approach towards masculinity in her 1975 review of the film – noting that Quint’s demise is literally a castration by the shark. It certainly seems that Spielberg identified with Hooper and the actor who played him, Richard Dreyfuss – who took the starring role in Spielberg’s next film, Close Encounters. Dreyfuss bears a physical resemblance to Spielberg (though the director would not grow his famous beard for about another decade), is the same age, and is Jewish (though it’s unclear if his character is as well, given the WASP name). Hooper is richer and more educated than Spielberg was at the time – but he shares the director’s assertiveness, his vast knowledge within a specific area of expertise, and most importantly, a sense of displacement within the surrounding crowd.
There must have been a hundred Quints not only on the set of Jaws but on all the television programs Spielberg directed in his meteoric rise through Universal in the early 70s. Crew members with decades of experience under their belt, highly skeptical of this whiz kid with his grand ideas and brainy approach (John Baxter’s unauthorized biography relates Spielberg’s struggles with old-school, entrenched Hollywood professionals). Brody, though ostensibly (and eventually) the main character, takes a back seat in many scenes on the boat, merely observing the conflict between Quint and Hooper. He’s the Everyman in there for audience identification, but Spielberg seems infatuated with Hooper, to the point where, contrary to dramatic logic and, in fact, what actually happens in Peter Benchley’s source novel (where Hooper is devoured in his shark cage, no less protected by science than Quint is by sea craft) Spielberg spares the young scientist and allows him to swim off with Brody in the end.
Still, if Quint is increasingly impotent and insane he’s also charismatic as hell – and if Spielberg relates to Hooper and celebrates Brody as audience surrogate, he can’t help but respect Quint’s bravado too. Indeed, Hooper himself comes to fall under Quint’s spell – when they get drunk and compare scars (Quint is suddenly sillier and Hooper more macho), their mutual bullheadedness has finally brought them together. It’s in that scene that the old captain shares his harrowing memory of the U.S.S. Indianapolis – the ship which delivered the atom bomb, was sunk by a Japanese torpedo, and was then surrounded by hungry sharks for days before rescue arrives.
It’s hard to imagine any contemporary summer popcorn thriller pausing the action this long for such a moody, historically-based, perfectly delivered monologue; when such a thing is attempted, it usually rings false – a forced moment in which the screenwriters try to pump life into their constructs. Here it’s rich, absorbing, frightening – give Spielberg credit for shooting and editing it with such discipline, holding mostly to close-ups and medium close-ups of Robert Shaw’s concentrated visage, but give credit also to John Milius for writing the damn thing. As the man responsible for Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now (“I love the smell of napalm in the morning!”), Milius’ fingerprints are all over the Indianapolis speech. The dark, grisly details, the stoic delivery, the vaguely jingoistic punchline (“Anyway – we delivered the Bomb.”) – no small part of Spielberg’s talent was knowing how to use the right collaboraters, and here it paid off in spades.
The speech is one more reminder that, Kael’s eye for subversion aside, Quint is no mere object of ridicule. Spielberg must have a grudging admiration for the old loon. And here it’s worth observing that there’s another important division in the film. The first half, with its building of dread, its establishment of details only to subvert them, its tightly structured yet baroque use of technique, owes its aesthetic debt to Alfred Hitchcock. The second half, with its taut, clipped action and focus on the dynamics of men in groups, tussling, teasing, proving their worth is strongly evocative of Howard Hawks. If Jaws seems more doubtful about the efficacy of male groups or the achievements of bravado, it nonetheless recognizes the appeal of camaraderie and rivalry, and of the perpetual dance of male egos in their desire to get the job done.
Eventually, of course, the job gets done – but it’s finished by Brody, a man on a sinking ship with a gun, alone, individual, delivered as much by luck as chutzpah. When the oxygen tank explodes – and with it our shark – it is somewhat improbable, but then so much is. Would the fish really attack the boat so cannily? Would Quint slip so easily into those titular “jaws”? Would the shark spare Brody’s son? Would any Great White swim inland? Would thousands of people show up for an Independence Day on a beach where a boy had just been butchered? Spielberg, as always, does not try to convince us of realism in his fantastical scenarios; rather, he builds belief in the world surrounding these events – by attaching us to the characters and pulling us in through masterful manipulation of the medium, he is able to make us believe the improbable.
Richard Dreyfuss likes to tell the story of seeing Jaws with an audience for the first time: when the movie ended, they sat there silently. The credits rolled; no one made a peep. Uh-oh, Dreyfuss thought, what’s going on here? Then, with the credits finally over, the audience burst into spontaneous applause which turned into a standing ovation.
Last night, the audience didn’t wait until the credits were over – the applause was loud and immediate and had the ring of authentic satisfaction. Jaws is spectacle, but it’s also story, and character – it’s technique over gimmick and it mixes its iconic elements with minor details which surprise and delight when you notice them for the first time on the tenth viewing. It’s full of humor – the audience laughed consistently throughout the night – and genuine shocks and suspense. It’s a classic, a great film, and above all – a movie. Not all films need be like this. The art form is rich with possibilities – and some are more esoteric, more challenging, more obscure, though no less satisfying once their secret is tapped. Yet there’s something to be said for a movie which can excite with intelligence and skill, which can take adult elements and fuse them with a childlike wonder with the magic onscreen.
I wish there were more movies like that.
I MAKE NO APOLOGIES TO ANYONE ON THIS: THIS IS MY FAVORITE MOVIE EVER!!!! I saw this film on a rainy night in 1975. My father snuck myself along with my cousin Tommy and my Uncle Joe out of the house because my mother would not allow it (Bitch!). I’ll never forget the experience. JAWS does, in my mind, everything a great movie should do: it thrills and entertains, it shocks and makes us laugh. The values of friendship and everyday men banding together to overcome a insurmountable odd for the benefit of the many is flawless. Soielberg was only in his mid-twenties when he did this, a kid, and I dare say his talent was already loudly evident. The violent jerking and the screaming of the girl. Quints intro in the town hall. The first barrel chase. Quints unforgettable tale of the Indianapolis. I was mesmerized. John Williams simple but unsttling score. UNFORGETTABLE. I’ll have a LOT more to say as this thread progresses.
First off, let’s get this outta the way. The mistake is often made that JAWS is a horror film. While the film has horrifying elements, I agree with Spielbergs take that its really an adventure flick. The pacing and the timing are lightning paced, and Verna Fields editing with the young director is flawless. Action/Adventure directors like Micheal Bay learned volumes on their craft by seeing this film. Then there is the subject of suggestion. Spielberg wisely chose to keep the violence and the horror elements in the minds of the audience where our IMAGINATIONS conjure more than needs to be seen. The fact that the first full view of the shark doesn’t occur until almost an hour into the film has built suspense. The clues are there. The violent thrashing of the girl. The little boy being pulled under. The dock being unrooted from its mount. It’s what you don’t see that thrills. Even if the shark was made of rubber, by the time it really appears you’re so pumped it wouldn’t make a difference if it was cardboard.
“Action/Adventure directors like Micheal Bay learned volumes on their craft by seeing this film.” Although unfortunately not enough!
The making of Jaws is also fascinating: apparently the decision not to show the shark, reinforced by Speilberg’s admiration for Hitch, was spurred as much by technical malfunctions as much as anything else: the shark just didn’t work.
There’s a feature-length, widely praised documentary on the film which I think is included in the most recent DVD reissue, which I have. I should watch it again – it’s chock-full of great anecdotes.
It’s really amazing that Spielberg shot this film when he was 27. I think before we criticize some of his decisions or implications of his work – and sure, there’s plenty to criticize – we have to recognize that he is one of the most phenomenally talented filmmakers ever to emerge in the American film industry. No, that’s not everything, but it has to count for SOMETHING…
JOEL-I really enjoyed this essay. And you’re right, the making of this film is as fascinating as the film itself. But, you better get prepared. If I were you, I’d contact Sam on what I’m about to say. I am absolutely the authority on this film. I. Make that statement with pride and I don’t apologize. I also don’t find it conceded either as Schmulee will attest. I’ve read every story on this film and every book. I have seen aqll the interviews and documentaries pertaining to it. I HAVE ALSO SEEN THIS FILM (no joke) ALMOST ONE HUNDRED TIMES. If its on TV: I WATCH IT (whethert I catch it from the beginning or not). I have worn out Laserdiscs, VHS tapes and DVD’s of this title. So, let’s talk JAWS. ELVIS HAS ENTERED THE ROOM!!!!! LOL!!!!
DID YOU KNOW: Spielbergs first choice for Quint was Lee Marvin. When the director contacted the Oscar winner he came to the phone shit-faced drunk. When Steven asked him if he would take the role the bombed thespian told him NO, HE’D RATHER GO FISHING FOR REAL!
Dennis, it’s tempting to imagine Lee Marvin in the part but actually, I can’t see anyone being better than Shaw was. He just owns the character. I chose the shark as one of my 40 favorite characters of all time this spring, but looking back it REALLY should have been Quint.
I look forward to the conversation but really won’t be able to respond till tonight. Why? Well, it’s actually kind of ironic – I’m going to the beach! Guess the movie didn’t scare me off…
(Though it’s not sharks one need be frightened off this New England summer day but hurricane-induced giant surf. Really, if any Northeasterners are reading this now, drop what you’re doing and head to the nearest beach. The waves are fantastically fun right now…)
I love seeing this film with first-timers. It’s effect has not diminished a bit. A few weeks ago I happened to screen it on Sams 70 inch plasma with the surround sound. EVERY ONE OF HIS CHILDREN WERE SITTING BESIDE ME. Melanie, Sam’s oldest, is thirteen. His youngest, Jeremy is just 7. He has five kids. The moment the film opened on the screen and John Williams chugging score flared up they were hooked. Every jump, flinch, scream, sigh of relief and smile I gave that film in 1975 was completely repeated by these five adorable kids. The magic of movies like this sees no passage of time. THEY LOVED IT!
Richard Dreyfuss met Spielberg for the first time at a cocktail party in 1973. He overheard the young up-start telling a story about a man eating shark jumping on a boat and cracking the boat in two. When they were formally introduced, Spielberg proceeded to tell Dreyfuss the full story he devised as a screenplay for JAWS. Dreyfuss, in many interviews has said Spielbergs telling of the story was riveting. When the young director offered the actor the role of Hooper that night, Dreyfuss said no stating that he’d rather see the film than make it. Several months later Dreyfuss attended the premiere of his first star vehicle THE APPRENTICESHIP OF DUDDY KRAVITZ. Dreyfuss practically had a seizure thinking he was terrible and better procure work fast. As he has told this story, he stated he CRAWLED back to Spielberg for the role. He has also stated that seeing JAWS at the premiere, where the audience cheered it, was the proudest moment of his life.
Ironic that Dreyfuss would think that about Duddy Kravitz, as the film was rather well-received, wasn’t it? Admittedly, I have never seen it.
Dennis, did you ever read Peter Benchley’s book? I actually decided to read it before I saw the movie – I remember it being a lot more sexualized (Hooper sleeps with Brody’s wife, there was more going on with the girl in the beginning if I’m not mistaken) and that ultimately Hooper dies. As I say in the review, it’s rather interesting, and perhaps telling, that Spielberg spares him in the movie (despite not sparing a 12-year-old kid!). Kael thought Dreyfuss was a Spielberg surrogate, and she may have been on to something.
One of my favorite films!!! No apologies. MovieMan mentions Michael Bay learned volumes from watching this film, too bad Bay did not learn anything about story telling. Jaws captures Hollywood commercial cinema at it best. A wonderful essay Joel.
Yes Joel i read the book as a kid which made me wanna see the movie so badly. But, and I say this with all honesty, where the book is gripping and certainly a terrific yarnn it would have never translated fully and successfully to the screen. Spielberg just takes the basic of the premise and stream-lines the whole thing into an ace adventure film. The shark ravages the town, the three guys go to get him. That’s all that he needed. From there the film is like a blank christmas tree. The director throws a ball here, a little tinsrl there and a star (or rock-em sock-em ending) on top. Even Benchley, who originally scoffed at Stevens idea for the ending, said the film was better than the book. The book is little more than a well written pulp fiction bubble-gum novel. Helena Gurley Brown, editor of Vanity Fair Magazine brought the book to Richard Brown, her husband and producer of the film and told him the book sucks but it might make a terrific movie. Boy, was she right.
Martha’s Vinyard was chosen for the backdrop of the film for two reasons. Its New England flavor and something you couldn’t see off-hand. I’ll attest to Spielbergs admitions as I’ve been to MV several times. Martha’s Vineyard has a sandIbar that runs thirty miles out to sea from the shore line and is only 25 feet deep. The idea was that the depth was perfect to lay the tracks for the shark and be able to move them easily at any time. The distance was key as well; because the boat and the film-making crew was out so far land would never be seen in any direction. Spielberg never wanted to see soil once the hunt got intense for he was afraid if the audience got jittery they might question why Brody Hooper and Quint just didn’t turn back for home. The claustrophobia this trick employs is one of the films best suspense elements. I’ve seen the sandbar, its very real.
Dennis, I actually have jumped off that very bridge Jaws swims under – and a friend of my Dad once drank in a bar with the kid who gets eaten (by then, of course, he was about 35) – or so the bar patron claimed 😉
Steven had several ideas for scenes that never made it to camera. My favorite was the pelican sequence. Supposedly, Spielberg wanted to nake mention that AMITY ISLAND was known for its clear water, white-sand beaches and the beautiful pelicans that nested there. In the scene where Brody watches the swimmers before Alex Kintner is killed, the idea was that a flock of pelicans would be circling the water and diving for fish. He watches one go down and come up with a fish in its bill. Another goes down and up again with a prize. But the third pelican, fourth, fifth and sixth dive and NEVER come up. Its then that the director would start the underwater point of view of the shark as he makes his way to Alex kicking along on his raft. The rest is legendary movie moments. I always loved the way everyone runs INTO the water to help as Brody stops dead at the water line, the joke that he can’t swim.
VERNA FIELDS-The editor of JAWS was 65 years old when she worked on this film. Spielberg and his cohorts referred to her as MOTHER-CUTTER. She edited the films in her home equipped with an editing stidio. Aside from cooking for the crew and washing there laundry on long days, she also allowed them to swim in her in ground pool. The sequence where Hooper scuba-dives under Ben Gardners boat only to have the fisherman’s head fall out of the bite hole in the bottom was filmed entirely in Verna Fields pool. She won a richly deserved Oscar for her editing on JAWS.
I really enjoyed that essay. Excellent work.
The book is a poor, low-grade pulpish undemanding throwaway. The screenplay is vastly superior. I’d wouldn’t be surprised if Spielberg had nothing to do with Hooper surviving. He had very little power at the time. Probably the writers or producers.
I’ve always thought that the closest comparable film to this one was ‘Psycho’, which also had an arresting opening (a tryst in a hotel), three shocking moments and traumatised a generation to be wary of showers, the same way that ‘Jaws’ would have them wary of dipping their feet into the sea.
It’s my observation that the Spielberg of ‘Duel’, ‘Sugerland Express’ and ‘Jaws’ was so good because he was part of a collaborative with adults (Matheson, Brown and Zanuck, Verna Fields). Once he gained power and could do anything that he wanted, he turned out ‘CEOTK’, ‘1941’ and ‘Amazing Stories’….and also ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ (which probably has more to answer for in terms of action films turning into roller-coasters).
Again, good article.
SUSAN BLACKLINEY played the sharks first victim, Chrissy Watkins. Ever wonder what she’s saying in between screams as she holds onto the bouy befor she finally goes under? Turn up the sound. Its the LORDS PRAYER. Susan Blackliney was a Catholic and taught that if death was thought emminent the LORDS PRAYER is the last thing we should say.
Spielberg HAD to kill off the 12-year-old kid so that he could have the crazed-by-grief mother in her weird black mantilla slowly drag herself up to Brody, accuse him of murdering her son by his monstrous carelessness, and slap his head off. Unforgettable.
I enjoy every frame of this movie, but especially Shaw’s performance as Quint–and no, it’s not a guilty pleasure: he EARNED our admiration. His mad, too-bright blue eyes, his weird, strangely syncopated, menacing version of “Spanish Ladies,” the moment he and Hooper are stripping parts of their bodies to compare crucifixions in combat, the Indianapolis monologue (I’ve heard this shark carnage during war never actually happened, but almost want it to for the sake of the movie–it’s so horribly right). And then he’s eaten.
By the way, I agree that the movie is infinitely better than the book. Benchley’s novel was total crap.
To create the gurgling effects of the victims, Spielberg rigged a board in the sound recording booth that would allow Susan Blackliney to lay upside-down. When the recorders were turned on Spielberg himself would dump buckets of water into the face of the screaming actress. Richard Dreyfuss stumbled into the recording studio one afternoon as this was going on and said it was a great way to spend a day watching the beautiful bikini clad woman force water out of her throat. Dreyfuss went on to date Susan for a few years.
BOBBY J. Actually your wrong. Spielberg demanded that Hooper survive. He wrote the second draft of the screenplay after tossing out Benchley’s original. Steven wanted the bonding of Hooper and Brody to come full circle at the end. After all, among other things, JAWS is also a “buddy” film. The screen-play had more writers than credited. First was Benchley (credited), then Steven (uncredited but overseeing the further versions). Ernest Sackler, Pulitzer Prize winner for THE GREAT WHITE HOPE collaborated on the third writing with Spielberg that “broke the back” of the book and gives the film the linear structure it has now. Carl Gottlieb (credited) was a comedian whose home spun charm was brought in for the dialogue. John Milius (uncredited) was a friend of Stevensd and a history buff who wrote the first draft of the INDIANAPOLIS sequence. Finally, Robert Shaw (uncredited) was a playwrite (THE MAN IN THE GLASS BOOTH) who finalized his own monologue in the INDIANAPOLIS sequence.
Actually Margaret, according to Milius (a history scientist as well as filmmaker) and other historians as well as recorded interviews of survivors of the INDIANAPOLIS, the carnage DID occur. 1200 men went in the water, the number that came out was always in question. Milius has stated in interviews that he had spoken with several survivors and they all confirmed the horrors the sharks brought on those frightening few days.
Mary Ellen Moffett-who “broke” Hoopers heart was really Richard Dreyfuss’ 12 year old sweetheart in grade school.
WOW MOVIEMAN!!!!! NOW THAT’S A MEMORY! I don’t know though. I’ve always been afraid of heights and the water. I don’t think I could jump from that bridge. The imagery from that particular moment in the film is so creepy I’d be too afraid to jump thinking the big guy was still down there.
Dennis, I’m loving these anecdotes…keep ’em comin’. Reminds me I need to watch that special again.
Bobby, I KIND OF agree with what you’re saying about “working with adults.” But don’t forget Mathison wrote E.T. too – and both E.T. and Close Encounters have rather dark divorce subplots. CE3K in particular has a rather devastating picture of marital breakup – particularly those sneaking moments of sympathy for the kids, although Teri Garr ensures that the scenes are often quite funny, as well.
Margaret, you are definitely right about the child’s death being essential. I wish more big entertainment films had the guts to draw us in this way: there really was a shock in the audience when the kid got killed, and the mother’s slap creates a palpable emotional resonance for Brody’s desire to “get” the inhuman killer. All of this motivation stuff is Screenwriting 101 (for a reason, of course) and could come off as cliches but Spielberg, Scheider, and the rest of the collaboraters invest it with so much conviction that it works. Here’s where Spielberg’s brilliant touch with mise en scene pays off brilliantly – his attention to throwaway details and love of half-heard asides and non sequiturs (I think his early work with actors and sound was very influenced by Altman), his determination to create a fully inhabited and believable are pretty much un-echoed in today’s blockbuster landscape, and are sorely missed.
Well boys and girls. Gonna go take a break now from all the JAWS fun. I’m going out to the local diner I frequent. I’m having fish tonight. CALL IT REVENGE!!!! LOL. Be back later.
hey, Dennis – great anecdotes.
Hey, i said, “I’d wouldn’t be surprised if Spielberg had nothing to do with Hooper surviving” – that’s not a statement of fact but suspicious of giving the director all the credit. I will accept what you say because your love of the movie has made you research it. Though I doubt that he could demand anything. If memory serves me right – he was very much a hired hand and worried that he might be sacked (rather like Coppla on the ‘The Godfather’).
But writer he isn’t. Maybe a good suggester.
Movieman, I meant the reference to Richard Matheson, distinguished screenwriter and novelist rather than Melissa Mathison, girlfriend of Harrison Ford and scripter of ET. My fault for not using first names.
I agree with you that the best parts of ‘CEOTK’ were the disintegration of the marriage. The sense of wonder at the end also has it’s magic. But there seemed to be an immaturity in him, perhaps having escaped and lived in film for too long, that was to be echoed in him until the ’90s. Though for me, both ‘Raiders’ and ‘Empire of the Sun’ benefited from his temporarily enchanted child-view of the universe.
Excellent piece on a film that I like as well. The one aspect of the film that I will add is that this was one that left an impression on a kid who was never exactly crazy about swimming in any kind of water where he couldn’t see precisely what was swimming around him… 🙂
Aye Dave! Swimming was never the same after that!
Your first thoughts in the essay, Joel, I think really nail this film. IT IS ABOUT PEOPLE. The shocks and the screams that are derived from this movie come from us because we grow to love them. Brody is all of us essentially. He’s a guy trying to bang out a living and make the best of his life. Hooper is all of us too. He’s the kid with ambition and knowledge and always wanting to speak louder against the old ways of thinking because he’s far more progressive. He’s the know-it-all that thinks black and white with no grey areas and he’ll vehemently strike his opposition because he’s educated. Quint is stubborn voice of authority that gained said authority through experience. He is neither talented or educated, but wise until his greed gets the best of him. He’s the guy shooting one last time for the brass ring that has elluded him all his life. I love these guys. As real and original as any three characters ever put on screen. Its the shark that becomes the catalyst that sets their bonding in motion.
To ever suggest that this film was the spring-board for the dumbing down of Hollywood movies is to suggest that nobody really saw this movie. Its a tireless study of human fears, real fears, and the facing up to these fears to conquer them. The least likely hero of this film is Brody. He’s a whimp to everything his community stands for. Yet through it all he becomes the one to stare his0fears in the face and brave the stand against them. Man is that rare animal that is at its best while under pressure and JAWS is really all about that. Far more than just a really well made Monster Movie. If this film did really dumb down the whole of Hollywood then it was the smartest movie to do that.
For once, Dennis, you and I are in total agreement. I really love how cleanly this movie is divided into two parts– the Thorton Wilder chapter, “Our Town” with a shark preying on all the fears and weaknesses of the people of Amity Island, and the Ernest Hemingway chapter, “The Old Man and the Sea” times three, plus a good dose of Captain Ahab somewhere in between. I like how each character represents a different social and societal segment– Brody, the urban detective, Quint, the working-class sea dog, Hooper, the rich college-boy scientist, Mayor Vaughn and all the assorted Islanders, each of them ignorant to the threat the shark poses to their lives, as well as their livelihoods. The waters this film treads may not be ocean-deep, but they’re far from shallow, too. More than a match to its sensational imagery.
Terrific assertion here Bob! I’m sure Joel will appreciate it. I particularly love the ‘social and societal’ categorization of the characters, and the film threads, while not being ‘ocean-deep’ are far from shallow. Nice similies there. At the end of the day I can agree with this. I have stated at this blog a number of times that I greatly value Spielberg, but oddly it’s not for stuff like JAWS or RAIDERS, but for the most profound emotional films. But therein lies my own taste. There’s little question though that JAWS does emotionally enagage you in the obvious ways.
Hi Dennis, thanks for clearing up the Indianapolis history. I hate to sound like a monster, but it is aesthetically satisfying that things happened the way Quint said they did!
Thanks for all the wonderful and enriching submissions Margaret!
……….this movie is part of the popular culture, so there isn’t much I can add that is “new.” The undercurrent of tension is remarkable, and may be Spielberg’s greatest accomplihment in the film. I think years from now this may be seen as his cinematic contribution par excellence……….
The proposition here that Jaws holds “human fears at its center” despite the obvious “dumbing down” of the actual story is really the issue that makes it a movie classic almost in spite of itself. I always thought the shark was impossibly fraudulent–do you Mr. Bocko, really believe this contraption comes off as an example of screen terror in a physical sense?–but as Frank says it’s the dread and the menace that is established early that keep you engrossed and on the edge of your seats. Some call it a popcorn movie, but I have no desire to munch while looking at this.
This is an excellent review by the way.
Ha! Very good point there David! I never bought that monster, only the build up. Let’s see what Joel adds here.
I don’t think this can ever be seen as Spielberg’s greatest film, but it may be the one that can be ascribed to his legacy as the one who perfected mass entertainment with a considerable level of artistry. I can’t really say that repeated viewings were as riveting as the first one though. After looking at this thread I can see the film has really made an impression on people’s lives, which is no small achievement. I like that Our Town and Captain Ahab discussion by Bob Clark.
I liked this original, but the sequels were less effective.
Yes, I agree Margaret. I always felt that even with all the other horror elements in the film, it was that story that Quint told in the blackest of night that was the most creepy.
Dennis: I take my hat off to you. Your contributions on this thread was fascinating throughout!
Herein lies a predicament. I look through this thread and I see people writing about how they love this film and how it thrilled them. But yet, nobody is just willing to turn around and say its a great film. MovieMan said it esarlier SPIELBERG IS ONE OF THE SUPREME ARTISTS TO EVER COME OUT OF THE HOLLYWOOD MACHINE. Do we always have to play down films that simply and magically entertain us. I LOVE Spielbergs more “mature” work, think SCHINDLERS LIST is the finest film of its decade and his masterpiece. But what’s wrong with labeling JAWS a great film, or ET? We fell in love with these film years ago. Are we so cynical and stodgy to allow an ENTERTAINMENT to blemish our more refined older tastes? JAWS is a CLASSIC American film. ITS NOT A CLASSIC AMERICAN FILM IN SPITE OF ITSELF! Just chill out people and try to remenber a time when deep meaning wasn’t everything. Entertainment can be great and this film IS great entertainment.
That is precisely the point Dennis. It is GREAT entertainment but when we look for truly great Spielberg from a more profound perspective we are thinking SCHINDLER, E.T., A.I. and EMPIRE OF THE SUN, methinks.
AND AS FAR AS THE SHARK NOT LOOKING REAL OR COMING ACROSS AS A LET DOWN: IT WAS REAL ENOUGH TO BECOME THE BIGGEST FILM OF ITS YEAR! I ASK ANYONE IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO JUMP IN THE WATER IF THEY SAW THAT THING COMING STRAIGHT AT THEM!!!! FACT IS, IT WORKED WELL ENOUGH TO SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF DECADES OF SATISFIED FILM-GOERS.
I agree Schmulee, I know you enjoy the film. Damn, I know you even LIKE the film. But, my question is: if it looks like a great film and tastes like a great film and smells like a great film; WOULDN’T IT BE THEN A GREAT FILM? Just because we PREFER other films doesn’t mean that preference subtracts from this films greatness. AS ALWAYS MY DEAR FRIEND YOU MAKE EXCELLENT POINTS.
Thanks to all…this has actually now become my most “popular” thread in terms of comments. It’s not because it’s my best (actually, the Apocalypse Now and particularly the Lawrence of Arabia were much better, and certainly more polished) but hopefully a little bit because I raised some interesting ideas people wanted to discuss. Also, the popularity of the film and the ever-increasing popularity of Wonders in the Dark don’t hurt.
Finally, Dennis has certainly done his part! (At least 50% of these comments belong to him.) Thanks, all and especially Dennis for your enthusiasm and participation.
I cannot take credit for any of this. The thread was fun, for sure, but any comments here were the direct result of a fine essay that got the ball rolling. Thank You for this, Joel. Your friend, Dennis
By the way, I think Spielberg’s wrong to spare Hooper. He’s already served his purpose, and the director (and the screenwriters who colluded with him on this choice) know that the character is functionally dead since they make him disappear until after Brody has faced down the shark alone. Macho adventurism and brainy science – two different forms of human chutzpah – have already been demolished by brute Nature; all that’s left is for the common man, with determination and a lucky shot (and, importantly, humility) to win the day. But I don’t really resent Spielberg’s decision, as it’s interesting in an auteurist fashion and is consistent with the complicit way he treats Dreyfuss’ character throughout; while on the surface, he should be just as wrong-headed as Quint – two stubborn hubris-bound man-gods with the sensible and practical Brody in the middle – the director treats him with a great deal of sly sympathy.
Movie Man, how do you assess this film in the Spielberg pantheon? Granted it’s a classic of it’s kind, and it may be seen years from now as one of it’s auteur’s lasting achievements, but it stands apart from his other work, the best of which looks at look at issues of sociology, the world of a child and humanity. You concede for example here that Dreyfuss’s character is transcribed on the ‘surface’ yet he’s a pawn who embodies what you refer to here as ‘macho adventurism’ and ‘brainy science.’ Spielberg doesn’t just present him and others as symbols but imbues them with a genuine human spirit that accentuates the film’s believability amidst the more far-fetched aspects of teh narrative.
That’s a great observation, Sam – even here in what should by all means be a work for hire no matter how good, Spielberg proves just what an ace he is. It’s one of the most surprising Spielberg films, both for how it demonstrates his personal touch and how – unique among his works – it belongs to something else beside him. E.T. belongs to the pop culture like Jaws does, but only as an expression of his vision. Schindler’s List belongs to the canons of pop history but as Spielberg’s impression of such. Whereas Jaws has a life of its own independent of the Spielberg myth.
At any rate, I think it’s up there with the very best of his work. I tend to judge things in levels rather than piece by piece – I could not do the rankings that Allan Fish does (which is why I do not submit any lists for your decade polls). I think Jaws is in the top echelon, MAYBE not the tip-top but then sometimes I disagree and think it is.
In any case, of all the astute contentions you pose in your review as to why this film works so much better than special effects-laden extravaganzas of today, this paragraph provides the answer:
“Most of all, Jaws is saturated with old-fashioned storytelling technique, a narrative skill the film helped revive in 1975 but which has fallen out of favor today – and not for a return to the oblique strategies of New Hollywood but rather for a virtual abandonment of storytelling altogether, a stringing-together of incident in a loose framework over the development of character and the rich rewards of structure. Meanwhile, within this controlled storytelling vernacular, Spielberg fills the screen with details – as with all his early films, little domestic incidents build, characters chat away in the backgrounds, sets are filled in with loving minutia.”
Nice.
Ironically, this was not true for a while: blockbusters of the late 70s and 80s followed the classical narrative structure TOO closely, and the result was often the epitome of the cookie-cutter screenplay cliche. However, since ’99 or so we’ve seen a move away from this – I think it was initially intended to echo New Hollywood’s edgy fare but it drifted into carelessness and a certain limp moodiness; now we seldom seem to experience the virtues of traditional storytelling in big films, art or blockbuster. Also fallen by the wayside are the virtues of classical mise en scene, which is why No Country for Old Men was such a satisfying experience for so many, despite accusations of nihilism.
Actually, one of the reasons I don’t enjoy a lot of 70’s filmmaking is because even the best of it feels careless and undisciplined to me. My favorite films of that decade tend to be the ones that hewed closer to classical storytelling– really, can you get any more baroque than “The Godfather”? Oftentimes classical structure works.
I don’t know. The Godfather is elaborate and complex, but it isn’t what I had in mind when I was thinking non-classical. I was thinking more something along the lines of Days of Heaven. The Godfather II is a different story of course. But why knock one in favor of the other? Complexity is great, so is simplicity. They both achieve different aims. Which 70s filmmaking feels careless and undisciplined? The Godfather films are possibly the zenith of narrative cinema – what would you cut to make them more “disciplined”?
Joel, your LAWRENCE OF ARABIA review was your masterpiece to my eyes at WitD, but I would agree that the APOCALYSE NOW essay pushes close, with JAWS, ROCCO and the others are (nonetheless) excellent pieces.
OK STOP! PLEASE! GUYS GUYS GUYS! YOURE READING WAY TOO DEEP INTO THIS ONE AND I WISH THIS SHARK WOULD SWIM UP ND BITE YOU ALL IN THE ASS! This filmi was never meant to be debated on a metaphorical or philosophical plane. THIS IS AN A+ ADVENTURE MOVIE. Spielberg just wanted to make a film where he could show off his directorial talents and get the audience to react. HOOPER LIVED AT THE END BECAUSE IT ADDED A FINAL CHEER FROM THE AUDIENCE. That’s it, case closed. The same way Ben Garders head fell through the bottom of the boat in the scuba sequence, IT WAS INTENDED TO ADD ANOTHER SCREAM FROM THE AUDIENCE. This is not a film to be debated. Its a joyous romp into saturday matinee filmmaking. It comes on, thrills you for 3 hoursan and releases the audience sweaty from the thrill. STOP ANALYZING! Its a GREAT film because of this simplicity. LOL! Am I the only one that gets this?
This is a lot more than just a premeditating-psycho-shark-movie. it is a beautifully made piece of cinema which tells a great story. While the shark is eating residents of and visitors to the little holiday island of Amity three men climb on board a boat and set of to kill it. And thats about it… on the surface, as is mentioned in this review by Mr. Bocko. Actually the three men are three broadly defined examples of men in general, a cross-section of western society. Quint is the physical, working class man. Hooper is the intellectual, softer, upperclass variety and Chief Brody is the everyman, some brains, some brawn. Together they must defeat this abomination of nature. The shark doesn’t quite match up to todays computer generated effects but this film is so compelling you won’t care and I assure you you will jump once or twice and it will by the end be real enough for you to not want to be there in the movie with them. Its even got a good sense of humour and the music by speilberg regular John Williams is just first rate. There isn’t much left to be said except that this was the worlds first real summer blockbuster and it is stiil as much fun to watch today as it must have been in 1975. Jaws is a remarkable film whose stature and reputation have been marred by a plethora of poor sequels. I would find it more than rare if anyone on these threads hasn’t seen it multiple times.
That was great Bill!
Dennis, why try and reduce this film to it’s mere entertainment components? Isn’t part of it’s greatness that it goes beyond this? While defending the film, you are diminishing it’s craftsmanship and Mr. Spielberg in general.
I must agree with Bill here. JAWS is more than just a fun time, even if I don’t rate is as highly as some other Spielbergs.
Bill, I agree with you 100 percent and I, of all people, wouldn’t DARE try to take away from any of its greatness or pleasures. But aside from you and others have noted in this thread on it being more than a mere entertainment, I am also a realist that sees that its not as metaphorical or as philosophical as some try to make it out to be. Yes, the three men are representatives to us all. We bond with them because we are them. But to try to relate a philosophical meaning as to why Hooper survives, or why Quint is torn apart is really stretching it to splash more on the film than really exists. Spielberg is a genius of scenario, and JAWs is a prime example of taking scenario to its limits. Its more than a monster movie, yes. But its not Ingmar Bergman either.
For instance: The death of Chrissy in the first sequence is a wake up call. Its suggestive of the enormous size of the beast and its there to wake up the audience and say that this is no ordinary adventure film. The death of little Alex Kintner has more meaning, an innocent child will force the beaurocracies into real action. Apart from that and these are the easiest examples to pull in a heartbeat, there is not much more behind it. We are shocked and amazed by the girls death, but we’re enraged and vengefuyl after Alex goes. To dig deeper into the scenarios is to be making up theories that don’t exist. You can say Hoopers survival has a metaphorical meaning but its really just a way to bond the audience to the film further. I have no problems with this films simplicities. Its my favorite movie EVER.
If Hooper were torn to sgreds in the end, I feel that the audiences would have received the film as COLD. By having him survive, we warm to the two buddies walking away friends knowing they lived through an experience that has changed their life. Quint had to go, its the ultimate irony. The man that understands and can handle the threat better than anyone dies because his greed gets the best of him. I think JAWS is a great yarn. Its the kind of story that, were it real, would be told in front of a fire or told in front of a captive audience in a pub by the survivors. As with all good yarns of this kind, one of the trio will succumb to the threat and the survivors will recall him fondly. Here, its the same thing. The yarn is spun in front of us and, true to the best fireside tales or bar stories you have the heroic survivors and the heroic victims. ThatKs part of the metaphors in JAWS. I respect this film as GREAT STORYTELLING with dazzling visuals, crackerjack directing.
Is it greed, or pride that is Quint’s downfall? I personally don’t think it’s any of those things, really. Quint’s death isn’t emblematic of some fault his character has– by the time his end comes, actually, he’s grown considerably as a character. He’s accepted the fact that he can’t catch the shark alone, and defers to Hooper’s judgement. Quint’s death, first of all, is simply about adding another body to the list of the shark’s wake– somebody else had to die to make the climax more dangerous, and the fact that it’s Quint, the toughest bastard in the film, makes the situation even more alarming.
Furthermore, it’s a return of the Ahab theme– Ahab had to die at the “hands” of the great white whale, but not for greed, and not even because it was the same whale that took his leg. It was because Ahab was motivated by revenge, as was Quint– he never really got over his experience surviving the feeding frenzy of the Indianapolis. Sharks probably scared him more than anybody else in Amity, but the only way for him to really deal with his fear was to confront it head on, with anger.
So in the end, it’s not greed for money, or even his own personal pride as the great white-shark hunter, that causes his demise– it’s wrath. It’s an unspoken aspect of the film that Quint is doing this to “get back” at the sharks that tore apart his friends, and terrified him. He just didn’t know when to back off, which is why he winds up tearing his own ship apart trying to drag the shark back. Why he keeps them all isolated by destroying the radio. Maybe part of him wants to die out there, the same way that Ahab needed to spit his last breath at the whale– for hate’s sake.
Hey Bob, you are quite good at decipering characters in Spielberg films, especially as you are not a particularly big fan, this one film aside. The revenge/wrath argument is a compelling one, no doubt. Fecund submission here! You’re good. Real good.
Didn’t anyone ever notive that the first image in the film is of a fireside party? Spielberg is trying to evoke the idea of this story as a fireside yarn. Probably the best fireside yarn in movie history.
The problem with knocking philosophical readings and symbolism is that they’re there whether they were intended or not. I didn’t mean to suggest that Spielberg sat down and analyzed what he was trying to “say” by letting Hooper live – quite the contrary, I think some of his motivation may have been subconscious, which only adds to the auteurist interest.
Exactly, Joel. The symbolism works both ways. Hooper living is metaphorical on one level while satisfying the audience at the same time.
Hooper lives, in story-function terms, as the first person to truly be rescued from the shark. If Brody hadn’t killed it, Hooper likely would’ve been eaten eventually. It’s the first sign that things have returned to normal, and it’s something you wouldn’t have had if Brody had been the only survivor– a man alone at sea.
I never bought into the contentions that the film worked on all these proposed levels. It is first (and last) an adventure/thriller film crafted with uncommon artistry within that category. Perhaps because it works so well on this surface level, people feel there’s more than meets the eye. I think the movie has become part of our culture and is undoubtably it’s creators most famous and popular film.
Frederick, as I tried to point out, the more mythic or metaphorical levels are there whether they were intended or not. And there’s a good chance that the smart people involved, most with an extensive knowledge of cinema history and working in the context of an intellectually and aesthetically ambitious New Hollywood (however brief), did intend at least some of the “levels.”
There’s always more than meets the eye, especially when a film engages with archetypes (as this film does) and when the director has a loose enough style (which Spielberg does, despite his tight Hitchcockian control over suspense) to leave a sense of “offscreen” insinuations (some would say that the more rigidly controlled a film, the better it serves an allegorical reading, ex: The Matrix, but I find those “levels” rather flat – if the film’s surface story doesn’t have human depth or resonance, then it’s hard to care about the larger meaning.)
Wow, now I have really missed something here. Dennis, how much do you like this film? I’m not sure if that came through. LMAO.
I’m in the camp that it’s all in good fun, and that anything extra is icing on the cake. I think the Movie Man presents it well here from both perspectives. The John Williams score is a classic.
[…] For the Love of Movies Gone With the Wind Grizzly Man The Hidden Fortress Historias Extraordinarias Jaws Kings and Queens Lawrence of Arabia Nights and Weekends Rocco and His Brothers Roman Polanski: […]
Thanks for the great post! One of the best post I have seen in a long time.
I remember as a twelve year old boy going to the matinee with my two older brothers and my cousin.. in Nashville Tn, on a hot summer day. It’s definitely one of my favorite movies of all times. They don’t make’em like Jaws anymore. Good casting, great story, and left you wanting to see more. To this day, every time I see it, I still feel like that little boy walking into the theatre to see it for the first time. It brings back so many different memories about those hot summer days back in the 70’s. Now that I have kids, my daughter had a fascination with Jaws. I thought it would scare her but, when her was only 8 years old she sat and watched it with me and really loved it. I was shocked but, then I remembered how I felt when I saw it for the first time. The summer of 75 will always hold some special memories. I believe that it’s Speilburg best movie ever. I wish I could go back in time and experience the thrill of Jaws all over again! But since I can’t do that, I recently purchased an original move theatre insert. I’m going to frame it so I can look at it and take a walk into the past when I was a little boy glued to my seat for 2 hours watching Jaws for the first time.