Skip to main content

You yell "Shark", we’ve got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July.

Jaws
(1975)

(SPOILERS) I decided to revisit Jaws principally because I was intent on tackling the mostly maligned sequels, and it didn’t seem right to omit the genuine article. And also, because it’s never a chore to watch one of Spielberg’s very best movies, made before he began second-guessing himself and imposing peer review conditions on form and content. The way I see it, there’s the ‘berg before E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and the ‘berg after E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and I’d opt for the former over the latter any day.



Untold reams have been written about Jaws, and will continue to be, a movie that changed the cultural landscape, giving birth to the modern blockbuster while repositioning the wunderkind boom of the late ‘60s towards popcorn pictures, just in time for the empty ‘80s. What’s most interesting about the movie, though, is the manner in which it straddles both crowd-pleaser (that score; that effortlessly assured building of tension; not even seeing the shark until an hour in – even if necessity was the mother of invention) and the kind of character piece the period had been hitherto best known for. Indeed, while Spielberg and Lucas have in common thinking their most legendary movies of the ‘70s were complete disasters, as a prelude to two of the biggest, record-breaking pictures ever, as well as mutual fingers on the pulse of what audiences wanted (as long as it wasn’t comedy), they diverged significantly when it came to their treatment of character and theme.


And lest you think that was a flash in the pan for the ‘berg, he’d show similar aptitude in his next picture, the first of his friendly aliens propaganda pics, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But if his ‘70s E.T.s are benevolent, in contrast (mostly) to their 1950s cousins, the authorities in both Close Encounters and Jaws are not to be trusted. They keep secrets from the people, fail to act in their best interests and act with impunity and an absence of consequence. On one level, this can simply be pegged as a reflection of post-Watergate distrust, but it goes deeper, at very least to the JFK assassination and the first publically voiced chink in the American Dream. In Close Encounters, the protagonist at the mercy of the government is simply an everyman, but in Jaws he is more dynamically established as an upholder of law and order; he’s on the inside, part of the system, learning how corrupt it is first hand (you can do that once, but as the producers of Bond and Mission: Impossible haven’t learned, putting your hero outside the law because it’s what they think the public expects, since they no longer trust the system, can only go so far before it seems faintly risible).


So the Mayor (Murray Hamilton, masterfully pulling off a very loud suit to match his broad duplicity) is willing to do the right thing as long as it doesn’t affect Amity’s summer business; the rest of the town – aside from the grieving mother, pointedly taking it out on Brody (“You knew all those things, but still my boy is dead now”), who let himself be manoeuvred and fair cops to it – want to hear what the Mayor wants to tell them. It’s their livelihoods on the line. Spielberg doesn’t need to labour the point about the politics the way he did so mawkishly with this year’s Best Picture nominee The Post (Jaws, lest we forget, was also nominated for the top prize); that’s why his best foot forward was always nursing such thematic material in mass appeal entertainments; tackling them head-on revealed, usually, that he didn’t have very much erudite to say about anything, telling us more about his insecurities and pretentions to intellectual acceptance that then earnest subject matter he nominally tackled.


There’s a looseness and authenticity to the interactions in Jaws that seem to come from a completely different guy to the one who had matured into a formula filmmaker by the ‘90s (be that blockbuster formula or Oscar-bait formula): he’d never truly recapture the domestic interplay in these early movies post-E.T (witness how much engaged he is with, and how engage it is attending, Brody’s home life, in particular the scene where Hooper calls by with booze). There’s even cross-conversation during scenes; anyone would think he thought he was Robert Altman!


It goes without saying that Scheider, Shaw and Dreyfuss are superb, the latter two in particular probably the best they’ve ever been, before or since. Just how did Dreyfuss age twenty years in ten between Close Encounters and Always? Coke, probably. The off-screen antagonism only serves Quint and Hooper’s relationship during a second half that segues effortlessly into a buddy-rivalry shark-hunting movie. It’s the man of science versus the man of instinct, with the lawman left to mediate between them.


Everything everyone says about how great the prize scenes are is true, from Quint and Hooper comparing war wounds over a bottle to Quint’s USS Indianapolis tale (courtesy of screenwriter Carl Gottleib, Shaw and John Milius), but I particularly love Quint’s taunting (“You’ve got city hands”) and Hooper’s Popeye impression. And the touch that Quint affords the inexperienced Brody the respect due to the head of the expedition while giving Hooper none. There’s also the masterstroke of, if you don’t want your plot logic contested, put a madman in charge (Quint smashes up the radio, leaving them to face the shark alone, because he’s a nutter). The only aspect of Brody I don’t quite buy into is “Martin hates beaches”; it’s a bit on the nose, truth be told, that he also has to conquer his fear of water.


You get a lot of theses analysing what the shark represents, just as they do the trio as symbols, but mostly the shark offers the comfort of a tangible, verifiable foe, one who deserves everything it has coming. In this sense, it links to the decade’s biggest prior hit, The Exorcist (the devil also deserves what he gets). So too, both feature professionals (priest, shark expert & salty old sea dog) brought in to rid the world of a menace to innocents. Quint is very different to Max von Sydow’s Merrin, but both operate on a similar level narratively (the seasoned veteran is compelled to die in both). And in terms of genre, they aren’t so far apart; Jaws is, essentially, a family horror movie, as much as Poltergeist would be seven years later. The shark is the boogie man (or fish), and it’s notable that the first victims are punished for would-be sexual transgression, Jaws prefiguring the slasher genre (like John Carpenter’s the Shape, Brodie’s bullets have no effect on the monster).


As solid as the performances and character work are, and as audacious as Williams’ score is (although, as notable on revisits is the often deceptively jaunty incidentals he uses to distract from the danger), the reason Jaws succeeds is all Spielberg’s technique. Those wipes as beach bums walk by Brody and we’re closer to his uneasy face each time, is just masterful. The death of the kid is all the more horrifying for its vagueness (what we see and don’t see). The way he engineers and increases stakes just through Hooper’s reaction on examining a victim’s body. The appearance of the shark behind Brody as he spoons scraps of meat (and for all those mocking antics of the shark in Jaws: The Revenge’s, this one taking a flying leap at the Orca first set the bar for daftness).


I came late to an appreciation of Jaws’ strengths. Which is to say, it wasn’t until revisiting it in the ‘90s, having seen it as just a scary shark movie as a kid, that its estimable merits were brought home. It’s undoubtedly Top Three Spielberg. The iconography of the brand has become cheapened through parody and replay (and inferior sequels), yet that only makes the picture’s continued effectiveness the more remarkable, an exemplar for the cinematic virtuosity of its director.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.