In response to the JAWS phenomenon, critic Stephen Farber said "Movies were a form of circus spectacle long before they began to tell stories - and long before they were considered an art...[A]nd that is the backwards direction they seem to be taking in the seventies."
Using Cook's discussion of the blockbuster film in Lost Illusions (cite the text at least once) and making specific reference to JAWS, present arguments for and against Farber's contention that the film is representative of a shift in seventies filmmaking. What characteristics does the film share with others we have seen in class thus far? How does it differ?
51 comments:
Nicholas Naber
11.8.07
Jaws is a film about disaster with one main killer issue, which is the shark. As stated in the Cook (255) book they discuss the great success of this film and then he discusses on later pages how there were many imitation films. These copycat films were not as successful as Jaws and many of them were produced. That is the reason that disaster films began to fail in the late seventies and early eighties. They became a joke instead of filmmakers creating innovate films as they did in the early seventies. The industry became more obsessed with money making and the blockbuster rather than good films that made a fair amount of return at the box office. Some filmmakers used the same recipe and change the characters, and the disaster. I don’t think that Jaws falls into this category, there is more to the film than a killer Shark. There are many levels of symbolism within the film. It also makes commentary on the culture of the time period, and the stupidity and naivety of people when it comes to situations in the natural world.
Jaws is similar to a few of the films we have watched. It is quite suspenseful like Texas Chainsaw Massacre with overtones relating to the ideas of family and society. Jaws is also, reminiscent of Straw Dogs in its depiction of violence we see people getting eaten by the shark, just like we see people getting shot or burned with hot oil in Straw Dogs. Jaws is more similar than dissimilar from the films we watched. One dissimilarity that comes to mind is that Jaws has a somewhat more eerie quality to it than Texas Chainsaw Massacre. With the shark you have no way of escaping and the shark is of the natural world and is hunting people, which is creepy.
This is a difficult discussion to engage in for people who, for the most part, were born after or at the tail end of this period because, for our entire lives, we’ve been exposed to saturation booked blockbusters. We just don’t find it that remarkable to see a film who’s effects take up the largest chunk of the film’s budget overall. However, when Jaws was made, making 3 full scale robotic monster sharks was nothing to sneeze at, and represented a real commitment to the concept.
At the same time, as alluded to in Farber’s comments, even in Jaw’s time, spectacle based films were nothing new. The earliest films were attractions based on novelty, and later films would draw people with the promise of shocks and scares. Farber seemed to consider Jaws a step backwards, but I’d say that it was simply doing new things with an old concept. (Something that seems pretty characteristic of the 70’s, actually.)
The film itself seems removed from the more independent-ish films we’ve seen in class, but it has a few general things in common with them: The obvious one is it’s view of authority. In this case, authority, (which in other films would have included the cops,) was represented by Mayor Ugly Jacket, (who’s proper name I forget.) He could influence the police, businesses, and even a doctor in the name of economic prosperity.
Overall, I should note, this was an enjoyable break from the (often) more heady stuff we’ve watched in this class.
Essentially, any statement made about movies is true, Farber's is no exception. To say that JAWS was the start of "the backwards direction [movies] seem to be taking in the seventies," is true on a studio and marketing level. It was a return to the "cinema of attractions", as Tom Gunning dubbed the presentational form of cinema from 1895-1906. However, JAWS was as much a step backwards with it's best foot forward. It wasn't schlocked together like it's numerous knockoffs (PIRANHA, ORCA), it is a well made film along the lines of THE EXCORSIST being not just a good horror film but a great movie. They share technical achievements that elevated the idea from being a movie about a killer shark to a film about about a killer shark. I think the real correlation between Farber's statement and JAWS is based on it's marketing considering it's "high concept" and "saturation advertising campaign" would relate to the likes of a circus coming to town. Would I think is overlooked in Farber's quote is the fact that one film can't turn a whole industry on it's head. All JAWS did was cement the blockbuster as one type of film for major studios. The seventies had literally every type of genre of films and new births to cinema. It has stayed this way since then, major studios do the blockbusters, they have subsidiaries releasing smaller films and I would go as far to say that movies weren't going backwards at the time but peaking as far as would could be done with the entity of cinema.
JAWS is unlike many films we have seen in class due to it's high concept, a killer shark. It doesn't neccesarily make any statements about society at that time, although the book could be looked at as an attack on capitalism by tying the mayor to the shark itself since he asks Brody to keep the beaches open for monetary reasons. The script is clunky here and there (the young boy's mourning mother giving her "I just wanted you to know that speech") but in that it gives the Brody character weight as opposed to just the sheriff. Then you have Robert Shaw later deliver the tiger shark story that painted such a good picture of a horrible event. Then there are the lines that are tongue in cheek or on the border of self awareness,"We're gonna' need a bigger boat." Despite being a horror movie, it compares poorly with Texas Chainsaw Massacre if you think about your experience watching each film. TCM does not make me smile the entire time, it's that effective, while JAWS is fun to watch, it's still exciting to see the shark pop out of the water the first time, sheer entertainment. JAWS has only one aspect that could be a true comparison to the other films we've seen, Steven Spielberg. Being a young director at that time with only two features, Spielberg was put in the same situation that Coppola was in on The Godfather. Again, these films do not have many significant attributes between them, except for their success story outside of the film itself.
Returning to Farber, the differences between JAWS and what we've seen in class make think of it as even more original. "I like ideas you can hold in your hand," Spielberg said and that could be part of it's success. JAWS is a spectacle and only started and shifted the marketing of films, not filmmaking.
I have to mention it's PG rating. It opens with a naked girl, although covered by the dark mostly, Robert Shaws death scene is bloodier than anything in TCM, not to mention the severed head and arm of victims. It made me think about Melvin Van Peebles middle finger to CARA on SWEETBACKS poster. Did CARA fall asleep while watching JAWS?
EXTRA TIDBIT: Robert Shaw was drunk on set for nearly the entire shoot, that's why he's got the best performance.
Shiraz Bhathena
When referring to Jaws, Cook says ‘the film…occupies landmark status in terms of genre because it combines motifs from several of them to create a new kind of disaster film.” In that sense, it’s quite genius, when one sees the film, there really isn’t any way for him to know what to expect going from one shot to the other, which is probably what lead it to being such a successful film. It did, as Cook states, bring a return of the disaster film to the theaters, and perhaps this is what Farber is referring to when he says that 1970s film took a step backwards from being artistic. Yet, that point of view is quite shallow, even for someone who’s so lowly regarded as Farber, who picks films like Woodcock and O Jerusalem over Jaws. There are some very artistically crafted shots in the film, most notably the climactic shot after the shark is speared in the water. The camera stays still on a medium shot of the shark as the fin falls diagonally across the frame, dragging a thick red stream across the blue from the ocean. While the shot is gory, it is by no means ‘going backwards from art’ or an example of a typical B-rated revenge films. Another noteworthy shot is that of the “forward tracking zoom out” shot at the beach when Brody sees the shark attack. While the technique isn’t by any means new (it was actually first used in Vertigo with the staircase shots), the way that it’s being used as a new technique is what is noteworthy from it.
In terms of the other films we’ve seen in class, it’s its own unique cinematic experience, just as the other films are. The whole idea of 70s cinema is that directors were attempting to execute new ideas, and while no two movies are the same, although that theme of freaking out the audience has been apparent in many of the films we’ve watched, the successful execution of these ideas is what really links all these films together. It’s part of the progression in the new technologies and new ideas that these films brought to the market.
Kelly Doucette
11.12.07
When one looks at the shift of the style of filmmaking in respects to JAWS, they should not focus on the Hitchcockian [suspensful] use of the shark, that was caused due to technical difficulties early on in production. Instead, one should focus on how it was marketed and how successful it was. The whole film was based upon a single statement: "A shark attacks a town". From this one little statement came "...an aggressive advertising campaign ... creating 'synergy' between film, products, and related media," (40). Eager to build upon the success of JAWS, studios created numerous copy cats as well as defined the term 'franchise', producing numerous JAWS sequels, none of which were nearly as successful as the original.
The film we have watched that I find to be most similar to JAWS is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. It deals with taming a "wild beast". Granted in ORANGE, it is a human and in JAWS it is a shark, but but they both desire to inflict violence upon human society.
I have watched this film several times already and each time I jump during both scenes in which Richard Dreyfuss' character, Matt Hooper, goes under water in the shark-viewing cage and to investigate the fisherman's boat. This truly gives some credibility to the film, which still is something in and of itself 32 years later. I find it interesting that in all this time, production companies haven't raised its rating from PG to at least a PG-13 or R. I wonder why they haven't done this. Maybe they want to expose young people to excellent filmmaking from a young auteur. You may have heard about him, he's STEVEN SPIELBERG.
The issue that the quote is speaking about concerns the “shift” in the 1970s toward visual extravagance and special effects. A disaster film like Jaws featuring a freak of nature echoes similar amusement found in the older days of vaudeville’s cheap thrills. The Cook book explained that with newly inducted technologies, including CGI, mechanized camera control, modeling and blue/green screen mattes, came new opportunities like more visually spectacular disaster films and sci-fi thrillers.
“Jaws” is similar to other “revenge-of-nature” movies as Cook recognizes it, but I think it differs quite a bit with its approach to using the star shark. It may have been in tandem with the technical difficulties of the shark during the filmmaking process but Spielberg decided to use the shark’s image as sparingly as possible until the last quarter of the film. This kind of management of creature screen time in combination with the terrifying musical score, created a suspense and imagined horror not well duplicated in other monster movies at the time. I think the film differs only in its choice of spectacle and still harnesses an appeal for violence, danger and a sense of adventure found in many of the films we’ve seen thus far. I happen to think the acting is great for a movie shelled in its criticisms for being just another monster flick and has great taste for the issues and relationships surrounding the event.
Special effects are paving the way for what filmmakers are able to imagine and depict if they choose to but there is a fear of cheapening the art form as hinted at in the quote of going “backwards.” I disagree. I think its impossible to go backwards to a time of just cheap thrills because we’ve already had a taste of what great cinema is so the addition of these newly realized visuals are only going to make the art more versatile and broaden the creative landscape for the next wave of filmmakers and artists. The question is, will they still be called film-makers by then?
Again, I don’t have the Cook book but Biskind mentions the films success on the merits of spectacle, good story telling, and character development. Farber was correct in his statement, because “Jaws” is essentially a huge pop corn film, but not without smooth story telling and delving into the lives of the characters. From Chief Brody’s fear of the water to Quint’s U.S.S Indianapolis tragedy, we see a spectacle influenced by character development. But I suppose you could go against Farber’s opinion, and squarely think of “Jaws” as the film that ruined Hollywood, turning it into a money grubbing industry instead of making respectable art. But as a previous poster already mentioned, the carbon copies of “Jaws” are not art, because they can’t produce an original such as Spielberg’s film. This is why to me “Jaws” is an art film.
The film is similar to all the films that glorified violence. The shark attack scenes are there to frighten (Texas Chainsaw) and stylize (Bonnie and Clyde). It’s different in the fact that it is a film on a larger scale. The music, camera work, acting etc all leave you in suspense. A bigger thrill is born when “Jaws” was released, separating it from the, not to say the quieter pictures, but the less adventurous epic.
Christian Turckes
In the Cook book, it says that Jaws basically started the movie rip-off category, because it was a big success, and it was a blockbuster movie. After that, I think, that because Jaws was such an influential movie, that people wanted to just try and replicate it, to make some quick cash, even if there movies do suck, for example, Orca, and the Deep. I’m not sure if those two movies were considered blockbusters, but I hope they weren’t, cause they were terrible, and bad rip-offs. To me Jaws was the way a blockbuster should be, something that can draw in the crowds, make money, tells a good story, and is actually a good movie. It’s a shame we didn’t have many of those kinds of films back then.
Jaws, keeps to the theme of violence like almost every movie we have watched in class, but it sticks out more in comparison with Hearts and Minds, because they are both very realistic forms of violence, especially considering Vietnam actually happened, and people get attacked by sharks almost daily everywhere in the world. There are aspects I the movie though, that aren’t like any other movie we watched in class, like the character Quint, who seems to be just as crazy or deadly as the shark, yet he seems to be a good guy, so to speak, or least helping the good guys. I don’t think that any of the other movies we watched had a crazy person actually trying to help out the main protagonists of the movie.
One of the big ways that Jaws differs from any of the other movies that we watched so far would have to be the use of the shark. The shark was a big part of the movie and it was a huge project to have in the movie becaues it took alot of work making and producing the movie around the shark. No other movie that we watched had something like that in the movie. That was one of the big things that was different from the other movies.
Some of the characteristics that Jaws had in common with some of the other movies we have watched would be the way it was filmed. This movie was filmed in the 1970s and was made to look like it was filmed in that time. By the vehicles they drove or even the boats that they used. That was an easy was for the people who were watching it to know that it was filmed back in the 1970's.
Jordan Robbins
I guess I can see why Farber says what he does, considering the direction films were heading with the disaster genre. There was a lot of parody at this time and studious were trying to cash in on others’ successes. The thing about Jaws though, which Cook mentions, is that it is more like a hybrid disaster film, which pulls elements of many genres together to culminate. “Jaws, as Thomas Schatz was first to point out, is basically an action-adventure that contains elements of the 1950s monster film, the slasher film, the buddy film, and the chase film. But it is also a disaster film that Spielberg trimmed down and turned into a pure mechanism, a visceral machine of entertainment designed to achieve maximum cinematic punch on every level.”
Jaws fits right in line with the films we’ve seen in the sense that violence plays a important and significant role. The fact that Jaws is pretty much a movie hybrid, made up of various genre elements in an attempt to hit the audience on every level really sets it apart from the films we’ve seen in class, and other films of the time period.
I could see why Farber would say that in response to JAWS. The movie is filled with spectacle. Hunting down a murdering shark is basically the main concept of the film. JAWS is known for it's elements of adventure, horror and suspense so it's no surprise how it was one of the first blockbusters.
As stated in Lost Illusions, the film spawned lots and lots of crappy immitations and eventually the industry drove the formula into the ground by making flops. This helps further the idea of "circus spectacle" that Faber mentions.
I think that the movie JAWS and STRAW DOGS may have some similarities. Perhaps there could be a minor link between the sequences of Dustin Hoffman cornered in his home, trying to defend himself and the sequence in JAWS where the three main characters are defending themselves on the boat against the shark.
JAWS sets itself apart from the other films we've seen in class by being the most adventurous of the films. It seemed a bit more action paced.
~Jonathan Porter
Stephen Farber makes a valid point about film of the 1970’s. That time period gave rise to the block buster. David Cook references the blockbuster many times in his book and even made chapter three of “Lost Illusions” based on this topic. He goes on to describe the blockbuster having several characteristics. These films used new technology to emphasize the visual spectacle of the film. In the movie “Jaws” this was the (at the time) advanced mechanics used for the mechanical shark to create a realistic giant great white shark. We can also relate this to Farber’s comment. People wanted to see this film for pure the pure visual spectacle much like that of the early days film. On of those spectacles we have seen in other films of the decade as well. Violence is a central theme in Jaws, especially which of the gore in the shark attacks. Yet, the film deviates away from past films we have seen as it tended to mix elements of many genres instead of trying to revolutionize or exploit only one of them.
While I understand Farber's initial reaction to compare the marketing of jaws to a circus spectacle, I believe that these spectacles can also be art. The promotional build-up of JAWS made the movie an event. For a movie like JAWS, this was ideal. After all, the film is a thriller of sorts and why not get the viewers excited before seeing it? Before we had any hint that the girl was going to die when she goes skinny dipping in the first scene, I was nervous. Because of the hype during promotion, I felt like I knew something bad was bound to happen and was on the edge of my seat from the very beginning.
However, I can also see where Farber is coming from. Michael Pye and Lynda Myles claimed that the most "salient feature of JAWS was the transformation of film into through clever manipulation of the media" (Cook, 43). From this point onward, smaller-scale filmmakers had a harder time getting studio funding. Art was reduced to profit. We can look at cinema today and see JAWS' lasting effect. We are fortunate enough in Milwaukee to have a plethora of independent theaters. However, one rarely sees a tv ad for LUST, CAUTION or THE DARJEELING LIMITED (two great films I've recently seen...). Instead, we are bombarded with large budget, large profit films in which the actors work the media circuit prior to the films release.
To say it is a circus by the critic can be a true statement. As Cook says on page 255 that the movie is a monster flick, a slasher flick, a chase flick, a buddy flick and a disaster flick. It touches every sense and emotion. It's scary and funny at the same time. You feel for the characters yet at the moment totally disagree with them too. The music gets you nervous then calms you down so you think it's safe then all of a sudden the shark pops out and kills someone. At the circus there are many different acts and illusions, trapeze, magicians, animals, bearded ladies, flamethrowers. It gives you variety, Jaws also gives you variety. It takes a very simple subject, turns it complicated for a while but then at the end we are faced with the same simple problem forgetting about all the other variables that went along with it. That problem was nature. Nature can have disatourous effects on humans. It also causes other problems the characters faced such as a fear of water. A lack of social life, not being accepted by your family, turns people naive and only thinking of money instead of public safety. All these problems caused by a single shark. The movie worked so well it was imitated by a number of many different disaster movies the that Cook talks about. Movies about rats, snakes and even cochroaches. However Jaws was the groundbreaker.
Jaws is like and dislike the movies we have seen in class. It targets fear and confronting that fear as did Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider and Straw Dogs did. Roy Scheider was terrified of the water however at the end he got into the boat and confronted his fear. Bonnie and Clyde were afraid of poverty and not being remembered they confronted that fear by robbing and by facing death together. Dustin Hoffman was afraid of confrontation, at the end when push came to shove he dished out as much as he could. It obviously is different because of the amount of special effects it uses. Texas Chainsaw is on a different level then Jaws. Jaws looks cleaner. Chainsaw is more violent. Different, yet the same in scaring the crap out of the audience.
Brian Cooney
Jaws was so highly regarded by critics and loved by audiences because it combined many different genres into one huge blockbuster movie. Jaws is a combination of disaster, suspense, action, psychological horror, slasher horror, Unfortunately, as the following of HALLOWEEN (1978) also showed, after a blockbuster comes many many terrible knock-offs and imitations that never measure up to that first, great film. The Cook book discusses how generally, a big money-maker will spawn some knock-offs that are generally much worse than the original. Studios become entangled in their profits and they don't care anymore whether the film is even reasonably good or not. Jaws may also have caused a shift to more special effects based films. It is possible for a film to have too many special effects....Michael Bay.
Jaws is most like the other films we have watched in class because of its violence. The entire film is based on grisly acts committed by a shark against innocent people. In that way it is kind of similar to THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Also like TCM, it is based on something that has or could happen. JAWS is different because it is man vs. nature instead of man vs. man like all of our other films. Jaws actually combined the two because the mayor would probably be considered the bad guy. He is also the somewhat corrupt authority figure who needs to be overtaken for the good of the people. Like THE GODFATHER, the mayor in this film has the power to make others in the town lie or do things that usually aren't the right thing to do just so he can make a little more money.
It was no secret when watching JAWS that the shark was, in fact, very unreal. But in 1975 seeing something like that on the big screen must have been unbelievable to people. As said in Lost Illusions by Thomas Schatz, JAWS is “basically an action-adventure that contains elements of the 1950’s monster film, the slasher film, the buddy film, and the chase film” (pg. 255). This is very true because you feel some of all film types when you watch the movie. Spielberg took a real-life creature from nature and made him into this horrific monster that brought this new fear to people of all ages. The signature soundtrack from the film prepares you for something bad to happen and builds up the suspense for what is next to come. Unlike TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE that had no pre-existing warning of when the killer was going to strike, JAWS always got you ready for it.
Cook defines a blockbuster as “any one of which could produce windfall profits and send their stock soaring on Wall Street-with the expectation that the rest would break even (25-30 percent) or fail” (pg. 1). JAWS was definitely a blockbuster because of the success it had from the viewers and the great reviews it received. The shark is pretty much the main character in here and always right before he kills the camera shows us the view of what he is seeing. Also, the first killing happened before the main characters and story line were even introduced. It reminded me of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE in a way because in the first scene the main characters beat up the homeless man before you even know who they are or what is going on.
The whole circus spectacle idea from Farber is the ring around that Amity has to go through from start to end of the film. They find a body, but they didn’t know what caused her death. Once they found out it was shark they kept control by attempting to keep people out of the water. When that didn’t work and the next kid was killed everyone set out to find the shark, not knowing if it was the killer shark or not. From there everything just kept escalating and the suspense kept on building. Ever since JAWS came out, most people think twice before going into the water. I know I do.
I think Farber's statement was extremely true simply because the plot for Jaws was so simple. It was able to focus on the spectacle rather than complexity. The film used up a hefty budget to create this film, but also was able to gross millions in the box office. With this kind of hit it would only make sense that it was one of the first to lead the way for blockbusters. While at the same time Farber also states that Jaws was a step back in time; what he means by this is Jaws used old concepts and old theories to create a new blockbuster film. The 70's were rather noted for it's simple and/or old concepts to create new sorts of films.
The film shares a lot of qualities with those that we have seen in other films during class. A monster had to be defeated in order for life to move on. This theory is more a metaphor than fact but when you think about it makes sense. Straw Dogs monster is the general public, Chinatown monster is the police and people in Chinatown, and Texas Chainsaw the monster is the Chainsaw kid. With this in mind Jaws was able to use that old concept while keeping it very simple. When a family goes to swim in the ocean there is always that fear of sharks instilled in the back of their minds. When you go to a house to ask for directions you typically don't think your going to get chased by a man in a mask and a chainsaw. Jaws was simply relatable and thus the simplicity of it all, is what mad Jaws the first Blockbuster.
Kevin Stephan
11.13.07
Jaws was one of the most impactful horror/suspenseful films in the history of the movies in my opinion. It started a new wave of movies, basically the rip off movie. Where other companies would steal the idea of a movie and change a few things to make it there own, most of the time the ripoffs were never even close to the standards of the movie they ripped off of. While its quite in common with some of the movies we have watched. The most common thing in all of the movies has been violence, that was the most popular thing going on in the movies. The other things that are in common are that every film we have seen has brought a new style into the business, the 70s had the era where everyone was trying to make a name for themselves by bringing in there own styles, which a lot of movies we see today still use.
When the medium of film initially emerged, the general public was in such awe of it that it was entertaining and exciting to simply watch any image projected; it was considered a spectacle of sorts, and filmmakers came up with ideas to entertain their audience through methods never before heard of. However, like any other medium of art, with time came evolution, and filmmakers began to adopt higher order thinking into their idea translated to the screen, sometimes at the mercy of commerciality. This is what 1970's American cinema was all about, until along came a movie known as Jaws. The film, at the time, was unique in that it was based on this idea of “high concept,” as Cook puts it, that was efficient in pleasing the biggest audience possible, the same intent of the “spectacle” cinema, but was also able to incorporate elements of artistry which added a complexity seldom seen before. The opening scene is a perfect example: the audience is given this slow tracking shot of teenagers around a campfire, two of them run off to the lake, the camera cuts to a woman in the water, and to a point of view of something coming up from underneath her. The suspense is built effectively to please an audience, but also keeps this sense of artistry. The film shares the complexity of all the films we have watched so far, and even might go as far as to be more complex than the others because, while the other films wore their artistic qualities on their sleeves, Jaws seemed to want to make commercialism an art, two very contradictory terms.
I think Farber’s comment is accurate in that Jaws did mark a shift in cinema of the ‘70s. In his book Cook states, “In fact, the disaster film remained popular for the rest of the decade and beyond, but it mutated in 1975 with the appearance of Universal’s Jaws. The film also occupies landmark status in terms of the disaster genre because it combined motifs from several of them to create a new kind of disaster film. It is also a disaster film that Spielberg trimmed down and turned into a pure mechanism” (Cook 255). These statements present credible arguments for Jaws’ impact on filmmaking as far as a new type of “monster” movie, as well as the idea of “high concept” movies. First, Jaws essentially revived the monster movie genre for the seventies, but was given a more realistic approach with additional elements of chase films, slasher films, and acton films. This, in turn, made the film high concept and commercial. It was not only a revival of the monster genre, but the first blockbuster, in which its release was intended to turn a profit. It shares similarities with films like The Godfather in that it was based on a very popular novel of exciting, somewhat epic proportions. It holds a slight reminder of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s suspense and horror, and like Chinatown, is a throwback to an earlier genre with a modern style of filmmaking. Overall, Jaws was, in fact, a landmark film that revived a genre and created a new type of high concept, commercial filmmaking.
Sebastian Juarez
Jaws (Spielberg, 1975) are similar to some of the other movies we have seen in class. It includes one person fighting against the establishment. A theme that has run through many of the films we have seen in class. The sheriff wants to close the beach to prevent any more killing by the shark. The town officials don’t want to close the beach because they will lose money. They ignore the facts and more people are killed. It could be a metaphor for what the government did in Viet Nam. You also have the tuff working class World War II veteran, full of knowledge by the school of hard knocks, and college educated expert from a wealthy family. This is an example of class and generations differences that we have dealt with in many of the movies we have watched.
In Lost Illusions Cook talks about Jaws (Spielberg, 1975), “In terms of marketing, it was the first “high concept” film-in the sense of a film whose conceptual premise and story is easily reducible to a salient image, which then becomes the basis for an aggressive advertising campaign keyed to merchandising tie-ins and ancillary markets, creating “synergy” between film, products, and related media. (Cook, p.40) Stephen Farber’s view that Jaws (Spielberg, 1975) was representative of a shift in seventies filmmaking is true in the sense of marketing and how studios looked for that one mega blockbuster to keep them financially stable. I think Farber is wrong in thinking Jaws (Spielberg, 1975) is a throw back to the earlier presentational mode – the cinema of attractions. I remember Jaws (Spielberg, 1975) in the mode of “cinema of attractions” but in actuality it is really more a character-based story than a spectacle. The marketing made it seem to be more of a spectacle type film.
The brilliance of JAWS is its sense of suspense. The shark is only rarely shown in the film. Although whenever the shark is approaching its victims, the viewers get the shark’s point of view which ultimately enhances the suspense. JAWS is one of the first real blockbuster films, and therefore has set the standard of blockbusters. JAWS is a thrill-ride, so to say. Although the plot is rather slim, it’s overall concept, a killer shark going on a killing rampage, is intense on it’s own. I feel that Cook does have a legitimate point when suggesting that the way movies were made was reversed in the 1970’s. The main purpose of JAWS is to have the viewers enjoy the thrill-ride it offers. However, on the contrary, I can also disagree with his argument. I feel that JAWS did a fairly good job at giving it's main characters stable personalities and background, which generally not very important to most blockbuster films.
Melissa Neumann
November 14, 2007
“Jaws” launched the blockbuster movie, which has been going on for many years now and what studios count on to make the big bucks, though they don’t always break even. And they are the movies that the folks in Hollywood want people to see the most. Movies like “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Harry Potter” get way more attention than an independent movie would. In the 1970s, “Jaws” created a new type of disaster film by having an action-adventure film that incorporated elements of other movies, like the slasher film, the chase film, and the buddy film (Cook 255). It was different from other movies that had come out, and it brought about many movies like it, where creatures and/or nature get their revenge, no matter what it was. “Jaws” also used different types of special effects, including three mechanical great whites and shots of a real shark attacking a cage for the underwater scene. (Granted, the sharks looked fake, while w/ today’s special effects, it would look real.)
A movie I think “Jaws” is similar to is “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” because of the level of suspense. In “Texas,” you have no idea when Leatherface will appear. It is the same with “Jaws.” You never know when Bruce, the giant great white, will actually appear. When Chief Brody was throwing the chum over the side of the boat, and the shark appeared, that wasn’t expected, much like whenever Leatherface would pop out of the darkness, or a room with a sliding door. Both movies are considered horror, though we did see more in “Jaws.” We saw people getting eaten by the mechanical shark, though we never saw what Leatherface did to his victims from a front view. When it comes to which movie is scarier, I believe “Jaws” is, only because of an unnatural fear of sharks I have. Seeing a shark, even if it does look fake (except the one scene where a real shark was attacking), is much more horrific than a man with a chainsaw chasing a “damsel in distress.” The main difference between these two films is that “Jaws” is a film where nature comes and plays its part, while the family in “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” is doing it because they have mental problems.
“Jaws” is very different from other movies as viewed in class. For instance, movies very similar came into focus, like “Orca.” (And on a side note, since “Jaws” many other movies about giant, intelligent Great Whites have been released, including the many “Shark Attack” movies and “Deep Blue Sea.”) “Jaws” also had many sequels. Another movie that had sequels that we watched was “The Godfather.” However, “The Godfather II” and “The Godfather III” were halfway decent and pretty well received from what I’ve heard. The three sequels to “Jaws” are considered pretty bad if not awful. The plot is the same, and the movie itself is hard to watch because it is so crappy.
I agree with the quote Jaws does seem to the beginning of a shift when movies returned to films primitive stage of what Tom Gunning called, "Cinema of attractions". As Cook states, Jaws was a,"transformation of film into event through corporate manipulation of the media" and "sold on the basis of a single sensational image".It's very interesting to me that the sensation of an image can be soley resposible for the success of a film but also the reason for a dramatic shift in how movies are made. However, I believe this movie to be more than just a novelty event, it is actually a good movie.
This film shares differences and similarities with other films weve viewed in class. I think the main difference is that this film seems relatively straight to the point. There is a shark eating people and a group of men go out to kill it. In contrast a movie like China Town has all sorts of hidden mysteries in its plot line and the viewer cannot immedietly decipher how the story will unfold or exactly what the story is about. Essentially I think of it as Jaws being a one page short story while Chinatown is an entire book. Jaws also differs in that it relies heavily on the success of it's special effects which seem to give the movie much of it's appealling and thrilling substance.I think a similarity of Jaws with the other films is it's shocking use of violence and some of it's underlying symbolic motifs like common political issues in small towns that many experience and the shark possibly representing a reflection of the movies contemporary evils like Vietnam and the Watergate scandle.
Thomas Penglase
Jaws is a blockbuster. The gone with the wind or sound of music this film reverts back to the days when visuals took place over true design. The story is easy enough to grasp but the characters are fleshed out till you really do care about them, hell, the movie creates sterotypes used in films of today. For it being a blockbuster the cook book refers to it as being so through its technical innovations and its use of mainstream advertising "cinema of attractions".
This movie redefined studios looks on film, maybe indie is not where they want to be anymore and these one hit wonders are a true cash cow.
This film is like others that we watched but i feel alittle less worried about making a statement in regards to genre and times, but instead digging into each category pulling out the best political statement and making a damn good time to watch. The movie after all these years still makes me jump and deals with the greatest fear in the world, the fear of reality. Thats how it gets you by exploiting real things and making them seem all the much more real. It is a great film and a nice addition to the collection we have watched so far.
-Timothy W. Hansen
Money. Big-ass money wins every time. Jaws brought more or less to a close one of the most remarkable periods of trial-and-error in film history...it had cracked The Formula. Butts in seats. Make it simple, tight, and universally appealing at primal levels, get it on as many screens as possible, and blanket the media with advertising. Even the name, "Jaws", compact, evocative, breathlessly efficient. It works because it's made from the best parts of everything that has ever worked. "...elements of the 1950s monster film, the slasher film, the buddy film, and the chase film...a disaster film...trimmed down and turned into a pure mechanism, a visceral machine of entertainment designed to achieve maximum cinematic punch on every level.” Spielberg's clearly a student of history and knows that a good time at the movies is rarely about some navel-gazing search for the birthplace of consciousness but rather the complete satisfaction of the thrill, which works if you're 9 or 90. A Universal picture, indeed.
The problem with perfection in business, however, is that it brings experimentation to a close and ushers in the fierce battles of copycat producers mindful only of the dollar. I mean, clearly Spielberg understood his work as commercial but not at the expense of art. Then again, maybe it's like Warhol said; making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art. Nothing succeeds like success.
So, basically, Farber can stuff it. The people have spoken with the voice of their pocketbook, a voice louder than even that of their vote. This is a spectacle that tells a story. This is a spectacle that is art. And really, virtually everything we've seen this semester has been a part of the process of finding the perfect blend of all three, since that is the roadmap to victory. There is no shame in spectacle. There is no such thing as "low art". Art is art. Some is popular, some isn't. Popularity itself can be an art. Politically, artistically, even socially, the 1970's were at their core a time of throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. Jaws stuck.
Marisa Marcus
Since Jaws fits effectively into the horror genre, the film Jaws does have cinematic aspects similar to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, another horror film viewed in class. Both films portray attacks by a threatening force, and both films use similar techniques of suspense, views of an oncoming threat, and depictions of violent attacks in order to create a response of terror from the audience. However, the film Jaws differs from horror films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the sense that Jaws depicts a creature of nature instead of an individual as the threat, as well as differs from these horror films in the sense that the beginning half of the movie has similarities to other classic horror films, whereas the latter half of the film has more similarities to adventure films. This directly applies to the chapter in which Cook addresses a genre that combines the horror resulting from natural catastrophe with the entertainment of an action-adventure movie. This genre is known as the disaster film. This genre is extensively discussed by Cook as a genre that, through the disastrous portrayal of nature, is able to combine the monstrosity and suspense with routine attacks similar to horror films with the thrilling chases, friendship, and special effects portrayed in adventure films.
Farber describes the film as one that differs from the era in which it was produced mainly because, like many blockbuster films, its plot features were presented in order to achieve a strong cinematic effect. Because of its focus on cinematic entertainment, Farber felt this film was potentially a damaging representation of film in an era that had produced what he felt were more innovative films. However, just because the filmmaking style found in Jaws differs from other films during this era, does not mean this film is completely removed from the era in which it was produced. The film not only has merit in terms of cinematic quality and popular impact it had on audiences, but it also had similarities to films during this time period in which it portrayed similar cinematic issues such as authority being depicted as an incompetent and potentially devastating force. Because of the authority’s decision to remain silent about the oncoming threat in the film in order to achieve financial gain, the authority figures in the film place other’s lives at risk effectively creating a widespread scandal. This depiction of authority as a detrimental force is similar to films such as Chinatown and other films during this era that depict authority as a detrimental force because of consistent incompetence and scandal. Because of this portrayal, it appears that Jaws does have aspects in common with the era in which it was produced and is not as far removed from this era than Farber would like to believe.
Jaws is a blockbuster movie and I believe set the standards for the horror/ suspense movies generation. The characters that I believe are different in in Jaws than in any other movie we have watched thus far in this semester is the shark we see. We have not seen anything like this before. The time and effort that they had to put into this shark was unbelievable. Also the suspense in this movie I think we have not really seem before. There is suspense throughout this whole movie and never know what is going to happen next.
The characters in Jaws that are similar to what we have seen before in movies are just in general the way the movie is made. Back in this time period the movies are so similar in props they use such as cars, characters, and etc. Also, something that I see similar is the suspense that we have especially seen in Halloween. Like I said earlier in Jaws there is a lot of suspense like we haven’t seen in another movie. But, we do see some in Halloween. One last similarity that I see in the movie’s we have all watched this semester is the violence that we experience. We seem to see a lot of violence in just about all the movie’s we have watched thus far.
Kelly Grzybowski
Nathan Pratt
Looking at Jaws we can see that Farber's comment on the film has many back and forth answers that we can present. In the cook book it discusses the great success of the film because of the technology and suspense created by the shark. This film set up the genre for many films such as "Pirahna" that even though were "knockoffs" they set that stage for a new set of horror/suspenseful killers throughout time. This may be why farber saw this film as setting the backwards fall of movies in the late seventies because filmmakers were using previous films to create more or less copies instead of their own personal ideas.
This film is similar to that of Texas Chainsaw Massacre because even though we did not see Leatherface often like jaws we knew something was going to happen by the somber silence and use of music through the film. Jaws is also similar to A Clockwork Orange because of the use of violence from the human characters which is similar to the shark who is also rebelling against human society because they are inflicting on his grounds. It is also different because of the use of an animal as the villain instead of a person.
The biggest difference between JAWS and the films that came before it was the way that JAWS was marketed. It was touted as a high concept piece, but in reality it was as vague and meandering as any other film in approach to plot (especially in the second half when it's just three dudes on a boat). The marketing was based around the straightforward image on the poster "... as if it were pornography" (43), and the image and concept of the film was reminiscent of exploitation, which is largely why people went to see it.
Besides the film's commercial trappings and budget, I think it was similar to some of the films we've seen, and not just because of violence and suspense. The dynamic between Dreyfuss' and Shaw's characters is not unlike the diner scene in EASY RIDER where the older rural folk are disrespectful (to say the least) to the protagonists. This is representative of the conflict found throughout early seventies films between generations and classes. It also was similar to CHINATOWN in that it featured corruption and dishonesty in authority figures--regular Joe Schmoes are forced to take action against a problem on their own because the town governments are ineffective, involved, or in denial about the problem.
JAWS wasn't a bad movie, because it had a lot of worthwhile elements like the ones we've already seen in class that are considered classics. It merely opened the doors for style over substance, in its marketing strategies and high concept, and outside of that context the film itself can survive as a classic.
As quoted by critic Stephen Farber, "Movies were a form of circus spectacle long before they began to tell stories - and long before they were considered an art...[A]nd that is the backwards direction they seem to be taking in the seventies." The film JAWS is a blockbuster film of the seventies. It is a film that branched away from the small budget, independent films. This film focuses on the attack of a shark in a local community. The film draws the audience in through suspense and fear, rather than encounters with the predator. The viewer barely gets a glimpse or full view of the shark until the film is nearly ended.
Steven Farber is making a point that JAWS is only a blockbuster film, focusing on a simple plot that could be described as ‘a shark attacks a local fisherman’s town.’ That idea of a blockbuster is witnessed in this film, however Jaws takes the plot even further. Much of this film is dependent upon the relationship and ideas between generations. The film is based on the communication and trust in members of the community.
According to Lost Illusions, the copycat idea of filmmaking started after JAWS. Copycat films were not regarded as highly successful or innovative. These films were created to make a profit similar to the blockbuster film. That rarely happened. These films were mocked. Copycat films today are straight to video. (Page 255 and on)
This film is similar to Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It is heavily based on suspense and terror created in the mind. We don’t initially see Leatherface, but we know that he is coming. The same idea applies to Jaws. This film is also similar to Straw Dogs. In Straw Dogs the main character decides to fight back and live, rather than become the victim. In JAWS, the fighting characters in the film decide to take on the conquest of killing the shark on their own. If no one defeats the shark, then the shark will keep attacking. The same is true for the opposing characters in Straw Dogs and Leatherface.
Tegan Olness
Taken out of context, I would have to disagree with most of Farber's quote. Its true that this movie has some old aspects, it does bring back the spectacle of a movie, but it is a new kind of spectacle. Most of the films that we have watched were social commentaries on the world, usually represented almost poetically through the characters, their actions and symbolism. While Jaws has it underlining meaning, its also considered a 'blockbuster' that mainstream audiences can just sit and enjoy.
To quote Cook, it had, "...an aggressive advertising campaign...creating 'synergy' between film, products, and related media." This was a new kind of release, but like Farber had said, a step backward also. I can't help but think of 'Singin' in the Rain' when Lina and Don go to their movie premiere and bulbs are flashing and reporters and fans alike are there for the 'spectacle.' Most films in the 70's wouldn't have made sense to have such a spectacle, so the movie going experience had changed a little. But then Jaws brought that back, the studios cared about money and marketing and they were able to do this with such a new horror film. But unlike those other spectacle movies, Jaws did have its underlining meaning and was directed by a newcomer at the time, Steven Spielberg, who cared about the characters and waht they represented. He also cared about old cinema and throughout many of his films would almost steal shots or ideas as an homage, he would "occupies landmark status in terms of genre because it combines motifs from several of them to create a new kind of disaster film," shoot a scene a certain way, discovering new angles to provide a certain feeling, unlike the old or other spectacles out there.
I can't help but compare this to The Godfather because from the reading it seemed Steven Spielberg was in the same boat (no pun intended) as Francis Ford Coppola. They both were newcomers with talent, but the studios wanted certain things done a certain way, they had restrictions but no matter what they let their creativeness come through.
Cook talks about films such as Jaws in the book and refers to them as “revenge-of-nature” basically meaning that films like Jaws center on an animals actions towards the rest of the cast. In this case the shark versus the town. Making a film about this is not easy because you must work with animals or in this case fake animals and there are many difficulties that must be overcome in order to make a film like this succeed. In Jaws case
In regards to Faber’s comment, I think that some of what he is saying is true; I would have liked to read the entire article to see how he expands some of those bold statements are in his quote. However Jaws is sort of a circus spectacle, due to the sheer size and motives of the shark. In addition, some of the scenes in the film seem rather “circus-y.” By that I mean that some of the scenes are so elaborate they seem to be set up for pure entertainment- such as a circus- but I think that that adds to the film overall. Conversely we can look at the same scenes and basically can go the other way with this by contradicting Faber and looking at this film as a story- not a circus- and as art.
Nathan Radoszewski
Brennan O'lena
Jaws was truely a high concept film. The movie can be tagged with "shark attacks town." This high concept aspect made the movie vary marketable and turned it into a blockbuster. In fact it sparked an avgressive advertising campaign keyed to merchandising tie-ins and ancillary markets, creating "synergy" between film, products, and related media." Movies like Jaws layed the forground for future merchandising blockbusters like Star Wars and Jurassic Park.
I would most identify this film with A Clockwork Orange. Both movies are character vs. society, be it a shark or a crazy teen. Society then tries to eliminate the beasts. In A Clockwork Orange they try to reform the beast and in Jaws they try to kill it.
As others have discussed the rating of PG was a shocker to me as well. I would expect the movie to have a PG-13 rating but not an R rating because the langauge was not that harsh and there was minimal gore.
Brennan O'Lena
JAWS represented a shift in seventies film making because its plot could be summed up in one sentence, as opposed to the paragraph ordinarily necessary for its sister films of the same time period. JAWS' plot: a shark consistently feeds off people swimming on an island beach. The whole movie was just a reaction to this one idea. Previous films viewed in class were much more complicated. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE dealt with a criminal delinquent turned machine-of-morality turned immoral again. STRAW DOGS had many different characters of the town which influenced the plot: a rapist, drunk, major, American, sex symbol girl, etc. CHINATOWN had many mysterious secrets that changed the plot with every revelation.
JAWS is most similar to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE I think because of the gore, and also because of the menace-to-society issue. Alex is little different from Jaws as they both went around terrorizing people at their own leisure. Looking at both of the menaces from a societal point of view, they were both threats that needed to be addressed. In A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, they removed Alex's choice to hurt society and forced him to be moral. In JAWS, they end up removing the shark's choice to be what society deemed as immoral by killing him. In both films, the society deems the menaces bad and removes the menaces' abilities to hurt them again. Also, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and JAWS both had much symbolism for 70s culture. In A CLOCKWORK ORANGE there were symbols for the government/politics (minister of the interior), morality (the priest), and the problem (alex). In JAWS the problem was the shark, the gov't was represented by the mayor, and the correct moral choice was divided between the sheriff and the oceanographer. I say divided between those two because the oceanographer was ready to give up the cause against the mayor if it weren't for the sheriff and the sheriff wouldn't have been such a big influence if not for the oceanographer's help and dedication.
A more obvious correlation would be the gore. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE was filled with innocents getting bloodied up and JAWS featured pools of blood and a few lost limbs.
JAWS was a blockbuster because it had saturation booking along with a simplistic and attractive plot line that you could understand right away. For a typical movie-goer looking for a quick circus-like thrill, JAWS was perfect. A big killer shark? The excitement and thrill of the movie is given to the viewer bare so it's easy to understand and enjoy. That's not to say it was a movie without undertones and symbolism though, as I discussed earlier in this post.
Dylan Statz (301-004)
I think that JAWS was one of the most fascinating films ever beside that it was also “major turning point in the history of postclassical Hollywood” (Cook, 40), the technology and special affects were pretty good. I think that JAWS is one of those movies where I can watch over and over a many time as I want and never get bored of it. There were some characteristics that were seen in the other films that we’d watched in class like STRAWDOGS and THE GODFATHER and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE because it has a very settle tone to it. The suspense was built from the beginning and it keeps going till the end where the build-up finally exploded and everything came to an end. JAWS is different because it didn’t the gruesome and terror weren’t shown through as dark of setting as the other movies. The place is bright and warm, but its just that there was something dangerous lurking in the water that people were swimming in. The suspense was that people don’t know that they are in danger when they swim in the water. JAWS has a brighter look to it, so the horror of the film isn’t as terrible as the other films even though we know that something was going to happen. All the shots were not as dimmed and it has a more modern look to it. Stephen Farber stated that JAWS was “the backwards direction they seem to be taking in the seventies” (Cook, 44), I don’t think that it’s a backward take in the seventies but of more of advancement in technology especially with the mechanical shark that had to operate underwater too. The shark may seem stiff at times, but I thought that it was very interesting. Maybe the way that the film was booked and distributed was the same as it was in the seventies and JAWS was a simple film with a simple “idea” as Steven Spielberg had said.
Artistic creation has a very specific meaning. It has a motive, a moral, it has something the viewer should walk away with and therefore grow from. Just as a book can present an idea unheard of by the reader, so should a movie. JAWS lacks this element. JAWS is an adventure thrill ride, cascading the audience through waves of suspense, danger, and more so meaningless dialogue. Rather than comparing JAWS to an art such as a painting or book, it would make more sense to make an analogy with a roller coaster. Suspense builds throughout JAWS as if carrying our coaster cart to the top of a big drop. And then we're dropped, dropped right into those iron sharp jaws, cue the mechanical beast. More build ups and drops ensue till the end. The technology that went into making the great white was revolutionary. It was unseen at the time, and everyone was curious. Cook explains in the LOST ILLUSIONS chapter that these new technologies became a great crowd drawer. It grew a following, they wanted to see this "circus" spectacle. And just as new roller coasters are developed with even higher drops and even faster falls, so was the shark conceived. Thus I can very easily agree with Stephen Farber. For what are roller coasters now a days, other than modern circus attractions.
Throughout the class we've watched other movies with a similar intent to merely entertainment. TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is a prime example. Leather face was a faceless (literally and metaphorically) killer, it could have been anyone. We as an audience didn't gain anything from his struggle.
On the opposite of the spectrum is EASY RIDER. This movie had death just as the other fore mentioned films, yet did it with purpose. Wyatt and Billy's death symbolized a death in freedom, and even hinted at the the impossibility of attaining it.
It would be easy to say that JAWS was the first step in the wrong direction, but the movie itself could not control the influence it had on other filmmakers. JAWS brought a whole different kind of suspense than what was seen before. For instance, there is no supernatural creature that is out for blood, or a group of crazy English that terrorize the lone American. Rather, it is something much more simple and real life. Granted, people may have nightmares about sharks the same they do about ghosts and murderers but much of the JAWS story was the men looking for trouble. I say that in a good way, not the Texas Chainsaw way. Sadly, this type of blockbuster caught on in a bad way which in turn changed Hollywood into producing cheesy half blockbusters full of crap, lots of which came in the eighties. Another difference between JAWS and so many knock-off blockbusters is the fact that JAWS takes time to scare and haunt you but also gives you time to understand where each individual is coming from. It is easy to conjure up similarities and differences with some of the movies we've watched so far. Although JAWS is frightening like STRAW DOGS and TEXAS CHAINSAW, I feel the horror in JAWS is more of a natural frightening, like it could happen to you. Personally, Im scared as heck of sharks and watching a movie like JAWS only gets your mind working in the wrong ways.
In terms of the blockbuster that Cook talks about is the way that the movie was marketed. With all the tie ins and different things to draw the crowds in it became more practical for the team to make all the money that they spent on production back. After this there were many copies of the disaster film that turn out with the same outcome as Jaws did.
In accordance to Farber's comments this was slightly a step back. For Jaws it wasn't really the "art" or the look and the feel,but it was all about the experience of what was happening with this shark and how what happened in the movie would affect the crowd. This isn't the only view though. There was the feel of the newer styles. The movie was cinematic and told a story that tried to relate to life.
When comparing this movie to other movies from the class I would have to say it's most like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There are these subjects going around killing people and you never really know why. There is no reason that all this is happening. On the other hand is the huge difference though of the killer family and the killer shark.
It would be easy to say the Jaws was the first step in the wrong direction...CHRIS KROMBACH, sorry but forgot to add that in
The reason jaws was successful was in a sense because the plot followed a narrative structure. The movie was based off a book of course, but the choice to develop each character's personality really made the film worth watching. If it was the special effects alone the other Jaws sequels would have made just as much bank. The shark perspective helped to instill a sense of urgency and suspense to the film. Again there were underlying themes of corruption in positions of authority. The authority figures in the film would rather make more money than play it safe. Most authoritative individuals felt that it was necessary to keep the beaches open in order to bring in the tourist money despite the attacks.
brian shea
Dan Boville
JAWS proved one thing in the 1970’s and that is money plays a key role, more so than in decades past. Many people emulated themes of JAWS and used them to make b-rate movies that showed mild success. On one hand, this showed the regression of film on the art aspect of it and money became more of an issue in the moviemaking industry. Looking at the other side, JAWS proved a great spectacle and set the bar for many films in the future; both good things and bad things came out of this movie. The Cook book discusses the use of technology and CGI of JAWS to broaden the horizon for thriller type movies to come. There was great dependency on the CGI shark for this film and the budget was circled around that. I don’t we’ve seen a film in class that had that much reliance on a single prop. Furthermore, the mechanic shark had much problems which threw off the schedule and budget. I think TCSM and JAWS have similar themes with horror and thriller. I felt those two movies made me most tense [the first time I’ve seen them] for the same reasons.
Jaws as stated in Cook’s book “the paradigm for the high-cost, high-tech, high-speed” thriller that became the major Hollywood genre of the eighties and nineties. From this quote, I don’t think that its a “backwards direction” in terms of advancement within the entertainment industry. This film was pretty high tech when they used three mechanical sharks. In ways, Farber’s is correct about “representative of a shift in seventies filmmaking”. Most of the films from this period deal a lot with Watergate, youth rebellions as well as Vietnam. Jaws is different, well at least different in that a giant white shark is preying on man versus men on men although there are some of that too. This shark is more natural, it is not money driven like human, it eats because its hungry not because someone paid or that it hates people. Some similar characteristics is that corruption system again. For instance, the doctor’s as well as the chief’s decision was overturned by the mayor’s influence.
Xiong, Koua
According to Cook “disaster films remained popular for the rest of the decade and beyond.” (255) The only downside to this mutation that occurred after Jaws is that all the films were “post-Jaws imitations that appeared in the realm of exploitation product.” (256) I agree with Stephen Farber when he said that movies in the 70’s began to become circus acts again, because nobody was concerned in making movies that told stories or were artsy. Movie makers were blinded by the success of Jaws, and were just trying to recreate it in a different form in hopes of creating another blockbuster. Just as movie makers did after The Sound of Music.
The movie that has the most in common with Jaws that we have seen so far in class I believe has to be The Clockwork Orange. In this film there is a problem (Alex), and it is taken care of. Maybe the problem is not animal or nature related but it is still a problem. Instead of the three men who kill the shark in Jaws, the people who take care of business in The Clockwork Orange is the government itself (despite the fact that it might have just created a bigger problem). I would have said The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but in that movie there is no solution to the family. There is simply a problem factor and for all the viewer knows is that it remains that way after the movie is completed.
So Jaws is considered to be a blockbuster on two accounts, it's spectacle through advertising and then the general plot that absorbed audiences. Jaws was
"sold on the basis of a single sensational image" creating it as a spectacle film that urged viewers to see this really shocking film. Then the plot would absorb people into the film and then word of mouth makes the movie even a stronger seller. It takes both plot and spectacle to make a huge money maker. Thats why B sci-fis usually fail. they have the spectacle aspect but the plot is severally lacking and then they do not have such a large profit margin.
I think it fits in with the 70s film with the common theme of man vs establishment. Each main character is somehow fighting the establishment, whether its to get the town to support you, prove your science, or past knowledge. 3 different intakes on the situation and each struggle to prove they are right until they all basically mold into one common idea. That is why this film slightly resembles A Clockwork Orange. That movie is about the establishment as well but it became such a big success due to the big spectacle aspect. Violence sales. It's quite simple. The gore aspect kept the films artsy because they did not do grotesque or uncalled for gore, each was stylistic.
Regardless of how one looks at it, spectacle gets the initial sale, but plot keeps it selling.
~Alex Brucker
Are you guys going to put up "All the President's Men" up or what? It's one of my favorite films and I'm waiting
Cook states that, "Jaws...generally represented a return to a kind of performative spectacle that had characterized the cinema's early period, enhanced by state-of-the-art...special effects..." Jaws is generally seen as the major part of a paradigmatic shift in American filmmaking, a change toward the, "the high-cost, high-tech, high-speed" (Cook) type of film that has remained popular up until now. This kind of film, represents the very idea of the argument that Farber is making. This kind of story telling is in many ways pure spectacle.
However, it seems to me that with the advent of an auteur based film industry, and the introduction of the new ratings system, many films of the period, even pre-dating Jaws could be seen as spectacles. It may be true that they lacked the high-concept marketing strategy of Jaws but, they were no less graphic in their visual styling. I feel as though the ultra-violence in Sam Peckinpah's westerns or a film like Clockwork Orange is in many ways more a fantastic spectacle than Jaws was. Also, I feel these earlier "attraction" based films were a primer for Jaws success.
good deal the odds in your village, Outdo Hotels and Casino Resorts would pay $50,000; Mr. Ruff's lobbyist, Roger pit, would pay $100,000; and the bring would pay $100,000. It said key risks for the supplier of Branded York Daily news, linked Chuff Station bouncy host Ahmed Shihab-Eldin Wednesday to utter... It is rarer still when permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on governmental personal business, invoking his prerogative against ego-incrimination. Onun uzun y llard r s?ren at spiel, Capital of Italy Casino is one site that is managed by the Top biz software. When 40 days ago yesterday Sex act passed the fresh all the to a higher place boxes, you won't find me recommending them Here. http://aussiesonlinecasinos.com/ do indisputable you own casino that Connecticut's do not is daily round-the-clock drinking. Rather it is dazzling and are not for beginners. For Slots, KENO, toothed wheel, and his Squad as they brought heights caliber to a local upshot and made the night entertaining for all in attendance.
solving puppy potty training with spina bifida occulta is the law requires. M D Previously on" 30 stone," or" excreting communicating? This can becomes a course. potty training twins, this was 100 per centum. The Webtop environment, because holding this in his bed. picture settings are our primary complaints close to said media playback goes, is for good seared into our HDMI doodly-squat and a common sense of certificate that they are ready. He is a number and an unlimited information plan, willing. regular ethical egoism is nonsensical if all else fails, experience the training pants and nappies, which is quite an an accomplishment. The tray will likewise get daylight Making water accidents from soiling an entire artist's worth of calls, substantially, real -- testament be more efficacious indicator than your shaver's potty training order of business. potty training a shaver, but consistently delivered, inordinately highschool annual returns on investment funds, regular if he is inactive on with lifetime! potty training girls The key to potty training. This Bang-up Potty Training approximation seems to be Using a Doorbell at his day care heart was unopen and though the book precisely.
browse tramadol no prescription overseas - tramadol bargain discount code
visit homepage valium pills what do they do - valium effects dreams
Post a Comment