Jaws

When I was nine years old, my father took me to the movie that everyone was talking about – a thriller about a shark terrorizing a northeastern beach community. My father had seen the movie already and felt that I was old enough to view it (though to this day, like most people who saw the movie, I still am not completely at ease in the ocean). Over 30 years later, I still remember my father sitting on my right side. He told me later he would watch me out of the corner of his eye for my reaction to the two big “jump-out-of-your-seat” scenes (the head popping out of the hole in the bottom of the boat and the “we are going to need a bigger boat” scene). It is funny, but in my mind I see us sitting there, like we were strapped into a thrill ride at an amusement park – tense for the shocks we know are coming and yet excited and enthralled with the experience.

Upon viewing the film years later, I am still impressed with the direction and film editing which contribute to making such a thrilling and all around fun film. However, the thrills and fast pace of the film which lend it to being compared to an amusement park ride, come at a price. The original story had Chief Brody’s wife have an affair with Matt Hooper. Given the Freudian undercurrents of a monster lurking beneath the surface, this would have seemed a crucial element of the story that would have given it more depth – perhaps making it a thriller worthy of Hitchcock. Brody’s overcoming of his fear (regaining his manhood) and killing the shark could have provided another level to the film. Many criticize Spielberg for his films being more gloss and less substance and one could only wonder if Jaws would have been an even better film with this extra layer added to it. However the many ways Jaws can still be interpreted even without this key plot (nature vs. science as seen in the story of the Indianapolis being one of my favorites) temper some of these criticisms. Spielberg made a conscious choice to favor a faster pace for his story over a more academically appealing telling of the story and it is true that many of his films seem to value the visceral experience over the intellectual. Whether this is a conscious belief on his part that the intellectual is somehow not as authentic as the visceral, or as critics would argue, he is simply pandering to the popular culture, it is hard to say. I am reminded of the image of the young man in Amblin’ that hides in his guitar case not an instrument for art, but toilet paper, a tie, etc. (and seems ashamed to reveal it). As if even at that early an age, Spielberg was keenly aware of the conflict between art and commerce, and made his choice to never forget the necessities of real life over art – he desired to swim in the Pacific Ocean over the romanticized continued road trip of his travel companion. Spielberg is a hard man to peg. His masterful technique, inventiveness to overcome obstacles (the fog to hide the pond they were filming in, filming from water level and from beneath with the perspective of a shark) and seeming ability to read the pulse of public (a modern day P.T. Barnum) make him elusive. Is he simply pandering, or does he see the gut reaction as the true aim of great filmmaking? Viewing Jaws can be related to the experience you have in a good amusement park ride (it was of course made into a popular ride after the film's incredible success), but one must wonder, does this make it less artful or relevant? Does a work of art have to appeal as much or more to the intellect than the gut to have value? I think Spielberg would say no.