Jaws

This past June marked the 35th anniversary of the release of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975).  After watching it in my film class this past week — marking probably the third or fourth time I’ve seen it — I was struck by how horrifying and suspenseful it is, and how well it holds up as an entertaining blockbuster after all these years.  Maybe it’s my new film education, my age, or the fact that this time I saw it on a fairly large screen.

I was particularly struck during this viewing by how effective Jaws is as a horror and suspense film, as well as its deft blending of classical Hollywood conventions with continuously interesting visuals.  Typically Hollywood films like this tend to rely on continuity editing, and Jaws does that, but the Hollywood concept that the visuals should not detract from the comprehension of the plot does not always apply.  There were various moments when I paid more attention to shot composition and camera movement than to what was occurring in the story – although, like with any great blockbuster, I was never confused by the plot.  The characters and story were also very successful and compelling.

Spielberg made smart choices in deciding how to depict the shark and its attacks.  Because the creature is not entirely seen for much of the film, suspense builds in the audience.  As in many horror films, it’s what isn’t seen that is most frightening, in that one’s imagination often creates more horrifying images than the film could portray.  The fact that we only see the results of the shark’s actions – the bloody water, the frantic screams of the victims – creates a terrifying concept in the audience’s mind of what this animal is like, so that we wait on the edges of our seats to lay eyes on the creature that is capable of such violence.  It is also more effective because when the shark is finally seen, it is not particularly realistic or believable.

In addition to being effective at telling a compelling and suspenseful story, the film utilizes very appealing shot compositions, camera movements, and editing techniques that drew my attention to the film’s visuals.  Deep focus is used prevalently in the film.  There are numerous shots in which Brody, Hooper, and Quint are arranged in deep space.  Similarly, there are numerous low-angle shots which seem unconventional for such a mainstream Hollywood narrative.  I was also particularly struck by the scene in which Spielberg uses a dolly zoom to convey Brody’s stunned reaction to a shark attack.  Prior to this scene’s climax, Spielberg uses interesting editing when showing Brody’s nervous surveillance of the beach.  As people pass Brody and block him from our view, the shot size becomes closer and closer with each subsequent shot.  This draws attention to the visuals without detracting from comprehension of the plot, which makes this film such a special example of a great Hollywood blockbuster.  I also think this is part of the reason that Jaws seems to hold up so well as an enjoyable, effective film over time.

I also was particularly impressed by the character development throughout the film.  Brody is an excellent protagonist; he’s likable and relatable, occasionally bumbling but not ineffectual.  He’s an everyman hero whose emotions are realistic and believable.  He’s played skillfully by Roy Scheider.  Similarly, Hooper and Quint are the ideal blend between conceited and emotionally fragile.  The film is certain not to develop any real villains except the shark; the mayor comes close, but his guilt later in the film is redeeming.  All of the audience’s hatred is focused on the shark.  It’s a continually enjoyable and well-constructed film.

Have You Seen It?: The Conformist

I would consider Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Conformist (1970) to be one of the most visually striking films I’ve ever seen.  The use of innovative camera angles, shot composition, and manipulation of lighting and mise-en-scene is stunning and arresting.  And while the story is, in typical art cinema fashion, confusing and open-ended, I was strangely captivated by the characters and yearned for more information about them.

The film is told in a series of flashbacks.  The plot basically entails a man named Marcello Clerici who becomes entangled with Italian fascism in the 1930s, and is assigned to assassinate a former professor.  Issues of sexuality and normalcy are brought up thematically throughout the film.

The Conformist’s visual style is so eye-catching and effective that I often had a physical reaction to the shots.  The scene in which Marcello arrives at his mother’s house features canted shots that tip the contents of the frame.  While a shot like this is not uncommon, the particular angle, combined with the shot composition, featuring the iron bars of a fence stretching diagonally across the frame, made me physically feel as if I were leaning precariously to one side.  I was captivated by what a strong reaction the shot had on me.  I was even more physically jarred by another sequence in which the use of a hand-held camera gives the feeling of running with Marcello.  The shakey, frantic movement, in addition to the use of diegetic sound, was unsettling.  I felt dizzy and slightly nauseous.  The scene in which Marcello and his partner in crime confront each other in the kitchen of the restaurant is also fascinating and disquieting.  The partner  hits a hanging lamp, and it continues to swing back and forth on the left side of the frame for the remainder of the conversation, rhythmically illuminating them in the dim room.  The motif of flashing lights runs throughout the film from the opening shot, and it contributes to the film’s haunting nature.  The film is unique in its ability to call attention to the visuals, something conventional Hollywood films would avoid so as not to distract from a clear relation of the story.

There were also numerous aspects of the style that captivated me for their sheer beauty, without necessarily inciting a physical reaction.  The close-up of fallen leaves as they dance through the wind, the camera tilting up and tracking forward toward the figures, is stunning and artistic, like a painting in motion.  The set design is also ravishing.  The coldness and starkness of many of the interiors is beautiful and unusual.  The pure size of many of the sets is staggering.  Characters become tiny objects in an ocean of monochrome.  Similarly, the costume design is detailed and intimate.  The character of Anna’s ladybug pin appears in various places on her outfits, from her hat to her lapel to her glove.  It’s a subtle touch that builds character and creates a sense of confidence with the audience.

I found the story vague and sometimes confusing.  While I understood the basic plot, certain details were unclear to me, and the ending was especially ambiguous.  Marcello was a difficult character to read.   This ambiguity led me to desire more information about the characters, so I became captivated by the film’s events.  It pulled me along, teasing me.  While the ending left me unsatisfied at first, after letting the film sink in, I was more impressed by what an effect the film had both intellectually and physically.  The Conformist is quite special in that regard.

New At the Movies!

Roger Ebert is bringing back At the Movies with a cast of critics very different from previous incarnations of the film review show.  Roger Ebert presents At the Movies will premiere next January and will feature Christy Lemire and Elvis Mitchell as co-hosts, and Kim Morgan and Omar Moore will be regular contributors.  What’s so different about these critics?  None of them are white men.  I’m impressed with this change of pace.  In an industry dominated by white males, it’s important for different voices to be heard.  I’m also happy that Ebert himself will have a segment in which he will review obscure films using his computer-generated voice.  It’s excellent that such a legendary critic still has a powerful voice in the movie industry, even after being affected by such debilitating health issues.  To any nay-sayers out there who think he should retire, I say that it’s refreshing and inspiring that, in a day and age where so many people despise their careers (if you can call them that), someone is passionate enough to enthusiastically pursue their interests in the face of poor health.  I’m very interested to watch the new program, and I hope it gives a new voice to critics of all backgrounds and opinions, in addition to opening the eyes of the public to films they might not be aware of.  And it always helps to see someone like you talking about a subject that interests you.

Hopefully the show will be easier to find than the recent At the Movies with Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott.  A Saturday afternoon spot amidst unpredictable local programming is less than ideal.  Since the show is on PBS, it will hopefully allow for more in-depth discussions as well.

Watch a demo of the program above.