 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.91.201.174
Because nearby Martha's Vineyard is having a three day "Jaws Fest" to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the film's release, I watched this for the unteenth time. This time I was struck by the many alcohol scenes: the opening, the dinner at the Brodys', Brody on board Hooper's boat, "those nuts" hunting the sharks, Quint chuggaluging the beer then crushing the can, the male bonding Indianapolis sequence.My DVD is the 20th anniversary DTS edition, difficult but not impossible to find. On June 14 a 30th anniversary edition will be released but I don't see what else they could include to differentiate it.
The film, BTW, remains a stunner despite the numerous continuity gaffes.
Follow Ups:
Of all the films made in the decade of the 1970s -- I wonder which film is most coveted and purchased on LD and DVD...plenty of monster movies in the 70s that tanked.Spielberg is one of the only directors that enters into every genre and comes out making big piles of money - most critics and people rave and then 30 years later they continue to eat it up. For what Jaws is it does it brilliantly. If you want a whiney self indulgent absolutely boring piece of excrutiating artsy artsy see I'm smarrt for liking it, crap look at 81/2.
George Romero in the horror genre was great at splatterring the screen for laughs and had quite the fanbase of gore lovers -- but that was hardly what his films were about.
Dawn of the Dead is not about Zombies for example and neither is his new film Land of the Dead from what I've read of the pre-release notes.
***If you want a whiney self indulgent absolutely boring piece of excrutiating artsy artsy see I'm smarrt for liking it, crap look at 81/2.Yeah... but can you even name its director?
NT
Once was more than enough. It literally makes me twitch - then I have to get up and leave.I'm not a Spielberg fan, but I do acknowledge his considerable directorial gifts. However, I'd prefer to watch them exercised in a film like Raiders I, Empire of the Sun (flawed, I know), AI (ditto), Schindler's List or Castch Me If You Can. There is something about his sensibility that puts me off in almost all his films, and it's not just his vaunted sentimentality. Spielberg is soft headed, not just soft hearted, and that I can't forgive, despite his undeniable talent.
For me, Jaws marks the beginning of the end of an era in studio movies, an adventurous era of smart films I was sorry to see replaced by manipulative, over-the-top blockbusters like Jaws.
Oh, and I don't like ET either. I'd rather watch Bringing Out The Dead a hundred times.
"Jaws" signaled the fact that filmgoers, especially young filmgoers, would pay to see the same film several times. "Star Wars" showed the studios that PG action films with merchandising and game tie-ins would generate far more profits than adult dialogue-driven dramas.
But Spielberg and Lucas weren't alone in creating the era of the blockbuster....Robert Altman directed 7 films between 1976 and 1980. I'm a fan, but I don't think any of these films (which include "3 Women" and "Popeye") are as good as his 1970-1975 string of films.
Sam Peckinpah directed "Cross of Iron" and "Convoy" in 1977 and 1978, respectively. While there are some good moments in "Cross of Iron" (Orson Welles thought it was the best anti-war film ever made), Peckinpah only made one other film after these.
Francis Coppola directed "One from the Heart" and the two films based on S.E. Hinton books: "The Outsiders" and "Rumble Fish". Who is going to claim these films as Coppola's best?
Mike Nichols spent years on "Day of the Dolphins". It was a long, long time before he directed another film.
Peter Bogdanovich directed "Daisy Miller", "At Long Last Love", and "Nickelodeon". After that string of films, he had to wait four years before shooting "Saint Jack" and "They All Laughed." "Mask" gave him a little heat, but not for long.
Actually, you could make the argument that Martin Scorcese and Woody Allen were probably doing the best day-in, day-out jobs of American directors in the late Seventies. "New York, New York", "The Last Waltz", "Raging Bull", and "Love and Death", "Annie Hall", "Interiors", "Manhattan"; that's a pretty good run of films there.
I guess my point is that if Spielberg and Lucas showed the studios one way to make non-controversial, popular films, the other American directors showed the studios ways to make interesting failures or small successes. Like many film buffs here, I find films like "Cross of Iron", "3 Women", etc., much more interesting than 90% of the films released during the late Seventies. But the teen audience that has made up the majority of filmgoers since the Seventies went for the special effects. If you're the head of a studio that is now part of an entertainment conglomerate, which is safer? The kiddie action flick with explosions and snappy one-liners, or the great unknown, probably over-budget work that a more daring director would do?
Hey, get Spielberg on the phone now! And tell Altman I'm in a meeting!
plus buckets of bloodDUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM * snore**
Grins
*
----------
This space available.
nt
That's why the DTS sound track is so impressive.
I just don't know why I would waste my time watching that Coca-Cola classis again.
shock-film is the powerful characterizations of the three protagonists and their dramatic "showdown" on the boat.
This film really is far better than any of the genre precisely because of the acting and the characters. Incidentally, as inept as the mechanical thingamagiggy is, it is still far easier to "belive" than consequent digital renderings of monsters from the deep.
The film still relies on shock value, and once it is gone it is gone. It is NOT a movie about fine acting, it is a shock movie. Otherwise it is like saying your 1970 Riesling is good for quenching thirst.
There are about two big gotcha shocks in the whole movie. By the way they are both beautifully set up. No, this movie is about character development and the bonding of those characters as they face a relentless force. The fear this movie creates is not out of shock at all. It plays on anticipation. agoraphobia and a fear of being eaten. Nohing cheap about the scare factor here. All scare points were well earned. All in all a brilliant movie and arguably one of the three best ever IMO.
If it was only a shock film, then it would not have stood the test of time, with so many different generations of film goers. Was Psycho merely a shock film? What seperates Jaws from most of it's genre is that it takes a fear that everyone has, and makes the fear real. No matter how artfully a director makes a slasher movie, or artful thriller involving an expert killer, I have no fear of being killed in that manner. On the other hand, I cannot enter the ocean on my yearly sojourn without thinking about being attacked by a shark. That is what separates this film from others of it's genre. That what seems such a likely subject was never filmed prior to Jaws bespeaks it's genius. We enter the position of Brody, because we all experience the same fears when we enter the ocean.The shark does not make an appearance in the film for over an hour. Half of the film is spent building the suspense. But note that when the shark makes it's first physical appearance, it is not mutilating anyone. It is simply swimming past the boat. At that point the film shifts gears, and becomes a contest between man and animal.
But there is another character in the film that has not been mentioned, and that is the boat. The special edition D.V.D. makes clear that they intended the boat to be a character in the film as much as the human actors. There is a reason they did not choose a new, fiberglass boat to be the chariot. Rather, they chose a old, wooded, very used, too small boat. The real suspense takes place after the shark is seen in it's full glory, in that for the second hour, the suspense becomes not who will the shark eat, but whether the boat will survive with these three people on board. Which is why the boat is slowly beat up, and slowly sinks. At that point, it is not so much about the men against the shark, but rather, the men against time, because if the boat sinks, they are dead. Their only chance for life comes in killing the shark before the boat in under water.
If you think that once the shock is gone, it is gone, and the film has run it's course, then you have completely missed the suspense that follows. And that is too bad, because once seen the suspense is over, never to be had again. And the very good acting is the conduit for that suspense. There is no doubt in my mind that the casting directors chose relatively unknown actors to play the key roles, feeling that better known actors would pull the audience attention away from the stories arc. Although Robert Shaw was a good, well known character actor, he was never a lead.
For those who are interested, I recommend the special edition D.V.D. A portion of the special features on the D.V.D. is devoted to the mechanical workings of the film. I totally agree that Jaws would not be the film it is had it been made with special effects. The mecanical problems were one reason that the shark does not make an appearance for more than an hour into the film - because they could not get it working, and had to film for budgetary reasons.
Another portion of the special features has Spielberg talking about the camera shots that he wanted, but that were impossible, and the improvising he did to get the same effect. Good stuff.
Because it call to our very unknow fears, deep burried into oneself. There is also this kinda childrenlike joy that looks very manly, between the characters, notably in the boat scene.
It is a typical SS film with all his manierismes, that may have a time but boring on the long run.
Yes but a shock value that some how still work. Even if some parts are now a little outdated.
I think it is a classic.
The late Robert Shaw's soliloquy regarding the sinking of the Indianapolis in WW II is the high point of the film for me. The whole film seems to pivot on this scene and I never tire of watching it.
This scene BTW inspired a school boy to research the case and pester his congressman to have the navu reopen it and eventually the captain was exonerated.
Yes and the part when the mother scratch her finger nails against the chalkboard, was not bad too.
scratching the blackboard to get the crowd's attention.
nt
Having seen it 100 times I guess it's imprinted on my (old, too) mind.
If one believes it is a waste of time to rewatch movies, even the great ones.
It varies. Some movies lend themselves to easy re-watching after short periods of time. Things like My Fair Lady, for instance.But generally I would say the stronger the film, the longer should the interval be. It is usually at least several years, often much more, for truly great ones. Perhaps they are like wine - young and light one can be enjoyed right away, and the better - the longer.
Great films leave such long lasting impressions that one hardly needs to revisit them often. It's been many years since I saw the Forbidden Games, yet it is completely alive in my memory. Such is the power of masterpieces.
That is part of reason why I only started collecting films very late in my career. Music - all the time, but I didn't see reason for movies collection.
We part here. I have amassed over 1500 films on laserdisc and DVD and watch the great ones often. In a film like say, "Citizen Kane" one can take way something new each time. Others, like "Picnic" and "Avalon" and "The Dead" and the Christmas films I watch seasonally. And I never tire of them, just like I never tire of the Cape Cod sunrises and sunsets and visiting the ocean each day.
I almost understand what Victor is saying when he talks about NOT collecting films. Normally I enjoy owning a copy of some favorite film or all the works of a particular director, but...how many times can you watch the heartbreaking end of "Forbidden Games"? I have only seen that film twice in the last twenty-five years but that girl's face is burned in my memory.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
