(Finished)A Discourse Analysis Through Film Language of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws 1975

Matthew German Dissertation 22354557

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS THROUGH FILM LANGUAGE OF STEVEN SPIELBERG’S JAWS 1975

MED3225

Matt German (22354557)

May 2016

Alan Molyneux (dissertation supervisor)

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of BA (Hons)

The written account that follows is original in form and content and may be made available for photocopying and for inter-library loan

Signature………………………………………………………………………………………

1


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................3

Literature Review.......................................................................................................................3

Methodology............................................................................................................................10

Narrative...................................................................................................................................14

Mise-en-scene and Mise-en-shot.............................................................................................18

Music and Sound Effects.........................................................................................................25

Editing......................................................................................................................................28

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................31

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................32

Filmography.............................................................................................................................34

2


INTRODUCTION

This dissertation examines how an audience understands a film text. It examines what

processes arise when an audience watches a film, how they understand the meanings of the

film provided and how it relates to the intended meaning expressed by the author (the

director) within the text. Can an author of a text truly control how an audience interprets a

text and, if it is possible how would this be done? In order to explore this, I have chosen Jaws

(Spielberg, 1975) as a case study for this work as, unlike some films, the meanings provided

are very direct and is not associated with other films which go out of their way to provide

ambiguous meanings.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In his work Encoding and decoding in the television discourse, (1973) Stuart Hall

discusses the three ways in which an audience can derive meaning from a visual text. He

states that there is a preferred meaning or a dominant harmonic position, a negotiated position

and an oppositional position. He explains how the three opposing readings work.

The Preferred Meaning expresses that the consumer takes the actual meaning directly.

The text in this case is decoded by the consumer exactly the way it was encoded by the author

with no misunderstanding between the sender and the receiver. Both the sender, being the

author and the receiver, being the audience has the same cultural biases.

3


The Negotiated Position is a mix of accepting and rejecting elements expressed in the

text. The reader is willing to accept the reading in the way the encoder intends yet, they resist

and modify the reading to reflect their personal experiences and interests. Hall states,

"decoding within the negotiated version contains a mixture of adaptive and oppositional

elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemony definitions to make the grand

significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its

own ground rules- it operates with exceptions to the rule". Hall (1973) He goes on to mention

that this reading is a failure on behalf of the professions to relay the preferred meaning

The Oppositional Position states that the consumers understand the reading, however,

due to different backgrounds, each individual has their own way of decoding the message

then form their own interpretation. Readers social structures may place them in opposition to

the preferred meaning thus rejecting it.

The message must be correctly decoded by the receiver in order for meaningful

exchange. Hall argues, the meaning is not determined by the sender, the meaning is never

transparent and the audience is never a passive recipient of meaning. Hall forwards the idea

of a four stage model of communication between the sender and the receiver which covers all

aspects of the production process. Here he identifies each step as both independent of each

other while being dependent on each other. He states that each stage will affect the message

being conveyed and implies that whoever sends the message can never be sure if it will be

interpreted by its audience in the way that the sender intends. The four stages are production,

circulation, use and reproduction.

Production is where the encoding of a message takes place. Here the creator of the

message is feeding off of society's beliefs, and values. Circulation is how individuals perceive

the text. The visual vs. Intended written word. How things are circulated influences how

4


audience members will receive the message and put it to use. Use is the decoding and

interpreting of a message. This requires the audience to be active with the text. This is a

complex process of understanding of the audience. Reproduction is the final stage. After an

audience has interpreted the message in their own unique way based on their experiences and

beliefs. At this point, the individual takes action after they have been exposed to a specific

message, whether is simply coming to a unique conclusion regarding the text or going further

as some take their beliefs and turn them into a new media such as fan fiction.

The encoding of a message is in the production of the message, while the decoding of

the message is the role of its audience. The sender needs to understand how the world is

comprehensible to the members of the audience. The decoding of a message is how an

audience member is able to understand, and interpret the message. This can make the process

of creating meaning incredibly difficult due to how original all people are in the world are.

But, it becomes even more problematic when a text from one culture is distributed to another

where ideology and sensibilities can be so different that messages cannot be interpreted in the

same way for different cultures. As stated in The Nationwide Audience: Structure and

Decoding, (Morley, 1980) ‘Members of a given sub-group will tend to share a cultural

orientation towards reading of messages will be framed by shared cultural formations and

practices, which will in turn be determined by the objective position of the individual in the

social structure.’ However, Morley does go on to state that ‘This is not to say that a person’s

objective social position determines his consciousness into a mechanistic way; people

understanding their situation and react to it through the level of sub culture and meaning

system.’ The audience is situated, not determined.

In The Cognitive Semiotics of Film (2000) Warren Buckland discusses the science of

meaning and single meaning units. Buckland argues that the debate between cognitive film

theory and contemporary film theory is unproductive. He outlines the film spectator's

5


cognitive capacity as authorized by the cognitive film semiotics. He states that language

analysis tradition and cognitive science usually oppose one another. Thomas Sebeok states

that ‘What a semiotic model depicts is not reality as such, but nature as unveiled by our

method of questioning’. (As cited in Buckland, 2000).

He argues that film semiotics of the 60’s highlights the weakness of American

cognitive film theories and challenges the move towards post theory in the studies. He

explains that audiences accept what they see on screen regardless of how absurd the notion

would be in real life. If an audience accepts it, then, is it possible to direct certain codes at the

audience and have them read the text in an intended way if the correct parameters are

displayed to them. Stopping the cultural barrier interfering with a collective reading.

Buckland argues that the audience accepts what they seen on screen without question.

For example, when an audience watches far reaching forms of fiction in cinema, such as

science fiction, then we accept that certain parameters are put in place such as technological

advancements, aliens, space travel etc. Are possible, thus we do not question them when we

see them. If an audience can accept such possibilities, then is it possible to direct certain

codes towards an audience with the intent of having the audience read the text in an intended

way, if the correct parameters are displayed to them. For instance, if the color green gives

certain meaning lets say if every time a person wears green something bad will happen. Will

an audience pick up on this or would such a notion have just been over the audience's head?

In his later book Puzzle films: Complex storytelling in contemporary cinema (2009).

Buckland explains that in the past, people would understand their experiences and identities

by engaging the stories of others and by contrast their own. This has become increasingly

difficult due to the new complex media dominated experiences with opaque stories.

6


In, Course in General Linguistics (1983,) Saussure begins by saying that most people

think that language is just naming process where words correspond with things. He states that

one problem with the idea is that this is a process only assumed. To Saussure, a word is not a

sign, instead we create a mental construct of the word and a sound to express that idea, which

we then connect in our minds.

For Saussure the linguistic sign has two parts a conceptual image and a conceptual

sound. To Saussure, this is very important and as a result, he claims we need two more terms

if we are to study signs. He suggests we use the word sign to mean both the signifier and the

signified. He breaks down his comments into sections. The first being the arbitrary nature of

the sign where he says the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and

therefore so is the sign if the sign is made up of both the signifier and the signified.

Therefore, the language we use is based solely on society.

He then goes on to talk about the signs of the community where he states that even

though the sign is arbitrary, individuals cannot change the signified. The signifier is chosen

by the community as language seems to be inherited. For Saussure, a particular language is

always the products of historical forces. These forces explain why the sign is interchangeable

and why it resists any arbitrary substitution.

He then comments on why does language change, where he states that like any

institution, tradition versus free action is an issue. To answer how language changes we need

to discover why any given category, the forces of tradition are more influential than free

action. Saussure goes on to suggest it is the interaction between the older generations and the

newer generations that prevent language change and if new members of society were to be

more conscious regarding how language works they would choose not to change language as

it is more useful to them. He says that to explain the change of language over time we have to

7


take into consideration, time. He argues that an isolated individual over time wouldn’t change

a language. He concludes that over time it is the communities that make small changes that

over years make significant changes to the language. He concludes that language is both

arbitrary and not free for individuals the change.

Here Saussure says that since language changes over time, the study of signs is unique

from other sciences, for other sciences the fundamental units of analysis do not change.

Similar to political economy, Saussure states that the study of signs is concerned with

equating the value of things of different orders. Determining the value of things is crucial,

sign value is determined by the existence of other signs within the entire system.

Morley finds the idea of an audience reading what they want from a text problematic,

as the uses for uses and gratification is open for anyone to do anything with is inadequate.

Anyone at a certain point can read against the grain of the text of a film or program, but some

readings are easier to make than others. For example, films are shot from the POV of the hero

etc. So how as a spectator can we experience anything else.

Morley prefers Valentin Voloshinov’s multi-accentually, which argues that

Saussure’s method of studying language abstractly in a short space of time is a mistake. For

Voloshinov, the meaning of a word is not a subject of passive understanding, but rather an

active participation for the speaker and the hearer or the writer and the reader. It gives the

notion of a struggle over the true meaning of words, but also a struggle between in definite

forces over a word which pull the meaning of a word in different ways.

He prefers this notion because for him, it makes more sense. The audience still has

control over their interpretation of the context, however, there are limitations to those brought

on by cultures and high society which stop an audience from doing anything they choose with

a text. You cannot get anything out of anything.

8


Throughout his book The Death of an Author (1967) Barthes argues over who is the

true author of a text. He explains that, it appears obvious at first as you would assume that the

true author of a text would be the one who made the text. For example, the author of a book is

the one who wrote it and the author of a picture is the one who drew it.

Barthes argues that the whole notion of authorship needs to be rethought. When a text

is created it is a multifaceted manifestation of different cultures, ideas, language, beliefs,

theology, philosophy etc. When an author puts pen to paper they believe that the idea they

have in their head is their own, thus, when the book is finished they claim it was all them.

However, the author has in fact borrowed everything from their environment. Anything they

have from previously experienced text that he or she is aware of will be inadvertently put into

the text they are creating.

We assume the author is everything to a text, however they are products of their own

background and experiences. The ideas they use are not, cannot be their own. Most likely

these ideas do not come from one particular place but, from multiple ones. If we can’t look to

the author for meaning, where do we turn. If the author is irrelevant to the text, what gives

capability to the text.

Barthes believes we must look inside ourselves for the ultimate author. Every text is

authored by ourselves through our own interpretation guided by our own beliefs. We the

audience or, the new author ultimately decides on the meaning of a text, therefore creating

new ideas and meanings in our own minds. The meaning of the text can only exist when

interpreted and can be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways. The question of ‘what does

the author mean?’ is ultimately useless.

9


METHODOLOGY

In this study I will use qualitative research methods. Keegan (2006, p. 607) stated

“Precisely the rigorous, reflective, reflexive, intuitive, contextualized subjectivity, embodied

in excellent qualitative research.” (Daymon and Holloway, 2010. p7). I will use this method

to understand the reasons, motives and feelings of an audience, to provide insight into this

debate by understanding the ideas and techniques developed by the filmmakers and the

theories developed by film scholars in understanding visual film language through the

understanding of cognitive semiotics. I will attempt to uncover the trends used in semiotic

research through their thoughts and opinions and dive deeper into the problem. This textual

analysis, that I will collect will be primarily gathered through academic sources as I will

attempt to discover patterns in the approaches used by filmmakers to convey meaning to their

audience while also attempting to discover patterns relating to how audience interpret these

visual codes.

For this research I have chosen to analyze the work of director Steven Spielberg,

through his first big success, Jaws (1975). This is largely because it is one of Spielberg’s

most celebrated films, but mainly because Jaws (1975) is one of the director's most

experimental films, using many important filmmaking techniques at the highest potential, but

more importantly displays his mastery of visual language. The analysis of this film will be

combined with academic sources regarding semiotics, the cognitive processes of the audience

and the techniques the director uses to manipulate emotions within his audiences. Spielberg

was also chosen because unlike some filmmakers, the meaning behind his work are relatively

simple. Not that the work of Spielberg is somehow not as good, or even lazy compared to

other, more thought provoking filmmakers who like to be ambiguous with the meanings in

their films. One of the reasons he has been so successful and has been regarded as a great

10


storyteller is because he does not confuse his messages, resulting in visual codes that work

not just on a basic level, but in a straightforward fashion where most audiences tend to read

the text the way it is intended.

Discussing this project in this way will produce advantages and disadvantages.

Qualitative research and textual analysis in particular, provides us with the ability to describe

and discuss complex theories and phenomena, while also allowing me to compare and

contrast analysis’ used by other academic resources, which will be provided by individual

case information which will have merit on their own, but also gives me the ability to examine

them against other information provided by individual cases. “qualitative research begins

with specific observations and moves towards the identification of general patterns that

emerge from the case under study”. (Rudestam and Newton, 2000 p.39). These Individual

case studies can identify the context and other factors that researches have already related to

other phenomena and other interests by studying dynamic processes such as sequential

patterns and changes to their way audiences respond to visual texts. Despite these factors,

there are some important aspects that show the vulnerability of such a process. Firstly, this

research style makes it difficult to make predictions regarding the subject chosen. The larger

the pool of academic sources, the more difficult it will be to truly test any hypothesis created.

Compared to quantitative research, this methodology is far more time consuming regarding

gathering data, as is the analysis of the data recovered. “It can imply a standardized recipe

that anybody can follow and come up with the same answer every time. Textual analysis isn’t

like that. And some people who research culture and sense-making practices don’t like it very

much - precisely because it isn’t a very scientific way to find information.” (McKee, 2003 p.

118) Most importantly, some findings may be unique to a relatively few number of people

compared to quantitative research, which gives the advantage of a much larger sample size.

The results of this research are also easily influenced by the researcher's personal bias

11


towards the subject in question. “By accepting its limitations and becoming less prescriptive,

they have introduced a self-reflexivity and transparency that all healthy methodologies must

have if they are to gain critical respect” (Creeber, 2006 p.2)

The reasons I have chose to use academic sources above any other type of research

despite its limitations is because, it is the appropriate method to discover interesting factors

that can affect the results of the research. This method still allows me to reach the objective

of the study I am undertaking, while it also allows me to examine how the cognitive process

regarding semiotics are used by the audiences, through examinations already provided by

other researchers. Semiotics is a study that cannot be quantified, research developed by

members would not provide me with the necessary reasons as to why audiences react in the

way they do, with the meaning made by the codes presented to them in a particular text. “The

biggest advantage of semiotics is that it makes us stop and consider the various elements of

the process of making meaning from a text - steps that we normally do automatically and

easily. The terminology and categories employed by semiotics are less important the the fact

that they make us consider each element of the text, and the way in which it’s likely to

produce meaning”. (McKee, 2003 p.131) The discussion of the analysis I feel is vital to

achieving a clearer understanding of cognitive semiotics.

The first example of research I have chosen for this study is the work of Warren

Buckland, The Cognitive Semiotics of Film (2000). Other examples of research I have done

are Directed by Steven Spielberg: Poetics of the Contemporary Hollywood Blockbuster

(Buckland, 2006) and The Death and Return of the Author (Burke, S. 1992).

In Warren Buckland’s The Cognitive Semiotics of Film (2000), Buckland discusses

the conflict between cognitive and contemporary film theory and argues that this conflict is

unproductive. Throughout the book he examines the idea of cognitive semiotics in film which

12


he combines with cognitive science, linguistics and semiotics in order to explain his point,

looking deeper into the subject by examining Michel Colin and Dominique Chateau's

cognitive studies of film syntax, Noam Chomsky's transformational generative grammar,

Christian Metz's theories of film enunciation and Roger Odin's cognitive-pragmatic film

theory.

Directed by Steven Spielberg: Poetics of the Contemporary Hollywood Blockbuster

(Buckland, 2006) was chosen mainly because the book is an extensive look at to work of

Steven Spielberg including discussions regarding Jaws (1975. Whilst never referring to

semiotics specifically, Buckland does speak at length about the style and process used by the

director in his films and how he thinks about his audience. Warren Buckland is also an

authority from the academic world regarding Steven Spielberg. Any academic text about the

director would not be complete without his work.

The Death and Return of the Author (Burke, S. 1992) shows a good insight and

counter argument to how audiences interpret a text. Explaining anti-authorialism while

showing the attempt to overthrow the ideas put forth by Roland Barthes’ The Death of an

Author (1967), by using theory to establish the notion that the author is indeed not dead. With

this academic text, the ability to examine the author's role in the audience's interpretation

should help highlight whether or not an audience can interpret a text in their own way or if

the author still holds some control over the emotional outcome the audience has while

participating.

13


NARRATIVE

A man wants to kill a shark. Despite the simplicity of the plot the film sustains a

healthy two hour run time. One of the main indicators of the films ingenuity is that the film

does not engage with its main goal until midway through the film. Chief Brody, the film's

protagonist does not pursue the shark until after a number of events unfold before hand yet,

no one would ever claim that nothing happens before this point. The film does not simply

delay the action in order to sustain its run time, it builds towards it. A technique that is often

lost on some screenwriters. Sure the photography is terrific, the acting is believable and the

music is unforgettable, but this is all useless without a clear concise structure to frame it all.

“These delayed settings may consolidate the storyline that is already in motion or may reroute

the explanation of events in a very different direction.” (Ochs and Capps, 2001 p.137).

Without this key element the film would not have been as effective as it is. This would have

reduced the film to that of a B-movie monster flick, instead of the world's first summer

blockbuster.

The use of delay is a narrative necessity. Without this, most films would only last ten

minutes, films such as Halloween (Carpenter, 1978) would be nothing more than a big guy in

a mask chasing Jamie Lee Curtis around for ninety minutes and The Odyssey (Homer, Eagles,

and Knox, 2004) would have ended after two verses. There is no drama in this. In The

Odyssey (2004) nearly half the story is spent with Ulysses in Ithaca after spending ten years

trying to get back home, but Homer delays with the text extending the story, (as does

14


Spielberg) with Ulysses goal hanging in front of him, ready to be taken. The ending must be

earned by the audience.

They do not go about this by simply delaying its ending, instead the scenes of the

story are used to enhance the main goal. There by amplifying the reward at its completion

thus, when the main goal is finally achieved it is no longer a man wants to kill a shark.

Instead it becomes. Former aquaphobic police chief Brody, after nearly sacrificing himself,

triumphs over an unstoppable force to save the people of his town and his family. But, how is

this achieved? “This is Johnson and Lakoff's "source-path-goal" pattern, which presumes a

starting point, a destination, a series of intermediate points, and a direction. The critic

postulates that the text will reveal a progression) one that not only organizes time and space

but also mobilizes semantic fields in a se-quential interplay. As Jonathan Culler puts it, "The

reader must or- ganize the plot as·a passage from one state to another and this passage or

movement must be such··that it serves as a representation of theme." (Bordwell, 1989

p.188). By breaking the film down into a series of smaller goals, all of which are subservient

to the film’s main goal, amplifies the impact of the conclusion.

Through this process these smaller goals allow the story to enable characterization as

a logical extension of the plot, rather than simply adding scenes where two or more characters

simply talk about their motivations in order to provide filler in the guise of character

development. When Quint offers to kill the shark, at a price, Brody sees that this is the only

way but, Larry Vaughn (the Mayor) disagrees. This establishes a smaller goal which is to

convince Vaughn to allow Quint to kill the shark. This is of cause a delay but, as a smaller

goal it accomplishes more than plotting the death of the shark. If Vaughn said no to simply

say yes later on (which is essentially what happens) it would not be worth mentioning, but

this goal is not just a delay, it is in fact vital storytelling. More than just simply providing

another shark attack, it provides character building that would have been lost without it.

15


Interestingly as far as the narrative is concerned we don’t need Vaughn to object at all. The

film could have gotten around this by other fishermen being unsuccessful to kill the shark or

we could have had Brody ignoring the orders of Vaughn then jump to Brody, Hooper and

Quint setting sail on The Orca. Either way the main goal does not change.

Delay is useful because it creates conflict. Without conflict there is no drama and

without drama, no story. Whether it is external such as Brody and Vaughn or internal such as

Brody and his aquaphobia. However, Unnecessary conflict is useless without being

coordinated with the main goal. The conflict with Vaughn is important for a number of

reasons, besides just conflict. It develops characters, develops a rapport between these

characters and provides plot information. For example, between Brody and Hooper. Hooper,

obviously takes Brody’s side. During the shouting match between these two and Vaughn by

the vandalised sign, Hooper is shown to be sympathetic towards Brody’s plight, helping

Brody argue his case to the point of becoming enraged by Vaughn’s resistance. This scene

works well for character development for everyone involved, but Hooper achieves the most

characterisation. This is not his fight, he can walk away whenever he wants, but he doesn’t.

Due to a sense of morality or sympathy towards Brody. This leads to both Brody and Hooper

sharing the same goal. Their motivations are different but, by taking a side and acting upon it

the audience begin to understand his character and can now sympathise with him.

When a script invests time into their characters, the audience is able to identify with

them, if not with their goals than with the emotions that motivate them. What this does is give

the audience the opportunity to identify and does not simply assume they will. It is important

to remember that a film merely offers its audience the ability to identify with its characters.

As an active audience, we make that decision, not the author. Barthes claims, the

“responsibility for a narrative is never assumed by a person but by a mediator, shaman or

relator whose ‘performance’ – the mastery of the narrative code – may possibly be admired

16


but never his genius” (Barthes, Barthes, and Heath, 1977 p.142). The audience is presented

with information which they choose to accept or deny. Jaws, (1975) does this efficiently by

instead of telling us we must care for this character, its shows us why we should care.

Brody’s family are not simply tacked on for use to care, like a lazy substitute for character

development, each member is given time to interact with Brody. From the cheerful banter he

has with his wife, to the son mimicking him at the dinner table, the audience is allowed to

engage with them. As a result, the film gives us reasons to care about this family.

Imagine for one moment that at the end of the film, Brody didn’t kill the shark,

someone else did. How would it feel? Would the audience feel robbed of the satisfaction of

seeing Brody achieve his main goal? A goal that he has pursued since nearly the beginning of

the film. “The final shots and scenes are linked by a strong linear narrative pared down to

articulation one single theme - the struggle between man and nature. Even the improbability

of the shark’s death (different from the novel, to Benchley’s disbelief) is subordinated to this

strong linear narrative - its lack of credibility is downplayed because the sharks’ death brings

resolution to his struggle.” (Buckland, 2006 p.108). If we compare this to the ending of

Starship Troopers, (Verhoeven, 1997) where the main goal of the film was for its protagonist

Rico, to defeat the Arachnids (insect like creatures who serve as the antagonists of the film).

At the end of the film Rico doesn’t defeat the Arachnids, someone else does. Despite its

intentions, the audience is robbed of their satisfaction.

Blowing up the shark may have been somewhat exaggerated, but it is satisfying. It

could be argued that this worked because it achieved the main goal of the film. After all the

character building, from Brody’s guilt, his fears, his need for revenge, his duty, his internal

and external conflict, we have followed Brody all the way through his plight being the one

constant. We know him, we know is family and we understand what he has to do. The main

17


goal of the film evolved from a man wants to kill a shark, into Brody has to kill the shark.

Not just as far a story is concerned, but his character needs it as well. We as an audience

would not be satisfied if any other character achieved this goal apart from Brody, because the

audience has earned it.

MISE-EN-SCENE AND MISE-EN-SHOT

For this part I really just want to discuss one scene from Jaws, (1975) the scene where

the young boy, Alex Kintner is killed by the shark. But, before that I would like to take a

looked at a cinematic technique that Spielberg uses all the time but never gets any recognition

for, the long take or the oner. Truthfully, a Spielberg oner isn’t that long compared to his

peers, usually clocking in at about a minute to ninety seconds. Traditionally the oner was

used in the early days of cinema as a way to get through a scene quickly and to help speed the

film along. However, at some point film scholars and film students started taking notice of

this technique. Over time the oner became a calling card for some directors, some have even

attempted to create entire films that seem as if they were done in one single shot such as

Rope (Hitchcock, 1948) and Birdman (Iñárritu, 2014). The point of this use of the technique

is for the filmmakers to bring attention to themselves by showing us how much work has

gone into this one shot. Yes, they do look good when you see an entire scene covered in one

tremendous sweeping take but, it doesn't always help the story when you’re telling the

audience that they are in fact watching a film. “It is an efficient and economical way of

shooting a scene in a confined space while maintaining dramatic visual interest.” Buckland,

2006 p.94).

18


For the most part when Spielberg uses the oner he remains invisible. “Whether the

shot of Brody that interrupts the long take is a protection shot or reaction shot, it

demonstrates that Spielberg is not pedantic when it comes to long takes - he is not afraid to

break up a long take if he feels he can represent an actor’s performance better from

intercutting different takes, or if he feels a reaction shot is necessary at that moment in the

scene. He does not allow the style to dominate the story” (Buckland, 2006 p.102).

When Spielberg uses the oner he understands what he can and cannot do with the

shot. For instance, Spielberg’s characters always move, motivated by their personalities and

their environment. Even if the subject of the shot remains still his background will move. If

we look at the ferry scene from Jaws, (1975) we have to admire the restraint behind this shot.

“This long take is not an instance of under directing the scene. The static long take does not

automatically mean the camerawork is ineffective.” Buckland, 2006 p.95). The camera hardly

moves, all the action in the scene is created by the background, which helps with the pacing

of the scene as the ferry moves around, and from the blocking of the actors. Spielberg also

uses deep focus to insure everyone in the scene is visible. We start with a wide shot (WS) of

the men on the ferry, we know who our subject is because everyone in the scene is looking at

Brody, who literally has his back against the wall while Vaughn has him surrounded. Soon

after Vaughn takes Brody closer to the camera to take him away from the others tightening

the shot. This is not done just to keep things interesting, this makes sense for the scene as

Vaughn wants to make the discussion more personal, which he does again after this by

moving himself and Brody into a two-shot, it’s very clever and effective blocking. If it wasn’t

for this blocking and the choice of location this scene could have been incredibly ineffective.

“The blocking served the purpose of “editing” the scene, but without the need for cutting

together several set ups.” (Buckland, 2006 p.95).

19


Now if we analyze the beach scene where the young boy, Alex Kidner is attacked by

the shark, we start with a WS that establishes the scene. We clearly see that the scene is set

on a beach with the ocean in the background. This not only shows the audience where they

are but, Spielberg sets up tension as the audience already associates the ocean with danger.

Spielberg sets up a number of characters in the scene that we switch between such as the

large woman, Alex, Alex’s mother and a man with his dog. This also shows the busy

atmosphere of the beach. The camera tracks left to right as Alex enters the scene heading

towards his mother. The boy remains left of the frame at all times to allow the camera to

follow its subject, while showing the setting to the audience. “The long take plus camera

movement solves a problem: it functions to play in establishing the moral responsibilities of

Brody. Brody Knows the beach is unsafe, and prepares to close them. But under pressure

from Mayor Vaughn, he decides not to follow through with his action.” (Buckland, 2006). 95.

Alex speaks to his mother regarding going back into the water which, she reluctantly

agrees to. A decision she will undoubtedly regret later. Alex then stands, continues moving

left to right until the exits the frame when he goes into a tent. Here the film changes

perspective as the camera pulls out to reveal Brody’s face as he assumes the right of the

frame. When the camera finally reaches Brody’s face it stops abruptly revealing the subject

that Spielberg wants the audience to take note of. “The importance of linking Brody and Alex

is indicated in the way the Benchley and Gottlieb late version of the script has been changed

to facilitate this link in one take. One of the main problems to solve in this scene is how to set

up several distinct zones of action.” (Buckland, 2006 p.95). Brody is also situated in the

foreground of the shot, creating distance between him and the other beach goers, Spielberg

uses deep focus throughout this shot to help establish the scene, but when the camera reaches

Brody its function changes to show contrast between Brody and the others on the beach i.e.

Brody’s wife Ellen and their friends. Notice that Brody wears more clothes than the other

20


beach goers and the darker tone of the colours he wears. He expresses concern on his face

which suggests he knows something bad may happen. His appearance and his expression

doesn’t seem appropriate for the tone of the scene. This shows a juxtaposition between the

foreground and the background with Ellen and company having a nice conversation about

becoming an islander while Brody is shown surveying the water with concern.

We then see a point of view (POV) from Brody’s perspective looking out at the calm

ocean showing various people in the water, many of whom are framed in the centre of the

shot as this makes them seem more vulnerable to the audience. Spielberg uses shot reverse

shot as a tool to help build tension, cutting from Brody to events happening in the water and

back again, such as the dog chasing a stick into the water. This disturbs the peace as it dives

into the water, building tension by breaking the equilibrium. “As Kuleshov and Pudovkin

pointed out, classical continuity contains built-in redundancies: shot/reverse shots reiterate

the information about character position given in the establishing shot.” (Bordwell,

2002 p.17). This is done to help perpetuate the action while still giving the audience a better

sense of the setting. Separate shots of other characters entering the water, such as Alex racing

past his mother etc. are used to tell the audience who is in the water, thus who is in danger.

The focus is returned to Brody, who is situated in a mid shot framed to the right

showing negative connotations. This is then cut with an in camera vertical wipe as a beach

goer walks past Brody’s field of vision, resulting in a MCU of Brody. “This technique of

imitating optical devices within the shot seems to be a variation of Spielberg's preference for

creating graphical matches at the beginning of his film. The imitation of optical devices in the

film functions as a play on the difference between what is filmed and how it is filmed.

Although no more than a formal play with film techniques, this device is nonetheless

understated and does not draw attention to itself” (Buckland, 2006) p119. Using this shot

allows the audience to see the little details in the actor’s expression, we see Brody trying to

21


look out to sea as people walk past making this difficult. This exacerbates his emotional state

as he tries to concentrate on the ocean. Unlike before, Spielberg uses shallow focus to help

the audience identify with the intended subject, even though there is a lot of commotion on

screen. It gives the audience time to analyse and contemplate his expression and what it

means. The film then returns to Brody’s POV of the ocean, again transitioned using an in

camera wipe. This shows us that Brody is concentrating on one swimmer in particular. This

informs the audience that there is something worth focusing on, building tension in the

audience as they expect something to happen.

This turns out to be a miss direction on Spielberg’s part as we see an obscured object

motioning towards the swimmer replicating a shark creating tension as the audience are

unaware of what the object is. All they can do is assume. By using an angled shot with the

swimmer at the bottom of the screen enhances this as it indicates the vulnerability of the

character laying, unaware in the water. This shot cuts back to Brody’s reaction on the beach,

leaning forward in his chair suggesting that the danger is immanent.

This technique operates as a false alarm as the object turns out to be a man wearing a

swimming cap. The effect given is a build of tension with an unexpected outcome creating a

small rise in drama without resulting in releasing any of the tension that had been built during

the scene. Each event builds on the last as Spielberg plays on the audience and the

anticipation of an attack.

When a character approaches Brody and attempts to engage him in conversation,

Brody is shown to still have his attention on the ocean. To show this Spielberg utilizes an

over the shoulder shot (OSS) from behind the other character showing Brody’s head moving

up and over, clearly looking over the character’s shoulder. This is again cut with this new

22


character in a CU, framed to the right with a woman in the ocean behind him framed on the

left, once again using deep focus allowing the audience to see everything.

Without warning, the woman in the background starts to scream, which alerts Brody.

The OSS turns into a close up (CU) as the camera quickly tilts up as Brody stands to his feet

revealing Brody’s emotion as the camera focuses on his face. The urgency of his expression

matched with the haste of his movement and the speed of the camera enhance the actor’s

performance giving an appropriate and dramatic emotional response. However, this is just

another false scare as Spielberg builds the tension. Brody’s reaction is again juxtaposed with

what he sees, has it turns out that the woman is fine as another, unseen beach goer had swum

from behind her underwater and then, took her by surprise by lifting her out of the water on

his shoulders. Spielberg relaxes the event with a WS of Brody slowly sitting down.

This system is repeated once again as the old man who we though were a shark earlier

approaches Brody as the film now alludes to Brody’s aquaphobia, this is used once again to

distract Brody and the audience. However, Spielberg alters the technique lowering the tension

slightly by pulling the camera out. He uses a similar shot to the CU but, he positions the

camera so the frame has more space around the character Brody is speaking with, allowing

some of the tension to be released. Still framed on the right in deep focus with the ocean in

the background to the left, but this time some kids are playing in the background. At this

point we also get diegetic sounds of people listening to the radio. These techniques are used

to lull the audience into a false sense of security.

Spielberg then uses a number of quick cuts of the kids playing in the ocean. A similar

montage technique he used earlier in the scene, however he varies the shots by using a mix of

CU’s, wide’s, MCU’s etc. This is done to pick up the pace but also to disorientate the

audience both visually and audibly. Spielberg then calms the scene with a couple of shots of

23


Brody and Ellen as she tries to help her husband relax. Spielberg is combining elements as

the next shot shows the dog walker calling for his dog but with no dog in sight. This shot also

features Brody’s son Sean playing in the sand. This shot holds extra weight because

Spielberg devotes time to these seemingly irrelevant characters, but unlike most directors

who would have had these in separate shots, Spielberg combines them creating an image that

is pact with meaning, juxtaposing the foreground and the background. The shot is the only

one of the ocean that shows the vast emptiness of the sea, with no dog insight, possibly

foreshadowing what will happen next. He then shows us a single shot of the wooden stick the

dog was playing with earlier, floating in the sea. This makes the audience aware that there is

danger in the water.

Spielberg shifts perspective to a POV of the shark as it swims through the water, the

audience understands this as not only is this the first underwater shot of the scene but, we also

get the ominous, non-diegetic soundtrack that has already been associated with the shark at

the beginning of the film. A WS of the sea, with children playing is shown in the foreground

with the attack in the background yet, the view of the attack is obscured. To add weight to the

attack, the first cut we see is a WS of Alex’s mother showing her oblivious to her son’s fait,

with other character standing up around her to see what’s happening. This cuts directly back

to the attack with a shot of Alex being pulled under the water.

Spielberg utilizes a vertigo shot of Brody sitting in his chair. Perfectly timed with the

soundtrack. The point of this shot is to portray how not only was Brody right about there

being a shark, but also it shows that his deepest fears have also been realized. “One of the

main problems confronting filmmakers is how to film the psychological state of the character.

Spielberg’s solution to this problem in this scene is appropriate. He has used a pertinent

technique to convey the extreme psychological state of the character at this point in the

scene.” (Buckland, 2006 p.99). Panic then ensues, combining tight angle shots of the kids in

24


the water with WS of the adults on the beach. Spielberg sneaks in a quick MS of Alex’s

mother into the sequence to remind the audience of which relationship they need to keep in

mind. Brody rushes to the shore line but freezes as he reaches the water due to his

aquaphobia, but still instructs people out of the water.

The WS of the beach, showing Brody instructing the beach goers out of the water

moves from his side to reveal Alex’s mother as she calls out for her son, walking back a forth

along the shore until she eventually walks into a CU. Moving seamlessly from a WS of the

beach to a CU reveals the distress of the mother, highlighting and emphasizing the detail of

the actors face and her performance. It also draws the attention from the crowd forcing the

audience to see her reaction. Spielberg finalizes the scene with a single shot of Alex’s float,

now deflated, torn and surrounded by bloody water, indicating to the audience the fate of the

boy proving that Spielberg’s method of showing rather than telling can be a far more

powerful storytelling device.

MUSIC AND SOUND EFFECTS

Music is often used by filmmakers to manipulate the emotion of the audience. The

main theme from Jaws, (1975) has been ranked as one of the most terrifying and as one of the

most memorable musical scores in film history. “The theme for Jaws, (1975) developed a life

of its own, becoming the sound of ironic danger. Such uses-quotation- both reinforce and

undercut the semiotic system of classical Hollywood film music.” (Kassabian, 2001 p.109-

25


110) The sheer intensity of the music can even be considered to be as important as the visuals

of the film.

How John Williams, the composer of the film used music to characterise the shark is

quite incredible. By using music as a motif for the shark he gave the film a signature that not

only fits the nature of the shark but, is also flexible enough to allow Williams the opportunity

to guide the audience through each scene, usually using only music to indicate the presence

of the shark. For example, when the music is played fast and loud it emulates the shark as it

attacks, presenting a feeling that the shark is some sort of unstoppable force of nature, while

when the music is played softer and slower it implies that the shark is there, lurking,

somewhere.

At the beginning of the film the audience is presented with two points of view, the

shark and of the intended victim Chrissie Watkins. Spielberg presents a style of shooting the

audience will come to expect from the film, in particular the underwater photography and the

style of the music. This is important as the film gives its audience the tools needed to decode

the information provided in one scene. These threatening non-diegetic sounds tell the

audience that something bad is about to happen, creating the desired effect with its audience.

This technique is repeated throughout the film building tension with the audience such as

with the attack on Alex Kidner all the way to the end of the film where Brody kills the shark.

Spielberg and Williams condition the audience in the way they think about the images using

music as an indicator. “Dramatic scoring maximally matches the visual events on the screen.

intensifies as the shark gets closer to the swimmer, and climaxes at the moment of the attack.

Rather than being organised as a reaction to other events in the film, dramatic scoring moves

concurrently with the action.” (Kassabian, 2001, p45).

26


Williams did not want the main theme of the film to celebrate a red herring, he

wanted the music to signal when the shark was on screen. This restraint to advertise the

arrival of the shark and not to use music when it was not there gives the film the opportunity

to play with the expectations of the audience, as on occasion the audience is forced to

contemplate its absence. With the absence of music, the audience does not anticipate the

shark because they have conditioned them to think like this by installing the meaning through

repetition. For example, during the beach attack where Alex Kidner is killed Spielberg

presents a number of red hearings. “During these red hearing Williams never uses music,

only when the shark arrives towards the end of the scene does the audience hear the infamous

notes of the main theme. The Jaws, (1975) main theme magnificently exemplifies this point:

it serves its purpose of signalling “menace” from the first time it is heard” (Kassabian,

2001 .54)

Later in the film they start to advertise that the shark is there without using music.

When Brody, Quint and Hooper are on The Orca towards the end of the film, Brody is scene

throwing chum into the water in order to attract the shark. Out of nowhere with no build up or

indication the shark thrusts its head out of the water scaring Brody and the audience. The

music is only heard after the shark appears, not before. This technique works so well because

the audience is lulled into a false sense of security by not having the music before the event.

Now the audience know that the shark is there but the absence of music complicates its

meaning. The audience now know that an attack could now come out of nowhere with no

lead up to it making this attack and future attacks far more terrifying. The audience now

realise that all bets are off, an attack could come out of nowhere.

Besides the role music plays in enhancing the film, Sound effects also play an equally

important role. The use of diegetic sounds is designed to make the events of the film feel

more realistic. While the use of hyporealistic sounds are used to emphasise the emotion or

27


action of a scene. During scenes where the shark is attacking many screams, water splashes

and other audible effects are synchronized together, some even coming from of screen. This

gives the audience a sense of realism with in the film, creating an illusion as if the audience

are there. Spielberg takes this effect even further. After the shark attacks the pond around an

hour into the film, Brody is seen running from the beach to the pond to save his son, Michael.

As he does the audience can hear a man clearly shouting “Somebody get a gun and shoot it,

doesn’t anybody have a gun?” Jaws, (1975). Most filmmakers would not bother with this

level of detail and would simply insert some stock audio of generic screaming. Spielberg

takes this level of detail to another level in this pursuit of realism, which combined with the

context of the film leads to a more immersive experience as the audience feels a real sense of

dread.

One of the most interesting techniques using sound while also remaining realistic is

what they do when they cut from above the water to underwater. By combining the use of

both clean audio and by muffling the sounds coming from beneath the water, Spielberg

creates contrast between the two elements. For example, When Alex is attacked, Spielberg

builds up to the attack by framing the scene from two points of view, combining underwater

photography with music with more traditional cinematic and clean audio. When he is attack

the camera cuts rapidly between shots taken above and below the water, the audio changes

depending on whether the camera is above or below the water alternating between clean and

muffled sounds, simulating what is happening of screen. This effect is used to disorientate the

audience while also terrifying them at the same time through simulating the act of drowning.

28


EDITING

One interesting point that can be said about Jaws, (1975) is that it shows very little

while at the same time it shows the audience a great deal. More importantly it shows us what

we do not expect. In the title sequence, the audience observes a long moving underwater shot

exploring the ocean floor as a series of credits and title fade in and out of shot while the

infamous Jaws, (1975) theme builds in the background. This introduces these elements to the

audience, the music, the underwater photography and the unexpected. Just as the music is

about to hit it’s crescendo the film cuts to the beach party, substituting the epic orchestral

score for a harmonica playing a medley, this transition is jarring to the audience. “Cinema is

a matter of what’s in the frame and what’s out”. - Martin Scorsese. The reason this works is

because it exposes the audience to something unexpected. The style of the opening is shot,

scored and edited to make the audience expect something to happen, but then they get

nothing. This editing technique sets an unnatural tone compared with it’s horror counterparts.

“The graphic matches full of thematic significance; the precisely blocked long takes,

something combined with deep focus or laterally tracking camera; the effective use of editing

to cut away from the point of interest as a means to increasing audience involvement (the

audience is on the edge of their seat, desperately wanting the film to cut back to the point of

interest); the use of heavily diffused backlighting; and the orchestration of character and

camera, cutting rate, and POV (especially in the scene on the beach depicting Alex’s death)”

(Buckland, 2006 p.108).

Some of the most basic meanings in cinema may be completely ambiguous. “Two

characters are discrete entities, in visual, auditory, and narrative terms. If they are in the same

shot, I can say that they are united (by being in the same shot) or separated (by the space

between them). If they are in different shots, I can say that the cut separates them (a cut is a

29


break) or links them (a cut is a join)”. (Bordwell, 1989 p.251). Here Bordwell points out that

there is no one to one correspondent between any technique in film and any possible

meaning. Even the simplest of visual or audible message, such as they type of messages

Spielberg would convey can be interpreted in the same way. If we look at In Modern Times

(Chaplin, 1936) The first image we see is of sheep being herded towards the camera. This is

transitioned using a dissolve to show correlation with the next shot of people leaving the

underground. These two shots put together in such a way, conveys that in Modern Times

(1936) people are shown no more dignity than animals, as moving in herds to the factory is

no different to sending lambs to the slaughter.

However, two or more shots arranged together can make almost any meaning the

viewer desires. “Montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots-shots

even opposite to one another” (Eisenstein and Leyda, 1969) p 49. For example, the famous

shot of the bone being thrown into the air and transitioning into a weaponized satellite in

2001 A Space Odyssey, (Kubrick, 1968) can be translated into a number of different ways.

Whether its shows the progression of man or mankind’s obsession of weaponry. Whatever

the intended meaning was, the interpretation is ambiguous. With Jaws, (1975) Spielberg

attempts to convey the information without confusion by presenting the story as it is. “The

picture for water and the picture of an eye signifies "to weep"; the picture of an ear near the

drawing of a door = "to listen" a dog + a mouth = "to bark"; a mouth + a child = "to scream";

a mouth + a bird = "to sing"; a knife + a heart = "sorrow," And so on. (Eisenstein and Leyda,

1969 P.30). However, despite this no matter how clear this information is, it is impossible for

the audience to interpret it’s meaning in the same way.

Another interesting point about the opening scene is that it shows us everything

except for the shark. “A shot presents us with an idea, or a sequence of ideas, and the cut is a

‘blink’ that separates or punctuates those ideas” (Murch, 2001) p 62-63. This is important,

30


especially concerning that the audience does not see the shark for at least the first hour of the

films run time. What this does is allow the audience the opportunity to build a picture in their

own minds of what the shark would look like and how terrifying it is, based on the aftermath

of the attacks, instead of showing us what happens during the attack.

By delaying the aftermath Spielberg creates an uneasy atmosphere based on the

unknown. After Chrissie Watkins is killed by the shark, which we don’t see her until her

body is discovered on the beach four minutes later. “The secret of this lies in the fact that the

chronicle pace of the event is fitted to a severely tragic composition.” (Eisenstein and Leyda,

1969) p162. By leaving this event un-concluded it throws the audience into confusion. Before

we see the body we see Hendrix’s, Brody’s deputy face looking discussed and clearly upset at

what he has found. Then we see Brody and the boy run into frame, who then look with the

same expression. Only then do we see the body. By using restraint and clever editing choices

the audience get a more powerful response. To further this emotion, the very next scene starts

with a shot of the boy in the police station, clearly in shock.

The pace of the editing is possibly one of the most important techniques used in the

film. The restraint shown during the editing reflects Spielberg’s camera. “The blocking

served the purpose of “editing” the scene, but without the need for cutting together several set

ups. This is another scene devised during the filming” (Buckland, 2006 p.95). What this does

is help minimize the number of cuts in a scene, so that when an attack happens and the cuts

come much faster the scene feels more chaotic by comparison, Such as in the opening scene

and specifically the beach scene.

31


CONCLUSION

Spielberg loads his audience with enough information to narrow the possible

conclusions made by the audience in relation to the intended meaning put forward by the

director. By combining all these elements from the blocking, to the editing, to the music,

Spielberg is able to paint accurate and vivid pictures into the audience’s mind translating a

more detailed preferred meaning onto the audience. While his attempt is by no means

flawless, as in some instances an audience will always derive what they want from a text,

Spielberg minimises the interpretation to such a degree that it could be argued that the

majority of his intended meaning for the film is conveyed accurately with little ground for re-

interpretation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARTHES, R., BARTHES, S.H. and HEATH, S., 1977. Image, music, text. 14th ed. London: HarperCollins Distribution Services.

BORDWELL, D., 1989. Making meaning: Inference and rhetoric in the interpretation of cinema. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

BORDWELL, D., 2002. Intensified continuity visual style in contemporary American film. Film Quarterly. 55 (3), pp. 16–28.

BUCKLAND, W (2000). The Cognitive Semiotics of Film. 7th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BUCKLAND, W., 2006. Directed by Stephen Spielberg: Poetics of the contemporary Hollywood blockbuster. 7th ed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

BUCKLAND, W., ed., 2009. Puzzle films: Complex storytelling in contemporary cinema. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell (an imprint of John Wiley & Sons Ltd).

BURKE, S., 1992. The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. 1st ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

32


CREEBER, G., 2006. The joy of text? Television and textual analysis. Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies. 1 (1), pp. 81–88.

DAYMON, C. and HOLLOWAY, I., 2010. Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

DE SAUSSURE, F., 2013. Course in general linguistics. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic.

EISENSTEIN, S. and LEYDA, J., 1969a. Film form; essays in film theory. 1st ed. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

EGIZII, M. L, DENNY, J M.A., NEUENDORF, K. A, Ph.D., and SKALSKI, P. D, Ph.D. "Which Way Did He Go? Directionality of Film Character and Camera Movement and Subsequent Spectator Interpretation." (n.d.): n. pag. May 2012. Tues. 16 Feb. 2016.

HALL, S (1973). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse: Paper for the Council of Europe on "Training in the critical reading of television language". 6th ed. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. 128-138.

HALL, S., EUROPE, the C. of, TRAINING, COUNCIL, the, and CENTER, the, 1973. Encoding and Decoding in the television discourse. Birmingham: Centre for contemporary cultural studies.

HOMER, EAGLES, R., and KNOX, B., 2004. The odyssey (Penguin classics). 15th ed. London: Penguin Books.

KASSABIAN, A., 2001. Hearing film: Tracking identifications in contemporary Hollywood film music. 7th ed. New York: Routledge Member of the Taylor and Francis Group.

MACEACHREN, A.M., ROTH, R.E., O’BRIEN, J., LI, B., SWINGLEY, D., and GAHEGAN, M., 2012. Visual Semiotics & uncertainty visualization: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 18 (12), pp. 2496–2505.

MALBON, J. and MORAN, A., 2006. Understanding the global TV format. 3rd ed. Portland, OR: Intellect Books.

MCKEE, A., 2003. Textual analysis: A beginner’s guide. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

METZ, C (1974). A Semiotics of The Cinema. Chicago: 8th ed. University of Chicago.

33


MITRY, J. and KING, C., 2000. Semiotics and the analysis of film. 4th ed. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

MORLEY, D., 1980. Nationwide audience: Structure and Decoding (British film institute, London, Bfi television monograph, no 11). 5th ed. United Kingdom: British Film Institute.

MORLEY, D., 1992. Television, audiences and cultural studies. 3rd ed. London: Taylor & Francis.

MURCH, W., 2001. In the blink of an eye: A perspective on film editing. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press,U.S.

OCHS, E. and CAPPS, L., 2001. Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. 8th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

STRINGER, J. and JULIAN, S., 2003. Movie blockbusters. 9th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis.

FILMOGRAPHY

2001 A Space Odyssey (film), 1968. STABLEY KUBRICK. DVD. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

ANDREW P. ALDERETE, 2011. John Williams talks about ‘jaws’. YouTube [online]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQKLJ2MuHvY [Accessed 7 Apr 2016].

Birdman or (the unexpected virtue of ignorance) (film), 2014. ALEJANDRO G. INARRITU dir. DVD. USA: Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Halloween (film), 1978. JOHN CARPENTER dir. DVD. USA: Compass International Pictures.

Modern times (film) 1936. CHARLES CHAPLIN. Film. USA: United Artists.

Jaws (film), 1975. STEVEN SPIELBERG dir, DVD. USA: Universal Studios.

Rope (film), 1948. ALFRED HITCHCOCK dir. DVD. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

34


Vertigo (film), 1958. ALFRED HITCHCOCK dir. DVD. USA: Paramount Pictures

Schindler’s List (film), 1993. STEVEN SPIELBERG dir. DVD. USA: Universal Studios.

Starship Troopers (film), 1997. PAUL VERHOEVEN dir. DVD: USA: Buena Vista International.

35

(Finished)A Discourse Analysis Through Film Language of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws 1975

Documents

Transcript of (Finished)A Discourse Analysis Through Film Language of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws 1975