The Trial of Jaws.


Hello, citizens of the Internet. I am Judge Bookman, and it is my job to look at movie adaptations of books, and determine whether they did the story justice (a rarity), or have ruined it beyond recognition (sadly much more common). To start my posts off with a bang, lets crack on with...

The Trial of Jaws.


First, a little background. The novel Jaws – and yes, it was a book originally – was written by Peter Blenchley and released in 1974. It tell the story of a shark attacking an American tourist destination, and the impact it has on the people there. Whilst reviews were mixed, the novel quickly became popular with readers, spending 44 weeks at the top of the New York Times hard-cover best seller list. Despite this popularity, the book was quickly overshadowed by the arrival of the film just a year later. Widely regarded as the prototypical summer blockbuster, the film has remained popular to this day, winning three Academy Awards, and regularly landing high on many best films of all time lists. So yeah, the film is good.


But despite this success, as ever I am left to wonder two things – First, How badly did the movie deviate from the book, and Second, were the changes good, bad, or terrible? Without further ado, then, lets get this trial under-way.

Prosecution.
Item 1. The characters. It is undeniable that all of the characters in the film are very different from how they are presented in the book. Hooper isn't a rich arsehole, Quint isn't a moneygrabbing arsehole, etcetera, etcetera. Furthermore, some important characters, such as Harry Meadows the newspaper man, are sidelined, and others are completely absent.
Item 2. Changes to Plot. Over-all, the plots are broadly similar – barring some aesthetic differences. However, there are two main sub-plots that are completely absent in the film. First, Ellen Brody has become deeply unhappy in her marriage with Martin (the hero), and ends up having an affair with Hooper. She finds this unsatisfying, and later realises that her marriage with Martin was actually a lot more fulfilling than she thought. However, Martin begins to suspect the affair, and this later leads to him brawling with Hooper when they're on the boat. Whilst this plot-line doesn't appear to add much to the story, it does add to the character of Ellen, who's character is the movie comes off as otherwise fairly bland.
The second Plot change involves Mayor Vaughn, who obstructs Chief Brody's attempts to close the beaches. In the book, the reason for this is eventually revealed to be that Vaughn is in debt to the Mafia, and they are pressurting Vaughn to keep the beaches open to protect Amity's real estate, into which they have invested a small fortune. In the film, Vaughn is a much less pleasant character, who's motivations seem to stem more from personal greed than anything else. A perfectly fine character, it's true. But a much less interesting one.
Item 3. The shark looks fake. I know, everyone says it but it is true. The Shark is built up throughout the film as a remorseless assassin, killing at will. The music, the atmosphere, it all builds up throughout the film… and then we see the shark, and in many shots it just looks ridiculous. It's a real let down.
And that's about it for the prosecution. Now, for the defence.

Defence.
Item 1. The characters. It is undeniable that all of the characters in the film are very different from how they are presented in the book. Hooper isn't a rich arsehole, Quint isn't a moneygrabbing arsehole, etcetera, etcetera.
Yes, I know that's one of the same points as the prosecution, but honestly, the characters in the book are for the most part very unlikable. Steve Spielberg once said that when reading the book, he was rooting for the shark, and I can see why. The characters are changed, yes, but for the better. And as for the missing/sidelined characters, whilst they are useful in the book for building up the community, their absence in the film helps to streamline the plot. Speaking of which…
Item 2. The Plot as stated earlier is broadly similar to the books – shark shows up, shark kills people, people try to kill shark, tension and drama, yada yada - with a couple of missing Plot points. And whilst those missing plot points do make the characters of Mayor Vaughn, Ellie, and Hooper more interesting, having them cut from the film both A. make the characters more likeable, and B. streamline the plot immensely. Besides, it is a scientific impossibility for an adaptation of a book to contain all the books plot points – at then end of the day books and movies are very different forms of media.
Item 3. The acting, which by and large, is fantastic. Which is not always something you expect in a horror film. But, barring the occasional child actor (and even they aren't all that bad – at the very least, their performances are brief), every single actor is giving 100% in their performances. Obviously the leads are spectacular – the scene in the boat when Quint talks about the Indianapolis sinking is a particular stand-out – but even the side-characters manage to be incredibly memorable. Which of course means that when their lives are threatened by the shark, the audience remains full invested – when I first watched the scene on the pier, I found myself genuinely rooting for the drunken idiots to survive.
Item 4. John Williams.
That is all.
Item 5. The fact that we almost never see the shark. Everyone knows the story of how the mechanical shark (apparently called Bruce) would constantly break down, which lead to Spielberg's decision to limit it's use. I think we can all agree that this was the right decision (and not just for limiting our time spent with the fake shark). The fear of the unseen menace is what makes the film stand out, and is clearly present right from the famous opening scene. Because we never see what's attacking, the viewers mind is left to imagine just what kind of horror lurks beneath the waves. This idea is extended still further in what for me was one of the most frightening scenes. Late at night, Hooper and Brody find an abandoned and half-sunk fishing boat, and Hooper decides to dive under the boat to find out what caused it (for clarity, the scene is present in the book, but in broad daylight, and there is no diving). The way the scene is shot makes it very clear that beyond the circle of light from their boat, neither Hooper underwater, or Brody in the boat above, can see anything in the ocean. The shark could have swum a few feet away without either of them knowing. And there is also the added bonus of seeing the damage inflicted to the boat, wondering what exactly happened when the fisherman met the shark, and the realisation that just because you are on a boat does not make you safe. That is the atmosphere built up through the movie, and the impact of the unseen shark can clearly be seen in horror movies and tv show to this very day. How many times have we had monster films where we can only see the monster clearly for at best 10 minutes? How many times have the most gruesome deaths happened off-screen, with the audience left to imagine the gory details? How many times have we watched through the killers eyes as their victim screams for mercy? Whilst I cannot be sure that Jaws was the first movie to use the fear of the unseen menace, it is certainly one of the best executed examples.


Verdict.
So, we have heard all the evidence. And the verdict is… obvious to anyone with half a brain. Jaws is not a truly faithful adaptation, as anyone who has read the book could tell you. However, the changes made to the story, in my opinion at least, for the most part are entirely necessary for the transition from book to film. This film isn't known as the first ever summer blockbuster movie for nothing, after all.
Jaws is cleared of all charges.

Comments