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

Matthew German Dissertation 22354557
1
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………………………………………………………………………………………

2
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

3
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.

4
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

5
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 cognitive
capacity as authorized by the cognitive film semiotics. He states that language analysis tradition

6
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.
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

7
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 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

8
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.

9
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.

10
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 storyteller is because
he does not confuse his messages, resulting in visual codes that work not just on a basic level,

11
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 towards the subject in
question. “By accepting its limitations and becoming less prescriptive, they have introduced a

12
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 StevenSpielberg: 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
he combines with cognitive science, linguistics and semiotics in order to explain his point,

13
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.

14
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 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

15
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. 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.

16
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 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

17
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 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.

18
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).
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).

19
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).
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

20
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 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.

21
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 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

22
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 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

23
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 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

24
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 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

25
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.109-110) 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

26
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).
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

27
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 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.

28
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.
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,

29
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
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

30
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, 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

31
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.
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.

32
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.
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.

33
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. Textualanalysis: 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.
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.

34
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.
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.

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to A Discourse Analysis Through Film Language of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws 1975

Similar to A Discourse Analysis Through Film Language of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws 1975 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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