In his article “Jaws, Anthropocentrism and Cinema as a Monster-Making Machine,” Brett Mills distinguishes between the film Jaws (Spielberg 1975) and the novel version, arguing that cinema’s form inherently privileges human perspectives. While the novel presents sharks as biological entities in a real-world context, the film utilizes the shark as a narrative device that primarily serves to tell human stories. Mills argues that this difference isn’t just due to Spielberg’s choices, but rather that cinema as a medium contains embedded conventions and reliance on audio-visual elements that make it especially prone to anthropocentrism, the perspective that humans are central and all other beings are valued only in relation to human experience. His argument of how Jaws constructs the shark as a monster through cinematic techniques can be extended further by analyzing how additional formal elements in the film reinforce the anthropocentric view. Jaws’ cinematographic techniques, such as cinemascope camera, edge framing, dolly zoom effect, and slow-motion, not only participate in monster-making but actively center the human experience while reducing the shark to a narrative device supporting human drama.

Even before the battle sequence where police chief Brody (Roy Scheider), fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw), and ichthyologist Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) fight against the giant shark, the film employs specific cinematographic techniques that strengthen Mills’ claims about the film’s anthropocentric perspective. For instance, in the scene where chief Brody confronts city administrators and is forced to open the beach despite his concerns, edge framing is used to isolate him visually (Jaws 11:48-18:10). He is positioned at the very edge of the frame, pressed against the side frame line. A telephone pole in the background also visually separates him from the other characters (Jaws 12:25). This choice of staging the characters emphasizes Brody’s psychological isolation and internal moral conflict, making his human emotional state the focal point even in scenes discussing about the threat of the shark. In addition to the edge framing, the scene employs a cinemascope wide frame combined with a long-take (1 min. 47 sec.) that contains multiple characters and details in a single shot. This technique fragments the audience’s attention across various human interactions, making the human social dynamics the primary focus rather than the shark itself. Furthermore, when chief Brody first witnesses the shark’s attack, the dolly zoom technique (zooming-in and tracking-out simultaneously) effectively cues his shock and realization to the audience (Jaws 17:19-17:21).

This technique strengthens Mills’ claim about “cinema’s inability to depict or communicate the Umwelt of the animal” (Mills 31). As Mills notes, cinema attempts to represent the shark’s perspective through underwater POV shots, but these are inherently anthropocentric as they reduce the shark’s complex sensory apparatus to human vision (Mills 31). Mills explains that “what is understood here as ‘point of view’ is equated with ‘what is seen’, situating ocular engagement with the world as a dominant norm” (Mills 30), while a shark primarily senses through other means. While the film’s use of dolly zoom on chief Brody’s face easily cues the audience into humans’ fear and anxiety when they witness the shark attack, the audio-visual elements of cinema fail to describe the shark. These cinematographic techniques not only illustrate Mills’ argument about cinema’s inherent anthropocentrism but extend it by showing how even the film’s most basic visual grammar is constructed to privilege human experience.

In the climactic sequence of Jaws where three men – chief Brody, Quint, and Hooper – battle against the shark in the middle of the ocean, the film’s visual composition consistently centers human drama while relegating the shark to a narrative device, further supporting Mills’ analysis of cinema’s anthropocentric monster-making. In the battle scene, visual techniques are employed to emphasize human heroism against the monstrous shark. Characters may be framed against the vast ocean, but the narrative focus remains on their struggle rather than any ecological or natural perspective. The film utilizes wide-angle lenses to create expansive views of the ocean where the human ship appears isolated and vulnerable within the frame (Jaws 01:25:54-01:26:00). Wide-angle lens emphasizes the depth and scale of space while focusing on all elements of the frame. Thus, the use of a wide-angle lens serves to emphasize the ocean’s enormity and the isolating effect that it has on the characters rather than to present the ocean as an ecosystem. In contrast, the telephoto lens used when Quint is attacked by the shark compresses the z-axis depth of the image and only focuses on the person in the foreground, blurring the background. Along with the high-contrast lighting that promotes tension, the use of sharp focus forces the audience to concentrate on humans’ behavior and facial expressions when confronted with danger (Jaws 01:57:29-01:57:31). This technique prioritizes human emotional responses over any understanding of the shark as a natural being.

Beyond these compositional elements, the film’s color palette further reinforces its anthropocentric perspective. The overall blue tone dominating the sequence evokes both fear and tension by emphasizing coldness and isolation when faced against the shark. This color choice turns the natural marine environment into an emotional landscape centered on human experience. The blue wash of the image, along with Quint’s blue shirt, also contrasts with red blood during attacks (Jaws 01:57:32-01:57:53). This creates a visual binary to cue the shark as a monster and humans as victims. These visual elements in the ending sequence further extend Mills’ argument by demonstrating how Jaws not only creates a monster but does so specifically to center human experience and drama.

Perhaps the most noteworthy evidence reinforcing Mills’ argument about cinema’s anthropocentrism appears in the final fight between chief Brody and the shark, which Mills recognizes as a key difference between the novel and the film. The film uses a combination of editing and extreme violence to deliver what Mills calls a “moment of exultation, or definitive demonstration of human ingenuity over the shark’s brutality” (Mills 22). As an illustration, in the scene where chief Brody shoots a compressed air tank into the shark’s mouth and it explodes, the film’s editing deliberately emphasizes the victory of man. The scene alternates between a close-up of chief Brody’s determined face and an explosion, directly connecting the monster’s destruction with human will. The camera stays on the shark’s remains slowly sinking. Along with blood and debris, this scene reinforces the narrative of the monstrous hazard eliminated (Jaws 02:00:31-02:00:56). This contrasts with the novel’s ending, which Mills describes as “anti-climactic,” where the dead shark sinks away as “an apparition evanescing into darkness” (Mills 22).

The visual language of this ending sequence well illustrates Mills’ insistence that it is necessary to “annihilate” the monster in cinema: “monster has to be, literally, obliterated. Evil must vanish from the face of the earth” (Mills 22). The slow-motion destruction of the shark, with chunks of its body flying through the air, creates a catharsis designed for human audiences (Jaws 02:00:18-02:00:31). As the camera returns to chief Brody’s relieved and triumphant face, it emphasizes that the human perspective is central to the ending of this story. This ending sequence demonstrates exactly what Mills argues was Spielberg’s intention: for audiences “to go out of the theatre screaming” (Mills 22). The explosion functions as visual evidence of human dominance over nature. As Mills points out, the change in the ending of the novel and the film reveals a “fundamental reshaping of the audience position offered by the text and the pleasures associated with this” (Mills 22). The film version prioritizes the victory of humans and spectacular violence over the ambiguous ending of the novel, which allows the shark to remain a creature of nature rather than a defeated monster.

To sum up, the cinematographic techniques that isolate chief Brody, the choice of lens that centers human drama, and the spectacular ending that celebrates human victory all work together to form what Mills calls “an anthropocentric monster-making machine” (Mills 31). These elements show that the anthropocentrism of the film extends beyond narrative choices to the very grammar of cinema. Actually, Mills’ argument has implications beyond Jaws itself. As he notes, the “Jaws effect” has an impact on the real world, with “fictional narratives of shark behaviour from film used as historical analogies to frame real-life situations” (Mills 23). The film’s monster-making techniques have contributed to prejudices and a cultural understanding that considers sharks extremely dangerous, although shark attacks on humans are rarer than people imagine. By recognizing the inherent anthropocentrism caused by the limitations of the medium of cinema, we can become more critical viewers, especially when we see animals that claim to present a perspective other than that of humans.


Works Cited

  • Jaws. Directed by Steven Spielberg, Universal Pictures, 1975. Ares.
  • Mills, Brett. “Jaws, Anthropocentrism and Cinema as a Monster-Making Machine.” Journal of Adaptation in Film & Performance, vol. 16, no. 1-2, 2023, pp. 21-36.