The Applause for Jaws, Despite Flaws

Scientific American

26-05-2025

The motion picture Jaws deserves another round of applause on its 50 th birthday, despite its flaws. Released on June 20, 1975, this classic invented the summer blockbuster genre, made sharks a familiar (if demonized) foe, and gave a visceral picture to the words 'shark attack.'
But today, humanity has grown to have a better appreciation for all sharks, even those that swim near the beach. We owe some of the public sentiment that it's ' safe to go back in the water ' to Jaws.
Initially, the movie's biggest impact was to portray shark bites as intentional "attacks" on swimmers. The fictional story of the human-shark relationship (and human-ocean relationship) that humans are on the menu—has been one of the most successful Hollywood narratives in motion picture history. More movies, sequels and spin-offs have created a lasting narrative and industry of 'rogue' sharks, rabid dogs, territorial bears, hungry crocodiles, and other animals that intentionally and sometimes hysterically attack innocent people in classic 'Sharknado' style.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The public believed this story of intentionality so completely that every shark bite was essentially a murder, and every shark a potential murderer, and the beach was the scene of a crime by a deviant monster against innocent beachgoers. Importantly, the rogue narrative of sharks gaining a taste for human flesh pre-dated Jaws, and was invented largely by an Australian surgeon, Sir Victor Coppleson, in the 1950s. Peter Benchley's 1974 novel, Jaws, and the movie blockbuster provided the justification for, and weakened push-back against, all the anti-shark public policies that followed, including revenge shark hunts, shark derbies, changes to fishery laws that classified sharks as waste fish, delays in enacting shark conservation and the placement of lethal shark nets on some international beaches.
Another piece of the Jaws story was its portrayal of an innocent coastal community being preyed upon. Here, beachgoers were not large land animals entering into the foreign domain of a dynamic marine ecosystem, but they were cast as property owners and recreational water users who had the right to expect nature to behave in a domesticated manner. This misperception that the beach is safe introduced as big a misconception and falsehood on the public, as the idea that sharks are all dangerous. The ocean is constantly in flux, and the direct opposite to "shark bites are intentional attacks" is a much less Oscar-worthy story about the beach as a wild, dynamic and active ocean environment.
In 2014, I proposed the ' Jaws Effect ' in the Australian Journal of Political Science, in which I argue that politicians use familiar fictional films and movies as the basis for explaining real-life events. The Jaws Effect can be seen as a political instrument that uses films to reinforce three themes: 'that sharks are intentionally hunting people, that shark bites are fatal events and that killing individual sharks will solve the problem.'
Following a terrible fatal shark bite in Western Australia in 2000 and subsequent shark bites and encounters, the West Australian premier Colin Barnett repeatedly used the term 'rogue sharks' the he said were returning to the beach to attack swimmers, so there needed to be a law to help the government kill specific target sharks that were intent on haunting the local beach community.
During this period, Benchley wrote an open letter to Western Australia about the case and the political directive to hunt down the shark responsible. He wrote, 'This was not a rogue shark, tantalised by the taste of human flesh and bound now to kill and kill again. Such creatures do not exist, despite what you might have derived from Jaws.'
The Jaws Effect, however, continues in Australia today. In 2024, the District Council of Elliston passed a motion to allow fisheries officers in South Australia to kill great white sharks following shark bites in that area, which stated, 'Sharks are capable of learned behavior. The purpose of terminating the shark responsible for an attack is to prevent that shark from using that behavior to harm another person.'
Yet, at 50 years old, Jaws is also a celebration of sharks, creating a fascination that helped lead to more than two generations of new shark researchers. Indeed, some of the people who have done the most for shark conservation worked on Jaws. Valerie Taylor help collect footage of sharks that was used in Jaws and was one of the leaders in New South Wales on conservation laws to protect the Grey Nurse Shark, which in 1984 became the first protected species of shark. As well, Leonard Compagno, who was a scientist and consultant on Jaws, also led the effort to protect White Sharks in South Africa. The idea that Jaws led to bad public relations is too simple a story. Our reading of the movie, real-life sharks, the public and our beaches are all evolving. Jaws is better at 50, sharks are seen more positively in 2025, and the public is more engaged in shark conservation and beach safety. There's even a 'Jawsie' Award in Australia, given yearly to the most outlandish reports of shark attacks and meant to spur real beach safety awareness.
I would be remiss if I did not note the connection between Jaws, the false rogue shark theory, and current debate over orcas ramming into yachts off the Strait of Gibraltar. Both National Geographic and the BBC, for example, have run headlines about such 'rogue' orcas. In the mix of stories to explain this behavior, one that claimed that it was an 'orca scorned' type situation where a female orca had been traumatized by a boat previously and was now training her young to attack boats in revenge. Very Jaws, or perhaps Jaws 3, but there will be no awards for this fish story.