Latest news with #RobertShaw
Geek Tyrant
21-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Geek Tyrant
Steven Soderbergh Talks About Steven Spielberg's JAWS and Why It's the Most Disruptive Movie Ever Made — GeekTyrant
Steven Soderbergh has made his fair share of bold, disruptive films with Sex, Lies, and Videotape , Traffic , and Contagion , but when it comes to the most disruptive film ever made? For him, it's not even a contest. It's Jaws . On the occasion of the film's 50th anniversary, Soderbergh sat down with Deadline to unpack exactly why Spielberg's 1975 shark thriller not only redefined cinema but proved Spielberg is, without question, the greatest director of all time. Soderbergh was only 12 when Jaws hit theaters, but he left that first screening with two questions rattling around in his head: 'What does 'directed by' mean? And who is Steven Spielberg?' The answers would shape his career. 'It was probably the moviest movie I'd ever seen at that point,' Soderbergh recalled, 'this incredibly combustible combination of super-high concept and bravura filmmaking.' But it wasn't just the terror of the shark or the suspenseful set pieces that blew his mind. 'What separates it from most movies before or since is the character work,' he said. 'When you look at how the narrative of the movie is built... it's just a model of movie storytelling.' He cites the USS Indianapolis scene, which is nine unbroken minutes of three men sitting in a boat as one of the boldest moves in film history. 'Can you imagine, in the middle of a Star Wars movie, a nine-minute dialogue scene? It's unthinkable.' That monologue, delivered by Robert Shaw's Quint, didn't even exist in the original Peter Benchley novel. The book was packed with soapy subplots, including an affair between Hooper and Brody's wife, that screenwriter Carl Gottlieb tossed out. The filmmakers reshaped the narrative around the primal terror of the shark, the uneasy camaraderie of the three leads, and, in Soderbergh's words, 'a totally unique talent blowing up.' As Soderbergh explained, Jaws was a perfect storm of risk and genius. 'They were out there in the middle of a f*cking ocean. There's a reason people don't do that,' he said. 'That shark was just a pneumatic mechanical device, in the actual ocean. There's no shortcut to that.' And when the shark didn't work? 'They were beginning to confront the real possibility that what they were attempting to do just physically cannot be done.' And yet, they kept going. Spielberg kept going. 'Under enormous pressure, everybody continued to do their best work,' Soderbergh said. 'It's a real clinic for a young filmmaker about the kinds of obstacles that you encounter. Never panic and never give up. It's pretty hard to beat.' It's easy to forget how groundbreaking Jaws was in the context of its time. Soderbergh points out that while other hits like The Godfather and The Exorcist also drew long lines, Jaws birthed the idea of the event movie, wide releases, saturation marketing, and watercooler buzz. 'You have to attribute that to Universal, recognizing they had a rocket in their pocket and tripling down on this wide-release strategy,' he said. But none of that would have mattered if the film didn't land. 'You can't just do it with any film. It was the beneficiary of a lot of different elements coming together in this one circumstance. And the guy made a masterpiece.' Of course, none of this happens without Spielberg. And even after decades of record-breaking box office success and countless genre-defining films, Soderbergh still thinks Spielberg is underrated. 'He's a singular talent who was going to emerge one way or another,' he said. 'Despite being the most successful director in history, I still think he's taken for granted.' 'There are things that he's done that if any other filmmaker had made them, these would be their career best,' Soderbergh said. 'But he's done it so often that he gets taken for granted.' He name-drops Ready Player One as a technical marvel most directors couldn't even conceptualize, let alone execute between Oscar-nominated dramas like The Post . And then there's 1993: Jurassic Park and Schindler's List in the same year. 'That's ridiculous,' Soderbergh said. 'Either one of those would put another filmmaker in the hospital.' In the end, that's what makes Spielberg the greatest of all time. Not just his eye for spectacle, or his ear for emotional truth, or his tireless innovation, but his ability to do all of it, consistently, across decades, in wildly different genres. Jaws wasn't just a turning point for movies, it was the moment a generational talent stepped forward and showed us what was possible. As Soderbergh put it: 'There was no other director on the planet who could have survived and made Jaws . Jaws .' And 50 years later, we're still enjoying what he delivered with that movie.
Irish Times
15-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Irish Times
The Shark Is Broken review: Ian Shaw is uncannily like his father in this inventive, irreverent play about the making of Jaws
The Shark Is Broken Gaiety Theatre, Dublin ★★★☆☆ Jaws, Steven Spielberg's film from 1975, was a notoriously chaotic production, riddled with mishaps and other stumbling blocks that paradoxically coalesced into the birth of the modern Hollywood blockbuster. 'Bruce', the shark, one of three malfunctioning mechanical models, seldom worked in the seawater, leaving the film-maker to rely on shadowy glimpses and John Williams's tremendous score. That same iconic soundtrack is playfully referenced in Adam Cork's score for this inventive making-of stage production. In Spielberg's film the mismatched personalities of the shark hunter, Quint (Robert Shaw), the police chief, Brody (Roy Scheider), and the marine biologist, Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss), form a reluctant camaraderie in their quest to kill the murderous fish. The Shark Is Broken merrily mirrors this dynamic in its clever re-creation of the many weeks of downtime that the trio endured. Together they bicker, booze, bond and vomit overboard. READ MORE Ian Shaw, one of Robert Shaw's nine children, plays Robert, investing meaning and metatextuality in the material. (He also cowrote the play, with Joseph Nixon.) The younger Shaw's uncanny approximation of his father is met by the jocular precision of Dan Fredenburgh, playing Scheider, and Ashley Margolis, as Dreyfuss. No tic is unmined. [ Ian Shaw: 'I used to see Dad drink. I was often playing under the table in Irish pubs' Opens in new window ] Over a series of vignettes, stomped out on Duncan Henderson's thrilling re-creation of the Orca, the three actors shift register between Oedipal soul-searching, buffoonery and banter. Fredenburgh's Scheider is the sincere, socially conscious son of a garage mechanic who has nightmares about images emerging from the Vietnam War but loves a good tan. Shaw is a knot of braggadocio, hilarity and wounds. Margolis brings heart and good humour to the swaggering, coke-snorting Dreyfuss – only 26 at the time – who ends up with many of the play's best zingers: 'Nothing good ever happened to any Jew on the water,' he laments. Bobbing along in Nina Dunn's immersive digital re-creation of the stretch of Atlantic Ocean just off Martha's Vineyard where Spielberg expensively shot the film, the prophetic meta-jokes come thick and fast. 'There will never be a more immoral president than Tricky Dicky,' Scheider says of Richard Nixon. Acting as a movieverse Cassandra, Shaw warns that cinema will descend into a muddle of sequels and remakes. Heartfelt and intimate details, ranging from the suicide of Robert Shaw's father to a shout-out to the actor's adopted home in Tourmakeady, Co Mayo, are counterpointed by top-notch film buffery and broad physical comedy. A wealth of research is parlayed, roughly at times, into a proudly commercial three-hander. For all its historical heft, both personal and cinematic, the writing and direction wisely lean into irreverence throughout this 80-minute crowd-pleaser. The Shark Is Broken is at the Gaiety Theatre , Dublin, until Saturday, May 17th
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The UK banned sending game controllers to Russia. What's the point?
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Kingdom has banned the export of video game controllers to Russia, claiming the devices are being repurposed to pilot drones on the front lines in Ukraine. Experts say this move highlights the blurring lines between consumer electronics and modern warfare. The episode also shows how bureaucrats far from the frontlines in Ukraine play a role in determining the face of the conflict by deciding what can and cannot be sold to either side. But as general-purpose consumer items have come to be used as weapons of war, the task of setting export controls may sometimes seem like a fight against windmills. The United Kingdom's new trade restriction comes alongside a list of other items now immediately prohibited for export to Russia, including software for oil exploitation, specific chemicals and a range of electronic devices. A total of about 150 new line items were added to the already extensive list of British export prohibitions. 'Gaming consoles will no longer be repurposed to kill in Ukraine,' said Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty of the new list's most headline-grabbing item. The UK government said the aim was to hamper Russia's ability to attack and throw a wrench into its industrial war machinery, as has been the stated goal of sanctions for the past three years. The U.S. and EU have similar sanctions regimes in place, with the latter adding joysticks and game controllers earlier this year. Nonetheless, questions remain over the effectiveness of such measures. 'If Russia wants video game controllers, they are going to find video game controllers,' said Robert Shaw, program director of the Export Control and Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies' James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. China is the likely source of the vast majority of these devices making their way to Russia already, he added. Most video game controllers are manufactured in China or Japan, with very few, if any, produced in the UK. This raises questions about the practical effect of the ban, as it would only prevent re-exports through British ports rather than cutting off a significant manufacturing source. The strength of sanctions by countries like the U.K. and the EU, which have limited domestic mass production of electronics but highly advanced technology, lies primarily in limiting access to cutting-edge tech in domains where the West holds a competitive edge, experts argue. These items, and the know-how needed to use or make them, are not readily available elsewhere, which means limiting their distribution is easier and more effective. Indeed, the UK's own export control laws are written to this effect, restricting the ability to transfer technology that is required for the development, production, or use of controlled goods to Russia. Video game controllers don't exactly fit the description of a niche European high-tech item like the Dutch microchip-making machines central to global computer production, specialized British telecommunications devices or German instruments for measuring microscopic vibrations. But that doesn't mean the ban is without merit, said Shaw, the export control specialist. For one, it's good publicity and grabs people's attention, which is of value in its own right, he said. 'It will have an impact in increasing awareness of the dual-use nature of so many items and how they can be used to advantage in an active military conflict,' Shaw said. Particularly the video game enthusiast and consumer electronics worlds have shown keen interest in this story, despite not being the usual target audience for the dry minutiae of British sanctions policy. 'Having that little bit of awareness might be enough to ask questions regarding new business partners or strange shipping routes that are going to Central Asia,' Shaw explained. It can help raise red flags when something is amiss, leading to questions like 'why are they ordering these, and why are we sending them to a market that's very small?' Central Asian countries, Turkey and India, among others, have served as key transshipment hubs to evade Western sanctions and import restricted goods to Russia. The ban also broadens the legal framework available to UK authorities to combat illicit trade with Russia. If a shipment coming from the UK is seized on suspicion that it might be diverted for military use by Russia against Ukraine, Shaw said, authorities could seize it and start investigating on firm legal ground. Although Western allies tend to have closely matching sanctions lists, China, the origin of most of the electronics flowing into Russia, is unlikely to follow suit in formally banning controllers. But there is the possibility that Beijing may exert informal influence. Clouded in diplomatic language, Chinese government officials have in the past tried to walk a tightrope between supporting their 'strategic partner,' Russia, and staying in good graces with Western governments. And some Chinese companies may even feel it best to hold off on some sales for risk of jeopardizing their position in Western markets, Shaw noted. Indications that this may be happening already exist. DJI, the major Chinese consumer drone maker, said it has addressed the use of its products in war zones, for example. The company released a statement just months into Russia's invasion of Ukraine, saying that 'we absolutely deplore any use of our products to cause harm.' Distributors, resellers and business partners 'have committed … not to sell DJI products to customers who clearly plan to use them for military purposes,' the statement said.
Times
01-05-2025
- General
- Times
My father liberated Guernsey from Nazis. This is what it meant to him
The first act of liberation on the Channel island of Guernsey was carried out by Sergeant Major Robert Shaw, who told a young boy on a bicycle to 'cycle on the British side of the road'. Shaw, of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, was the first British soldier to set foot on Nazi-occupied British soil during the liberation of the Channel Islands on May 9, 1945, the day after VE Day. His son Robert Shaw, 78, recalled: 'My father rode off the landing craft on his motorcycle at L'Ancresse Bay, leading the way for the armoured vehicles that followed.' Speaking from his home in the village of Burrelton, near Perth, central Scotland, he added: 'He was concerned the boy would be hit by the
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Yahoo
The nation's beauty spots have declared war on coach tours
The National Trust has banned coaches from parking or dropping off passengers at Birling Gap, a popular beach in East Sussex, amid fears of rising visitor numbers and coastal erosion. The news caught my eye not just because this is 12 miles away from my front door, but because it represents the latest move in a nationwide war against coach tours. A war which isn't as straightforward as it might seem. Last year, the picturesque village of Bourton-on-the-Water banned coaches (nicknamed the 'cruise ship of the Cotswolds') after record crowds descended on its cobbled streets. In a new trial, coaches will be forced to park a 10-minute walk away from the village centre. Nearby Bibury is pondering a similar coach ban after more than 50 per day arrived during peak periods. The argument at both Birling Gap and the Cotswold villages is that they are simply not equipped for dozens of galumphing coaches descending every day, nor for the thousands of tourists who they airdrop into the thick of things during peak months. Clearly, something needs to change. But is banning coaches the answer? 'Time and again it feels like the coach industry has been victimised or discriminated against,' argues Robert Shaw, director of Harry Shaw and Chairman of the Coach Tourism Association. One of Shaw's concerns is that banning coaches will negatively impact passengers with mobility requirements. 'A lot of coach passengers do have mobility issues, that's why they're using coaches, because they know there's guaranteed assistance. They're being chauffeured, effectively, so this will affect their ability to go and see places of national interest,' says Shaw. Some coach firms say they have now dropped Bourton from their itineraries entirely, for this very reason. I am sure some locals will be celebrating the ban on coaches. But are they accidentally shouldering out the wrong tourists? It strikes me that one of the biggest challenges, whether in a chocolate-box village or on the Seven Sisters cliffs, is that people have forgotten how to behave. There is a new type of tourist who is very concerned with getting a perfect photograph or video to post on social media, rather than spending money on some local handicrafts or fudge. In the case of Bourton, locals regularly complain of tourists gazing through residential windows. At Seven Sisters, it is people standing perilously close to the crumbling cliff-edges. Have a quick browse online and you will find dozens of independent, London-based operators which offer 'day tours' to Birling Gap or the Cotswolds. Some of these use full-sized coaches, but many use small minibuses. I fear there is a scenario where these coach bans will restrict access for high-spending, culturally intrigued passengers, while continuing to welcome TikTokers who are fixated only on creating 'content'. As to where the coaches will go instead? I saw one coach operator changing its itinerary to include Stow-on-the-Wold instead of Bourton. 'Coach operators will provide alternative destinations,' muses Shaw. 'But it's nice not to be forced to do so, it's nice to do it by choice. And how long until they're complaining about overtourism as well, if everyone moves to the same places?' The problem with coaches is that they are big. They are cumbersome. Like cruise ships, they are amongst the most visually straightforward ways for news outlets to depict overtourism (even if the scale – 5,000 passengers versus 50 – is slightly different). But the truth is that coaches produce far lower emissions per passenger than cars. And, as a bonus, drivers or tour leaders can educate passengers en route on the local sore points and behavioural issues they should avoid when they arrive. The war on coaches will reduce visitor numbers, and will remove a fleet of very large vehicles from often rural locations. Maybe that, in itself, is all that needs to be said on the matter. But I refuse to believe that banning coaches is a cure-all for the myriad overtourism concerns at the UK's beauty spots. And – whisper it – the coach passengers might just be missed by the businesses who depend on them. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
