Questões para Concursos

Read thoroughly to answer the following question. Had the great pleasure of introducing my 14-year-old son to one of my favorite movies tonight. I saw SCREAM five times when it was released theatrically in 1996. I was a freshman in college and working part-time at my hometown movie theater, Cineplex Odeon in Bowie, Maryland, and I remember loving it so much that I would sometimes spend my 15-minute breaks in the back of the theater just to admire the filmmaking. The movie absolutely knocked the wind out of me in '96, and I'm pleased to report that it still works beautifully for me today. SCREAM is a riff on the high-school slasher film, where a group of friends are picked off one-by-one by a masked killer. The difference is that both the killer and the intended victims are aware of (and in some cases well-versed in) the very movies that created this genre, and try to use those tropes as a means of attack, or a way to survive. This kind of meta-genre deconstruction was pretty revolutionary in 1996, but SCREAM succeeds at being an exceptional slasher film even as it takes the genre apart, and that is truly miraculous to behold. Kevin Williamson's script is crackling with wit, humor, and deep respect and love for the genre. Craven's direction is fluid, confident, and full of brilliant misdirection – it feels like watching close-up magic, and his slight of hand is balanced with some truly inspired set pieces and beautiful cinematography. The cast is wonderful, and I found myself smiling about just how affectionately I remember these characters. When the movie started, I didn't think “oh there's Neve Campbell, and there's Matt Lillard” – I was thinking “There's Sid, there's Stu.” It's easy to forgot how revolutionary and astonishing the iconic opening sequence was, and I marvel now at the extended party set-piece, which takes up almost the entirety of the second half of the film. Just wonderful stuff. SCREAM is a gleeful, brilliant deconstruction of the genre itself, breaking it apart with profound respect and love, and celebrating the very tropes it is exposing. There's a reason it had such impact on release, and that the franchise is still finding some fuel in the tank nearly three decades later. It's also a time capsule of the late 90's, and reminds me so much of my youth – I grinned when the sheriff asks Billy Loomis “Why do you have a cellular telephone, son?” This was, at the time, not an unreasonable question. It's a different world, but horror still works just as well. If I would have told my 18 year-old self that someday I'd work with (and become great friends with) Matthew Lillard, enjoy meals and social deduction games with Kevin Williamson, and have a relaxed, casual dinner with Neve Campbell... I frankly would never have believed it. I've now gotten to personally thank those artists for the impact this film had on me, and that in and of itself only further blurs the lines between movies and reality – a sensation I faintly felt watching NEW NIGHTMARE in 1994, and felt completely with SCREAM. What a wild world this is. This movie was formative for me, and changed the way I looked at what was possible in the genre. I loved it when I was 18, and I loved it tonight. And, my son also loved it... so a great evening all around. (Available: https://letterboxd.com/flanaganfilm/films/reviews/ Accessed in: November/2024.)

Read thoroughly to answer the following question. Had the great pleasure of introducing my 14-year-old son to one of my favorite movies tonight. I saw SCREAM five times when it was released theatrically in 1996. I was a freshman in college and working part-time at my hometown movie theater, Cineplex Odeon in Bowie, Maryland, and I remember loving it so much that I would sometimes spend my 15-minute breaks in the back of the theater just to admire the filmmaking. The movie absolutely knocked the wind out of me in '96, and I'm pleased to report that it still works beautifully for me today. SCREAM is a riff on the high-school slasher film, where a group of friends are picked off one-by-one by a masked killer. The difference is that both the killer and the intended victims are aware of (and in some cases well-versed in) the very movies that created this genre, and try to use those tropes as a means of attack, or a way to survive. This kind of meta-genre deconstruction was pretty revolutionary in 1996, but SCREAM succeeds at being an exceptional slasher film even as it takes the genre apart, and that is truly miraculous to behold. Kevin Williamson's script is crackling with wit, humor, and deep respect and love for the genre. Craven's direction is fluid, confident, and full of brilliant misdirection – it feels like watching close-up magic, and his slight of hand is balanced with some truly inspired set pieces and beautiful cinematography. The cast is wonderful, and I found myself smiling about just how affectionately I remember these characters. When the movie started, I didn't think “oh there's Neve Campbell, and there's Matt Lillard” – I was thinking “There's Sid, there's Stu.” It's easy to forgot how revolutionary and astonishing the iconic opening sequence was, and I marvel now at the extended party set-piece, which takes up almost the entirety of the second half of the film. Just wonderful stuff. SCREAM is a gleeful, brilliant deconstruction of the genre itself, breaking it apart with profound respect and love, and celebrating the very tropes it is exposing. There's a reason it had such impact on release, and that the franchise is still finding some fuel in the tank nearly three decades later. It's also a time capsule of the late 90's, and reminds me so much of my youth – I grinned when the sheriff asks Billy Loomis “Why do you have a cellular telephone, son?” This was, at the time, not an unreasonable question. It's a different world, but horror still works just as well. If I would have told my 18 year-old self that someday I'd work with (and become great friends with) Matthew Lillard, enjoy meals and social deduction games with Kevin Williamson, and have a relaxed, casual dinner with Neve Campbell... I frankly would never have believed it. I've now gotten to personally thank those artists for the impact this film had on me, and that in and of itself only further blurs the lines between movies and reality – a sensation I faintly felt watching NEW NIGHTMARE in 1994, and felt completely with SCREAM. What a wild world this is. This movie was formative for me, and changed the way I looked at what was possible in the genre. I loved it when I was 18, and I loved it tonight. And, my son also loved it... so a great evening all around. (Available: https://letterboxd.com/flanaganfilm/films/reviews/ Accessed in: November/2024.)

Read thoroughly to answer the following question. Had the great pleasure of introducing my 14-year-old son to one of my favorite movies tonight. I saw SCREAM five times when it was released theatrically in 1996. I was a freshman in college and working part-time at my hometown movie theater, Cineplex Odeon in Bowie, Maryland, and I remember loving it so much that I would sometimes spend my 15-minute breaks in the back of the theater just to admire the filmmaking. The movie absolutely knocked the wind out of me in '96, and I'm pleased to report that it still works beautifully for me today. SCREAM is a riff on the high-school slasher film, where a group of friends are picked off one-by-one by a masked killer. The difference is that both the killer and the intended victims are aware of (and in some cases well-versed in) the very movies that created this genre, and try to use those tropes as a means of attack, or a way to survive. This kind of meta-genre deconstruction was pretty revolutionary in 1996, but SCREAM succeeds at being an exceptional slasher film even as it takes the genre apart, and that is truly miraculous to behold. Kevin Williamson's script is crackling with wit, humor, and deep respect and love for the genre. Craven's direction is fluid, confident, and full of brilliant misdirection – it feels like watching close-up magic, and his slight of hand is balanced with some truly inspired set pieces and beautiful cinematography. The cast is wonderful, and I found myself smiling about just how affectionately I remember these characters. When the movie started, I didn't think “oh there's Neve Campbell, and there's Matt Lillard” – I was thinking “There's Sid, there's Stu.” It's easy to forgot how revolutionary and astonishing the iconic opening sequence was, and I marvel now at the extended party set-piece, which takes up almost the entirety of the second half of the film. Just wonderful stuff. SCREAM is a gleeful, brilliant deconstruction of the genre itself, breaking it apart with profound respect and love, and celebrating the very tropes it is exposing. There's a reason it had such impact on release, and that the franchise is still finding some fuel in the tank nearly three decades later. It's also a time capsule of the late 90's, and reminds me so much of my youth – I grinned when the sheriff asks Billy Loomis “Why do you have a cellular telephone, son?” This was, at the time, not an unreasonable question. It's a different world, but horror still works just as well. If I would have told my 18 year-old self that someday I'd work with (and become great friends with) Matthew Lillard, enjoy meals and social deduction games with Kevin Williamson, and have a relaxed, casual dinner with Neve Campbell... I frankly would never have believed it. I've now gotten to personally thank those artists for the impact this film had on me, and that in and of itself only further blurs the lines between movies and reality – a sensation I faintly felt watching NEW NIGHTMARE in 1994, and felt completely with SCREAM. What a wild world this is. This movie was formative for me, and changed the way I looked at what was possible in the genre. I loved it when I was 18, and I loved it tonight. And, my son also loved it... so a great evening all around. (Available: https://letterboxd.com/flanaganfilm/films/reviews/ Accessed in: November/2024.)

Read thoroughly to answer the following question. Had the great pleasure of introducing my 14-year-old son to one of my favorite movies tonight. I saw SCREAM five times when it was released theatrically in 1996. I was a freshman in college and working part-time at my hometown movie theater, Cineplex Odeon in Bowie, Maryland, and I remember loving it so much that I would sometimes spend my 15-minute breaks in the back of the theater just to admire the filmmaking. The movie absolutely knocked the wind out of me in '96, and I'm pleased to report that it still works beautifully for me today. SCREAM is a riff on the high-school slasher film, where a group of friends are picked off one-by-one by a masked killer. The difference is that both the killer and the intended victims are aware of (and in some cases well-versed in) the very movies that created this genre, and try to use those tropes as a means of attack, or a way to survive. This kind of meta-genre deconstruction was pretty revolutionary in 1996, but SCREAM succeeds at being an exceptional slasher film even as it takes the genre apart, and that is truly miraculous to behold. Kevin Williamson's script is crackling with wit, humor, and deep respect and love for the genre. Craven's direction is fluid, confident, and full of brilliant misdirection – it feels like watching close-up magic, and his slight of hand is balanced with some truly inspired set pieces and beautiful cinematography. The cast is wonderful, and I found myself smiling about just how affectionately I remember these characters. When the movie started, I didn't think “oh there's Neve Campbell, and there's Matt Lillard” – I was thinking “There's Sid, there's Stu.” It's easy to forgot how revolutionary and astonishing the iconic opening sequence was, and I marvel now at the extended party set-piece, which takes up almost the entirety of the second half of the film. Just wonderful stuff. SCREAM is a gleeful, brilliant deconstruction of the genre itself, breaking it apart with profound respect and love, and celebrating the very tropes it is exposing. There's a reason it had such impact on release, and that the franchise is still finding some fuel in the tank nearly three decades later. It's also a time capsule of the late 90's, and reminds me so much of my youth – I grinned when the sheriff asks Billy Loomis “Why do you have a cellular telephone, son?” This was, at the time, not an unreasonable question. It's a different world, but horror still works just as well. If I would have told my 18 year-old self that someday I'd work with (and become great friends with) Matthew Lillard, enjoy meals and social deduction games with Kevin Williamson, and have a relaxed, casual dinner with Neve Campbell... I frankly would never have believed it. I've now gotten to personally thank those artists for the impact this film had on me, and that in and of itself only further blurs the lines between movies and reality – a sensation I faintly felt watching NEW NIGHTMARE in 1994, and felt completely with SCREAM. What a wild world this is. This movie was formative for me, and changed the way I looked at what was possible in the genre. I loved it when I was 18, and I loved it tonight. And, my son also loved it... so a great evening all around. (Available: https://letterboxd.com/flanaganfilm/films/reviews/ Accessed in: November/2024.)

Something in the water? Why we love shark films From the Steven Spielberg classic Jaws, to predators stalking the Seine in Under Paris, there is no shortage of shark films. Hollywood and audiences love them, seemingly never tiring of the suspense, gore and terror. There are prehistoric giant sharks in The Meg, genetically engineered ones in Deep Blue Sea, and sharks high on cocaine in the ingeniously named Cocaine Shark. Even Donald Trump is a fan – he was reportedly due to play the US president in a Sharknado film, before becoming the actual president. I became hooked on them after watching James Bond film Thunderball, where the villain keeps sharks in his swimming pool. It led to a lifelong interest in shark films, as well as an irrational fear of swimming pools, even ones filled with chlorine inside leisure centres. Hayley Easton Street is the British director behind a new shark film, Something in the Water, which tells the story of a group of women stranded at sea. She explains that, as fan of shark films herself, she “absolutely wanted” to make the movie. So why are shark movies so popular? “It's the fear of what could be going on with the unknown of [the sea]” she tells BBC News. “Just being stuck in the middle of the ocean is scary enough. You're trapped in something else's world and anything could happen.” But despite Street's love of shark films, she did not want the ones in hers to be portrayed as marine serial killers. “We kill 100 million sharks every year” she notes. The director was also aware that the release of Jaws led to a huge rise in the hunting of sharks, partly because they had been portrayed as merciless killers. “As much as I love shark films, I love sharks.” “I was really conscious of that, because it's easy for people to start seeing them as killing machines... or monsters, which they are not.” She adds: “I feel it's more scary to have the realistic theme of it, that, you know, if you are out in the ocean and there are sharks and they do mistake you for something else, they will kill you.” Despite the huge success of Jaws, Spielberg has said he “truly regrets the decimation of the shark population because of the book and the film”. Spielberg is not the only person concerned about Hollywood's portrayal of sharks and the impact it continues to have. US marine biologist Andriana Fragola dedicates herself to educating people about sharks, often sharing videos of her diving with them. She says they are “misunderstood predators” that have been harmed by movies and the media. Andriana tells me that she has watched Netflix's new shark film, Under Paris, and was not impressed. “Their whole thing was it's about conservation, about studying them, but then the sharks are still eating people.” “So it's giving a little bit more of a rounded education and a little bit more depth to the story, it's not just people swimming at the beach and getting attacked and eaten.” “But the bottom line and what people can draw from the movie is that sharks are still really dangerous to people and they're just going to continuously hunt and eat people.” “If that was true, we would be reduced as a human species. Everyone who goes to the beach, they would be threatened.” Andriana says the perception of sharks causes a real issue for conservation. “It's a huge problem because people don't want to protect something that they're scared of.” “The perception from people is that they're dangerous to humans so we should eradicate them, and that's obviously a huge problem for conservation and getting people to want to empathise or sympathise with sharks and wanting to actually protect them.” “It's unfortunate because 100 million sharks are killed every year, and globally sharks kill fewer than 10 people every year.” “We're really focused on the sharks being the monsters and them being out to get us. In reality it's the opposite.” It is unlikely that Hollywood will stop making shark films, or we will stop watching them. But the figures show that far from being the serial killers of the sea, sharks are actually much more likely to be the victims of humans. (Charlotte Gallagher, Culture reporter, BBC 2024. Accessed: 29 July 2024. Available in: . Adapted.)

Something in the water? Why we love shark films From the Steven Spielberg classic Jaws, to predators stalking the Seine in Under Paris, there is no shortage of shark films. Hollywood and audiences love them, seemingly never tiring of the suspense, gore and terror. There are prehistoric giant sharks in The Meg, genetically engineered ones in Deep Blue Sea, and sharks high on cocaine in the ingeniously named Cocaine Shark. Even Donald Trump is a fan – he was reportedly due to play the US president in a Sharknado film, before becoming the actual president. I became hooked on them after watching James Bond film Thunderball, where the villain keeps sharks in his swimming pool. It led to a lifelong interest in shark films, as well as an irrational fear of swimming pools, even ones filled with chlorine inside leisure centres. Hayley Easton Street is the British director behind a new shark film, Something in the Water, which tells the story of a group of women stranded at sea. She explains that, as fan of shark films herself, she “absolutely wanted” to make the movie. So why are shark movies so popular? “It's the fear of what could be going on with the unknown of [the sea]” she tells BBC News. “Just being stuck in the middle of the ocean is scary enough. You're trapped in something else's world and anything could happen.” But despite Street's love of shark films, she did not want the ones in hers to be portrayed as marine serial killers. “We kill 100 million sharks every year” she notes. The director was also aware that the release of Jaws led to a huge rise in the hunting of sharks, partly because they had been portrayed as merciless killers. “As much as I love shark films, I love sharks.” “I was really conscious of that, because it's easy for people to start seeing them as killing machines... or monsters, which they are not.” She adds: “I feel it's more scary to have the realistic theme of it, that, you know, if you are out in the ocean and there are sharks and they do mistake you for something else, they will kill you.” Despite the huge success of Jaws, Spielberg has said he “truly regrets the decimation of the shark population because of the book and the film”. Spielberg is not the only person concerned about Hollywood's portrayal of sharks and the impact it continues to have. US marine biologist Andriana Fragola dedicates herself to educating people about sharks, often sharing videos of her diving with them. She says they are “misunderstood predators” that have been harmed by movies and the media. Andriana tells me that she has watched Netflix's new shark film, Under Paris, and was not impressed. “Their whole thing was it's about conservation, about studying them, but then the sharks are still eating people.” “So it's giving a little bit more of a rounded education and a little bit more depth to the story, it's not just people swimming at the beach and getting attacked and eaten.” “But the bottom line and what people can draw from the movie is that sharks are still really dangerous to people and they're just going to continuously hunt and eat people.” “If that was true, we would be reduced as a human species. Everyone who goes to the beach, they would be threatened.” Andriana says the perception of sharks causes a real issue for conservation. “It's a huge problem because people don't want to protect something that they're scared of.” “The perception from people is that they're dangerous to humans so we should eradicate them, and that's obviously a huge problem for conservation and getting people to want to empathise or sympathise with sharks and wanting to actually protect them.” “It's unfortunate because 100 million sharks are killed every year, and globally sharks kill fewer than 10 people every year.” “We're really focused on the sharks being the monsters and them being out to get us. In reality it's the opposite.” It is unlikely that Hollywood will stop making shark films, or we will stop watching them. But the figures show that far from being the serial killers of the sea, sharks are actually much more likely to be the victims of humans. (Charlotte Gallagher, Culture reporter, BBC 2024. Accessed: 29 July 2024. Available in: . Adapted.)

Something in the water? Why we love shark films From the Steven Spielberg classic Jaws, to predators stalking the Seine in Under Paris, there is no shortage of shark films. Hollywood and audiences love them, seemingly never tiring of the suspense, gore and terror. There are prehistoric giant sharks in The Meg, genetically engineered ones in Deep Blue Sea, and sharks high on cocaine in the ingeniously named Cocaine Shark. Even Donald Trump is a fan – he was reportedly due to play the US president in a Sharknado film, before becoming the actual president. I became hooked on them after watching James Bond film Thunderball, where the villain keeps sharks in his swimming pool. It led to a lifelong interest in shark films, as well as an irrational fear of swimming pools, even ones filled with chlorine inside leisure centres. Hayley Easton Street is the British director behind a new shark film, Something in the Water, which tells the story of a group of women stranded at sea. She explains that, as fan of shark films herself, she “absolutely wanted” to make the movie. So why are shark movies so popular? “It's the fear of what could be going on with the unknown of [the sea]” she tells BBC News. “Just being stuck in the middle of the ocean is scary enough. You're trapped in something else's world and anything could happen.” But despite Street's love of shark films, she did not want the ones in hers to be portrayed as marine serial killers. “We kill 100 million sharks every year” she notes. The director was also aware that the release of Jaws led to a huge rise in the hunting of sharks, partly because they had been portrayed as merciless killers. “As much as I love shark films, I love sharks.” “I was really conscious of that, because it's easy for people to start seeing them as killing machines... or monsters, which they are not.” She adds: “I feel it's more scary to have the realistic theme of it, that, you know, if you are out in the ocean and there are sharks and they do mistake you for something else, they will kill you.” Despite the huge success of Jaws, Spielberg has said he “truly regrets the decimation of the shark population because of the book and the film”. Spielberg is not the only person concerned about Hollywood's portrayal of sharks and the impact it continues to have. US marine biologist Andriana Fragola dedicates herself to educating people about sharks, often sharing videos of her diving with them. She says they are “misunderstood predators” that have been harmed by movies and the media. Andriana tells me that she has watched Netflix's new shark film, Under Paris, and was not impressed. “Their whole thing was it's about conservation, about studying them, but then the sharks are still eating people.” “So it's giving a little bit more of a rounded education and a little bit more depth to the story, it's not just people swimming at the beach and getting attacked and eaten.” “But the bottom line and what people can draw from the movie is that sharks are still really dangerous to people and they're just going to continuously hunt and eat people.” “If that was true, we would be reduced as a human species. Everyone who goes to the beach, they would be threatened.” Andriana says the perception of sharks causes a real issue for conservation. “It's a huge problem because people don't want to protect something that they're scared of.” “The perception from people is that they're dangerous to humans so we should eradicate them, and that's obviously a huge problem for conservation and getting people to want to empathise or sympathise with sharks and wanting to actually protect them.” “It's unfortunate because 100 million sharks are killed every year, and globally sharks kill fewer than 10 people every year.” “We're really focused on the sharks being the monsters and them being out to get us. In reality it's the opposite.” It is unlikely that Hollywood will stop making shark films, or we will stop watching them. But the figures show that far from being the serial killers of the sea, sharks are actually much more likely to be the victims of humans. (Charlotte Gallagher, Culture reporter, BBC 2024. Accessed: 29 July 2024. Available in: . Adapted.)

Something in the water? Why we love shark films From the Steven Spielberg classic Jaws, to predators stalking the Seine in Under Paris, there is no shortage of shark films. Hollywood and audiences love them, seemingly never tiring of the suspense, gore and terror. There are prehistoric giant sharks in The Meg, genetically engineered ones in Deep Blue Sea, and sharks high on cocaine in the ingeniously named Cocaine Shark. Even Donald Trump is a fan – he was reportedly due to play the US president in a Sharknado film, before becoming the actual president. I became hooked on them after watching James Bond film Thunderball, where the villain keeps sharks in his swimming pool. It led to a lifelong interest in shark films, as well as an irrational fear of swimming pools, even ones filled with chlorine inside leisure centres. Hayley Easton Street is the British director behind a new shark film, Something in the Water, which tells the story of a group of women stranded at sea. She explains that, as fan of shark films herself, she “absolutely wanted” to make the movie. So why are shark movies so popular? “It's the fear of what could be going on with the unknown of [the sea]” she tells BBC News. “Just being stuck in the middle of the ocean is scary enough. You're trapped in something else's world and anything could happen.” But despite Street's love of shark films, she did not want the ones in hers to be portrayed as marine serial killers. “We kill 100 million sharks every year” she notes. The director was also aware that the release of Jaws led to a huge rise in the hunting of sharks, partly because they had been portrayed as merciless killers. “As much as I love shark films, I love sharks.” “I was really conscious of that, because it's easy for people to start seeing them as killing machines... or monsters, which they are not.” She adds: “I feel it's more scary to have the realistic theme of it, that, you know, if you are out in the ocean and there are sharks and they do mistake you for something else, they will kill you.” Despite the huge success of Jaws, Spielberg has said he “truly regrets the decimation of the shark population because of the book and the film”. Spielberg is not the only person concerned about Hollywood's portrayal of sharks and the impact it continues to have. US marine biologist Andriana Fragola dedicates herself to educating people about sharks, often sharing videos of her diving with them. She says they are “misunderstood predators” that have been harmed by movies and the media. Andriana tells me that she has watched Netflix's new shark film, Under Paris, and was not impressed. “Their whole thing was it's about conservation, about studying them, but then the sharks are still eating people.” “So it's giving a little bit more of a rounded education and a little bit more depth to the story, it's not just people swimming at the beach and getting attacked and eaten.” “But the bottom line and what people can draw from the movie is that sharks are still really dangerous to people and they're just going to continuously hunt and eat people.” “If that was true, we would be reduced as a human species. Everyone who goes to the beach, they would be threatened.” Andriana says the perception of sharks causes a real issue for conservation. “It's a huge problem because people don't want to protect something that they're scared of.” “The perception from people is that they're dangerous to humans so we should eradicate them, and that's obviously a huge problem for conservation and getting people to want to empathise or sympathise with sharks and wanting to actually protect them.” “It's unfortunate because 100 million sharks are killed every year, and globally sharks kill fewer than 10 people every year.” “We're really focused on the sharks being the monsters and them being out to get us. In reality it's the opposite.” It is unlikely that Hollywood will stop making shark films, or we will stop watching them. But the figures show that far from being the serial killers of the sea, sharks are actually much more likely to be the victims of humans. (Charlotte Gallagher, Culture reporter, BBC 2024. Accessed: 29 July 2024. Available in: . Adapted.)

Something in the water? Why we love shark films From the Steven Spielberg classic Jaws, to predators stalking the Seine in Under Paris, there is no shortage of shark films. Hollywood and audiences love them, seemingly never tiring of the suspense, gore and terror. There are prehistoric giant sharks in The Meg, genetically engineered ones in Deep Blue Sea, and sharks high on cocaine in the ingeniously named Cocaine Shark. Even Donald Trump is a fan – he was reportedly due to play the US president in a Sharknado film, before becoming the actual president. I became hooked on them after watching James Bond film Thunderball, where the villain keeps sharks in his swimming pool. It led to a lifelong interest in shark films, as well as an irrational fear of swimming pools, even ones filled with chlorine inside leisure centres. Hayley Easton Street is the British director behind a new shark film, Something in the Water, which tells the story of a group of women stranded at sea. She explains that, as fan of shark films herself, she “absolutely wanted” to make the movie. So why are shark movies so popular? “It's the fear of what could be going on with the unknown of [the sea]” she tells BBC News. “Just being stuck in the middle of the ocean is scary enough. You're trapped in something else's world and anything could happen.” But despite Street's love of shark films, she did not want the ones in hers to be portrayed as marine serial killers. “We kill 100 million sharks every year” she notes. The director was also aware that the release of Jaws led to a huge rise in the hunting of sharks, partly because they had been portrayed as merciless killers. “As much as I love shark films, I love sharks.” “I was really conscious of that, because it's easy for people to start seeing them as killing machines... or monsters, which they are not.” She adds: “I feel it's more scary to have the realistic theme of it, that, you know, if you are out in the ocean and there are sharks and they do mistake you for something else, they will kill you.” Despite the huge success of Jaws, Spielberg has said he “truly regrets the decimation of the shark population because of the book and the film”. Spielberg is not the only person concerned about Hollywood's portrayal of sharks and the impact it continues to have. US marine biologist Andriana Fragola dedicates herself to educating people about sharks, often sharing videos of her diving with them. She says they are “misunderstood predators” that have been harmed by movies and the media. Andriana tells me that she has watched Netflix's new shark film, Under Paris, and was not impressed. “Their whole thing was it's about conservation, about studying them, but then the sharks are still eating people.” “So it's giving a little bit more of a rounded education and a little bit more depth to the story, it's not just people swimming at the beach and getting attacked and eaten.” “But the bottom line and what people can draw from the movie is that sharks are still really dangerous to people and they're just going to continuously hunt and eat people.” “If that was true, we would be reduced as a human species. Everyone who goes to the beach, they would be threatened.” Andriana says the perception of sharks causes a real issue for conservation. “It's a huge problem because people don't want to protect something that they're scared of.” “The perception from people is that they're dangerous to humans so we should eradicate them, and that's obviously a huge problem for conservation and getting people to want to empathise or sympathise with sharks and wanting to actually protect them.” “It's unfortunate because 100 million sharks are killed every year, and globally sharks kill fewer than 10 people every year.” “We're really focused on the sharks being the monsters and them being out to get us. In reality it's the opposite.” It is unlikely that Hollywood will stop making shark films, or we will stop watching them. But the figures show that far from being the serial killers of the sea, sharks are actually much more likely to be the victims of humans. (Charlotte Gallagher, Culture reporter, BBC 2024. Accessed: 29 July 2024. Available in: . Adapted.)