Saw - (series review, parts 1 - 5)

            The major myth that continues to predicate subsequent reviews of the endless sequels in the Saw franchise is the notion that the original was quite a clever shocker that played with typical audience expectations.  Probably because no one EVER likes sequels (for some reason it is believed that original movies are sacred beings not deserving of the bastardization of sequel-izing), the bombardment of negative reviews plaguing the Saw franchise continue to obsess over how gosh darn clever the original film was.  This is definitely not the case, but before I discuss the issues plaguing the first two entries, I think it is necessary to outline certain caveats for proper engagement with this series.

            The films, beginning with the third entry, are structured more as a television series than as sequels in a franchise.  It’s interesting to think that if the Saw films were in fact a television series, they would be highly revered and successfully rated.  Instead, the medium of film and the protective relationship that critics seem to have with this format of storytelling does not lend itself as favourable towards the series.  Despite this unfortunate choice of medium, it is necessary to understand that the illogical pragmatism involving the construction of the highly convoluted traps is not what flags the most significant follies of the films.  It is the pedantic moral indignation attempting to pass itself off as this all-knowing righteousness that is the most unbelievable and aggravatingly annoying aspect of the film(s).

            Upon re-watching some of these films, I attempted to reconcile my contempt for this particular fault.  Perhaps the films are actually clever ways of restructuring typical slasher methods in horror films—Freddy and Jason (although not intentionally, but through joyful reclamation of the films and their self-worth) thrive on supposedly corrupt teenagers fornicating or indulging in drug use.  Maybe Jigsaw is a modern slasher who instead of relying on typical and trite horror movie monster methods, has discovered a new way to pit victim against victim disguised as lessons in morality and the value of life?  Maybe the audience is supposed to be enraged by Jigsaw’s methods and black and white modes of moral analyses.  If this were the case, and the filmmakers intend to pit the audience against Jigsaw, instead of sympathizing and understanding his moral indignation for his specifically chosen and incredibly accessible subjects, I believe the films would be far better received.  Is the intention that we view these films and find ourselves feeling incredulous towards the sadism perpetrated upon people who struggle with day to day problems and obsessions—people who understand the long complicated process of dealing with their problems instead of forcing some quick ‘Dr. Phil’-esque solution.

            I don’t believe this is the intention of the films, either directly or indirectly.  If it were, perhaps we would be graced with likeable characters, or even one (just one) moral adversary who recognizes the monumental flaws in Jigsaw’s logic rendering him fallible and human.  Freddy, Michael Myers, and Jason use their brute force to assert their dominance over the victims of each subsequent film, whereas Jigsaw uses his ‘superior’ intellect to trap people and force them to ‘reconcile’ (or rather further traumatize) salient life situations.  He entraps his subjects, enticing them to ‘play a game’, whereby they must face particular issues they may have chosen to ignore, issues that either harm themselves or others in their lives, and once they begin the sadistic play they find themselves befuddled and betwixt by Jigsaw’s wit at placing them in indescribable puzzles.  The lack of suspension of my disbelief does not come at the physical improbability and lack of engineering talent to construct such elaborate and convoluted traps—especially given the questionable sanity of those involved in constructing them—but rather at the inability to find someone(!) to outwit Jigsaw, or at least call him on his self-righteous judgments.

            All the characters in each film are amazed and tongue-tied when dealing with Jigsaw’s trite simplification of so many complicated life processes, that one begins to wonder if Jigsaw is right.  But he isn’t!  The reason I know this is because with each scenario I imagine some high school classroom discussion around the problems of society and the procrastination of action in today’s complex world.  Those discussions are important first steps at understanding the variety of imbricating layers imbedded in each social complication, however the discussion and/or solution (if one exists) does not end with the supposed answers that may derive from such uneducated and inexperienced musings on life.  Jigsaw believes it does, and this is the main problem that drags a rather interesting series down to the level of sub-par mediocrity. 

            The first film is the most accountable for this convoluted pedantic judgmental righteousness, if not for the sheer underestimation of a mother’s instinctive nature to exert control over a traumatic situation that is severely affecting her child.  The scene in which Monica Potter’s character stands idly by, inevitably waiting for something (anything) to distract her and grant access of the murder weapon back into the hands of her captor (a captor who has been torturing her and her child repeatedly), is the most blatant and anti-feminist disrespect of character narrative and plot plausibility I have ever witnessed in a film.  I may be a little dramatic here, but friends of mine will attest that whenever the subject of the first Saw film is mentioned, I emphatically express my disgust for how Monica Potter’s character was written to behave.

            The second film was just boring, and felt hugely out of place in the franchise’s themes—probably because it was intended to be a separate film, and was later reworked to serve as a sequel to the original.  It isn’t until the third film that the series gains some leverage (as little as that may be) in managing to carry the weight of a significant horror franchise that works beyond its initial intentions as a simple cash grab.  In the third film we are introduced to the first, and possibly the only likeable and semi-intelligent character in all of the films many sequels—Lynn.  It is also the only film that isn’t plagued with the ludicrous and typical ‘cop’ character, that (I’m sorry) has no right being in a serious horror genre film.  The inclusion of a detective only serves to denigrate a horror film down to thriller/suspense status—and any detective inevitably lessens the degree of connection the audience may have to the protagonist.  The films that follow beyond the third continue the trend that that sequel sets up, thankfully.  However, despite its best efforts, Saw and its successors, only manage to reach the complexity and significance of a Catholic high school debate team.

-------------
Saw - grade: 53% (D-)
Saw II - grade: 50% (D-)
Saw III - grade: 75% (B)
Saw IV - grade: 70% (B-)
Saw V - grade: 68% (C+)