Saw VI - (film review)

           I have to admit that I like sequels.  I also like remakes, but that’s for another discussion.  The greater the amount of sequels a film has, the more intrigued I am to watch them—unless of course all the sequels are direct to DVD, and then I don’t seem to be as interested.  It almost seems as though direct-to-video sequels are not really real, as though they were produced for sheer entertainment value and really hold no bearing over the essence of the original film(s)—for instance, I’m sure if the filmmakers of The Grudge decided to release a theatrical sequel The Grudge 3 would be obsolete.  I particularly enjoy when sequels actually include the number of the installment in the title: (eg. Friday the 13^th part VII: The New Blood, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers).  To release a high numbered sequel is quite audacious—a gamble to determine who will risk embarrassment by walking up to the ticket counter and ask: “One for Saw 6, please.”

The further along the franchise gets, the more intriguing it is to uncover how the storylines from each subsequent sequel are intertwined, unless of course the franchise decides to reboot itself, or ignore the ending of the previous film (ie. Halloween H20, Jason Goes to Hell, etc.).  In instances like these it feels as though the filmmakers and producers cheated the audience and fanbase who remained loyal.  This is definitely not how the interminable sequels of the Saw franchise operate.  Instead, the writers are determined to continuously link all the films as intricately as the possibly can—convoluting the dramatic tension in ways that confuse the audience enough to believe the film is in fact intelligent and clever.

As per my review of the Saw (series), the same holds true for this film.  It is the unmitigated will and intellect of Jigsaw’s master plans that reigns supreme.  However, in this 6^th installment, the ‘Jigsaw-as-morality-god’ is expanded to such a degree that the filmmakers attempt to manipulate the audience to side with Jigsaw who is ultimately pitted against the evil mongering monster President of the Umbrella Health Insurance company.  Of course I do not advocate sympathy for these corporate shells who spew policy in their Brooks Brothers suits, disaffected by those who require the most help.  (The injection of social conscience in the way of health care policy in the United States may seem aptly timed here, however I couldn’t help but continue to think: “Just move to Canada!”  But this is not the central point of the film, so moving on…).

The filmmakers continue to characterize Jigsaw as a rebellious champion making real decisions and affecting real change.  If people are faced with their own mortality, they will value their life more and not crave the drugs, cigarettes, and various other decidedly evil vices that they are addicted to.  Jigsaw claims to have a cure for complacent and destructive addiction—after all those who are addicted to physically harming substances are slowly killing themselves anyway, might as well just speed up the process.  Also, Jigsaw claims in many instances throughout the film that he despises murderers, and that he has never killed anyone, simply placed them in situations that required a varying degree of physical sacrifice to remain alive.  But is this true?  Even if in every instance there was a chance of escape, the sheer placement of the victim in such a situation is juridically and morally defined as murder or attempted murder.  Someone who breaks into your house and attacks you with a knife, cannot repeal his intentions by arguing that he is not a murderer simply because you may have bested him.  The intention is clear, regardless of how self-delusional you may be in rationalizing your actions as justifiable. 

Still, the responsibility of effective horror monsters is not to find plot holes in their own logic, however the writers could insert the odd character or two who manages to resist Jigsaw’s superbly pedantic and uninspired ideologies.  Even Jigsaw’s ex-wife, a social worker who has dedicated her life to help homeless drug addicts, is persuaded by his unfounded logic when he turns up with a completely rehabilitated Amanda—someone she had previously deemed as a ‘lost soul.’  He explains to his ex-wife that their addiction is not simple—but apparently their cure is.  He neglects to take into consideration the monumental social factors (race, sex, gender, institutionalized racism, systemic discrimination that leads to socioeconomic instability and inequity thus furthering potentials for sever mental health issues) that contribute to a person’s life.  The writers are hoping the audience is daft enough to believe a sentiment like ‘addiction is not simple’ by lazily brushing by this monumental claim without providing substantial theoretical evidence to support it.  Maybe they are hoping that Jigsaw’s self-determined conviction will be persuasive enough for people to believe him, or maybe they’re hoping the audience will ‘fill-in-the-blank.’

            Despite these catastrophic flaws the film is actually one of the better entries, with it’s attempt at dealing with social issues most films steer completely clear of—however pedantic the attempt is.  Ultimately, the most enjoyable aspect of the film (for me at least) is the fact that it’s the 6^th one, and it states so in the title.

------------

Grade: 70% (B-)

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+)