A look at the Saw films by guest critic Adam Perry
What came first, Tobin Bell or the Saw franchise?
Last night, a disturbing vision came to me. I was standing in a friend’s bathroom, taking a break from an intense but friendly card game. The game went on into the wee hours of the morning, ending up touching the pillow at six thirty A.M. So it is about four, five. I’m standing in this bathroom, collecting myself, as the routine types and amounts of substances have been passed about throughout the night. I look to my left, my reflection looks to its right. I see the bathtub. And I think, I’m about to be sawed. Sawed is the extremely scientific and clever-sounding term I developed over six straight years of watching the Saw horror films. To be ‘sawed’ is to be targeted by the main villain, Jigsaw (or just Saw,) as one who is not appreciative of their life and therefore must be subjected to numerous punishments, each more horrifying and gruesome than the last. Jigsaw, a cancer patient with an indeterminate amount of time to live, targets those who have abandoned life as a worthy pursuit, taking for granted time that he would literally kill to have. So he designs traps and mazes and punishments that are meant to teach the subject a lesson or two about the value of life.
Saw is unquestionably the franchise of the 2000s (or whatever we are choosing to call this decade.) In six short years, from 2004 to 2009, every October has brought with it a new film in the series. The first, released in 2004 with a budget of one million dollars, made almost twenty times that its first weekend in release. The first film, one of only two to not premier in first place (eat one, Paranormal Activity) ushered in the characteristics that would “define” the franchise.
First and foremost is incredibly poor acting, no matter the caliber of the actor hired. Bear in mind we are discussing a film that brought out Danny Glover’s worst performance, and gave us the worst piece of acting on screen of all time with Cary Elwes as Lawrence Gordon. Everyone is either a ham-handed, are-they or aren’t-they villain or a shrieking victim. The difference between the two is minimal, as almost every character of relevance, and I use that term loosely, spends screen time occupying both roles. I would be inclined to say that the acting was most tolerable in the second film, although Donnie Wahlberg and future Saw-ee Lyriq Bent make me regret typing that statement. Saw III saw the exit of many players, such as Jigsaw (live Jigsaw at least; Bell lives on in that most atrocious of storytelling techniques: the flashback) and his preening, shouting assistant Amanda. Saw III also gave us our first look at Mark Hoffman, an investigative officer of some sort (another Saw trait: law enforcement officers are always of indeterminate origin) who has connections to Jigsaw. Saw V had the bad acting showdown between Costas Mandylor, who plays Mark Hoffman, and Scott Patterson as the main character being sawed, Agent Peter Strahm, both cop characters seem to be vying for worst law enforcement officer ever. Saw VI, the first since the original to not open at number one (also opening about 4 million fewer than Saw I,) featured the lamest acting.
The second trait that one can readily link to any Saw film is that each film tries to outdo the past in terms of the twists and turns taken by the story and the shocking nature of the ending. In regards to this, logic and consistency tend to be abandoned. Sure, the endings of II through V all have a certain mathematical logic to them. Saws III-IV had one of the best plot twist combinations ever, where the two were running concurrently, and the end of Saw IV encompassed and continued the end of Saw III. This was where the series indisputably hit its peek. However, the altering of the Saw-niverse that occurred to accommodate these plot twists was rather preposterous. In the first Saw, John Kramer emerges as the villain, the presumed dead body that lay between the two main characters for the whole film. John Kramer is a regular, cancerous Joe in the first film, nothing making him special except for the fact that he was dying, and this made him angry about those who took life for granted. Over the course of films III-VI, John Kramer is revealed to be some huge mogul of sorts; flashbacks show his face on the cover of numerous magazines, and he is shown as an intellectual, man of industry, and philanthropist, occupying all roles to a certain amount of accolade from the public. This is the kind of character development that occurs on the fly. Nobody planned for this at the beginning of the series and so therefore you can feel the extremely forced nature of the change. But no matter. Tobin Bell could make reading the phone book nefariously hilarious, and as long as he has screen time the series will have something going for it.
The third and most predominant trait the Saw films are the production values and direction, both of which resemble that of the sub-par student film. Grimy, dank locations are the setting for everything, from torture chambers to police stations to doctor’s offices to doctor’s homes. Nothing can escape the production designer’s appetite for grays and dark blood reds and general grime. The city in which Saw takes place must be the most depressing to live in, making Gotham or any Alex “The Crow” Proyas-designed city look downright like Pleasantville. Jigsaw’s warehouse/funhouses always have a permanent coat of rust and stain about them; he seems only to use junkyard scrap when building his traps, not caring a bit about the germs and contaminants that inhabit rusty metal. And for such hazardous looking contraptions, they all seem to work as if there was no rust or damaged part about them. The makers of these films realized early on that budgets could be kept low using shitty locations, and that it would also be in keeping with the themes they were going for.
What came first, Tobin Bell or the Saw franchise?
Last night, a disturbing vision came to me. I was standing in a friend’s bathroom, taking a break from an intense but friendly card game. The game went on into the wee hours of the morning, ending up touching the pillow at six thirty A.M. So it is about four, five. I’m standing in this bathroom, collecting myself, as the routine types and amounts of substances have been passed about throughout the night. I look to my left, my reflection looks to its right. I see the bathtub. And I think, I’m about to be sawed. Sawed is the extremely scientific and clever-sounding term I developed over six straight years of watching the Saw horror films. To be ‘sawed’ is to be targeted by the main villain, Jigsaw (or just Saw,) as one who is not appreciative of their life and therefore must be subjected to numerous punishments, each more horrifying and gruesome than the last. Jigsaw, a cancer patient with an indeterminate amount of time to live, targets those who have abandoned life as a worthy pursuit, taking for granted time that he would literally kill to have. So he designs traps and mazes and punishments that are meant to teach the subject a lesson or two about the value of life.
Saw is unquestionably the franchise of the 2000s (or whatever we are choosing to call this decade.) In six short years, from 2004 to 2009, every October has brought with it a new film in the series. The first, released in 2004 with a budget of one million dollars, made almost twenty times that its first weekend in release. The first film, one of only two to not premier in first place (eat one, Paranormal Activity) ushered in the characteristics that would “define” the franchise.
First and foremost is incredibly poor acting, no matter the caliber of the actor hired. Bear in mind we are discussing a film that brought out Danny Glover’s worst performance, and gave us the worst piece of acting on screen of all time with Cary Elwes as Lawrence Gordon. Everyone is either a ham-handed, are-they or aren’t-they villain or a shrieking victim. The difference between the two is minimal, as almost every character of relevance, and I use that term loosely, spends screen time occupying both roles. I would be inclined to say that the acting was most tolerable in the second film, although Donnie Wahlberg and future Saw-ee Lyriq Bent make me regret typing that statement. Saw III saw the exit of many players, such as Jigsaw (live Jigsaw at least; Bell lives on in that most atrocious of storytelling techniques: the flashback) and his preening, shouting assistant Amanda. Saw III also gave us our first look at Mark Hoffman, an investigative officer of some sort (another Saw trait: law enforcement officers are always of indeterminate origin) who has connections to Jigsaw. Saw V had the bad acting showdown between Costas Mandylor, who plays Mark Hoffman, and Scott Patterson as the main character being sawed, Agent Peter Strahm, both cop characters seem to be vying for worst law enforcement officer ever. Saw VI, the first since the original to not open at number one (also opening about 4 million fewer than Saw I,) featured the lamest acting.
The second trait that one can readily link to any Saw film is that each film tries to outdo the past in terms of the twists and turns taken by the story and the shocking nature of the ending. In regards to this, logic and consistency tend to be abandoned. Sure, the endings of II through V all have a certain mathematical logic to them. Saws III-IV had one of the best plot twist combinations ever, where the two were running concurrently, and the end of Saw IV encompassed and continued the end of Saw III. This was where the series indisputably hit its peek. However, the altering of the Saw-niverse that occurred to accommodate these plot twists was rather preposterous. In the first Saw, John Kramer emerges as the villain, the presumed dead body that lay between the two main characters for the whole film. John Kramer is a regular, cancerous Joe in the first film, nothing making him special except for the fact that he was dying, and this made him angry about those who took life for granted. Over the course of films III-VI, John Kramer is revealed to be some huge mogul of sorts; flashbacks show his face on the cover of numerous magazines, and he is shown as an intellectual, man of industry, and philanthropist, occupying all roles to a certain amount of accolade from the public. This is the kind of character development that occurs on the fly. Nobody planned for this at the beginning of the series and so therefore you can feel the extremely forced nature of the change. But no matter. Tobin Bell could make reading the phone book nefariously hilarious, and as long as he has screen time the series will have something going for it.
The third and most predominant trait the Saw films are the production values and direction, both of which resemble that of the sub-par student film. Grimy, dank locations are the setting for everything, from torture chambers to police stations to doctor’s offices to doctor’s homes. Nothing can escape the production designer’s appetite for grays and dark blood reds and general grime. The city in which Saw takes place must be the most depressing to live in, making Gotham or any Alex “The Crow” Proyas-designed city look downright like Pleasantville. Jigsaw’s warehouse/funhouses always have a permanent coat of rust and stain about them; he seems only to use junkyard scrap when building his traps, not caring a bit about the germs and contaminants that inhabit rusty metal. And for such hazardous looking contraptions, they all seem to work as if there was no rust or damaged part about them. The makers of these films realized early on that budgets could be kept low using shitty locations, and that it would also be in keeping with the themes they were going for.
So here I am, standing in this bathroom, thinking that it is something like a scene out of Saw. And a realization hits me. I feel that way because I deserve to be sawed. I hold down no job, honest or otherwise, and contribute nothing to society other than tax revenue. I panic, thinking that Mark Hoffman is waiting behind those shower curtains in a pig mask, ready to strike, and unleash me upon a warehouse full of my captured friends and plenty of bloodletting devises. Then I snap out of it, and return to the game, the only fear in my mind that there won’t be a Saw VII.
Saw VI certainly did not kill the franchise. While researching facts for this article I stumbled upon a screeninglog.com article, stating that “Saw VII 3-D…David “Saw V” Hackl’s film will open in theatres Oct. 22, 2010.” (I have already marked my 2010 calendar.) So we can see that it will take world’s more than a sub-30 million theatrical run to put the final nail through Jigsaw’s coffin. The danger of Saw VI is alienating the real fans, such as myself, who enjoy such trash films as long as their intelligence is not insulted. Saw VI, tried to be topical, making the lead villain an evil life insurance provider who had at one point rejected John Kramer, Jigsaw, on the grounds that he had terminal cancer, which did not fit this magic “formula” the agent had invented. “But your formula fails to take into account the most basic of all factors, the will of the patient to live.” John Kramer warns him. Well, five years or so later I’m sure he regretted it, after what Jigsaw posthumously subjected him to. This poorly written farce dumbs down the relevance of the real crisis facing us from drug companies and insurance agents, not to mention the fact that no one is in this theatre to watch “The Informant!” or “A Civil Action.” Saw VI was also about 40% made up of scenes from other Saw movies that were literally lifted right out of them. Other films in the series, however illogical, did not feel the need to over-explain the plot twists with scenes that audiences had already seen once, or even twice. Hopefully Saw VII will have a nice million dollar budget, very doubtful given it’s 3-D nature, and return to the basics of the original film. Until that happens, and Cary Elwes returns, it’s game over.
Saw VI certainly did not kill the franchise. While researching facts for this article I stumbled upon a screeninglog.com article, stating that “Saw VII 3-D…David “Saw V” Hackl’s film will open in theatres Oct. 22, 2010.” (I have already marked my 2010 calendar.) So we can see that it will take world’s more than a sub-30 million theatrical run to put the final nail through Jigsaw’s coffin. The danger of Saw VI is alienating the real fans, such as myself, who enjoy such trash films as long as their intelligence is not insulted. Saw VI, tried to be topical, making the lead villain an evil life insurance provider who had at one point rejected John Kramer, Jigsaw, on the grounds that he had terminal cancer, which did not fit this magic “formula” the agent had invented. “But your formula fails to take into account the most basic of all factors, the will of the patient to live.” John Kramer warns him. Well, five years or so later I’m sure he regretted it, after what Jigsaw posthumously subjected him to. This poorly written farce dumbs down the relevance of the real crisis facing us from drug companies and insurance agents, not to mention the fact that no one is in this theatre to watch “The Informant!” or “A Civil Action.” Saw VI was also about 40% made up of scenes from other Saw movies that were literally lifted right out of them. Other films in the series, however illogical, did not feel the need to over-explain the plot twists with scenes that audiences had already seen once, or even twice. Hopefully Saw VII will have a nice million dollar budget, very doubtful given it’s 3-D nature, and return to the basics of the original film. Until that happens, and Cary Elwes returns, it’s game over.
