Saw: 31 Days of Horror
For all of October, we will review horror films. Submit your requests here, and you may see your picks selected!
The Saw franchise is a very strange anomaly for me. On one hand, I can see why it appeals so greatly to viewers (well, the original trilogy; the remaining however many just seem excessive and — I’ll just say it — pointless). You have a moral epicentre being clawed at by the devious and the desperate; twisted minds (mainly Jigsaw) trying to achieve something profound, while kidnapped victims try to save lives (either their own, or others). It does seem largely enticing on paper, and for horror fanatics it does work. However, I’m not who I used to be. I can’t just watch films for the entertainment value alone, especially if some greater conversation is being brought up. So, looking back at the Saw that started it all, I have to ask myself: does it actually get to the philosophical echelons it depicts throughout the film: the discussions of rectitude and self sacrifice for others in the face of death?
I’ll say not quite. It does so on a literal level, particularly with the players of this big, mysterious game, but Saw is still more interested in the actual games themselves than the actual outcomes (just short of said outcomes even existing). Not to sound like a sadist or anything, but what would life after this kind of a horrific event even feel like? That’s a corridor I think Saw would have greatly benefitted from. However, the role of a reviewer is to not writer their own film (otherwise we wouldn’t be critics, am I right fellas? Sorry…). So, I’ll stick with what we have here, and it still doesn’t feel quite enough. I’ll remove myself from 2020, and place myself back when I first saw Saw on DVD. None of us knew much about Tobin Bell, particularly in relation to this franchise (hell, it wasn’t even a franchise yet). Did the twists and turns work? They absolutely did, and I was absolutely astounded at every corner, unable to pinpoint what would happen next (especially that ending). Once the shock wears off, though, where do we stand? We have just another horror film that serves scares first and depth later.
Saw, like most of the other films in the series, features a sequence of punishments with various, unpredictable outcomes.
Saw as a film and a series basically became a horror version of Pringles. You start with one Jigsaw trap, and you have to keep seeing more and more. That makes sense at first, but the replay value of many of these Saw entries is absolutely non-existent. You can make a case for the original trilogy (since there is at least somewhat of an attempt to make this a Jigsaw tale) and for this very first film, since deep down there is an effort to depict some sort of over arching statement on what humans will do in their darkest hours (if they will embrace a painful death over being generous to another person, even when they are currently in pain). However, maybe it’s me, but it just isn’t enough. I do see a Saw that is powerful, in the way that The Silence of the Lambs depicts action via reasoning while afraid, or a film like Midsommar where the flaws of one’s past add to the delirium of the present. Saw kind of gets somewhere, but the gore still is the focal point of the entire feature. For what it’s worth, at least the fears are quite legitimate, without going too overboard (considering), and it can feel like a guessing game which is nice. Saw could have been much more than just an annual Halloween watch for screams, but at least that isn’t such a bad honour to be.
Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Ryerson University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.