The Overwhelming Conservatism of the Saw Franchise

WHOA!!! Been a while, eh? Looking at my last post I can easily say, holy shit, my ideas on film have changed drastically. It seems like I was terribly obsessed with technique, but now, it's all ideology and theory. So let's start up with a look at the Saw franchise, particularly the first installment.

The New Conservative Movement Gets a
Torture-Porn Makeover

The Saw franchise has become huge. Millions of dollars go into the making of the film ($47 million, collectively between the 6 installments according to IMDb.com) and millions of dollars are spent ($700+ million worldwide, between the six, according to IMDb.com) to see the film’s latest installment on the big screen in theatres. However, what the audience does not know is that they are also paying for a heavy dose of ideological propaganda. The ideologies present in these films are mostly embodied in the actions and preaching of one character, the Jigsaw killer, or John Kramer (Tobin Bell). In the Saw sequels, Kramer becomes the absolute center point. Unlike other horror characters like Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers where one does not know their individual ideologies due to their muteness, Kramer is quite vocal and loves talking about his motivations. Because we are learning both Jigsaw’s murderous practices and the ideologies behind them, the audience is encapsulated into John Kramer’s world. The problem with this is that, as the franchise progresses, it seems like the filmmakers believe that Jigsaw “might ‘have something’ to his morality” (Sharrett). However, in the first installment, of which will be our focus for this paper, Kramer is never given a moment to speak, except via tape, therefore his position as the film’s ideological vessel is hindered in comparison to the later installments. Nevertheless, though Kramer is never truly present in the first Saw film, which causes the ideologies to be less apparent, they are most certainly there.

The most important aspect of the film to discuss is the victims and how they have come to be under Jigsaw’s thumb. Jigsaw carefully selects his victims, making sure that those he decides to torture are people who, he believes, have lost a certain respect for life. So, if Jigsaw doesn’t like what you’re doing, he’ll come and grab you, similarly to the age-old Boogeyman. The victims in Saw vary from drug addict, to suicide attempter, to even an insurance violator faking his condition. These people are put into contraptions that often recall their “negative” actions in a more extreme way. For example, a man who had tried to commit suicide by cutting his wrists must run through a web of razor wire in order to escape Jigsaw’s “game”. The setups that Jigsaw constructs, which are always escapable if you follow Jigsaws orders, are elaborate marvels that border onto engineering genius and can be considered eye catching. With this in mind, one could come to the conclusion that Saw glorifies violence. Though I do believe it does glorify violence, I am more interested in how these contraptions develop the Jigsaw character and, therefore, relationship between him and the audience.

The focus the film puts on the torture scenes is quite significant. The majority of the first installment is set in a torture scenario, with one setting, while the rest of the story is told through flashbacks. Many of these flashbacks, though, are also dedicated to the various torture scenes (I would argue that we never leave the torture scenario ever because of the consistent mise-en-scene and film colour that interplays between torture scenarios and the outside world, but that’s another topic). Whenever the film analyzes each of Jigsaw’s contraptions, it marvels at it and never gives us an objective view of the setup. Instead we are given quick-moving shots, close-ups, fast cuts, etc. The audience is made terrified of these objects, but we are also supposed to be in awe of these objects and scenarios. Either the “game” includes a fatal machine with incredible, blood-shedding potential (even though we don’t get to see her die, the surviving victim, and us, are still shown the contraption’s potential when Jigsaw test it on a dummy), or the setup is so well thought out and meticulous, the audience, along with even the characters in the setup themselves (in the film’s overarching torture scenario, one characters says to the other, “every possible angle has been pre-thought out by him.” The screenplay continues to say, “Almost admiring him. The situation may be mad, but it’s a brilliant design.”) (IMSDb.com), are stunned by Jigsaw’s ingenious plans. We can also mention Jigsaw’s little “clues” (they are really simple), which also further develops our admiration for Jigsaw’s intricate setups. With all these factors in mind, one could easily argue that Jigsaw is to be respected and, to take it even further, admired for his intelligence. This can be seen when we read the film’s screenplay where it’s written, “

The film attempts to create a certain type of relationship between the audience and Jigsaw, a relationship, I argue, that is based upon respect and understanding. When a surviving victim of Jigsaw declares, “he helped me,” when being interrogated by the police, it is made obvious early in the film that we are supposed to look at Jigsaw as a sort of saviour figure. We are also constantly being reminded that he is not a murderer because, “technically speaking, he’s not really a murderer. He never killed anyone,” according to one of his victims. In actuality, Jigsaw only tested his victims with “games” that could be survived. With these pieces of dialogue, Jigsaw is being built as not a serial murderer, but as something more, something humane. It is made fairly obvious at this point that Jigsaw is a dictator figure. Jigsaw is trying to mold people into his own vision by putting his victims into compromising situations disguised as “lessons.” What’s truly troubling, from the evidence previously mentioned, is that the film is creating the Jigsaw killer to seem successful, or right.Because the film goes out of its way to argue for Jigsaw’s actions, it is safe to assume that the film wants us to agree with Jigsaw and, therefore, the film is presenting and arguing for a certain ideology.

Before I begin to argue about a couple of the ideologies present in this film, let’s first discuss Saw within the terms of Louis Althusser’s writings about the State, the repressive state apparatus to be specific. Althusser writes that Marxist thought believes the State “is a ‘machine’ of repression” that “ ‘functions by violence.’ ” This idea can be integrated into our understanding of Jigsaw. Jigsaw clearly has a certain idea of what, he believes, is right or wrong; the one’s who are deemed “right” are left alone, those who are deemed “wrong,” get punished, violently and must be forcibly reminded about this “fact.” The State, according to Althusser, forwards these ideologies through violence inflicted by police, the Army, etc. So, with this in mind, we can see the parallels between Jigsaw and the Marxist idea of the repressive State. However, simply because Jigsaw represents a force that represses people to the point where the must adopt his ideology or die, that doesn’t mean that Jigsaw has any power that can be compared to the type of power given to the State defenders. However, if you analyze the representation of police detectives in the film, you can see that the film is certainly hoping you compare Jigsaw to the police force, because much of the film is concerned with the cat-and-mouse chase between Jigsaw and the police. However, to put it simply, the police are represented as incompetent people who are both over-obsessive and letting their emotions get the best of them, or simply unintelligent. First of all, consider the fact that there have been 6 Saw films and the Jigsaw killer has yet to be captured by the police. In Saw, there are two detectives that can, at least, be considered to be substantial roles.Det. David Tapp (Danny Glover) and Det. Steven Sing (Ken Leung) are called upon to find Jigsaw. A successful hunch comes out-of-the-blue and the two find Jigsaw’s headquarters. To increase drama, the Jigsaw and the detectives have a dialogue, resulting in Tapp getting a non-fatal slice to the throat. Jigsaw is able to escape and, after inquiring about his partner’s health, Sing runs after Jigsaw, being incredibly irresponsible in his surveying of the surroundings, and walks into a wire that triggers several shotguns, resulting in Sing’s bloody death. After this incident, Tapp is discharged from the police force and becomes incredibly obsessed with Jigsaw and undertakes an independent investigation. In the film’s finale, Jigsaw is able to elude the police and kills Tapp, among other people, proving more so that Jigsaw is presented to be a person, or force, more able then the police.

Stepping outside of the ideological aspects held within the Jigsaw character, there are still more undercurrents of ideology held within the film’s mise-en-scene. Christopher Sharrett’s article, “The Problem of Saw: ‘Torture Porn’ and the Conservatism of Contemporary Horror Film,” is a large reference point for this argument. The world Jigsaw occupies is not a pretty one. It is presented in colour tones Sharrett describes as “nauseating” (Sharrett) and Jigsaw’s quarters are chaotic, as well as the environments he holds his victims captive in, even though Jigsaw comes off as a rigid man who desires order. After all, it is the rejection of order that characterizes Jigsaw’s victims. Because the film doesn’t seek or present any type of rebellion or answer to this landscape, the film assumes that it’s unalterable and, therefore, the film takes on this air of pessimism and conservatism that is “more fascinated with wallowing in decay than asking questions to the whys of its presence” (Sharrett).

There is a clear ideological blueprint behind Saw. The political leanings of the ideologies are up for debate, but the ideologies it presents are clear. The film is presenting a man who condones, and advertises, vigilante justice and a New World Order. This film most certainly leans towards an idea of dictatorial power and certainly tries to present Jigsaw not as someone with justified actions, but a man with a clear vision, as vision, I argue, that the filmmakers agree with. The filmmakers want you to agree with Jigsaw, regardless of whether you approve of his actions or not. Jigsaw is presented as a man with the ability of reasoning and it is very alarming and problematic, cause it seems like, according to the box office number, that a lot of people agree with the film's ideological stance enough to keep the franchise going even after 6 films.