web counter
 

Part of the Problem

By Courtney Enlow | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (24)

saw7.jpg

To some, the sheeple who year after year line up and waste their money on the latest installment of the Saw series are everything wrong with the moviegoing audience. They are mindless fools, eating up the fake blood and pig intestines like their lives depend on it, ruining horror films, not to mention film in general, in the process, as they champion torture porn and the no-longer-shocking banality of a horror franchise cash-cow.

Well, my friends, I am sheeple; hear me baaahh.

In this life, we all have a guilty pleasure for which we feel little to no guilt. We understand that we are supposed to be ashamed of this particular predilection, and we may even understand why, but for any number of reasons, we are unable to feel the guilt and shame that others ascribe to our object of enjoyment.

This is how I feel about the Saw movies. And they’ve got me for life.

Like all people desperate to defend something they like, suddenly rendered explanation-less by the opportunity to do so, I would like to hit out at one of the key criticisms against it: the torture porn notion. I understand the concept of torture porn. I’ve seen films that can categorically be deemed “torture porn.” I don’t think the Saw movies fall into that group. For starters, there are few if any lingering shots of torture or pain being inflicted upon the victims. Movies like Captivity and the two Hostels, particularly the second, yes, torture porn.

At the minimum, at least Saw has a story. People, traps, need to save themselves, backstory, Tobin Bell’s hollow cheek structure, twist ending, bombastic theme music playing over twist ending reveal (dun dun dun DUN DUN DUN!). Stuff happens. The story is not merely designed as a thin frame to showcase the finest in pain and the suffering of others. Also, in this post-Shyamalan world, the Saw films have managed to be some of the few churn out somewhat interesting twists (save for the fifth one. Poor city planning as the surprise ending? Really?)

Horror is a mixed bag, and perhaps more subjective than any other genre. Films generally accepted as good are rarities, and I’m not sure I can recall what the last majority-approved American horror film would be, appreciated by the general audience and horror purists. Possibly The Sixth Sense, though that movie has a now built-in hindsight bias.

I feel as though a great deal of the backlash surrounding Saw is actually against what it lead to. While I wouldn’t describe the films as “torture porn” per se, it did help popularize the idea and lead to copycats. But it didn’t do it alone. The blood was already in the water, with movies like Ichi the Killer finding a cult following, and the Texas Chainsaw remake hitting big. Laugh at me if you want, but the whole concept of torture porn is negative and ugly, whereas Saw is strangely life-affirming. In the most morbid, most explodey-head way, the over-arching message of the franchise is that life is super and you should appreciate it. You don’t get that with The Girl Next Door or I Spit On Your Grave.

I, like everyone else, am bothered by the recent need to add shock to horror films by throwing in a bunch of rape. Saw is rape-free. The modern PG-13 horror flicks find scares in sound effects and psych-outs. Saw has Donnie Wahlberg’s head exploding like a Gallagher watermelon. The Saw franchise is free of too-skinny ingenues, annoying comic relief sidekick characters, and they are—to me at least—a series of original and decent horror films made in the USA.

I’m for it. Saw: won’t you?









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Ten Most Inspired Zombie Combinations | Ticked Off Trannies with Knives Review | No Surprises Under This Skirt →









Comments

honestly, the saw films are terrible. but they are terrible enough to find appealing. the best thing about them is reading armond "fuckface" white giving an entirely different review for each one of them. spending countless hours analyzing and breaking down the epitomes of B horror movies. its priceless

Posted by: Taylor Kozakar at October 28, 2010 3:03 PM

I saw the first one, and it wasn't compelling enough for me to want to see any of the sequels. I thought the acting was sub-par, and that hyperactive editing called way too much attention to itself to achieve the disturbing tone that the film hoped to convey. I was a teenage gorehound, so I don't have any moral qualms about the movie. It just didn't work for me.

Don't worry, Courtney. There are far more guilty pleasures in this world.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 28, 2010 3:35 PM

Well-done defense of a much maligned series.

It really didn't change my mind about watching it, but that is because I rarely (if ever) watch horror movies, good or bad. But at least you didn't treat those who don't enjoy the films with complete disdain, as if something is broken inside them. Far too many "defenders" deflate their argument by doing so. The same could be said for the other side as well, of course.

If anything, the title is a bit too apologetic. If you like it and don't think it is torture porn, don't call yourself "part of the problem". Let the argumentative asshole on the other side do that.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 28, 2010 3:43 PM

I don't get these movies, but I wouldn't deny somebody their right to like them. I watch musicals and bad chick flicks in my free time. I can judge no one. I think my lack of love stems from the fact that I'm more about story and less about stabbity in my horror. Not so much a fan of gross out gore stuff on the whole (although lately that's been shifting, too...maybe I should give this another shot). So it never appealed to me. But I don't think loving these movies is a signal of cinematic apocalypse. There a list of those in my head, and these aren't on it.

Posted by: KatSings at October 28, 2010 4:09 PM

I've seen a few of them. To me, the problem is that they've sought to continue a series that was neatly wrapped up by movie 2 with contrivances and hooks.

Either Tobin Bell was the most deranged voyeur in history and found a way to know a whole dark city's disturbing secrets or the victims of his traps are the sheeple and we should feel no pity for their removal from this Earth.

Posted by: Fredo at October 28, 2010 4:31 PM

I'm okay with the franchise up through the third one; to me, the fascination wasn't just with the traps, but with the man setting them. After Jigsaw gets killed off and they keep coming up with contrived plots about his continued killings from beyond the grave, I kind of lost interest.

Still, it's nice to see someone defending these movies for once.

Posted by: SJ at October 28, 2010 4:38 PM

I've lost interest but I was on board through episode 5, and I do plan to catch 6 now that it's on Netflix demand. Part 5 kind of sucked, but up to that the movies were entertaining. Not exactly scary, but tense at times and the story is so fucking complicated that you need to have all the earlier installments memorized to figure out what the hell is going on. At least they are inventive at times. Definitely a guilty pleasure, but I think part 2 kicked ass.

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 28, 2010 4:53 PM

I loved the first Saw, and have stuck with the series for its entirety. Your correct, Saw 5 sucks, but Saw 6 is a pretty great return to the series. They don't count as Torture Porn. The Girl Next Door is straight fucked up. Goes from Leave it to Beaver to cut her tits off with a Cleaver.

Posted by: Jared at October 28, 2010 5:11 PM

Dear Courtney,

Together, we can overthrow Pajiba. I'm super serial. The power of grammar and tolerance for in-depth analysis of questionable entertainment are unstoppable. I tossed up my "No really, Saw's not that bad" post last night and it hinged on "not torture porn, few close-ups of the violence, get over yourselves."

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Robert at October 28, 2010 5:18 PM

I am also unashamed. i also watch Scream Queens. Yes I do.

Posted by: Candy at October 28, 2010 5:43 PM

I am not ashamed to say that I love all six of those movies so I cannot wait to see the new one (it will have to wait since i now live where there are NO movies in their original versions--i speak french but dubbing is one of the many things i absolutly HATE...it is pure torture for me to hear something dubbed!!!!!!!)! I hope my very hot Hoffman gets his revenge! I also hope that there will be many many more after that one!

Posted by: Nancy at October 28, 2010 6:28 PM

@Taylor, re: "spending countless hours analyzing and breaking down the epitomes of B horror movies. its priceless"

we're movie geeks. it's what we do. it is priceless, I just don't mean it quite the way you did.

Posted by: idleprimate at October 28, 2010 7:17 PM

My interest in the Saw franchise was sated after I saw the first one (many moons after everyone else saw it), but I do like the Underworld films (equally, if not moreso, shunned), so I am pickin' up what you're puttin' down, Courtney.

Posted by: Rykker at October 28, 2010 7:37 PM

@idleprimate

i know thats what we do. i do it aswell. but the point im making is that armond "fuckface" white is for whatever god forsaken reason, an esteemed movie critic. so it baffles me that HE does that with movies like the Saw franchise. he treats them like they're the oscar nominated films. im not trying to say theres anything wrong with anyone doing, its cool. but when you hold Saw movies up that high (regardless if the reviewer liked it or not), its silly.

Posted by: Taylor Kozakar at October 28, 2010 7:48 PM

Meh, barely made it through the first one (did not find any of the actors believable) and hadn't noticed they made more of them, six is it?

Posted by: TrickyHD at October 28, 2010 8:27 PM

yeah, mr white has a strange perspective on film. i sometimes wonder if there is something interesting beneath his contrariness. i hate to say it, but he's been growing on me.

and i do think there is something special and fun about really looking closely at trash, and teasing out semiotic and cultural relevance, fun in a way that dissecting a "good" movie isn't.

I was astonished, and privately(no longer) pleased with his review of jackass.

Posted by: idleprimate at October 28, 2010 8:32 PM

even roger ebert calls him a "troll". armond "fuckface" white mixes massive and complex words together, that at times dont make any logical sense (ive looked them up before, hes an idiot). i can see how he can grow on you. maybe one day (if i become a vegetable), hell grow on me too. theres nothing wrong with liking the guy, but there is something wrong with him personally. i think he strives too much to be that well educated person who can find something good in everything. but the fact that he said clash of the titans was better than ALL OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES, is.....depressing. you can not like those movies, its completely fine. but saying that a truly terrible piece of hollywood remake trash is better than them is utterly stupid. also, recently he said that resident evil: nobody fucking cares anymore, is better than inception and avatar on every level. why? i hate avatar, but the visuals were a goddam technological achievement. in my opinion that achievement is pushing movie making in the wrong direction, but from an un-biast point of view, an achievement. and inception is inception, a great piece of visuals, storytelling, acting, and everything else resident evil didnt have. the guy gave jonah hex, and other terrible movies this year a, not only good review, but somehow managed to spend paragraph after paragraph showing why theyre good, when..theres nothing good about them. i almost had a heart attack when he gave the last airbender a bad review. and i screamed when i saw his review of the social network, after i saw the movie. the movie is about mark zuckerberg, not trying to promote facebook, you stupid ignorant bastard.

Posted by: Taylor Kozakar at October 28, 2010 10:01 PM

also, if anything the social network (and i believe the review from this website of the movie) was showing that such a light-hearted appearance of a company, is truly a thing of pure evil and greed. i dont think armond white can appreciate what the movie is really about, most likely because he probably has never seen citizen kane, or is smart enough to use facebook, therefore showing him how hollow "social networking" really is.

Posted by: Taylor Kozakar at October 28, 2010 10:05 PM

when i rewatched lord of the rings, i thought 'gorgeous emptiness; when i saw the new clash of the titans i thought, 'passable emptiness', and then meditated on what children see in films, versus what adults see in films.

i will not defend ormond white, except to say that he is sometimes challenging, and that is never a bad thing. some of his reviews are invective and gobbledy gook, for sure. sometimes they get me thinking. pajiba does this too, sometimes in its reviews, and sometimes through its commenters.

i'm not an idiot, i can recognize a good or thought provoking movie along with all the rest of the lowest common denominator that they are marketed at. I just appreciate when sites i go to, ask me to go beyond what I already saw, and question . . . anything. it takes no skill to sell me on inception, it takes some skill to ask me what is wrong with it. It takes no skill to bash a trashy horror film, it takes some skill to get me thinking about it. I like that, no matter what the source.

Posted by: idleprimate at October 28, 2010 11:22 PM

good man, idleprimate, good man.

Posted by: Taylor Kozakar at October 29, 2010 2:49 AM

I saw the first Saw and, like DarthCorleone, I did not feel the urge to see any of the sequels.

But...that was a great defence of the series - logical and reasonable.

I'm still not watching the sequels though.

Posted by: Simon at October 29, 2010 3:34 AM

i almost had a heart attack when he gave the last airbender a bad review

He what? And Armond White redeems himself! I kid, I kid - even that wouldn't be enough to make up for his ramshackle and silly use of words, his nonsense sentences and overall foolishness. But that film's a piece of shit. Seriously.

Watch the series. Then go hunt down Shyamalan and shoot him for letting his directorial ego shit all over a project that could have been fantastic.

Posted by: Ender at October 29, 2010 5:44 AM

@ Ender

im older, but i still loved the series. it was pretty fucking cool. especially how each element bending was based off a style of kung-fu. like wind was crane or bird stance, fire was tiger stance, etc. etc.

anyways, i intend to kill him for what he did. the kids cant act and shyamalan dont care, he was relying on the power of his special effects and set pieces. which were...meh...coulda been better. i mean hes given a gold mine of source material, and he shit out a grotesque, trashy excuse for not just a movie based off the series, but for movies in general.

Posted by: Taylor Kozakar at October 29, 2010 6:42 AM

i thought i was in the minority.
my love for the saw series is 2-fold. i originally came in for the devices, but after a few movies became a little bored with the set-up.
the "storyline" is what actually keeps me involved. and that's not easy to do (in the horror genre) with 6 movies and counting.

NOT thrilled about the 3D-ness, though.

Posted by: gp at October 29, 2010 11:10 AM