Saw IV
Alone among horror franchises past and present, Lionsgate’s “Saw” movies have intrigued me unlike any other. Yes, there were the “Friday the 13th” movies of the ’80s that I watched at a young and all-too-impressionable young age, but the memory doesn’t treat them kindly. And although the two “Nightmare” movies I’ve seen (the two directed by Wes Craven) are good- same with the original “Halloween” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” films, and even “Scream”- that was because all of those broke the mold, changed the paradigm, and set a new standard for what horror could do.
Enter Jigsaw, the diabolical masochist of the “Saw” movies played by Tobin Bell with an unforgettable sense of malice and- dare I say it- humanity. Jigsaw isn’t just another Jason or Freddy who will keep coming back no matter how many times you kill him- that’s one of the reasons those franchises run out of steam. Instead, with Jigsaw, the mind is the most dangerous weapon in his arsenal. An engineer, Jigsaw- formally known as John- has taken a twisted look at morality, taking people whom he sees as perpetrators of sin and turns salvation into a deadly choice. His machinery is a series of elaborate devices that set the new standard in what is now “torture porn” cinema, with a dark, digitally-altered voice on a videotape all his “victims”- who are no more innocent than Jigsaw himself in his view- have to make their choice, where life seems to have as high a price as death does in some cases. True, the films revel in violence the way we do when watching a snuff film or “America’s Worst Car Chases” or something like that, but Jigsaw devious plan is to show his victims the error of their ways by looking at humanity through his eyes. It’s actually a more potent lesson than the series’ critics give it credit for.
“Saw IV” is a continuation of the story begun in the first three films, with Jigsaw- after having died of a brain tumor in the third one- leaving a message from beyond the grave, that his work will continue. In methodology and worldview, he’s akin to John Doe in “Se7en,” in a way turning each sin against the sinner for the sake of moral preaching. The difference is, Jigsaw gives his victims the choices of life or death. This time, his target is police officer Rigg (Lyriq Bent), a friend and partner of Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg), the detective from “Saw II” and “III” that Jigsaw kidnapped. Rigg is an impatient one, something Jigsaw will use against him when he sets a timer in Rigg’s apartment for 90 minutes, the time he has to find Matthews, who along with another cop are being held and trapped in a state where if Rigg doesn’t get to them in time, well, you can figure out for yourself. FBI agents Strahm and Perez are also on the case, and the truth they’re after is who is helping Jigsaw continue his work.
The “Saw” franchise is unique in its’ continuity- not one film exists within a vacuum, oblivious of the existence of the earlier ones. The story continues to build upon what came before it, leading to darker and more sinuous twists with each pulse-pounding, metal guitar-driven climax. Continuity behind the camera is largely responsible for that. Back for his third film at the helm is director Darren Lynn Bousman, who revels in the gritty and gruesome details of each film. True, style bitch slaps substance in these films like you wouldn’t believe, but that’s more than I could say for the franchises mentioned above, which largely lacked either. Gone is co-creator/writer Leigh Whannell, but his mantel is taken up admirably by writing team Patrick Melton & Marcus Dunstan, who hit it big as the writers of the underrated Project Greenlight horror flick “Feast” and have enough horror chops to keep the tension running even when you’re wanting to squirm in horror at what you’re seeing; guess who’s writing “Saw V?”
In the end, though, “Saw’s” biggest asset is its’ villain. He’s not a superhuman that keeps coming back. He’s not a one-note baddie who merely snarls at his victims (we really see that in “III” and “IV”); he’s a flesh-and-blood man asking of his victims- albeit in morally reprehensible ways- to simply look inside themselves, and see if there’s anything worth liking. The places that question takes you may be surprising.
