Imperialist-country parasites feel a little bit guilty after seeing:

"Saw"

"Saw" (http://www.sawmovie.com/) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387564/)
Directed by James Wan
Twisted Pictures
R / Ireland:18 / Singapore:NC-16
2004

Reviewed by a contributor November 9, 2004

u.$. movies, especially those without voice-over or a narrator, typically do not encourage moviegoers and movie viewers to think about whom the camera may represent, or whose point of view the camera viewpoint may represent. For example, as sadistic Hannibal Lechter seems to be in "Hannibal" (2001), while he feeds Justice agent Paul Kendler a cooked piece of his own brain, movie viewers usually do not ask themselves, "Why am I seeing this?" or "Whom am I supposed to be in this movie?" At most, there may be a recognition that the camera viewpoint, at that moment, represents the point of view of the drugged-out Clarice Starling.

Similarly, the part in "Resident Evil" (2002) where Ms. Black, struggling to get herself back inside the elevator, is decapitated by the falling elevator door frame, and the screen goes black, is one of the most memorable examples of camera viewpoints representing the points of view of characters. But I have never thought of myself as being an invisible character in "Resident Evil," following the other characters, standing around, and observing the story unfolding—as if I were there.

In this context, it is easier to see why some people are having difficulty putting their finger on why "Saw" makes them uncomfortable. "Saw" hits a little too close to home in its portrayal of a serial killer's idea of reality TV.

Several reviewers seem to feel their intelligence insulted by the gratuitous, sadistic "entertainment" violence and/or contrived incredible plot and scenarios in "Saw." In fact, except in a few brief flashbacks, little gore is actually depicted in this R-rated version of "Saw." Instead, there are hints of gore, for example, when Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) amputates his own foot, but the bloody stump is never shown. Another persyn almost has holes drilled in his head by one of the serial killer Jigsaw's contraptions, but never does. I'll concede the point that "Saw's" plot is implausible, but that didn't stop "Frailty" (2001), for example, from getting mostly good reviews.

On the other hand, if people are objecting to having to see "gratuitous violence" after paying $6.25 or whatever to see "Saw," then maybe that is a redeeming value of the movie. It may help the exploited and oppressed for decadent imperialist-country parasites to be occasionally (that is, not in a context that justifies the predatory or reactionary violence) exposed to violence that they don't like to see right in front of them.(1) Portrayals of unglorified ("Black Hawk Down," 2001) and unsexy ("Die Another Day," 2002) predatory violence disturb the premises of "reality TV" entertainment and sanitized "news" media coverage of different struggles in the united $nakes and the world. Unenjoyable, or badly directed or written, entertainment violence may make other entertainment violence in the movies less enjoyable.

Interestingly, characters in "Saw" themselves raise the point about reality TV shows. At the beginning of the movie, the young freelance photographer Adam (Leigh Whannell) wonders whether he's been abducted into some persyn's twisted idea of a reality TV show. [Spoiler warning] In fact, there is somebody else watching the events in the dilapidated bathroom: the serial killer face-down in a pool of blood on the middle of the floor, pretending to be dead. The serial killer, nicknamed "Jigsaw" by the police because of his puzzle-piece calling card, likes to watch his targets squirm and struggle to solve the puzzles he lays out for them, which have life-or-death importance and urgency. Jigsaw likes to have a front-row seat at his horrific shows. This time, he has the best seat in the house.

At one point, the detectives played by Danny Glover and Ken Leung are surprised to discover Jigsaw's meticulously constructed miniature, a model, of one of his private reality-show sites, where he teaches his intended victims to appreciate life, his "life lessons." The miniature is clearly supposed to be something like a set design model. It is shocking to see, at Jigsaw's hideout or place, some of the serial killer's "props," which previously appear in his homemade videos.

Jigsaw's games, puzzles or shows are not like, say, "Fear Factor." This is not "what disgusting shit will you eat for some thousands of dollars." This is not "what man will you fuck so you don't get your ass voted off the show." But Jigsaw's puzzles have the same purpose: entertainment based on voyeuristically watching people do things they may not want to do, but are "forced" to do—for love, money, or respect, or life and staying alive, in this case.

The surgeon and Adam wake up chained to the piping of a filthy bathroom. In microcassette recordings, Jigsaw lets them know that they each have until 6 o'clock to kill the other man on the opposite side of the bathroom. They find hacksaws for both of them to use and other items. It turns out that the surgeon's child and wife were taken hostage, and that the surgeon had been cheating on his seemingly long-distraught wife with an Asian womyn in a hotel room.

The surprise at the end of the movie is that there was someone else beside the movie viewer, and the camera behind the bathroom mirror, watching the goings-on in the bathroom. Movie viewers feel stupid that they didn't see this coming. In reality, they are offended because they aren't sure what the fuck they just watched. "Saw" doesn't seem to have any point. The serial killer gets up and gets away. The only obvious take-home message is the serial killer's: you never appreciate being alive until you're about to get your ass whooped by a psychopath.

Decadent imperialist-country parasites are annoyed with this movie because it mocks them. You think bungee jumping on a reality TV show is dangerous? You think walking on hot coals is dangerous? Look at what happens to serial killer victims. Isn't this entertaining?

This reviewer would add, why don't you try working twelve or more hours a day in a factory, for fifteen cents an hour, and living in a fifty-square-foot cubby—for a year? Most Euro-Amerikans likely wouldn't do that for $50,000 on a reality TV show, but Chinese workers would do that for less than $1,000 and start right away.

Yet, in "Saw," freelance photographer Euro-Amerikan Adam has the nerve to complain about his "shit hole" apartment in the city, an unidentified imperial metropolis. I fell asleep in a shit hole, and I woke up in an actual shit hole, he says. He also whines about his "feminist vegan" ex-girlfriend.

The theme of Euro-Amerikan men being victimized by serial killers is interesting from the viewpoint of gender(2). The characters Adam and Lawrence are both Euro-Amerikan, as are Jigsaw's other victims shown in flashbacks. In movies such as "When a Stranger Calls Back" (1993), we see white wimmin being victimized as the play things of serial killers, which already wrongly portrays patriarchal oppression as a lifestyle matter. Now, we have the same in "Saw" (Lawrence's wife and the womyn with the lethal headgear contraption), but also and mainly white men as the play things of a serial killer. Heavily built Jigsaw is of European descent and has a tough "Mr. Clean" look.

It isn't clear whether "Saw" actually portrays serial killers as being at the top of the patriarchy, which would be a distortion of reality. We can say that the unusual number of serial killings in the united $tates is related to the massive amount of leisure time going around in this country generally, and it makes sense that guilty straight Euro-Amerikan men professionals would like to obscure this fact and portray themselves as being oppressed under the imperialist-patriarchy.

The issue is not, are Euro-Amerikan men moviegoers going to identify with the unjustly detained main characters in "Saw," because they are. (Rich white men unjustly incarcerated? Heaven forfend.) Instead, the issue is, what are they going to think or keep thinking after seeing "Saw." At best, they will leave the theater with some angst about the reality TV shows that they watch at home, and some angst about their continuing inability to have complete control over their decadent lives in imperial metropolises.

---

mim3@mim.org replies:
I had to delay this review in a way that we do not like to delay action except in the midst of party congresses. So that our readers can understand, I should explain that my task is to edit this review for political line, in this case without seeing the movie, which I am sure raises hackles for many of our Liberals.

One might think that MIM believes all violent Hollywood movies are "imperialist decadence." That would be exaggerating, because MIM has endorsed the Matrix, "Star Wars" and "Running Man," which would be the most pertinent to this review. Some day in the advanced communist future, we will adopt a pacifist stance or fail to accomplish our communist goals, but at this point in history, there is no such thing as a genuine pacifism except as a mental state. Believe it or not, some would actually criticize MIM from both sides, for not having a rule dispensing with all violent films under imperialism and for thinking about any rules for reviewing movies and dispensing with them from the other side.

From reading this review, (and not sneaking out to see the film), I would say that it sounds like this movie fails the subtlety test. People are always asking us at MIM for simple rules, and here it is for violent movies: some movies are obviously cerebral exercises and the viewer knows it from sitting through the movie that s/he is in an "artsy" enterprise. Many do not feature any life-and-death situations. In contrast, other movies cannot be saved by subtlety. In the case of movies like "Saw," employing subtlety is in fact ineptitude or pandering for money or both.

"Running Man" sounds to have more gore than "Saw," but "Running Man" has no way of being mistaken by the public, at least within the humyn limits placed on movie directors. The reality show in "Running Man" comes undone in a manner combining justified political thought and military action. "Running Man" is a completely unflattering but also completely true depiction of Amerikan TV audiences, but there is no ambiguity in the plot surrounding the reality show itself.

This is something where a director could be good in 90% of his job, but cause everything to be wasted by bungling the 10%. The classic example is All in the Family, a TV situation comedy. Our cultural activists--intellectuals---need to understand that they have made the grade in a decadent society and stand in their positions with a high risk of being so effete as to be servants of the status quo. The intention of "All in the Family" was to satire Archie Bunker, but in 2004 the effect is still that the public is clamoring for more Archie Bunker.

I do not get the sense from this movie review that it was "good, the whites got what was coming." Nor do I get the sense that there was a proletarian rebuff to serial killing. It's a neither/nor situation and that opens the door to ruminations on gender before the imperialist decadence question has really ripened properly.

Our contributor says: "On the other hand, if people are objecting to having to see 'gratuitous violence' after paying $6.25 or whatever to see 'Saw,' then maybe that is a redeeming value of the movie." This and other points in the review are undeniable, but the question is how to rate the secondary merits of "Saw."

Here the question is whether the movie is provoking viewers to draw the line or whether the viewers already came to the movie with an ideological line predisposed to attacking the pandering to violence. Where is the causation is the question.

A very similar question arises in pornography. The argument has been made that legalization of pornography and prostitution actually reduces rape. Typically, we hear that "soft-core" porn is a release for men.

When it comes to the violence on the boob tube, then the argument becomes surely it is better to see it on the screen than to act it out the way humyns would ordinarily. This whole approach suits the Liberals fine, but we do not see much evidence for it.

If you have seen "Saw" and would like your opinion discussed on this web page, write to us with the following. 1) Do you believe in some kind of frustration-release theory for either or both sex and violence and if so, with what convincing evidence that you have seen? 2) Do you believe that "Saw" fits in that category? 3) Is "Saw" imperialist decadence with secondary redeeming characteristics? 4) Did "Saw" intertwine voyeurism, violence and sex in what decadent Amerikans might find enjoyable ways? Is it not suggesting forms of entertainment guised as an attack on white males but which was not and in which in fact will harm others disproportionately?

Notes:

1. "Pictures of destruction and civilian victims of the Anglo-American aggression in Iraq," on Robert-fisk.com , http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Pictures that bush does not want you to see," on Einswine.com , http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/

2. "Revolutionary feminism," on MIM Web site, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/gender/