It was okay. Of the two twists (whodunit and the plot's twist) I thought the latter was quite clever and the former was just...not that it doesn't make sense, but there wasn't enough information to make it a revelation.
And I hope this kent allard jr fellow doesn't buy into the concept of torture porn, because it's pretty silly. There are some but I wouldn't call Saw one of them. In fact this one was a lot less gory than the last one...
This is not, perhaps, torture porn, since I feel a lot of the Saw films are so grisly there's no way to possibly "enjoy" what happens to people on that level. Plus, there are few female victims in this to really emphasize the male superiority angle of your typical porn.
It is torture though. I remember the last one really grossed me out. This one was too...mild. The terrible editing and direction made it hard to even tell what was going on. I'd have preferred an unflinching look instead of dramatic whirling about.
I only thought that during the fat guy's death, which was clearly a victim of another form of torture called the MPAA.
The problem with the term torture porn is that it indicates the movies build up the torture and then give you the money shot with some sort of grisly death and that's what you paid to see. A movie like "Captivity" what with its self-aggrandizing, awful marketing campaign, that's probably true, but the Saw films have a story, regardless of how flimsy it may be. And that's what I go to see, something that will hopefully be clever and entertaining as an admittedly splattery mystery puzzle.
Nikke Finke likes to use the term "torture porn" to judge the audience more than the filmmakers, which is an even worse usage of it. I admit there are probably bloodthirsty horror film fans but that's going to stretch far beyond films like "Saw" and "Hostel" to basically any gorefest, and of course not everyone goes to see stuff for the same reasons.
I know your other friend explained it, but here it is quite simply:
1) Rigg was supposed to learn that victims are meant to save themselves. Had he left the girl to be scalped and she'd rescued herself he wouldn't be there to get attacked. He doesn't want to help the fat guy, which is I guess the idea. And the woman has already helped herself and all he can do is show up and pick up the pieces. Had he been there when she was still toothpicked, he wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything further. By busting into the room and not letting Eric, Hoffman and the lawyer guy figure out their own shit, he ruined it for everyone. Of the various twists I bet this was the most clear.
2) Hoffman is Jigsaw's apprentice. There is no explanation for this plotline, which is a huge flaw with the movie. Clearly the information for it to be a revelation is being held over for Saw V (IV, V, and VI are apparently designed as one big plotline). The suggestion by fans is that Hoffman, like Zep in Saw I, is playing a game and was forced to do it for one reason or another, but there's no hard evidence to support this.
3) The film is actually concurrent with the events of Saw III. Agent Strahm walks into the operating room moments after the end of that film, thinks Jeff (from III) is the apprentice and shoots him. Hoffman locks him in. The tape found in Jigsaw's stomach from the beginning of the movie is actually, chronologically, the end, taking place an unknown amount of time after the events of Saw IV (and, concurrently, III), as Jigsaw's body is still in the little freezer thing when Hoffman shuts it, yet eventually the police apparently find it and have it autopsied. Hoffman may have thought he was "off the hook" because Jigsaw had been killed, but the tape indicates that Jigsaw has something planned for Hoffman anyway.
Plot threads not resolved, in general order of likelihood to be relevant in Saw V: - what happens to Agent Perez - what happens to Agent Strahm - what happens to Rigg, conclusively, or Rigg's wife - what happens to Jill, Jigsaw's ex - what happens to Jeff's daughter (end of Saw III) - what is in the envelope that Hoffman places in the drawer for Amanda (she picks it up in Saw III but what it says is still not apparent) - what specifically Kerry said to Agents Strahm and Agent Perez before her death that brought them in - conclusively, what happens to Dr. Gordon
Well, that's better, sure, but the whole "apprentice" thing is still awful in its explanation. Maybe next year...
As for "torture porn," I think it's a valid term even for the Saw films. Horror movies are pornography. The death is the money shot. This is not new thinking in cinema studies or even anything that your average movie watcher couldn't figure out for him- or herself. The phrase "torture porn" is only a modifier to the horror genre selection--i.e. this isn't "slasher porn" or what have you.
And it absolutely doesn't matter whether there's a story there or not. Arguably, many pornos do have stories--the more involved ones, like Pirates have fairly extensive ones. Doesn't make them not-pornos. So the Saw movies are still a subgenre of horror known as torture porn. What elevates it above something like Hostel or one of the many similar derivatives (what was the one about kids in Brazil again?) is the relation of the torture you see to the personal choice of the audience. Your involvement, if anything, makes it more pornographic than not because the point of pornography is to involve you and get you worked up. I get plenty worked up over the whole "spite your nose to save your life" thesis Jigsaw has, just not sexually (...ew).
I understand your objection to calling something like this "torture porn." I don't see it as necessarily being a pejorative all the time. When it's used to describe something that's little else--like Captivity--it connotates a gore-fest celebration of misogyny (in one form or another, "torture porn" at its worst is always about superiority issues and the men who have them). It's hard to separate it out, but usually the usage in context makes it clear. Saw is definitely torture porn, but it's interesting. It's gotten really less so as it's gone on (I didn't like III at all, and IV was kind of boring), which tips it closer to being a negative kind of torture porn.
The point of torture in Saw films is not to appease the audience, because the "torture" comes via the story. They are far less exploitative than hundreds of other horror films, like even Friday the 13th as a kind of obvious example. The point of the term "torture porn" is to suggest a movie that glories in and glorifies torture. I don't think the Saw films are exploitative in that manner, but as I said before perhaps it's just because that's not why I go see them. There is a "torture porn audience", sure, but by labeling the film as such it condemns the whole audience. I think Captivity is made for the gorehounds, and Saw is not.
Additionally I think Saw IV was considerably less gross than Saw III, which is a big contribution here. I think in an attempt to shuck the torture moniker they tried to make the traps more clever than disgusting, unlike, say, The Rack, or the pig-grinder from Saw III. Despite being graphic, the traps were not only more logic-based, but, regardless of the MPAA's involvement, both the "scalping" chair and the fat guy's trap were also insistently short traps, thus removing a level of grandstanding or reveling in the bloodshed. It's still there, but I think Saw IV made attempts to lessen it. And it's worth noting here that the key word is "torture" -- the film may still revel in gore, as in the extended, pointless autopsy scene at the beginning, but one would be hard-pressed to call an autopsy "torture".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 05:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 06:23 am (UTC)And I hope this kent allard jr fellow doesn't buy into the concept of torture porn, because it's pretty silly. There are some but I wouldn't call Saw one of them. In fact this one was a lot less gory than the last one...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 02:12 pm (UTC)It is torture though. I remember the last one really grossed me out. This one was too...mild. The terrible editing and direction made it hard to even tell what was going on. I'd have preferred an unflinching look instead of dramatic whirling about.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 08:52 pm (UTC)The problem with the term torture porn is that it indicates the movies build up the torture and then give you the money shot with some sort of grisly death and that's what you paid to see. A movie like "Captivity" what with its self-aggrandizing, awful marketing campaign, that's probably true, but the Saw films have a story, regardless of how flimsy it may be. And that's what I go to see, something that will hopefully be clever and entertaining as an admittedly splattery mystery puzzle.
Nikke Finke likes to use the term "torture porn" to judge the audience more than the filmmakers, which is an even worse usage of it. I admit there are probably bloodthirsty horror film fans but that's going to stretch far beyond films like "Saw" and "Hostel" to basically any gorefest, and of course not everyone goes to see stuff for the same reasons.
I know your other friend explained it, but here it is quite simply:
1) Rigg was supposed to learn that victims are meant to save themselves. Had he left the girl to be scalped and she'd rescued herself he wouldn't be there to get attacked. He doesn't want to help the fat guy, which is I guess the idea. And the woman has already helped herself and all he can do is show up and pick up the pieces. Had he been there when she was still toothpicked, he wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything further. By busting into the room and not letting Eric, Hoffman and the lawyer guy figure out their own shit, he ruined it for everyone. Of the various twists I bet this was the most clear.
2) Hoffman is Jigsaw's apprentice. There is no explanation for this plotline, which is a huge flaw with the movie. Clearly the information for it to be a revelation is being held over for Saw V (IV, V, and VI are apparently designed as one big plotline). The suggestion by fans is that Hoffman, like Zep in Saw I, is playing a game and was forced to do it for one reason or another, but there's no hard evidence to support this.
3) The film is actually concurrent with the events of Saw III. Agent Strahm walks into the operating room moments after the end of that film, thinks Jeff (from III) is the apprentice and shoots him. Hoffman locks him in. The tape found in Jigsaw's stomach from the beginning of the movie is actually, chronologically, the end, taking place an unknown amount of time after the events of Saw IV (and, concurrently, III), as Jigsaw's body is still in the little freezer thing when Hoffman shuts it, yet eventually the police apparently find it and have it autopsied. Hoffman may have thought he was "off the hook" because Jigsaw had been killed, but the tape indicates that Jigsaw has something planned for Hoffman anyway.
Plot threads not resolved, in general order of likelihood to be relevant in Saw V:
- what happens to Agent Perez
- what happens to Agent Strahm
- what happens to Rigg, conclusively, or Rigg's wife
- what happens to Jill, Jigsaw's ex
- what happens to Jeff's daughter (end of Saw III)
- what is in the envelope that Hoffman places in the drawer for Amanda (she picks it up in Saw III but what it says is still not apparent)
- what specifically Kerry said to Agents Strahm and Agent Perez before her death that brought them in
- conclusively, what happens to Dr. Gordon
Yes, I'm a Saw geek.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 09:08 pm (UTC)As for "torture porn," I think it's a valid term even for the Saw films. Horror movies are pornography. The death is the money shot. This is not new thinking in cinema studies or even anything that your average movie watcher couldn't figure out for him- or herself. The phrase "torture porn" is only a modifier to the horror genre selection--i.e. this isn't "slasher porn" or what have you.
And it absolutely doesn't matter whether there's a story there or not. Arguably, many pornos do have stories--the more involved ones, like Pirates have fairly extensive ones. Doesn't make them not-pornos. So the Saw movies are still a subgenre of horror known as torture porn. What elevates it above something like Hostel or one of the many similar derivatives (what was the one about kids in Brazil again?) is the relation of the torture you see to the personal choice of the audience. Your involvement, if anything, makes it more pornographic than not because the point of pornography is to involve you and get you worked up. I get plenty worked up over the whole "spite your nose to save your life" thesis Jigsaw has, just not sexually (...ew).
I understand your objection to calling something like this "torture porn." I don't see it as necessarily being a pejorative all the time. When it's used to describe something that's little else--like Captivity--it connotates a gore-fest celebration of misogyny (in one form or another, "torture porn" at its worst is always about superiority issues and the men who have them). It's hard to separate it out, but usually the usage in context makes it clear. Saw is definitely torture porn, but it's interesting. It's gotten really less so as it's gone on (I didn't like III at all, and IV was kind of boring), which tips it closer to being a negative kind of torture porn.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 09:25 pm (UTC)Additionally I think Saw IV was considerably less gross than Saw III, which is a big contribution here. I think in an attempt to shuck the torture moniker they tried to make the traps more clever than disgusting, unlike, say, The Rack, or the pig-grinder from Saw III. Despite being graphic, the traps were not only more logic-based, but, regardless of the MPAA's involvement, both the "scalping" chair and the fat guy's trap were also insistently short traps, thus removing a level of grandstanding or reveling in the bloodshed. It's still there, but I think Saw IV made attempts to lessen it. And it's worth noting here that the key word is "torture" -- the film may still revel in gore, as in the extended, pointless autopsy scene at the beginning, but one would be hard-pressed to call an autopsy "torture".
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 09:08 pm (UTC)