"You see, the knowledge of death changes everything. If I were to tell you the exact date and time of your own death it would shatter your world completely."
--Jigsaw, Saw II
Time to review the second Saw movie! Preserving the series-iconic life lessons and lethal traps, this sequel actually eclipses the first movie in the seemingly rare phenomenon where the original is surpassed by the follow-up. What about it was worthwhile? See below to find out.
Production Values
The acting is much better this time than Leigh Whannell's pathetic performance in Saw was, with the performance of Tobin Bell in particular deserving immense praise, as he steals every scene he appears in. Shawnee Smith also does a very commendable job of acting as the return character Amanda. Donnie Wahlberg enters the franchise as Detective Eric Matthews, and he also starred in another James Wan-inspired horror movie called Dead Silence as, you guessed it, a cop.
Sure, the script could have benefitted from less generic phrases and words, and yes, the vocabulary in the dialogue between the game participants is pretty basic, but that's what I would expect from a real group of frightened drug users using street slang mixed with profanity.
As the budget increased for the second entry into the series, the locations are more diverse, the props more plentiful and immersive, and the story more complex. The production values benefitted from a generous enhancement in almost all regards.
Story
The story structure is very different than the prior film. Instead of opening in the middle of the main plot, the movie begins with a trap, with a man Jigsaw deemed unworthy awakening in a chair with a TV, a box, a mirror, and a terrifying device locked around his shoulders. The part of his face around his right eye red and very irritated, he watches as the television activates to convey Jigsaw's instructions. The mechanical contraption on him is compared to a "venus fly trap", and predictably, he fails to extract the key needed to escape.
A police detective named Eric Matthews is summoned to investigate the body when information exposing the killer surfaces. Eric and his team apprehend the Jigsaw Killer rather easily, yet it turns out that a game involving Eric's son, whom he shares a very poor relationship with, seems to be occurring while the police team scours Jigsaw's lair. As the team scrambles to find the kidnapped victims and end the game, the demented man responsible requests only one thing. All the killer--who identifies himself as cancer patient John Kramer (Doctor Gordon's patient in the first movie with a "frontal lobe tumor")--wants is to share a conversation with Detective Matthews and explain his motivations and philosophy.
This marks the first time people realize Jigsaw is a victim of cancer, with both the disease and a subsequent attempt at suicide leading him to begin his line of work.
At the end another surprising twist pleases viewers, continuing the wonderful tradition started in the first movie. Jigsaw's words to Matthews about how his son was in "a safe place" turn out to have great double meaning. Thankfully, almost every film to follow in the remainder of the series also boasts a great twist.
Intellectual Content
The worldview of the villain provides much content for thought and the traps symbolize particular sins or moral faults in the lives of the "contestants". Xavier, a drug dealer, must search through a pit of needles to locate a key. A liar who has "burned" others with his deceptions must crawl into a furnace to obtain an antidote.
As Jigsaw converses with Detective Matthews, he complains about how humanity seems to have abandoned the Darwinian "will to survive" and bluntly says that "Those who don't appreciate life do not deserve life." He claims to have come to acknowledge this after both the devastating news of his cancer announcement and a failed suicide attempt carried out after learning the news. When a drive off a cliff did not end his life, John decided to teach others the value of their own lives with all his remaining days. Though unfortunately the characters playing the game aren't all given enough time to reveal their full personalities and backgrounds, the viewer sees enough to realize that at least some of them do understand the point of their trials. A woman pauses to lament how she has "so much left to do" and so many "people left to talk to," expressing the desire to keep living to do these unresolved activities. A man begins crying as he explains how he has enemies outside the walls that trap him and that if they can't find him they will target his family instead. But some, Xavier in particular, miss the point entirely, as Xavier does not value people around him at all and comes across as almost more psychopathic than Jigsaw himself. At least Jigsaw has supposedly good motives for his actions and wants each person to succeed in their games and internalize his lesson. Xavier doesn't care about anyone around him whatsoever.
One excerpt from the intriguing conversation between Eric and John unfolds like this.
Jigsaw: "The cure for cancer. What is it?"
Matthews: "I don't know what it is. But I know it's not killing and torturing people for your own sick f-cking pleasure."
Jigsaw: "I've never murdered anyone in my life. The decisions are up to them."
Matthews: "Yeah, well, putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pull the trigger is still murder."
Jigsaw: "Since when is force a problem for you?"
John apparently agrees with Doctor Gordon's diagnosis of him from the first film about how he hasn't technically killed anyone. Accusing Matthews of shooting an unarmed suspect, planting false evidence to illicitly convict people, and possibly breaking someone's jaw to coax information, Jigsaw clearly finds it odd that Eric would object to force used on other people when he has committed so many sins involving force in his career. It seems that both men, in their well-meaning desire to achieve admirable goals, have tainted themselves with evil.
No, Jigsaw is not a nihilist or a moral relativist. He clearly doesn't believe in nihilism, since the whole purpose of his games is to enable people to cherish their lives and take nothing for granted. And he posits that objective morals do exist; he simply has found a way to justify his own actions within the context of his philosophy by viewing them as good, not evil: not unlike many other people in some ways. The human race has committed almost any categorical atrocity imaginable--and many unimaginable ones, too--in the name of bringing about benevolent, desirable results. Deceptions and betrayals, illicit wars and genocides, tortures and murders, revenge and hypocrisy. I, for all my moralism and usual consistency, cannot say I have never been guilty of justifying a wrong action or belief in order to reach a benevolent goal. In fact, I can relate to this flaw quite well. The interesting thing is that Jigsaw's worldview is not correct unless a god exists, as there is no justification for belief in actual moral obligations or objective purpose apart from the existence of God. But according to traditional theism, the objective morality that is grounded in God would actually condemn his behavior. Indeed, the God of the Bible has much to say in Mosaic Law on the issues of kidnapping, murder, torture, and vigilantism, and his positions on them are clear.
Amanda (SPOILER!!!) reveals herself as the heir to Jigsaw's games. Echoing John's earlier words, she asks what the cure for cancer and death is. Her solution? "The answer is immortality. By creating a legacy . . . by living a life worth remembering you become immortal." With John dying, someone must assume control of his work. This sets up some fascinating comments in the next movie, which I have only seen clips of.
Conclusion
Saw II improves on its predecessor in almost every possible way, providing a very satisfying and unique cinema experience. I unhesitatingly recommend it to anyone who can watch such a film with an unburdened conscience about it and who has a mature intellectual ability to dissect and contemplate the themes presented. Stay tuned for upcoming reviews of the other Saw sequels.
Content
1. Violence: Actually, this movie portrays a psychologically suspenseful atmosphere more than it does gore. There are scenes with plenty of blood, but little to no gore, as with the first Saw. The most disturbing part in the movie is perhaps at the beginning when a man tries to use a scalpel to dig out a key from behind his right eye. He fails, finding himself unable to do it, and the trap kills him onscreen quickly and with nothing graphic shown, only blood.
2. Profanity: As is common throughout the series, strong profanity is used on a fairly regular basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment