OFFICIALSAW.COM :: View topic - Jigsaw the hypocrite?
OFFICIALSAW.COM Forum Index
 
RegisterSearchFAQLog in
Jigsaw the hypocrite?

 
Reply to topic    OFFICIALSAW.COM Forum Index » Jigsaw's World View previous topic
View next topic
Jigsaw the hypocrite?
Author Message
Zepp
Veteran


Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 194

Post Jigsaw the hypocrite? Reply with quote
Ok, I know there's another thread here that discusses essentially the same problem but it's been inactive since February and I myself like to take it from a slightly different angle.

Basically I have no doubt that Jigsaw's words "I find murder distasteful" and "they have to save themselves" have by now become for all intents and purposes bullsh*t. And I'd like to believe that the writers, the smart guys that they are, are aware of this.

- In the first Saw movie, it could be argued that the guy, that Amanda had to kill to pass her test, lost his chance at a previous game off camera.
- But what threw me off and one of the main reasons Saw III has been the worst Saw movie for me (until V came along) was because of all of those victims reduced to nothing but dangling pieces of meat that couldn't possibly ‘save themselves’ on their own and had to rely on someone else.
- Now after seeing all those people William had to choose between who lives and who dies in Saw VI, I've come to accept Jigsaw's inconsistency.

Obviously John is a villain. Under no circumstances should the audience feel like he’s the protagonist. He is a moral extremist and I became a fan of the series precisely for this theme. We may all agree with his ideology but his method is appalling and defeatist. Still, even the most evil of psycho maniacs has to make sense within his own logic.
Now the worst mistake an audience can make is assume that the characters represent the writer’s own beliefs. But then there should also be a counterargument present in the story to challenge controversial ideologies such as John’s. In VI it was cleverly done with the repo woman victim, who cut her hand in order to survive, calling out Jigsaw on his “instantly rehabilitated” theory.

So all I ask for is that in the next movie the filmmakers present a similar counterargument to address the problem with helpless victims unable to ‘save themselves’ or downright doomed to die.

What do you think?
Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:16 pm View user's profile Send private message
kangarooman
Expert


Joined: 22 May 2009
Posts: 1786

Post Reply with quote
I agree that there is definitely hypocrisy in Jigsaw's games and method. I think us as the audience are supposed to recognize this. I mean Jigsaw is an extremely intelligent guy no doubt...but anyone that puts people in traps in order to test out a Darwinian theory in the 2000's is insane. I think the writers want to portray Jigsaw as being very intelligent, while still an insane serial killer.
Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:12 pm View user's profile Send private message
HoffWoman
Veteran


Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 170

Post Reply with quote
Hi there Zepp

If I read you correctly, you are something of a returning veteran to this board. I myself have only been here a few weeks. I love it so far, its great to touch base with other Saw fans. Nice to meet you. Smile

I see your point re: Jigsaw. Saw III did seem to deviate from the formula of giving victims a chance, since they all needed Jeff to save them. I have often wondered if Jigsaw almost falls into the category of vigilante (this is certainly true with Hoffman; more on that later).

By that I mean, the people he chooses are not wholly innocent. They are guilty, in his mind, of some kind of moral sin. This is evident throughout Jeff's trap in 3, and also you see it in IV. The battered wife, while one might call her a victim on some level, also stood by while her husband abused her child. That saps some of her sypathetic value, from where I sit.

Did the victims in the NGH in II have a "chance"? Not much of one, certainly. Were there really 8 syringes of antidote throughout the house? Could they have survived at all? We never found out.

So is John dispensing his own merciless idea of justice? It would seem. But if you recall in Amanda's game in III/IV, Lynn passed her test and he was prepared to release her. Did he know Amanda would throw a monkey wrench in that whole plan? Did he realize Hoffman hated her so much that he would blackmail her into killing Lynn, leading to her own death? He was good at the anticipating the human mind, after all...

Hoffman strikes me as a modern, more creative version of Charles Bronson in "Death Wish." His goal is not to teach any lessons, or make people value their lives. He seems to want to punish those he felt were not punished adequately (if at all) through the legal system. In that sense he is more of a controlled, though sadistic, vigilante.

Jigsaw almost seems a chessmaster. He can see the game 12 moves ahead.. and while they may 'technically' have a chance, he seems to know they will find a way to ** up that chance and end up dead, anyway.

I'm not sure if this series is supposed to have a "hero" in the classic sense. If you think about it, the "good guy" almost always ends up dead. Jigsaw is more an anti-hero, I guess. And of course at this point, it's the Hoffman show (soon to be the Gordon show? Jill show? Who knows?)

I fell in love with this movie because of its cleverness. It isnt the gore- if I simply wanted gore, I'd watch Hostel (ugh). Its the misdirection, the mind-game. To me, that's movie gold.

One last thing. I never understood why people had a problem with V. After the original, it's my favorite. I loved it. Then again I dig the Hoffman angle, and V focuses heavily on him. I know I'm in the minority here. While I loved all of the movies, my least favorite was 6. I kept feeling like I was watching an extended campaign ad for health care reform. Hehe.

Did any of this make sense? I just noticed I was seriously rambling. LOL

Anyway, welcome back- hope to get more of your thoughts soon.

Very Happy
Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:17 pm View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Zepp
Veteran


Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 194

Post Reply with quote
HoffWoman wrote:
Hi there Zepp

If I read you correctly, you are something of a returning veteran to this board. I myself have only been here a few weeks. I love it so far, its great to touch base with other Saw fans. Nice to meet you. Smile

Thanks HoffWoman...are you really a woman?

Quote:
By that I mean, the people he chooses are not wholly innocent. They are guilty, in his mind, of some kind of moral sin. This is evident throughout Jeff's trap in 3, and also you see it in IV.

Yes, true enough, that's why they're saw victims in the first place. But it's not about innocence, it's about helplessness.
If Jigsaw wants all of his test subjects to learn to appreciate life by implementing their own survival instinct, why are some never given a chance and only serve as cannon fodder for someone else's game?

Quote:
The battered wife, while one might call her a victim on some level, also stood by while her husband abused her child. That saps some of her sypathetic value, from where I sit.

Yes, and in order to pass her test, Morgan had to kill her own husband, giving Rex no chance of redemption.

Quote:
So is John dispensing his own merciless idea of justice? It would seem. But if you recall in Amanda's game in III/IV, Lynn passed her test and he was prepared to release her. Did he know Amanda would throw a monkey wrench in that whole plan? Did he realize Hoffman hated her so much that he would blackmail her into killing Lynn, leading to her own death? He was good at the anticipating the human mind, after all...

I'd like to think that he didn't, to show that even he has his limits.

Quote:
Hoffman strikes me as a modern, more creative version of Charles Bronson in "Death Wish." His goal is not to teach any lessons, or make people value their lives. He seems to want to punish those he felt were not punished adequately (if at all) through the legal system. In that sense he is more of a controlled, though sadistic, vigilante.

I view Hoffman as the anti-Jigsaw. He has none of the intelligence but possesses more brute force. He is ruthless and serves only his own vengeful purposes and doesn't give a ** about changing people.

Quote:
One last thing. I never understood why people had a problem with V. After the original, it's my favorite. I loved it. Then again I dig the Hoffman angle, and V focuses heavily on him. I know I'm in the minority here. While I loved all of the movies, my least favorite was 6. I kept feeling like I was watching an extended campaign ad for health care reform. Hehe.

I think Saw V is boring and serves no purpose other than to give Hoffman a back story. I felt no connection with any of the characters and couldn't give a ** about the game, which is nothing but filler that could be its own separate film.
I may understand how you feel though.
My top favourite is Saw IV because it tells John's full origin and until Saw VI (which is my second favourite) Saw III was the most beloved (now my second least favourite), while to this day IV gets the most passive-to-negative attitude even from Saw fans.

Quote:
I just noticed I was seriously rambling. LOL

Yes, you did. Wink

Quote:
Anyway, welcome back- hope to get more of your thoughts soon.

Thanks again dude...-tte?
Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:28 am View user's profile Send private message
HoffWoman
Veteran


Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 170

Post Reply with quote
Hi again! Yes Im a woman/dudette. Hehe.

Thanks for responses. How'd you break up all those quotes into seperate boxes, btw? I've been trying to figure out how to do that.
Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:13 pm View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Zepp
Veteran


Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 194

Post Reply with quote
Cool. And from what I read around the forums you're actually a mommy. Well I'm a daddy too. Wink

As for the separate quotes, I just take the paragraphs or sentences that I want to quote and put these between the texts (without the *):
[*quote][/*quote]

Now I think we should go back to my original topic - what do you all think of John's obvious hypocrisy?
Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:43 pm View user's profile Send private message
HoffWoman
Veteran


Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 170

Post Reply with quote
Quote:
Cool. And from what I read around the forums you're actually a mommy. Well I'm a daddy too.


Yeah, 3 of them. 6-year old twins (boy/girl) and a 9 year old boy. My 9 year old keeps bugging me to play my "Saw" game on the XBox. I told him he has to stick to the "E" games for now.

"Saw" is the only game I play. The twins think rated "M" means "Mommy's game". LOL

If you knew how many times I had to change the channel real quick when they walk into the room. Then they will say, "Mommy, you watching Saw again?" heheh

Quote:
Now I think we should go back to my original topic - what do you all think of John's obvious hypocrisy?


I can definately see what you are seeing. He puts trap-fodder into the games of someone else. While that might be nominally fair to the person being tested, one could argue it's entirely unfair to everyone else. Unless Jigsaw's main goal was to only be fair to the main trap person... In which case, the "I despise murderers" line rings a little hollow.

So yeah, it's hypocritical because he's made it a point to stress that he never kills anyone. That's skating a very fine line of technicality.
Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:16 pm View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
skinnylizard
New User


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 4

Post Reply with quote
Ya, I have noticed this as well, it seemed to be the only thing that made me give a second thought to how great to entire premise of the story is. The first one that got me obviously was Saw I. Now, Adam was not really as helpless as other examples and did have, it seems, ample possibility to save himself. But he really isn't the issue. Had Tapp not intervened, Zepp would have gone through with murdering Gordon's wife and child. Now, while Jigsaw says that he despises murder, it seems that he is requiring murder for life.

Amanda's case is another obvious one, but you could easily rationalize that the man that she had to kill had, like you said, failed an earlier trap and was paying for it. Gordon's wife and child are another story though. In what possible way could they deserve to die simply from Gordon's failure to kill Adam?
Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:41 am View user's profile Send private message
Mrs Kramer
Extreme Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Posts: 442

Post Reply with quote
skinnylizard wrote:
Ya, I have noticed this as well, it seemed to be the only thing that made me give a second thought to how great to entire premise of the story is. The first one that got me obviously was Saw I. Now, Adam was not really as helpless as other examples and did have, it seems, ample possibility to save himself. But he really isn't the issue. Had Tapp not intervened, Zepp would have gone through with murdering Gordon's wife and child. Now, while Jigsaw says that he despises murder, it seems that he is requiring murder for life.

Amanda's case is another obvious one, but you could easily rationalize that the man that she had to kill had, like you said, failed an earlier trap and was paying for it. Gordon's wife and child are another story though. In what possible way could they deserve to die simply from Gordon's failure to kill Adam?


Some excellent examples of John's hypocrisy. The "I despise murderers" comment does fall flat in Saw I with your examples, and even Saw II, where there are not enough antidotes to go around (my memory is that there weren't enough in the safe to go around, but I could be wrong about that). And the gun aimed straight at the peephole set off by using the key? He certainly had to know someone would get it from that, especially since no one had to be standing right there for the gun to get someone. It would have just been a matter of who had the misfortune to be standing in the line of fire (interesting that Obi kept himself to the opposite side of the room, in the back).

I wonder if John became so obsessed with his mission to teach people to appreciate life that he put aside thoughts about the people who had to die, the "trap fodder." Of course, maybe Zepp wasn't really going to kill the wife and child, maybe that was for the benefit of Gordon listening on the phone to encourage him to try to escape his trap. I'm a little rusty on that part of the film, but Gordon did throw the phone out of reach before hearing the outcome. Maybe he was supposed to assume they were killed, and the reason for the wife's and daughter's treatment was so they would be convincing in the phone call. Then Tapp interrupted Zepp, and Zepp went to the bathroom trap but was he supposed to go there and kill one or both of them because he didn't succeed in killing the wife and child, or because he wanted revenge because his part in the game was ** up?
Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:18 am View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:    
Reply to topic    OFFICIALSAW.COM Forum Index » Jigsaw's World
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to: 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin / Easy Tutorials (Photoshop Tutorials).