- Joined
- Nov 4, 2020
I want to start a discussion on the meme morality often spouted in relation to the Saw Franchise, which I have recently watched this October. (small backstory I have never ever watched any horror movies ever and figured there's so many of them I might as well since I've been watching more and more movies and the only movie that's come out in the last 5 years was once upon a time in hollywood.)
I am not going to completely finish my point in the OP because I want to think about them one by one starting with Saw 1 and 2 although I can't remember when anything happens in these movies because they're 90% flashbacks and retcons that serve only to drown the entire world of the film in its own nonsense
The basics of the original Jigsaw (John Kramer)'s moral idea is this:
People don't appreciate their lives,
and they must learn to appreciate them.
The basis for this idea is his own terrible experience with loss, the revelation of his own mortality and a near-fatal car crash. These movies are bad and clearly made by and for morons. But I enjoy them, especially Saw 4/5 in which the series peaks as a sort of grindhouse american deathnote-equivilent. I enjoy them but won't defend their abjectly poor quality. Here, I want to discuss the moral idea of John Kramer, why he is wrong and why Hoffman is his true heir. It should be noted I have an addiction ot meta-narratives and encoding. I.e. Doctor Gordon Lawrence is the "Sinister Gay Uncle".
So massive spoilers for Saw on the off-chance you care:
John Kramer is a clearly wealthy if not successful engineer (and architect). He owns dozens of properties across town and despite his age is married and has a wife on the way, based on everything you are shown and told, he is obviously a severely autistic man who got a late start in life. (played by Tobin Bell, the only actual actor in the series, and arguably one of the best parts). He's not rain man levels of 'tism although a crossover clearly has potential.
Everything is going good for /ourguy/ until his wife, who foolishly helps drug addicts in a drug addict help clinic. One day one of her more exceptional patients tries robbing the place for the oxys or whatever the fuck the detox drugs they have there are that you can still get high off of. He slams a door on her and crushes her late-term baby kiling it. This destroys the relationship between John and Jill, naturally, especially because of his intense hatred for junkies and her retarded quest to help them (anyone with on the ground experience knows these clinics are an inurance scam, which is why John would meet the main guy for Saw 6) Basically, the more names on a list, the greater your funding. Homeless shelters and such work the same way. I was homeless for a year and was surpised to find out 6 years later that according to records I was *still homeless* because they kep my name on their lists to increase their funding and thus paychecks. But that's an aside.
Shortly after this, John Kramer learns he has terminal brain cancer (which it being a frontal lobe tumor actually explains his nonsensical reasoning because that's the personality portion of the brain). The combination of his age, expidited mortality and incincerated legacy causes him to attempt suicide. He drives his car off a cliff and . . . survives, miraculously, but mostly due to his unexpected Will To Live. Despite having no reason to live, he crawls out of the burning wreck and removes a metal thing from his body and saves his life. In that moment he realized how little he appreciated the life he had despite the recently horrible things that'd happened.
This is the foundation for his reasoning. The premise for his traps is that he puts people in a life or death situation, where they must often main themselves in order to survive, The idea being that he is providing an near-death experience that, if they have the Will, will give them a new appreciation for what they have - no matter how bad.
www.youtube.com
In Saw 2, in this scene, Jigsaw's entire moral perspective is memed from orbit by Discount Wahlburg. "Pointing a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pull the trigger is still murder." Yes, and Jigsaw's apparent insanity is excused by his terminal brain tumor. But, his perspective has a basis. And that basis is in reality because he is right generally speaking that most people don't appreciate their lives and not so off base that a near-death experience can (and it has been proven in numerous examples to) give people a new appreciation for life. However, a lot of these experiences are closely woven into the victim's own apparent shortcomings.
In Saw 2, Discount Wahlburg's test was something about patience or whatever. Sure. Fine. Tightly tied to the fact that the apparent live security footage they find is actually a recording and his son is actually literally inside a safe right behind Jigsaw. All Discount has to do is sit and talk to the autistic grandpa in order to see his son again.
The core problem is that Discount has no reason to trust Jogsaw. It is perfectly reasonable to assume he's being meme'd on. And as a police he is trained to not negotiate with people like this - to not play these kinds of games. This is the first clue to Jogsaw having autism, as he clearly doesn't understand how actual human people make decisions and see things. Despite apparently having the ma level ability to anticipate the human mind, which really, aggressively, both invalidates every test he has designed and is something an exceptional individual would say.
If the ultimate goal is giving people a new appreciation for their lives, then I would begin to argue that Hoffman's traps are both morally and cinematically superior in every way. I will leave it at this and wait to see if people respond and I'll come back and continue to drunkenly attempt to reach a point later.
p.s. to the mods I know this might be better suited to a different board than philosophy so if you move it I won't get salty please forgive me I'm new and not sober
I am not going to completely finish my point in the OP because I want to think about them one by one starting with Saw 1 and 2 although I can't remember when anything happens in these movies because they're 90% flashbacks and retcons that serve only to drown the entire world of the film in its own nonsense
The basics of the original Jigsaw (John Kramer)'s moral idea is this:
People don't appreciate their lives,
and they must learn to appreciate them.
The basis for this idea is his own terrible experience with loss, the revelation of his own mortality and a near-fatal car crash. These movies are bad and clearly made by and for morons. But I enjoy them, especially Saw 4/5 in which the series peaks as a sort of grindhouse american deathnote-equivilent. I enjoy them but won't defend their abjectly poor quality. Here, I want to discuss the moral idea of John Kramer, why he is wrong and why Hoffman is his true heir. It should be noted I have an addiction ot meta-narratives and encoding. I.e. Doctor Gordon Lawrence is the "Sinister Gay Uncle".
So massive spoilers for Saw on the off-chance you care:
John Kramer is a clearly wealthy if not successful engineer (and architect). He owns dozens of properties across town and despite his age is married and has a wife on the way, based on everything you are shown and told, he is obviously a severely autistic man who got a late start in life. (played by Tobin Bell, the only actual actor in the series, and arguably one of the best parts). He's not rain man levels of 'tism although a crossover clearly has potential.
Everything is going good for /ourguy/ until his wife, who foolishly helps drug addicts in a drug addict help clinic. One day one of her more exceptional patients tries robbing the place for the oxys or whatever the fuck the detox drugs they have there are that you can still get high off of. He slams a door on her and crushes her late-term baby kiling it. This destroys the relationship between John and Jill, naturally, especially because of his intense hatred for junkies and her retarded quest to help them (anyone with on the ground experience knows these clinics are an inurance scam, which is why John would meet the main guy for Saw 6) Basically, the more names on a list, the greater your funding. Homeless shelters and such work the same way. I was homeless for a year and was surpised to find out 6 years later that according to records I was *still homeless* because they kep my name on their lists to increase their funding and thus paychecks. But that's an aside.
Shortly after this, John Kramer learns he has terminal brain cancer (which it being a frontal lobe tumor actually explains his nonsensical reasoning because that's the personality portion of the brain). The combination of his age, expidited mortality and incincerated legacy causes him to attempt suicide. He drives his car off a cliff and . . . survives, miraculously, but mostly due to his unexpected Will To Live. Despite having no reason to live, he crawls out of the burning wreck and removes a metal thing from his body and saves his life. In that moment he realized how little he appreciated the life he had despite the recently horrible things that'd happened.
This is the foundation for his reasoning. The premise for his traps is that he puts people in a life or death situation, where they must often main themselves in order to survive, The idea being that he is providing an near-death experience that, if they have the Will, will give them a new appreciation for what they have - no matter how bad.
"Those who don't appreciate life do not deserve life." -John Kramer
My favorite scene from the film 'SAW'.
www.youtube.com
In Saw 2, in this scene, Jigsaw's entire moral perspective is memed from orbit by Discount Wahlburg. "Pointing a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pull the trigger is still murder." Yes, and Jigsaw's apparent insanity is excused by his terminal brain tumor. But, his perspective has a basis. And that basis is in reality because he is right generally speaking that most people don't appreciate their lives and not so off base that a near-death experience can (and it has been proven in numerous examples to) give people a new appreciation for life. However, a lot of these experiences are closely woven into the victim's own apparent shortcomings.
In Saw 2, Discount Wahlburg's test was something about patience or whatever. Sure. Fine. Tightly tied to the fact that the apparent live security footage they find is actually a recording and his son is actually literally inside a safe right behind Jigsaw. All Discount has to do is sit and talk to the autistic grandpa in order to see his son again.
The core problem is that Discount has no reason to trust Jogsaw. It is perfectly reasonable to assume he's being meme'd on. And as a police he is trained to not negotiate with people like this - to not play these kinds of games. This is the first clue to Jogsaw having autism, as he clearly doesn't understand how actual human people make decisions and see things. Despite apparently having the ma level ability to anticipate the human mind, which really, aggressively, both invalidates every test he has designed and is something an exceptional individual would say.
If the ultimate goal is giving people a new appreciation for their lives, then I would begin to argue that Hoffman's traps are both morally and cinematically superior in every way. I will leave it at this and wait to see if people respond and I'll come back and continue to drunkenly attempt to reach a point later.
p.s. to the mods I know this might be better suited to a different board than philosophy so if you move it I won't get salty please forgive me I'm new and not sober
