Well, maybe not that far. But its still a difficult path to tread. A writer's best bet, then, is not to try to re-invent the wheel, but rather to invent a new tired of rubber compound (if you will excuse the tire analogy). Creating a new spin on an old story is one way that you can differentiate your story from others, and make it stand out. A good example of this is "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," both the comic and especially the film. The standard globe-hopping action film is just that: standard. By spinning those standards along with the idea of using characters of historical literature, what you have is something which makes the average viewer sit up and say, "Hey now..." Its a hook, plain and simple, but if it works, it works.
Such is the case with the film in question here today: Saw. At its heart Saw is a fairly standard thriller/mystery film, in the vein of Se7en as well as quite a good number of giallo films. What differentiates Saw is the focus of the script: the victims. Specifically, two victims, Adam and Larry , who have been captured by the devious and ridiculously creative Jigsaw Killer. Jigsaw, it seems, is interested in teaching those who do not appreciate the value of being alive what it means to appreciate life. How does he go about this, you ask? Why, by simply putting his victims into incredibly convoluted and hasrh torture chambers wherein they either play the game and survive, or fail and die gruesomely. And you thought you were having a rough day!
By focusing on the victims instead of either the killer or the police/investigator (if we are talking giallo standards, then the protagonist typically is not a cop), the film opens up new avenues not typically explored. Usually, a thriller of this nature either puts the audience into the mind of the investigator, trying to piece together the motivations of the killer, or (less frequently) in the mind of the killer, showing us his motivations and the way he plays with those who would stop him. Its a rare thing to see and feel what is going through the mind of someone who has been put directly into a situation such as those on display here in Saw, and it makes for an effective hook.
Somtimes a film can be perfectly described by its tagline, and this is one of those times: "How Messed Up Is That?" Saw exists to put its characters into disturbing peril, and then force the audience to come to terms with how they would react having been put into similar circumstances (as unlikely a situation as that may be). Its confrontational and direct, almost as if daring the audience to say they would do the "right thing" (in this case, die) rather than do whatever it takes to survive.
To wit, we meet Adam and Larry chained up in a filthy, disprepaired bathroom. Both are chained by one foot to walls on opposite ends of the room, and between them lies a gun, a microcassette recorder, and a dead body. As they try to make sense of what is going on and how they got there, we learn a little background on Jigsaw and meet the police who are investigating these crimes: Dectective Tapp and Detective Sing (A bad pun if there ever was one). While the police track down leads, they end up finding the only victim of Jigsaw who has managed to survive: Amanda, a drug addict who awakens one day to find herself strapped into a "reverse bear trap" which will, at dawn, rip her head in half. Jigsaw, in the guise of a really freaky looking puppet, informs her that in order to escape, she must find the key to her headgear, which is located currently in the stomach of the dead guy in the room with her. Amanda decides to take her chances, only to find once she gets up that there is now a ticking timer on her headgear. She makes her way to the dead body, finding a knife, and going to cut open the man's stomach... the stomach of the man who is still quite alive.
How Messed Up Is That?
In the end, Saw leaves little to the imagination as the "game" being played by Adam and Larry plays out. The twists and turns the plot takes are all fairly unconventional, and the development of the "game" goes to places which alternately leaves the audience piqued or repulsed. Its ugly and raw, and even the end leaves little hope. The film is a downer, no doubt, almost as if it belongs to the "Bleak Chic" movement of the mid-90s. But the ride to get to that dark and dreary ending is an enjoyable one, filled with sadisitic choices and gruesomely inventive set pieces. This is the kind of film where something is set up, you say, "They're not going to do that," then it is done, and then you say, "I can't beleive they did that!"
Plus, its not all bleak. You'll be sure to appreciate your life after watching this!
