3.5 out of 5 stars

“Right now, you are feeling helpless,” repeats the old mini-cassette again and again. A tense scene unfolds as the FBI decipher the identity of the true successor to the Jigsaw killer, while he anxiously stands in the room with them. This was also likely what critics were telling themselves during the sixth entry of a horror franchise with no signs of stopping. ‘If it’s Halloween, it must be Saw‘ was the marketing gimmick for Saw IV (2007) but true of every sequel (at that time) from the bloody beginning of Saw (2004).

A mixed blessing around the franchise midpoint as the series was becoming flabby in the middle. With slasher classics, jump in on the sixth exploits of Freddy or Jason with no need for catch-up. Each Saw sequel makes House of Leaves light reading by miring audiences in the footnotes of Jigsaw’s backstory. Half the runtime by this point is dedicated to flashbacks. All the while never slowing down with new traps and twists to let people catch a breath.

All by design, to stop anyone questioning if the pieces fit in this jigsaw puzzle speed-run. I love Saw precisely for this ridiculous soap opera nonsense. But it’s impossible to ignore the tangible exhaustion from the creatives racing against that annual deadline.

“By the time we get to Saw VI and VII, we really start to push credibility, with all the secret envelopes and new hidden lairs and death traps that keep popping up from beyond the grave. The problem is that we just never came up with a villain who was compelling enough to take over from Jigsaw, so the story motivations had to keep coming from the dead guy!”—Kevin Greutert, director (Saw VI & Saw X), editor (Saw I-V, Jigsaw & Saw X)

If it’s Halloween, must it be Saw? Look at his phrasing “had to”. The unequivocal answer to this question is that the Saw franchise has made over $1BN. That doesn’t mean Greutert moved to the director’s chair for a bigger payday. Nobody knew the franchise more intimately than the man who slaved over hours of footage to make this saga even arguably comprehensible. That is what paid off as Saw VI is still renowned by fans as one of the best in the series.

Saw VI feels like a game of fast chess with the constant flurry of moving pieces. Health insurance vulture William Easton (Peter Outerbridge) is the latest contestant in the Jigsaw trials. The ones running it are at odds on who inherits the righteous legacy of John Kramer (Tobin Bell). Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) who gets his hands dirty in protecting their secrets, or the still grieving widow Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) fulfilling a promise to her infamous husband. Don’t forget the obligatory cameos from numerous dead people.

Part IV was too confusing, Part V wasn’t confusing enough” admitted screenwriting duo Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunston (Saw IV-VII) while promising “This one hits the mark right in the middle.” In the myriad of plotlines offered in VI, only the middle one hits the mark. More like running a game of fast chess while baking a cake and reciting the Declaration of Independence from memory. Sort of impressive, the cake tastes fine, but pay any attention and none of the chess moves make any sense.

We’ve had test subjects punished for ethical misdeeds like mourning a dead child too much, taking work too seriously, or being generally too sad. Don’t even mention seasonal depression around Jigsaw. William Easton is a victim most people might secretly agree deserves it. A rich white man who makes his money denying sick people their coverage. One who proudly leads a “dog pit” of sycophants who boast claims like “Found two application errors for a chronically ill client; this could probably save us nearly 200K over his lifetime!” It’s only a movie, we are allowed to cheer on their grisly deaths.

And yet, these are human beings. Outerbridge turns in an absorbing performance. Granted the full range of emotions coming to terms with not only the immediate horror but the psychological weight of his life consequences. Jigsaw’s modus operandi is rehabilitation. A deeper analysis of Saw critiques whether his cutthroat assessments of society are far too warped by his own experiences. Here is an exceedingly rare example of a true Scrooge forced to redeem himself.

Incredible how smoothly we side with him in his earnest commitment to ‘doing the right thing’. In most of his trials, he endures momentary pain to save lives. Contrary to the standard Saw self-preservation of ‘my life or theirs’. Demonstrated first when placed in a crushing contraption hooked to their breathing. He could die, but we all figure his lung capacity is better than the life-long smoker in competition with him. And yet, Outerbridge’s face reveals the start of his ego death, taking no satisfaction in victory as the superior.

Melton complimented the actor’s “wonderful back and forth” between William and John Kramer. Not since Saw III (2006) does “this film feel more intimate than the other ones.” Surprising given one of these characters died way back when. The inability to argue with a prerecorded Jigsaw does mirror the stone-faced ‘professionalism’ of William. Acting as if their hands are tied. William’s by the equation that reduces terminally ill clients into inhumane statistics.

The Carousal Trap ranks up there with the Saw greats; a test of human nature pushed to the extreme. Six employees strapped to a motorised roundabout where William must play an inverse Russian roulette. An automated shotgun will fire six times but can be diverted only twice. Four must die. There is no way of knowing if William ever made the ‘right’ choices. A woman escapes because she has kids. Dr. Gordon (Cary Elwes) had to saw his own foot off because he was a bad parent. One lied about being pregnant, another was blamed for stealing from the company, and Josh (Shawn Mathieson) is highlighted simply for overacting. When Kramer decries William not factoring in “the will to live”, are these people not demonstrating that by saying anything and everything to survive?

“Each choice he makes effectively moves him further from the place of privilege in which he began, from a state of health to a state of injury and potential disability. We’ll never know, however, if he truly learns to see beyond his algorithm, since his fate was never really in his own hands. Perhaps that ending is the greatest lesson in deconstructing privilege that a Saw film could hope to offer.”—Marcus Gorman, ‘Ten Years Ago: Saw VI’

The issue with Saw VI is less the ending and more the beginning. William’s lesson doesn’t even start until half an hour in. Greutert demonstrates editing prowess in delivering a slick roller coaster experience. On further goes around, the thrill ride becomes exceedingly rickety.

The first act glides along another arbitrary trap disconnected from the main story, the ending of V and the immediate aftermath, and a new flashback with someone who died in III in cahoots with someone who died in IV. Egregious continuity rewards loyal fans but alienates newer audiences expecting the actual plot to go anywhere but backwards.

After introducing William replete with an emotionally engaging and satisfying story arc, how hard can it be handling the other lead, Mark Hoffman? “Costas was introduced in III in a strange moment and he stuck out like a sore thumb. We had to carry that over to IV and V,” concedes Melton, along with, “I don’t think you have a good idea of what he’s about in those two, how his mind works. All of that is answered in VI.” I’ve always been on the fence with our new de facto protagonist for the backend of Saw, and this empty promise couldn’t be further from the truth.

Mandylor gives the ideal performance for a Jigsaw successor, barely stifling his self-righteous murderous impulses. “That’s my character’s dilemma”, the actor puts it, “does he go fucking crazy or follow the rules of the boss?” With that boss firmly dead, along with their other accomplice, and the FBI agent hounding him, Hoffman has one pesky widow to deal with before sitting pretty.

Greutert mulled over, “IV ends on the very weak note of revealing Hoffman without any indication of why a cop would join forces with a crazed serial killer, V existed purely to play catch-up with Hoffman’s motivation.” So what does Saw VI accomplish in our time with Hoffman?

Gorman was astute that the legacy of Jigsaw represents “a wealthy white man’s concept of justice and moral goodness, and the bodies of women, people of colour, and the impoverished are put through some kind of ringer.” I disagree only to a point. Men, like William, are disconnected from the consequences of their actions and comfortably sit in their ivory towers above the suffering common people.

The equally rich John Kramer was distinct in his own philosophical commitment. In the first three Saw films, he placed himself into his own games. His life was always on the line, eagerly sacrificing himself to prove his point.

Mandylor perfects the smug aura, arrogantly smirking in his flashback with Amanda (Shawnee Smith) and Kramer as he schemes their downfall. But he lacks the conviction of the faithful monologue that only Tobin Bell could convince audiences with. William’s game is run entirely on autopilot as Hoffman is busy elsewhere. He shows zero investment which in turn prevents the audience from ever getting invested in him. Why should he be Jigsaw?

Do you know who should be running this test? Jill Tuck, wife to the man denied medical coverage by William. Betsy Russell has nothing to work with, in a role that gets just as many flashbacks as Hoffman that all seemingly go nowhere. She gets a MacGuffin of a box left in John’s will, which is William’s game, but Saw VI denies her retribution as Hoffman takes over for no discernible reason.

Jill gets not one, but two, major backstories to motivate her and none of it is delved into with depth or care. She aids in William’s test with the enthusiasm of handing someone a shopping list. VI could’ve contrasted her flashbacks of resisting Kramer’s teachings with her current zeal to punish William. Like husband, like wife, the two both dance between steadfast dogma and thinly veiled vengeance. Instead, there’s zero emotion exhibited toward the man who indirectly killed her husband and caused all of this. Amanda was a spiritually devoted follower but at least she had a backbone. Jill just does whatever her husband tells her to do, even after death.

The further her involvement is revealed, the more irresponsible Kramer appears. Patronising her for ‘ineffectively’ running a rehab centre while showing off his ‘success’ with Amanda. Hard to tell if there’s any irony when we learn it was Amanda who indirectly caused Jill’s miscarriage. The most that motivation is explored is Jill drinking wine while watching an old ultrasound video.

In a story where the FBI uncover the last suspect was framed and who might be responsible, Saw VI frames poor, doting Jill with her complete lack of agency as the one culpable for making John Kramer who he is. Unintentional as Greutert considers he “was okay with Amanda joining him, but not Hoffman, and definitely not Jigsaw’s wife.” The fact she doesn’t get named sums up how important she is to Saw.

‘What about the ending!?’ you scream as Jill incapacitates Hoffman and leaves him to die with the iconic Reverse Bear Trap strapped to his head. Ignoring this as another example where a dead man shows more initiative than her, this is unbelievably careless of Kramer and cements him as a terrible husband.

“I promise you when all this is done, I will provide a way out for you,” are his last words to her. Tyler the Creator said it best, “so that was a fucking lie.” Not only is she entrusted to deal with Hoffman, who is the psychotic brawn of this operation. Not only does the scene play out and show Hoffman surviving, setting up his (downright misogynistic) revenge in Saw VII (2010). But this completely places Jill in unnecessary danger! Hoffman had no evident desire to kill her until after this. Jill could’ve quietly gone back to her old life if it wasn’t for Kramer’s puffed-up stupidity.

“It was a little silly when the producers themselves started buying into Jigsaw’s so-called ‘philosophy’ without any irony at all” Geutert acknowledges, stressing his perspective that “Jigsaw was a murderer.” And VI does intentionally build on this hypocrisy.   

Kramer’s gotcha that William is “failing to consider the will to live” goes out the window in practice. Evidenced by all the victims who accept their punishments and undergo self-mutilation, only to be killed when they needed one last moment to get the damn trap off. The lawyer (Caroline Cave) endures crawling through an extended steam maze, with just 20 seconds left to retrieve a key from inside William. Whether they cooperate or she kills him, there’s not enough time. Every test of VI involves unavoidable death. William must torture himself to save only some and bear the guilt of letting people die. I’m having flashbacks to the first Saw, “Technically he’s not a murderer.”

Kramer also scolds Hoffman for manhandling “a human being” and can only muster an eye-roll in response to the notion that they both want this victim to suffer. That man hit-and-ran a child. In VI, Kramer implodes a janitor’s ribcage for the gall of smoking in his fifties. Some of these victims have no executable offences in the eyes of the law, but then again these are insurance people.

The two caught in the opening test were mortgage brokers, playing off the concurrent subprime mortgage crisis. Critic James Franklin wrote: “Most would probably prefer to pay lower premiums than witness their HMO manager being dissolved from the inside out by hydrofluoric acid,” but this is Saw. And we’re not just talking about the films but the audience. Note this implicit self-defence from critics averse to the “apocalyptic films” of the era.   

By enjoying the fictional violence, we’re vicariously accepting Jigsaw’s message and tacitly confessing we’d accept this behaviour in the real world. Or some pearl-clutching shit like that. Saw sequels got obtusely insular in their spiralling narrative, but there’s a sharp satirical voice responding here.

“In the months after 9/11, there was a lot of talk in Hollywood about toning down movies with dark themes, audiences are going to want to be consoled. The years that followed contained some of the most violent horror movies in history. The torture that was made real by the war on terror is in a completely different category than the torture audiences experienced in Saw.”—Kevin Greutert

The same Saw, where the director namechecks Abu Ghraib, came with an original motion picture soundtrack featuring Suicide Silence, Mushroomhead, and Lacuna Coil, along with a DVD bonus first look at the Saw: Game Over maze at Universal’s ‘Halloween Horror Nights’.

“The original writers were all thinking they were Peter Jackson and it was a trilogy,” divulged Mark Burg (producer of the franchise and co-founder of Twisted Pictures), “trilogy my ass, we wanted to keep going because there were still more stories to tell.” I love Saw, and VI is one of the best. Even with the political edge Greutert brought, it was clear as day without the admissions that the stories were in short supply, but it didn’t matter as long as the money kept coming.

“It’s not only a satisfying movie, whether it had a numeral six behind it or not,” Melton crowed, “it’s just a terrific movie.” Viewed absent of any traditional series marathon, this is still most definitely Saw Chapter Six. William’s standalone game does not constitute a whole movie and cannot support the underwhelming melodrama incomprehensible to anyone jumping in, even with gratuitous flashbacks. Between V and VII, this is a five-star film. By itself, not so much.

The highest praise in hindsight is from Melton, “VI could be done and that’s it, there could be no more. In terms of the John Kramer storyline, we put a nice bow on it.” For every criticism the die-hards may fight me on, this is a hell of a lot nicer than the bowwow with the actual Final Chapter the following year.

One last irony in regards to the success of Saw VI. Greutert noted during promotion that he “… just saw Paranormal Activity the other day. I’m sorry we’re competing against it. [laughs] It’s not going to be a problem. I wish them well.” The $11M Saw VI made $69.8M and remained trapped behind the $15K Paranormal Activity that skyrocketed with a $194M box office. The fan-favourite Saw VI is still the second lowest-grossing film of the franchise!

Given the similar success with the original Saw, it may well have reminded them where it all started. Saw XI should have been out by now, but they’ve delayed it an entire year, proving Jigsaw can afford to give a little extra time to get it right.

CANADA • USA • AUSTRALIA | 2009 | 90 MINUTES | 1.85:1 | COLOUR | ENGLISH

frame rated divider retrospective

Cast & Crew

director: Kevin Greutert.
writers: Patrick Melton & Marcus Dunstan.
starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell, Mark Rolston, Peter Outerbridge & Shawnee Smith.