game over

 

Is Saw pro-torture?

In Saw, dying serial killer John Kramer traps tough-as-nails addict Amanda Young in a jerryrigged reverse bear-trap contraption. She escapes, and later credits Kramer with ‘saving’ her.

In Saw II, Amanda is kidnapped and tortured by Kramer again – until we realize that she’s since been groomed into being Kramer’s accomplice. She survives a pit of syringes to continue her role as his loyal assistant, and successfully guides victims through their games.

But in Saw III, we see the tragic ends of her loyalty. Amanda loses faith in John’s methods, and starts to rig unwinnable games. From her perspective, John isn’t actually ‘rehabilitating’ people anymore. The only way to fix society, she’s convinced, is to selectively put people down like sick animals. Their conflicting tensions result in a terse stand-off that leaves both of them – and all of their victims of III – dead in a haunting final shot.

So – is Saw pro-torture?

what Saw says about America's relationship to torture

 

Saw and Hostel are both cultural nadir incarnate. What I mean by that is that most people have a preconceived notion of both series based on what they’ve been told about them.

They’re the poster children for the ‘torture porn’ sub-genre, which tends to be classified as inherently misogynistic and excessively violent. By consequence, both Lionsgate series are often dismissed as pure exploitation and nothing more. Some folks in the horror community even refer to them as ‘bro horror.’

But when viewed today, it’s difficult to just write either series or their numerous imitators off as, well, just that.