Here’s Looking at Film, Kid

As much as I hate to admit it, we live in an age of lackadaisical filmmaking. Remakes, rewrites, adaptations, sequels, franchises run into the ground—originality is a commodity we experience all too rarely in modern multiplexes. For God’s sake, we can’t even go two weeks without greenlighting another Jane Austen adaptation. But for all of our money-grubbing and corner-cutting, nothing could prepare me for what took place last Friday.

People paid to watch another “Saw.”

They spent money—money, I’m assuming, they earned through hard, honest work—to see the same terrible movie they watched last year and two times prior. The damn thing managed to rake in $32.1 million at the box office. That’s $10,088 per theater. That’s roughly 1,028 people per theater. In one weekend. Paying to watch another “Saw” movie.

Sit back and think about that, really ponder it. Now say it aloud: “More than 1,000 people flocked to my local theater to see ‘Saw IV’ last weekend.” Now get pissed.

To add insult to injury, Lionsgate confirmed the upcoming productions of both “Saw V” and “Saw VI,” which will be filmed back-to-back to maximize their ineptitude. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that Tobin Bell’s character, Jigsaw, the villain of the franchise, died, like, two movies ago. If someone could please explain to me how this guy maintains the “Annual Torture Porn Games” from beyond the grave, it would be much appreciated.

The appeal of these movies eludes me. “Saw” is sadist, misogynistic trash, a graying, immoral remnant of mankind’s desire to inflict, and subsequently revel in, the pain of the innocent. It’s a guy with a bear trap clamped to his head, a girl in a chamber of dirty hypodermic needles, people being buried, boiled and broiled alive, an all-too revealing reflection of humanity’s innate need to hurt things. It’s a dirty, dingy, ugly mockery of cinema.

But here’s the hard truth: We have nobody to blame but ourselves. It’s not Hollywood’s fault. It’s not Lionsgate’s fault. It’s not the fault of James Wan, Darren Lynn Bousman or any of the screenwriters responsible for the horrid dialogue and moronic plotlines. It’s our fault. We’re the producers. That $32.1 million we forked over last weekend? Bousman thanks you profusely. It’ll come in handy when he shoots “Saw VII” and “VIII.”

Granted, “Saw IV” made less in its weekend run than “Saw III” (the highest grossing of the series with $33.6 million in its opening weekend), which indicates a waning interest for casual fans of the franchise. But that paltry $2 million in diminished ticket sales is relative pocket change in Hollywood. “Saw” is still a moneymaking machine and will continue to be until the audience realizes they’re essentially paying $9.25 every Halloween weekend to see the same damn movie.

No other film series compares to the utter and complete triteness of “Saw.” It is a gluttonous, soul-sucking franchise unlike any other. It is a breeding ground for the lazy, uninspired, commercialization of art for the sake of money. It’s cinematic fast food. And we’re buying into it by the millions.

Want to defend the Saw franchise? Weigh in! Leave a comment and ignite some discussion.