Movie Appreciation- Saw 1

How far can a man go to save his or his families life? The movie saw explores this argument. A man terminally from cancer devices a plan and kidnaps two people (known as the Jigsaw Killer). He chains their legs up to a pipe and keeps them in a room with a dead body. One of them is a surgeon and the other is a person who takes pictures of rich men to show their true self. Both of them do not know how or why have they got there.

The surgeon had presence of mind. He did not let his emotions take over his sense of judgment. On the other hand the photographer was in a state of panic and his rationality was impaired. The surgeon knew the only way both of them could get out was if the talked and worked together. Later they found a saw with which was not sharp enough to cut through their chains, the capturer wanted them to cut though their feet. The photographer had thought for a moment that this was all a part of realty television. In another scene another person, Zep, is taking the surgeon’s wife and daughter as hostage. The Jigsaw Killer had told the surgeon that if he killed the photographer before six o clock he could save his family. The surgeon had to choose between murdering a man he does not know and being the cause of murder of his family. The surgeon had an intuition that the Jigsaw Killer was one of his cancer patients.

The viewer feels that Zep was actually working for the Jigsaw Killer, however by the end of the film, the viewer gets to know that the killer had injected a slow acting poison in him and he had to murder a wife and a child (the surgeons family) in order to get an antidote from the killer. Zep faced an ethical dilemma but chose to save himself.

Later in the movie, the surgeon had found a mobile with which he was receiving calls from his captured family. However when the time was up he could hear gun shots being fired. He thought his family was being shot at but an ex- detective was shooting Zep. Getting frustrated at this he sawed off his foot and shot the photographer with a gun to save his family.

The Jigsaw killer wanted to explore human nature. He would capture people and play such gruesome games of life and death. He wanted to show people the gift of life. The captives usually had to choose between saving themselves and saving other people. The killer wanted to see how far a person would go to save himself- would he gouge his eyes out or cut a living mans stomach to get a key. There is always a clash of reason versus emotion and for most emotion overpowers reason. The captives would not communicate and sort out a plan so that their chances of survival would increase. Each one of them would think that only one of them could survive but that was not the case. They had to help each other to survive.

The traps set by the Jigsaw Killer were like art. Each trap was unique though horrifying, in its own way. In order for a person to escape a trap, he had to follow the rules, there was no other way of escaping, the killer had thought of every possible reaction of the captives. Even though the Jigsaw Killer was portrayed as a sadist, those that survived his traps gained a new respect for life and some did become his apprentice. The killer was teaching the captives not through words but by forcing them to survive the traps. A drug addict quit consuming drugs after surviving the trap but also became one of the apprentices of the killer.

In conclusion I would say that seeing this movie through the perspective of theory of knowledge has made me see more than I would have other wise seen. Seeing the reason behind the sadism of the Jigsaw Killer and the emotions faced by his captives and noticing things that I would not have noticed without knowing that words are not the only thing that comprises of language was a great experience. The movie explores the will, selfishness and desperation for people to survive. There was a captive who had a suicidal tendency but when he was given a choice to go through a webs of barb wire or to die in the room he was in before the exit shuts, he chose to live and go through the barb wire.

Knowledge at Work.

India gained its independence on August 15^th 1947. However at the same time the Dominion of Pakistan was formed too. There are several causes for the formation of Pakistan but the man mainly responsible for it is Jinnah (from article). Was there a need for the formation of Pakistan, I do not think so. Today people from all different religions reside in India without any conflict. Why then should Jinnah want to create a new country by splitting not only the country on bases of geography but also splitting the people on bases of who are Hindus and Muslims? This rift developed in the 1940’s has caused countless terrorist attacks in both countries by fanatics.

The article is biased towards Hindus but also gives evidences to prove its bias. The author at the beginning of the article has said that following the speech on July 19, 1946 there was a great massacre of Hindus in Calcutta. This clearly influences the reader’s perception by attacking his or her emotions.

There is no reason given in the article of why Jinnah wanted the partition but it is clearly shown that he was an extremist and wanted it at any cost. He was responsible for the ‘great Calcutta killings’ in 1946. He aroused his fellow Muslims but did not even know how to speak Urdu. Jinnah was not a true Muslim. He was more of a Catholic than a Muslim. “He changed his birthday from 20 October to Christmas Day. As a student at Lincoln's Inn, he anglicized his name from Jinnahbhai to Jinnah.” Jinnah is portrayed as a selfish leader who can resort to any sort of violence to get his way.

The article gives the only the point of view of the different Hindu leaders and subtly criticizes Jinnah’s actions while praising the RSS. Syama Prasad Mookerjee was the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha. He plays around with words and uses it effectively to target the people’s emotion to trigger anti- Muslim sentiments- “Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India.” This statement encourages people to become patriotic as well as pro-Hindu. He reasons out that a partition is not the answer for India, and not just propagate it-

“Hindus regard this country as their sacred and holy land. Irrespective of provincial barriers or the diversity in faiths and languages there exists a remarkable economic and cultural unity and inter-dependence which cannot be destroyed at the will of persons and parties who think it beneath their dignity to regard India as their motherland. We must live and die for India and her liberty.”

This article is a subtle propaganda for the RSS. The author is artfully telling the reader that he is associated with the RSS and feels that the change in the views of the Bharatiya Janata Party is wrong. He feels that the RSS is right in its views about being an extremist pro-Hindu party.

The author has spoken about Hindu leaders who I have not heard of and glorified them, he has on the other hand he has given Gandhi, a person every Indian has heard of less prominence. Gandhi was a pacifist and the extremists did not agree upon his methods.

I feel the partition was just an excuse for Jinnah to gain some importance and make sure he is remembered for a long time. I feel that there was no logical need for a partition to occur. Why should there be any kind of war between people living in the same country when a third party (the British) can be root cause of it and also take advantage.

Religion Abhinav Todi

Today religion is something, which everybody follows; it does not have to be related to God. It can range from music to football. However during the time when people were not very open about new ideas, religion was only related with God. To me religion is just a way of saying “I believe in God”. But I ask if there really is a “God” why do so many people pray to different “Gods and Goddesses” Take Hinduism for example, there are so many Gods that the followers pray to that I do not even know some of their names. I feel some people use blind followers to make money. The Hindu ‘pundit’ may be uttering something that even he does not know what it means while performing a ‘pooja’ and the layman himself does not know whether the ‘pundit’ is really a ‘pundit’.

When a person follows a particular religion, he believes in something. He tries to find something, which may or may not have an answer to. I believe praying to pictures and photos, which has been conjured, up by an artist is irrational. Nonetheless I do believe in an entity. I do not believe that following a particular religion is the way to give respect to that entity. Why would a ‘God’ give something to a person who prays everyday wealth and another who also prays everyday nothing at all?

When a person sees a ‘miracle’ occur, he believes it to be of supernatural origin without examining the situation. During this time of awe a cunning person can begin preaching that it is the work of ‘God’. In certain villages, people dig the earth and place a statue of a ‘God’ and cover it up. But before placing the statue in the ground, place seeds underneath the statue. Then when the seeds get soaked with water from the rain, they expand and push the statue out of the ground and claim it is the work of ‘God’ and trick people into donating money in the name of religion. Fear also makes a person believe in religion. By giving hopes that people who follow a particular religion will create a path for them to go to heaven. Just before the European renaissance occurred, no one questioned the church when it preached something, when the church condemned someone everybody around did the same. The church imposed its will upon the people. People lived in fear of the church. I can relate religion to an analogy of putting some monkeys in a deep pit such that they cannot get out of it. Every week a new monkey is put into the pit. When several generations pass the later generation will not even question why they cannot get out of the pit. Getting out the pit will become ‘forbidden’.

Religion might give a person psychological satisfaction. It might give him or her hope or a wall to lean on when a rainy day occurs. Followers believe that by praying and sacrificing they will get what they want. However one cannot get anything without trying himself.

Changing ones stance on a particular religion is very tough. I would need a lot of evidence that I have to follow Hinduism in order for me to go to heaven. It is not easy for a person who has a faith in someone or something to change it.

People use a lot of biases when it comes to religion. Interpretation of certain texts is a major fallacy when the question of what ‘God’ wants particular followers to do occurs. There can be many meanings to a simple statement like ‘as he ran the earth shook’- for the person running the earth will look as if it is shaking or during the time he was running, an earthquake occurred. People use this misinterpretation and blame their actions on the religion. The fanatic Islam followers have bombed an terrorized Hindus and other religion in the name of God. Why would God want such acts of crime to occur?

As the years pass more number of people question the ultimate truth of the existence of ‘God’. Science has taken over the minds of people and a sense of rational thinking has set in. Having faith in something is not a goo thing, not having faith in anything is worse as the person has nothing to support him. However blindly doing something is a irrational approach to life. Without faith life has no meaning.