Connect with us

Editorials

‘Saw X’ – 9 Things We Learned from the Blu-ray Commentary Track

Published

on

Saw X VOD

At long last, Jigsaw returned in Saw X. Set between the events of Saw and Saw II, the tenth installment is a gruesome fan-pleaser led by a franchise-best performance from Tobin Bell as John Kramer.

Along with a six-part making-of documentary and more, the film’s home video release features an audio commentary by director-editor Kevin Greutert, cinematographer Nick Matthews, and production designer Anthony Stabley.

Here are nine things I learned from the Saw X commentary…


1. Kevin Greutert was unsure about the concept until he read the script.

Greutert — who edited six previous Saw films and directed Saw VI and Saw 3D — is one of the few Saw creatives to return for Saw X, but he wasn’t sold on the initial concept.

“I’d heard about it years before, what the concept of the movie was, and I was like, ‘I don’t know. Really? Cancer?’ I just wasn’t sold on the very basic one-sentence version I heard.”

In January of 2022, producers Mark Burg and Oren Koules sent him the script, written by Peter Goldfinger & Josh Stolberg (Jigsaw, Spiral: From the Book of Saw).

“Then I read the script, I was like, ‘Holy cow! This is really emotionally engaging and super smart in terms of how do we really tell the full John Kramer story and not resort to the same sort of flashback trickery that we had in the previous films.’ I was really taken by it.”

He also mentions that the original script took place in Europe rather than Mexico.


2. The crew strove to maintain Saw‘s visual language.

Since Saw X takes place between the series’ first two installments, the team strove to uphold the visual language of those films. Although X was shot digitally, they used vintage lenses, a standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio, lighting choices, and editing techniques that hark back to the early entries.

“It’s the visual language of Saw,” notes Greutert. “I think some of the more recent Saw movies were trying to get away with that and be, like, a normal movie. But we didn’t want to be a normal movie, we want to be Saw!”

“We wanted the language of the movie to fit into that world, so 1.85 [aspect ratio] was an important choice in terms of our framing,” explains Matthews. “Similarly, we wanted more vintage lenses and we wanted more grit in the image, and we wanted to do whatever it took to be able to arrive there.

“We’re shooting in a digital age, we’re not shooting with film, so we’re trying to find ways to take the tools that we have available now and tell a story that feels relevant to today but also reaches back to some of those aesthetic touchstones.”


3. An old camera trick was utilized for hazy visuals.

Vaseline smeared on a camera lens — an old Hollywood trick famously used to give aging actors a softer look — was employed to help achieve the hazy visuals while the drugged John is undergoing “surgery” when the budget didn’t allow for more than one tilt-shift lens.

“This was something Kevin had always brought up, an interest in using tilt-shift lenses. We ended up mixing in some Vaseline rubbed on filters and stuff like that to create this more subjective space, sort of in John’s head as we’re experiencing this moment,” says Matthews.

“Some of these [shots] are literally Vaseline on the lens, because we couldn’t afford two tilt-shift lenses, and almost everything we shot on this movie was two cameras at the same time,” Greutert adds. “It’s a pretty trippy effect.”


Shawnee Smith Saw X

4. Saw X pays homage to giallo movies.

The Saw films are known for their drab, gritty aesthetic, so it may come as a surprise that Saw X drew inspiration from colorful Italian giallo movies. Stabley explains:

“It was a wonderful opportunity for us to create this palette of the US with the colder colors and the blues — and you can see that in the clothing, you can see that in the color selections — and then having that departure once we’re in Mexico with the warmer tones, the greens. And then of course we have the traditional red, the blood, and this love for giallo films that we all share.”

“No doubt,” Greutert concurs. “There’s some great homage to that Italian period of ’70s horror filmmaking.” The genre’s inspiration is brought up at different points throughout the commentary by all three participants.


5. Anthony Stabley appears in the film twice.

In addition to his production designer duties, Stabley appears in front of the camera twice. Most notably, he plays the host of the Surgeons of Tomorrow instructional DVD that Kramer finds, which was the first footage shot for the movie.

As Greutert reveals, “Anthony is also the teenage boy in the photo of Gabriela’s family that’s hanging in the foyer. You’re all over this movie!”

While Greutert doesn’t make a cameo, he proudly points out that he played the piano music heard on the radio in Cecilia’s house.


6. Traps were coated in resin for easier clean-up.

Saw X producer interview

Saw X is among the goriest installments in the blood-splattered saga, and as much of it was accomplished with practical effects as possible. To maximize efficiency, prop traps were coated in resin so they could be reset easily between takes.

“There’s very little digital work in some of these scenes,” says Greutert. “Our VFX team did an absolutely incredible job making this movie work, but at the same time, most of the blood you see is practical. Most of the cutting into limbs that you see is real stuff.”

“The majority of this factory space had basically linoleum that was faux-finished as concrete so that we could clean it up quickly and do take two,” Stabley explains.

“In addition to that, the majority of the traps, if not all of the traps, were coated in resin so that we could have that clean finish to go onto the next time. I’m so pleased with all of that. It was a lot of work, and all of these different departments were working together to make this thing happen.”


7. The ending is an intentional inversion of the typical Saw conclusion.

The commentary track was recorded months before the film’s release, so Greutert was unsure how viewers would react to the ending. “Saw fans, you either love or hate the way we end this movie. From my perspective right now, I just don’t know.”

Inverting the typical Saw conclusion in which a door is slammed shut, X concludes with Kramer and the other survivors opening the door to daylight.

“To me, this is the send off of John Kramer,” Greutert clarifies. “He’s on his way to John Kramer Heaven, because we know he’s only gonna be alive for a couple more months at the most. Why do it with a door slam?”


8. Footage from the original Saw was recycled for the mid-credit scene.

The iconic bathroom set from the original Saw — which also appeared in parts II, III, V, VI, and 3D — was recreated by Stably and his team for X. But Greutert reveals that shots of the overhead lights turning on were recycled from Saw.

“Those shots of the lights are the footage from Saw 1. You made the ceiling. We could have done it!” he points out.

“It’s kind of mad that we did the whole build of the set for just this tiny scene,” he chuckles. “It’s tonally kind of wacky that we do this and we end on the Batman ’60s TV show spin into Michael Beach here.”


9. Greutert wants Cecilia to return in Saw 11.

Saw X introduces the duplicitous Cecilia Pederson, played by Synnøve Macody Lund, who narrowly survives the events the film. Greutert wants to her to return for the potential 11th installment.

“If there’s a Saw 11, I like to think that Cecilia will be back, but at this point we don’t know what that movie would be,” he says. “But she’s going to be pretty evil.” He also intends to bring Matthews and Stabley along with him for the next chapter.

As for fan-favorite Mark Hoffman, his overall fate in the franchise remains ambiguous following Saw 3D. “That’s what Saw 14 is for,” Greutert jokes. “Saw 14 picks up where Saw VII ends, and all will be revealed.”


Saw X is available now on 4K Ultra HD, Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading