MovieChat Forums > Jigsaw (2017) Discussion > Is John a hypocrite?

Is John a hypocrite?

posted 7 years ago by JigsawDude (173)
7 replies | jump to latest

I just recently watched the first three movies again (as I tend to have a marathon at least once a year) and I took notice of something that probably others have noticed before but I never really thought much about.

In Saw I, John kidnaps Amanda and has her in the RBT and her goal is to get the key by cutting open the stomach of her dead cell mate. Well, as we all know, he was actually alive and she had to murder him to survive.

In Saw II, John tells Eric that hates murderers and he gives people a chance at survival (in most cases, he is correct. Even if one person must die, he gives people the chance to live).

In Saw III, Amanda is being tested the entire time about letting games play out how they are intended and not to interfere by murdering people and taking away their chances to survive. John lectures her about this constantly throughout the movie. Even though he did give her multiple chances to learn her lesson.

Now my point is, John purposely drugged a man and told Amanda to kill him to survive. If she didn't kill him and get the key, she wouldn't have survived herself (because there was no other alternative means of escape shown to us). Keep in mind that the man couldn't work with Amanda because he was drugged and unable to move or speak.

So, John is a hypocrite then right?

[–] DarkKnight (262) 7 years ago

Jigsaw has always been a murderer. He also tried to kill Tapp by slicing his throat in Saw 1.

He's a total hypocrite. There were also multiple 'subjects' that never got a chance at survival throughout the series.

[–] therefdotcom (964) 7 years ago

considering there were completely different writing teams, john is basically "inconsistent" ... just as expected from such a case.

you don't have to go further than saw 1 to poinpoint his hypocrisy. what chance did adam have? why would dr gordon appreciate his life, just because he killed adam (which was his task). why would zepp? and yeah, as you pointed out, what chance did amanda's cell mate have?

we could go on for pages and pages. he was a psychopath. the only consistency he showed throughout the series were the few actual "hurt yourself to free yourself" traps, that did involve only a single person, in their original states before turned into death traps by someone else. that also rules out all group traps, versus traps, jeff's game parcours ... etc etc.

[–] TheLovelyAnomaly (619) 7 years ago

I'm with therefdotcom on John's inconsistency and hypocrisy. Both are present from the very first movie.

[–] SWLinPHX (246) 7 years ago

No, John is a good man who is doing his best to see that justice is served in what is far too often a broken criminal justice system. Cut him some slack.

[–] therefdotcom (964) 7 years ago

be honest, at which installment did you stop watching?

[–] actionkamen (23176) 6 years ago

The trailers, I guess.

[–] Patman111196 (1792) 6 years ago

Of course he is. I do think the writers of Saw II did try to make him more sympathetic. But that doesn't explain why he booby trapped that electric fence. Plus many of his victims were pawns that could only be saved by someone else. Saw III and VI very much applies to this.