Weapons’ school-shooting message is shallow and surface-level (or is it?)

Zach Cregger’s startling horror film Weapons isn’t brief on concepts, both narrative or metaphorical. The movie’s hook is a central thriller involving 17 youngsters disappearing unexpectedly, all working out of their houses at 2:17 a.m., arms outstretched and going who-knows-where. However the story behind the film is uniquely private, Cregger has stated in interviews. It has to do along with his household’s historical past of alcoholism and his grief over a pal’s loss of life, in addition to the opposite messages individuals may even see in its dream-gun imagery or its characters’ political leanings. On the similar time, he says, “I don’t care if any of these things comes by. The alcoholic metaphor isn’t essential to me. I hope individuals have enjoyable, truthfully. It’s not likely my enterprise what individuals make of the film.”

Folks actually are seeing a whole lot of various things in Weapons, from a commentary on college shootings to messages about youngster trafficking, or the best way every technology pushes its issues onto the subsequent. That’s so much for anyone film to deal with, and layering these concepts atop all the non-public components can muddy any metaphor. Right here at Polygon, we’re principally followers of Weapons and the spell it weaves, however that doesn’t essentially imply considering each thread inside the film will get equal weight and equal consideration.

Specifically, one Polygon author was annoyed by the best way the film’s school-shooting angle feels underdeveloped, whereas one other of us appreciates that Cregger doesn’t underline his real-world metaphor too closely. As all the time, when now we have a battle — about James Gunn’s tackle overseas coverage in Superman, as an example, or about Titanic’s alternate ending, Spider in Avatar: The Means of Water, the tune minimize from The Muppet Christmas Carol, and extra — we take it to Polygon Court docket.

[Ed. note: Broad spoilers ahead for Weapons.]

Opening statements: Weapons’ school-shooting imagery, defined

Tasha: Let’s begin with the massive image right here: Cregger’s script facilities on the sudden disappearance of 17 third-graders who all inexplicably vanish into the evening, leaving their dad and mom and the neighborhood to mourn, rage, and search for somebody in charge. He tells the story by many alternative factors of view, notably centering on the youngsters’ trainer, Justine (Julia Garner); one lacking child’s father, Archer (Josh Brolin); an area cop, Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), and Alex (Cary Christopher), the one child from Justine’s class who didn’t disappear. Every of those characters attracts out a unique emotion: Justine is grieving and self-destructive, Archer is indignant and on the lookout for a goal, Paul is combating sobriety, stability, and his relationship. Alex has an much more difficult function to play.

Cregger makes use of all this to discover the sorts of feelings individuals really feel round loss and abandonment, however the particular narrative components really feel way more particular to high school shootings. The sense of loss, the seek for a scapegoat, the best way all of it occurred so abruptly and feels so inexplicable, the neighborhood’s shock and confusion, the necessity for the college to go on afterward — it’s all represented right here, alongside some fairly particular visuals, just like the stuffed-animals-and-candles memorial outdoors the college.

Isaac: The movie additionally explores Alex’s perspective. He’s harboring a secret he dares not reveal, fearing dire penalties for himself and his household. Cregger makes use of Alex’s arc to channel his personal childhood expertise in a fractured dwelling with substance-abusing dad and mom, and to embody one among Weapons’ central themes: rising up with a parasite. That concept surfaces twice: first in a documentary the college principal watches, then in a lesson Alex receives, each defining a parasite as an organism that feeds off one other. In Alex’s case, the “parasite” is a power that has overtaken his dad and mom, leaving him to step into the function of caregiver lengthy earlier than his time. I like the paradox and thriller surrounding that power, which works to bolster the scare issue. Nevertheless it bothers me that the paradox creeps into the plot, and invitations extra questions than solutions.

Presentation of proof

Isaac, the case towards Weapons’ school-shooting angle: I went into this film figuring out as little as potential. I noticed the preliminary trailer and shut every part else out to keep away from spoiling the thriller, and it wasn’t till after I had already watched the movie that I found it additionally ties into the director’s childhood. After studying that, it made sense that these sections of the movie felt strongest to me, whereas the school-shooter themes solely appeared to scratch the floor of what Cregger could have been making an attempt to say.

The college-shooter angle wasn’t private for him — it’s extra mechanical, not simply in regards to the feelings, however about America’s societal divide on easy methods to take care of it. We search for the police to do their jobs, like Justine does along with her boy-toy cop Paul. We attempt to get again to a spot of normalcy, like Marcus, the principal. Or we attempt to determine it out ourselves, like Archer, who’s making an attempt to unravel his son’s disappearance alone. The general message appears to be that it takes an alliance between a liberal trainer and the Huge Unhealthy Truck Dad, setting apart their variations, to unravel the difficulty. However that’s solely implied, and by no means woven into the narrative. When Archer desires about his lacking son, an assault rifle and the quantity 2:17 hover over Alex’s home, however that’s by no means actually a part of the narrative both. I needed to go do homework to study it’s a nod to H.R. 1808, the 2022 ban on assault weapons that handed the Home with 217 votes, however failed within the Senate.

I’ve a problem with this, and it’s a lot the identical concern I had with Jordan Peele’s Us, the place it felt just like the movie wasn’t for audiences a lot because it was for YouTubers like New Rockstars — the analysts who break down and research all of the symbolism and themes sprinkled all through the image that weren’t actually explored within the narrative itself. I like ambiguity in some instances, however I resent feeling unhappy when a film’s hook (a metaphor for varsity shootings) feels superfluous to what the movie is basically about (one thing way more private).

Tasha, the case for: I’m not going to argue with you in regards to the big floating assault rifle, the one factor in all of Weapons that struck me as too literal and too apparent. (And in addition faintly ridiculous.) Cregger will get a bit little bit of grace on that one as a result of it’s occurring in a dream. However the different desires in Weapons appear to be fairly particular psychic impressions about what’s actually happening: Archer and Justine each seeing creepy representations of Alex’s eerie “Aunt Gladys” (Amy Madigan), Archer following his dream-son to Alex’s home, Justine seeing all her college students frozen in place besides Alex, who’s been remade in Gladys’ picture. It looks like Justine and Archer are each tapping into some type of unconscious understanding of their enemy and what’s occurred to the youngsters, and the floating gun feels prefer it’s outdoors all that, and is a extra literal illustration of how Gladys turns her victims into weapons.

However the gun and its pointed “2:17” reference apart, the school-shooting metaphor right here doesn’t strike me as a preachy message about how America’s political left and the precise have to sync up and resolve the issue. (If the message had been that literal, Archer could be arguing that the Structure protects our rights to make use of mind-controlling magic.) To me, it simply looks like Cregger is tapping into the feelings and problems all of us acknowledge from these occasions, in the identical approach catastrophe motion pictures after 9/11 tended to make use of acquainted iconography round collapsing buildings and spreading clouds of particles, with out essentially carrying political messages about 9/11 notably.

Sure, Archer drives a pickup truck and Justine is a trainer, however I simply don’t see them as all that consultant of various sides of the school-shooting concern. Am I lacking a deeper sense of the metaphor right here?

Isaac: Properly, Archer doesn’t discover out in regards to the mind-control stuff till a lot too late to even increase an argument about it. However I do consider Archer and Justine’s backgrounds play closely into symbolically representing the political proper and left, in a surface-level approach that would’ve been dug into deeper. Archer is a small-town, big-truck-driving blue-collar man, to say the least, and he believes he can do police work higher than the cops, and that matches some broad stereotypes that may align him with the precise.

Then you definately have a look at Justine, who offers off such leftist whistleblower vibes, it is comedic. She questions authority, particularly the police, and has no religion of their skill. She intervenes in Alex’s life in methods which are downright unlawful, even when she’s coming from a spot of real empathy. She’s tender-hearted (or bleeding-hearted, relying in your perspective) sufficient to focus extra on his emotions than his rule-breaking when he sneaks away from health club glass to steal his classmates’ title tags for Gladys’ ritual. She’s small, however she’s daring, and he or she cares, possibly even a bit an excessive amount of.

It appears essential to the school-shooting story that Alex can also be a soft-hearted, delicate child, as a result of that’s what’s being modeled for him at dwelling. His father is as loving and tender as Justine, and supportive of his spouse even when he doesn’t need to be, when her creepy aunt involves stay with them. He cares about his son as an individual, which simply makes Alex’s losses extra tragic.

Whereas it’s implied that Archer’s child Michael is perhaps a bully due to what he sees at dwelling — we don’t understand how belligerent Archer was earlier than his son disappeared, however we all know he was a gruff, emotionally withholding man who didn’t know easy methods to work together along with his personal child. We all know from Alex’s perspective that Michael is a bully, and we are able to suspect he will get that from his father, an grownup bully who blames a susceptible girl for one thing outdoors his management, then stalks and harasses her and vandalizes her automotive.

I do agree that the film’s title ties into Gladys turning her victims into weapons, however I feel it goes a bit deeper. I wouldn’t be stunned if Cregger was utilizing that floating gun to sign that Michael might turn out to be a faculty shooter, given his household background, the trauma of the kidnapping, and being launched to ultraviolence in a comatose state. If Cregger wasn’t making an attempt to say that every one sides of the spectrum want to return collectively and prioritize our youngsters to keep away from traumas like this (or else), I’m unsure what the school-shooter allegory is for within the first place.

Tasha: For me, guessing Michael may sometime turn out to be a faculty shooter goes too far into projecting Cregger’s intentions out into the a part of the story he intentionally selected to not inform, particularly since we all know so little about Michael as an individual, both earlier than or after the kidnapping. Metaphorically on this case, the “college shooter” is Gladys, who engineers all of the violence; the youngsters are the weapons, not the gun-wielders. Which is an alternate learn on the floating gun over Alex’s home — it represents what she’s turned the youngsters into. Within the dream, Archer is on the lookout for Michael, and arguably the gun is telling us what Michael has turn out to be in Gladys’ arms, although not like with characters like Archer or Marcus, we don’t see what kids-as-weapons absolutely appears to be like like till the film’s climax.

For me, the school-shooting imagery is way more in regards to the acquainted particulars of the aftermath of college violence, notably the shock, helplessness, and frustration the neighborhood feels. I see Archer and Justine much less as particular political avatars (c’mon, Democrats drive pick-ups too) than as factors on a spectrum of emotional response to the sudden, uncontrollable loss of a giant group of kids.

You possibly can see a lot of the Kübler-Ross levels of grief stretched between the 2 of them: Archer is anger and bargaining, both looking for and punish a scapegoat, or turning into an beginner PI, making an attempt to change shoe-leather detective work for solutions the complete police division failed to search out. Justine, for her half, is in denial and melancholy, making an attempt to drown her feelings with heavy ingesting and self-destructive habits, like manipulating struggling alcoholic cop Paul (Alden Ahrenreich) into abandoning his rigorously received sobriety and dishonest on his spouse. The truth that the 2 of them find yourself working collectively does really feel vital, however to me, it simply represents the endpoints of their separate makes an attempt to work by their feelings. They each method the issue with totally different responses and in numerous methods, however like so many different individuals who navigate grief, they finally each arrive on the similar finish level.

However let me ask this: Perhaps the actual expression of college shootings right here is the stunning ending, the place the youngsters themselves commit an act of grotesque violence, and it’s implied that the neighborhood’s confusion and frustration is about to hit an entire new stage. There are a whole lot of stunning moments on this film, however for me, none of them are as startling because the picture of those third-graders hurdling their our bodies by partitions and home windows as they attempt to get to their victims. As The Onion grimly factors out each time there’s a brand new mass-casualty taking pictures, America has turn out to be considerably inured to the thought of children committing violence. Cregger finds a technique to make it horrifying once more, and to remind us that irrespective of how heinous the act they commit, these are simply youngsters. Does that land for you in any respect as a payoff?

Isaac: I feel the school-shooter theme is used to discover grief by these characters, however I additionally consider an announcement is being made on the similar time. I feel you make a really fascinating parallel between Gladys being the shooter and the lacking youngsters being the weapons. I additionally consider Gladys is the shooter on this metaphor — however of us like Paul, Alex’s dad and mom, principal Marcus, and Jake are the weapons. The lacking youngsters are the victims of college shootings, those who’re left alive and have a chunk of their innocence stolen from them by being a part of this trauma.

They don’t commit violence till they’re deployed by Alex, who’s a sufferer of Gladys simply as they’re. The youngsters tearing into Gladys till she’s a bloody pulp and the youngsters staring down on the mayhem is them involuntarily witnessing the horror of college shootings. The rationale I wouldn’t be stunned if Archer’s son turns into a faculty shooter is as a result of the survivors are victims of violence and traumatized by it, which begets extra violence.

That’s the fallout. The adversarial unwanted side effects and results of this example. This stems again to my thought that the movie’s assertion is “Kids should be prioritized to keep away from traumas like this, as a result of it simply creates extra trauma down the road.” And never simply when it pertains to high school shootings, however the extra widespread issues as effectively, like youngsters being uncovered to alcoholism at a younger age, just like Cregger’s upbringing. Prioritize the youngsters! Don’t play the blame recreation or look to laws to be one of the best father or mother you will be, as a result of it begins at dwelling, prefer it did for Alex and Michael.

However given how my theater reacted to Weapons’ ending, we could already be doomed. I agree America is numb to the thought of kids committing acts of violence, as a result of my viewers roared with laughter on the scene of kids hurdling their our bodies by home windows and partitions to kill an outdated woman. I don’t learn about your theater, however the viewers in mine discovered it hilarious! I don’t solely consider Cregger performed the second to be horrifying, both. I feel he deliberately filmed that sequence with humor on the forefront. An outdated woman yelling and slowly working away from youngsters, irrespective of the context, is hilarious. And the movie transitions between drama, horror, and comedy so usually that the laughter felt welcomed. After that ending, I puzzled “Was I not speculated to be taking all this severely the entire time?”

Tasha: I agree that the climactic sequence performs as weirdly comedic. I discovered the child-weapons horrifying, however Amy Madigan’s slow-motion flailing fleeing felt fairly Keystone Kops, prefer it simply wanted “Yakety Sax” enjoying within the background to be a full-on Benny Hill chase scene. I don’t blame anybody who laughed: Weapons is a tense, ugly, intense film, and it’s pure to search out the discharge on the finish cathartic. Although given how ridiculous, over-the-top, and equally laugh-worthy the equal climax will get in Zach Cregger’s Barbarian (I’ll by no means cease laughing at The Mom smashing by a concrete wall just like the Kool-Support Man), I’m questioning if the dark-comedy ending may be a signature for him.

However I additionally don’t suppose you had been incorrect to take the remainder of the film severely — particularly not its evocation of elementary-school taking pictures victims! I’ve to ask at this level, although: Your authentic grievance was that this whole metaphor was shallow and poorly thought by, however you’ve laid out a fairly thorough evaluation of what the characters imply, the way it all works into the film’s themes, and what we’re speculated to get out of it. What did you’re feeling was lacking? What did you need extra of in Weapons?

Isaac: I had the identical concern with Barbarian that I did with Weapons by way of the ending — the tonal shift gave me whiplash, the extra Cregger defined The Mom. He makes an attempt to course-correct that in Weapons by leaving some issues ambiguous, however each loosely implied reply meant two extra questions sprung up instead.

Each movies work greatest when saturated in their very own thriller — the second the reveals come throughout Alex’s perspective, and Weapons’ horror components ramp up, the much less scary it turns into. I might really feel my curiosity waning. I assume I want the movie stayed extra within the pocket of its horror-mystery hook, as a substitute of driving the road of darkish fairy story/dramedy the additional it progresses.

I by no means felt happy upon discovering out the thriller of why 17 youngsters from the identical class ran outdoors at 2:17 a.m. to go who-knows-where. We discovered when, the place, how, however by no means precisely why, past their presence sustaining Gladys’ well being. What’s her motive? Why youngsters? Ambiguity of the origins of her energy and their mechanics are efficient, however don’t skimp out on what made me come to the theater: Why precisely did she take these youngsters, and what occurred to them now that she’s useless?

Couple that with the arcs of Paul, Marcus, and Jake finally being deserted to set them up as brain-dead obstacles within the last act, having to do homework and immerse myself in interviews and breakdown movies to grasp key facets of the movie (Brolin couldn’t even give us a straight reply about what the floating gun means), and having my questions suspended till no matter prequel or persevering with story the movie units up by the tip — I simply want Weapons, which seemed to be a deeper film on the floor, wasn’t simply organising a franchise to clarify issues that would’ve readily been answered right here on this story. If you wish to be mysterious, be mysterious, however don’t arrange a future movie on the finish, through which extra shall be defined.

Closing arguments (and opening arguments within the case for and towards Weapons 2)

Tasha: I’m on file as saying I feel the tip of Weapons tells us every part we truly have to know, and that the truth that we need to know extra is a function, not a bug. I just like the film’s ambiguities excess of I’d like a cleaner, extra spelled-out model that, as an example, put Archer in a MAGA hat and coated Justine’s automotive with Kamala Harris bumper stickers, and that had them discussing and analyzing his dream-gun imagery earlier than braving Alex’s home. The small print we get about Justine’s college and the neighborhood’s response communicated sufficient in regards to the school-shooting expertise for me to really feel the feelings with out making it extra literal.

And I’d a lot somewhat see Cregger transfer on to a different startling authentic imaginative and prescient like this one than flip his discarded origin-story materials into one other film. I’m with you on feeling disillusioned by any film that feels prefer it’s saving all of the essential solutions for a sequel or prequel or spin-off. However right here, Weapons gave me what I wanted — together with sufficient mysterious hooks to gas fascinating conversations about what Cregger is basically doing right here.

Isaac: I’m proper there with you, in {that a} extra apparent film with characters explaining all their parallels and carrying all their stereotypes on their sleeves could be a boring different. And I do get pleasure from these deeper discussions the place we are able to dig into what characters could symbolize with the little we get with them. However I don’t know if I need to know extra about Weapons after this film, as a result of what enticed me was why these youngsters mysteriously ran off. I’m not involved in a full-length function movie about Gladys, which it looks as if we’re going to get.

It jogs my memory of The Black Telephone, one other horror movie involving a creep luring in youngsters, that’s additionally getting a sequel this 12 months. I by no means understood the necessity for an element two, as every part in that self-contained story was defined and settled. I cared in regards to the youngsters in Black Telephone, not The Grabber, however a sequel in regards to the monster is precisely what we’re getting. Black Telephone 2 made me ask myself the identical query a continuation of Weapons delivered to thoughts: Why?