"Weapons" weaponizes viewers illiteracy

The new horror drama “Weapons” has turned heads and raised eyebrows since its release, its indirect response to societal problems dividing audiences and sparking debates on its true meaning.

Released on August 8th, Zach Cregger’s second ever solo-directed film after his 2022 box office hit “Barbarian”, “Weapons” tackles some of the most prevalent American social issues like addiction, school shootings and generational trauma.

“Weapons” follows a small, classical American town as they react to the mysterious disappearance of 17 young children, all from the same class, all who leave their homes at exactly 2:17 a.m. Structured with an ensemble cast of characters, the story is told in chapters through the different characters’ points of view. A few of the chapters include Justine, the paranoid but dedicated teacher of the 17 students, played by Julia Garner; Archer, a disgruntled and obsessive father of one of the missing kids played by Josh Brolin; and Alex, the only kid in Justine’s class who didn’t go missing with the other 17.

There’s an overlying motif of addiction and parasitic relationships in the film, whether it be the substance abuse of multiple different characters, Archer’s all-consuming and conspiratory obsession with the loss of his child, or the town feeding off of finger pointing and blaming to make themselves feel better. This dark underside of an otherwise normal looking American town makes it feel uniquely real and easy to connect with.

While the jumpscares are tense and the violence is ruthless at times, the scariest part about “Weapons” is how it exposes the lack of media literacy in the average movie-viewer. One of the biggest complaints about the film on social media is the eerie, ambiguous scenes, particularly a scene of a massive AR-15 floating in the sky. 

Despite these complaints, I believe “Weapons” hauntingly gives the viewer every piece of the puzzle to put together a concept of a meaning while simultaneously remaining mysterious and leaving questions unanswered.

The disappearance of all the kids except one along with the imagery of the gun allows for the interpretation of the film being a commentary on school shootings in a way that touches on different aspects of gun violence than what are typically discussed. The film doesn’t show any brutal harm to the children, rather touching on the environment that caused the implied tragedy and the emotional aftermath, feeling like a direct response to the commonly heard phrase after a tragic event, “I don’t know how this happened.”

The title itself is up for interpretation as well, as it’s unclear if the weapons are the physical tools used for violence, or a more abstract idea like the way the older generations weaponize the children and how they all feed off of each other.

“Weapons” is overall a well crafted story with a plot that easily sucks the viewer in, as long as the viewer is willing to put in the time to think about what it all means.