I very much enjoyed Zach Creggar’s newest suspense masterpiece Weapons, but what has really impressed me are the grosses. It has made over $200 million globally, a shocking number for a $35 million movie ($10 million of which went to Creggar for writing and directing, bargain of the century) that is not a four-quadrant marketing juggernaut like Lilo & Stitch or Superman.
It’s been a terrible year for movies, and a terrible year for grosses, especially for projects like this, low-budget movies whose budgets are too high to be considered “indie” but too low to be thought of as “studio.” There is no marketing angle to Weapons, there is no famous IP, there are no plush toys or video-game tie-ins. It’s just a movie that came out and people are responding to it in a way that they have not responded to any other movie this year, with the exception of the also-brilliant Sinners.
The lesson, I’m afraid, is not “quality will out,” not exactly anyway. My personal theory for why grosses have been so low this year is that all the movies that have been released this year were made last year, when the idea of a second Trump presidency was a laughable joke, that Trump was a bad memory we had just shaken off and the world would be ready to forget their troubles at movies like The Amateur or Death of a Unicorn.
So audiences have been going to movies and finding that nothing onscreen captures the anxiety and distress they feel being a citizen of the world under the control of a physically ill, mentally ill billionaire man-child who decided to wreck the global economy because it made him feel good and who can’t think any further than his next photo op or shakedown.
My theory is that Weapons is a massive hit because audiences, as with Sinners, are finally seeing their lives onscreen, adequately filtered through the lens of metaphor.
So, what is Weapons about? Spoilers necessarily follow.
In Weapons, a small town is torn apart because an evil force has invaded the town and is slowly pitting citizens against each other in order to distract everyone from the enormous crimes they’re committing. Nobody knows what the evil force is, but a couple of townspeople are trying to figure it out. Others are just trying to live their lives and make it through the day, and a small minority are actively helping the evil force spread its influence.
How does this evil force manifest itself? The Weapons title card, and the entire end-credit crawl, features a prominent blue triangle, which, I have learned, is the logo for Alcoholics Anonymous. So there is a metaphor of addiction at play in the narrative. This evil force that has invaded the town makes people act like addicts, and if they are already addicts it makes their addictions worse. There are alcoholics and a crack addict in the story, but the addiction metaphor remains a metaphor, and the viewer is not required to “get” the metaphor in order to enjoy the narrative. I certainly didn’t “get” it until after a second viewing, which may give you an idea of how well the metaphor is deployed. There’s a lot going on in the movie, a lot of stories to take in, and, as with Barbarian, the script only makes sense when you realize that Creggar doesn’t think about plot the way other screenwriters do. His first feature, Barbarian, was a brilliantly constructed series of scenes that are connected by theme and only “come together” in the movie’s third act. Weapons has a similar conceit, but the narrative is divided into different sections according to character, so we see the narrative from one character’s perspective, then we back up and see it again from another character’s perspective, and so forth.
(For me, the most brilliant part of the script is that the different characters’ stories are presented in order of “most affected” to “least affected,” so that we’re given an inciting incident (seventeen kids disappear) and we start the movie with the story of the grade school teacher whose kids all disappear, then move to the story of a father whose son disappeared, and then move to the story of a cop who is dating the school teacher and isn’t affected by the missing kids at all, and then a local crackhead who literally doesn’t know that any kids have gone missing at all. The structure makes the audience feel like they’re getting further and further away from a solution for the town’s problem, even as the evidence grows more and more obvious. Then, in its third act, it suddenly gives us the inside story from the one character we had completely forgotten about, pulling all the threads of the story together like the frogs at the end of Magnolia, a movie Creggar cites as a main inspiration for Weapons.)
Anyway, that’s what Weapons is about. An evil force invades a town and creates chaos, which turns all the townspeople against each other as this evil force makes everyone fall back on bad habits, abusive behaviors and chemical solutions to bad feelings.
Which is how we’re living our lives every day now.
The question on your mind is, well, what is this evil force? That would be a major spoiler, but let’s look at the physical manifestation of evil as it is presented in the movie.
Evil is described in Weapons as having a ridiculous haircut, a ridiculous sense of style, a cloying, annoying, boundary-ignoring personality and a penchant for getting under people’s skin. It makes good people doubt their sanity, it pushes sober people to drink, makes law-abiding citizen suspect each other, and creates a culture of fear and oppression that pushes townspeople toward violent solutions to common problems. It spreads evil because that’s how it stays alive. And it literally steals our children’s futures.
Who does that sound like?
How is evil defeated in Weapons? Let’s just say it’s so satisfying that it’s unexpectedly extremely gory and breathtakingly hilarious. To me there is no mystery as to why Weapons is a smash career-making hit: it gives the audience the solution to the problems they face every day.