Some thoughts on Caught Stealing

Just when I was ready to write off 2025 for good, along comes Darren Aaronovsky’s crime comedy Caught Stealing, with an astounding script, bone-deep comic performances, and production design that literally brought me to tears.
If you have a script like Caught Stealing, where a “normal guy” gets entangled in a dangerous mess with violent thugs, you can make an enjoyable romp like Snatch or Nobody, or you can make a serious, character-based drama like Jackie Brown or Uncut Gems, or you can make a paranoid thriller like The Man Who Knew Too Much or Marathon Man. What Aaronovsky has done is combine all those approaches and then produce it like it was Lawrence of Arabia.
Caught Stealing, most importantly for me, EXACTLY captures the look, mood, textures and atmosphere of the Lower East Side in the 1990s, which is where I spent my 30s. The details are correct down to every sticker, graffito, pile of garbage, cigarette butt and piss stain. It’s a very rare thing for me to be able to smell a movie, but that’s what this one accomplished.
Of course, there weren’t criminal escapades going on on the scale seen in the movie, but, walking the streets of Alphabet City on a Saturday night, one always SUSPECTED things like this were going on. If it’s not a true story, it’s an incredibly true mise en scene. Every character looks like someone I would see on St. Mark’s Place, every song pouring out of every passing car is accurate to time and place, and Austin Butler’s front door is identical to the one I had on 6th St. on Indian Row, in the 1800s tenement apartment I lived in, where the “bedroom” had no window except the one that was a pass-through into the kitchen (which had a bathtub next to the stove), which had been boarded up decades earlier.
The thing that gets me is, the script would have worked in present day. Aaronovsky shoots it in period, on real streets, in New York City, which involves tons of money, and can easily double the budget of the movie. Why did he devote so much time and energy and budget to bringing that time and place to life? Well, of course that was Aaronovsky’s time and place too, when he was making Pi and Requiem For a Dream. And young screenwriters like me would go to see those movies and dream about the movies that we would make when we got the chance. And there was a whole community of artists, filmmakers and writers and performance artists and puppeteers and vaudeville acts and a million other kinds of cultural miscreants, and that was the scene that produced Aaronovsky, and me, and I’m forever grateful that he bothered to remember that time and place, and to recreate it with such an attention to detail and a total absence of sentimentality. The place was a filthy hellhole and the movie presents it as such. Tompkins Square Park was the scene of riots protesting the yuppies moving in, but the yuppies were moving into abandoned buildings that were firetraps and shooting galleries, not sweet little communities where people got along or ethnic neighborhoods that got displaced. They were moving into buildings that were cheap because people had died in them.
There was another layer to the movie that sold it for me, but probably only for me. The plot revolves around this guy, played by Austin Butler, who had been a star baseball player in his teens but had an accident and can no longer play. Instead, he follows the team he almost joined, the SF Giants, and calls his mother, who coached him as a teen, after every game to discuss the game. It’s a movie about loss, and how to recover from it. What does one do when one has lost everything? How does one move on when one’s identity, all one’s hopes and dreams, are erased in a heartbeat? Anyway, at a certain point I realized that Austin Butler’s character is a lot like me. Like him, I almost got the chance to make it big. Ironically, I’ve always looked at my career as never hitting a home run, but always managing to get on base. I wrote a lot of screenplays, and a handful of them were made, and two of them were actual hits, although I was not credited for one of them. Neither has left a cultural footprint, but I did enter the arena and, for a few years, had the opportunity to play, as the movie calls it, “real ball.” At its deepest level, Caught Stealing is an ode to perseverance, about keeping going when there’s nothing left to keep going for, and at a certain point I realized that I was watching a movie by the guy whose movies I used to go see when I was dreaming of being America’s next great writer-director, and I still go to see movies every week even though I’m no longer in the movie business, and I realized that, tonight, I was watching a movie about myself watching this movie.
The acting, by the way, is uniformly great, but I want to give special shoutouts to Griffin Dunne and Vincent D’Onofrio, both of whom vanish into roles that any other actor would have played as stock one-joke characters.

Weapons

 
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.