There’s a trend in modern moviemaking that bugs me. This is the approach that a story doesn’t need to make literal sense if it is ultimately an allegory for something else: a theme, a human condition, an illness.
For instance, there are various films I’ve seen where I say, “What exactly was that monster that did these horrible things?” And I read reviews that explain the monster was really a metaphor for trauma.
That’s well enough. Maybe the monster works on this allegorical level, but—call me old-fashioned—I believe the story should still work on the surface level, in a way that is believable within the constraints of whatever reality the movie operates in.
You can probably see my complaint coming on. “Weapons” does not do this.
(And yes, according to my research, the film is ultimately allegorical about something I will not name.)
I’ll give you the basic setup. One night, most of the kids in the class of a teacher played by Julia Garner get up and run out of their houses into the shadows. As a result, the teacher falls under a cloud of suspicion. The one kid who did not disappear also prompts questions.
The teacher then joins together with a few other characters to get to the bottom of the mystery.
It’s an engaging premise. But there were several incidents that just made no sense.
It’s noted that several of the kids set off alarms of some sort when they ran out of the house. Why didn’t the parents wake up and investigate?
A cop following up a lead does not notify his superiors about what he is doing. That just seems unlikely.
Those are a few of many issues.
Perhaps some would say, “But you don’t get it, dude. The story is not meant to be literal.”
Uh huh. Whatever.
Narratives can exist mainly on a surreal level. I raved about Ingmar Bergman’s “Persona” and Orsen Welle’s “The Trial” in this space not long ago. But those films broadcast early on that they will not make sense, that they revel in ambiguity
“Weapons,” I felt, wanted to have it both ways.
I’m not saying don’t see it, but go in forewarned.
