The trailer for Weapons had me waiting on the edge of my seat from the moment I saw it. Even my boyfriend, who hates scary movies, was as eager to see it as I was. I knew it centered on a group of children mysteriously disappearing in a town, but what I did not know was why it was titled Weapons. When I fi nally sat down to watch the fi lm I was excited to fi nd out. Instead, I left the theater confused. Honestly, I was a little disappointed. The story centers around a class of young children who disappear, leaving only one student and their teacher behind. Based on this, and the surreal image of a massive fl oating assault rifl e, I was convinced that Weapons would be an allegory on gun violence—possibly a commentary on school shootings. I thought the symbolism was reason enough. However, after a few intense scenes fi lled with guns and fear, the movie shifted. The fl oating rifl e was not referenced again. There was no deeper commentary on school violence. The fi lm never directly addressed guns, school shootings, or the trauma caused by them.Immediately after seeing the movie, I decided to research what director Zach Cregger’s vision for the movie really was. Through this I found that the fi lm was not meant to be a commentary on gun violence at all. For Cregger, the movie was meant to be a personal, autobiographical story that he wrote while navigating the grief of losing one of his closest friends. If you are like me, this would throw you off. This fi lm is full of violent and disturbing scenes which are made even more so because it involves young students. School shootings are a subject we can’t afford to ignore. In fact, since the start of the school year there have been 33 school shootings in the U.S. 19 have been on college campuses and 14 on K–12 school grounds. On one hand, I wondered if the fi lm should have addressed this crisis directly. On the other, I believe art is a powerful tool for expressing diffi cult emotions and sparking conversations that can resonate in ways that news headlines and statistics simply cannot. Not every work of art needs to carry a political message or social commentary. Cregger made a deliberate choice to keep the fi lm’s message open-ended, allowing space for viewers to bring their own interpretations, and to me, that is valid as well. Chance McDowellSo, what do you think? Should Weapons have taken a stronger stance against school shootings, or is it enough for art to just be art?