The Real Horror of Weapons: Self-Preservation
Written By: Josh Kozak
Published: August 15th, 2025
When flames erupt, we hope a community will be forged in fire — but more often, we become scattered by it.
Zach Cregger’s latest film, Weapons, is arguably one of the most terrifying yet exciting viewing experiences in recent years. The film clearly demonstrates a horrific epidemic that the United States has faced within the past couple of decades: school violence, especially with weapons. The whole idea of the film being one big showcase for brutality within the school system, caused by students whose guardians guide them to do horrible things, is interesting and most likely intentional by Cregger; however, I’m interested in something less direct but just as critical of an issue within our society.
Behind the blatant horror of Weapons lies the true terror: self-preservation, opportunism, and the human instinct to survive. Weapons isn’t a horror film about the disappearance of 17 children and the supernatural that play a role in it; rather, it’s those elements that serve merely as a framework to explore the innate behaviors of humans in times of crisis. I do believe that the movie used these elements to share its authentic and unique story, and not because they were attempting to use them simply as a platform to preach about something they believe in. In the case of Weapons, Cregger primarily showcased an underlying subtext within the characters of self-preservation, something I believe to be the real reason why all of the tragedy that follows occurred in the first place.
The most obvious example of self-preservation causing and or following tragedy within the film was the entirety of Aunt Gladys. During the film, the audience discovers that Alex’s Aunt Gladys has fallen ill and needs help recovering. Leading Alex’s mom to offer for Gladys to stay with them, as she believed her late mother would have done the same. When Gladys arrived, it became quickly evident that she was quite unwell: looking barely alive in bed when Alex peeked through the door, as well as having a lack of hair, giving her a deathlike appearance. The film went on to use Aunt Gladys’s illness as the main plot point for the devastation that followed. Aunt Gladys is a literal witch who utilizes energy from people (primarily children in this case) to keep herself alive. This is by far the most noticeable act of self-preservation by a character within the film. Aunt Gladys directly affects the children negatively by drawing their so-called energy in order to reabsorb it for herself to stay alive. This showcases how the main tragedy within the film, the disappearance of the 17 children, was directly tied to Gladys and her urgent need to keep herself alive regardless of how it affects others. Self-preservation typically follows this concept. The idea that by protecting or helping yourself, you're most likely hurting others, or at least someone. It brings up this ethical/moral question about what’s right and what’s wrong. What Gladys does is horrible and doesn’t have that much of a justification or ethical argument defending her, but there are other self-preservation acts within the film that might have more justification, specifically Alex.
Alex is a third-grader in Ms. Gandy’s class, meaning he is no older than nine; however, he is faced with a dilemma that puts him into this ethical crossroads that we as the audience see unfold. Before Aunt Glady arrives at Alex’s house, we see the relationship he has with his parents. His father drops and picks him up from school, his mother is nurturing and loving, and they are an overall happy family. From the start, it is clear that Alex is in a healthy household, and there is a sense of safety. However, once his Aunt Gladys arrived, it all changed. Suddenly, one day after school, his typical car ride home with his dad didn’t happen. In fact, neither of his parents showed up to pick him up from school; instead, he walked home by himself. The moment Alex opened his front door and entered that house, everything changed. He was faced with a moral reckoning. Aunt Gladys brought to his attention that his parents were under her control and that she could make them do horrible things to anyone or anything, including themselves. As a nine-year-old, Alex sat at the head of the table and was told by his Aunt that he must indirectly sacrifice his classmates to protect his parents from being or doing harm. When faced with this question, Alex decided to do whatever his aunt said, because all he cared about was saving his parents from Glady’s control. So, Alex went into his classroom and got a personal item from every kid, and brought it back to his aunt, giving her exactly what she needed in order to get the kids to be controlled and gravitate towards her. So there it is again, self-preservation. Alex decided to harm his classmates to protect his parents and, therefore, himself. Of course, it isn’t fair to say that it was a nine-year-old’s fault that the devastating disappearance of 17 children occurred; however, it’s also not wrong to say that his innate human gravitation towards preservation led him to go out and help Gladys steal those children and take them from their homes. This not only offers a more justified example of the moral reckoning or ethical crossroads that Alex found himself in, being the decision to either save his parents or save his classmates, but also self-preservation in itself, and it is the foundation of the tragedy. For example, the weapon does the shooting or unaliving, but the person is the one in control. I think that Weapons demonstrates that it’s less about what and more about who; it gives insight into what people do and why, something that goes over people’s heads during/after a tragedy due to the emotional response that comes with it.
Another great example of self-preservation within the film is the teacher Justine Gandy. While she is devastated by the disappearance of her students, she is also concerned about the safety of her own life. So while she feels guilty and almost required to lend a hand and give information to the people of the city, she actually is quite reserved and keeps information to herself as a safeguard of protection among the community. Just how far is someone willing to become vulnerable themselves to help others? Ms. Gandy, being a teacher, has one of the most respectable and unselfish careers someone could have; however, someone with such a generous occupation still has their limitations. For Gandy, despite feeling guilty and horrible about the situation, she still had that self-preservation trait that kept her from telling everyone everything for the sake of protecting herself. This once again raises an ethical question regarding what is justified when protecting oneself versus helping the greater community. I don’t think Gandy’s act of self-preservation was such a strong reason for the tragedy, like Gladys’s or Alex’s were, but I do still believe that it was incorporated into the disaster as well. If she had less of a guard up for herself, maybe Alex’s house could have been searched numerous times and possibly found the kids earlier, but at the same time, is it fair to ask that much of Gandy? Although I am not going to give my full-hearted answer to these questions, I do think they are really important to think and discuss, as it is the basis for moral failure and human nature.
Alden Ehrenreich’s character, Paul, is also a great portrayal of self-preservation. Paul, who is the cop in the film, worries about his image and future once he makes a critical mistake on the job. While driving around, already frustrated about the situation with the disappeared kids, he sees a seemingly sketchy 20-something-year-old in an alley doing something to a building's wall. He turns the police car's lights on and goes into full pursuit; however, the kid begins to run away, and a chase commences. Eventually, once Paul tracks down and detains James (the 20-something-year-old), he asks if he has any sharp objects in his pockets before patting him down. James answers no. However, once Paul reaches into James’s pockets, he gets plucked by what seems to be a syringe to administer drugs, and instinctively knocks James out. Obviously, as a cop, he isn’t able to detain someone and then hit them, so he turns off the cameras and tells James he is free to go as long as he promises not to show up at the police station and report him. James agrees. Later, when James is trying to make a quick buck, we see him discover the missing kids in the basement of Alex’s home. So, James attempts to go to the police station to report what he has seen, but Paul sees him before he can report what he saw. This led Paul to chase after him as he thought James was there to tell the station what he had done to him. To make a long story short, Paul chases James and they eventually go to Alex’s home without telling the other police officers, and get themselves under control by Gladys. This entire subplot with Officer Paul and the drughead James depicts exactly what I’ve intended to: self-preservation and opportunism. Once again, we see someone forget about others and worry about themselves when a crisis arises. Paul, thinking James was going to tell the police station about their incident, chased after him instead of listening, showcasing that protecting himself was far more important than whatever James had to say, even information that could have saved the lives of seventeen children. James himself also indulges in opportunism; he would never have cared about those kids he discovered in the basement if it weren’t for the 50,000-dollar reward he saw at the pawn shop. That’s why we see him go to the pawn shop after discovering the children and not the station right away because it wasn’t until he saw the reward that he started to care about the information he had.
The opportunistic and self-preserving nature of humans shines bright within this movie, from the seemingly innocent and courageous characters to the blatant villains. That’s the scary thing about humanistic qualities; it doesn’t necessarily matter who you are because they are innate and rather difficult to control. In the case of Weapons, we see individuals with highly respectable, notable careers in law enforcement and education have the same self-preserving qualities as a literal witch (Aunt Gladys). If anything, I want this article to shed light on the idea that a weapon in a tragedy isn’t where the tragedy began, but the person and story itself, because most likely it started with a self-preserving need or desire of someone that causes damage to others. Overall, Weapons is a fantastic film that showcases numerous aspects of modern society with direct and indirect tie-ins to countless atrocities that must be discussed for us to prevent them from recurring in the future.
When flames erupt, we hope a community will be forged in fire — but more often, we become scattered by it.
Zach Cregger’s latest film, Weapons, is arguably one of the most terrifying yet exciting viewing experiences in recent years. The film clearly demonstrates a horrific epidemic that the United States has faced within the past couple of decades: school violence, especially with weapons. The whole idea of the film being one big showcase for brutality within the school system, caused by students whose guardians guide them to do horrible things, is interesting and most likely intentional by Cregger; however, I’m interested in something less direct but just as critical of an issue within our society.
Behind the blatant horror of Weapons lies the true terror: self-preservation, opportunism, and the human instinct to survive. Weapons isn’t a horror film about the disappearance of 17 children and the supernatural that play a role in it; rather, it’s those elements that serve merely as a framework to explore the innate behaviors of humans in times of crisis. I do believe that the movie used these elements to share its authentic and unique story, and not because they were attempting to use them simply as a platform to preach about something they believe in. In the case of Weapons, Cregger primarily showcased an underlying subtext within the characters of self-preservation, something I believe to be the real reason why all of the tragedy that follows occurred in the first place.
The most obvious example of self-preservation causing and or following tragedy within the film was the entirety of Aunt Gladys. During the film, the audience discovers that Alex’s Aunt Gladys has fallen ill and needs help recovering. Leading Alex’s mom to offer for Gladys to stay with them, as she believed her late mother would have done the same. When Gladys arrived, it became quickly evident that she was quite unwell: looking barely alive in bed when Alex peeked through the door, as well as having a lack of hair, giving her a deathlike appearance. The film went on to use Aunt Gladys’s illness as the main plot point for the devastation that followed. Aunt Gladys is a literal witch who utilizes energy from people (primarily children in this case) to keep herself alive. This is by far the most noticeable act of self-preservation by a character within the film. Aunt Gladys directly affects the children negatively by drawing their so-called energy in order to reabsorb it for herself to stay alive. This showcases how the main tragedy within the film, the disappearance of the 17 children, was directly tied to Gladys and her urgent need to keep herself alive regardless of how it affects others. Self-preservation typically follows this concept. The idea that by protecting or helping yourself, you're most likely hurting others, or at least someone. It brings up this ethical/moral question about what’s right and what’s wrong. What Gladys does is horrible and doesn’t have that much of a justification or ethical argument defending her, but there are other self-preservation acts within the film that might have more justification, specifically Alex.
Alex is a third-grader in Ms. Gandy’s class, meaning he is no older than nine; however, he is faced with a dilemma that puts him into this ethical crossroads that we as the audience see unfold. Before Aunt Glady arrives at Alex’s house, we see the relationship he has with his parents. His father drops and picks him up from school, his mother is nurturing and loving, and they are an overall happy family. From the start, it is clear that Alex is in a healthy household, and there is a sense of safety. However, once his Aunt Gladys arrived, it all changed. Suddenly, one day after school, his typical car ride home with his dad didn’t happen. In fact, neither of his parents showed up to pick him up from school; instead, he walked home by himself. The moment Alex opened his front door and entered that house, everything changed. He was faced with a moral reckoning. Aunt Gladys brought to his attention that his parents were under her control and that she could make them do horrible things to anyone or anything, including themselves. As a nine-year-old, Alex sat at the head of the table and was told by his Aunt that he must indirectly sacrifice his classmates to protect his parents from being or doing harm. When faced with this question, Alex decided to do whatever his aunt said, because all he cared about was saving his parents from Glady’s control. So, Alex went into his classroom and got a personal item from every kid, and brought it back to his aunt, giving her exactly what she needed in order to get the kids to be controlled and gravitate towards her. So there it is again, self-preservation. Alex decided to harm his classmates to protect his parents and, therefore, himself. Of course, it isn’t fair to say that it was a nine-year-old’s fault that the devastating disappearance of 17 children occurred; however, it’s also not wrong to say that his innate human gravitation towards preservation led him to go out and help Gladys steal those children and take them from their homes. This not only offers a more justified example of the moral reckoning or ethical crossroads that Alex found himself in, being the decision to either save his parents or save his classmates, but also self-preservation in itself, and it is the foundation of the tragedy. For example, the weapon does the shooting or unaliving, but the person is the one in control. I think that Weapons demonstrates that it’s less about what and more about who; it gives insight into what people do and why, something that goes over people’s heads during/after a tragedy due to the emotional response that comes with it.
Another great example of self-preservation within the film is the teacher Justine Gandy. While she is devastated by the disappearance of her students, she is also concerned about the safety of her own life. So while she feels guilty and almost required to lend a hand and give information to the people of the city, she actually is quite reserved and keeps information to herself as a safeguard of protection among the community. Just how far is someone willing to become vulnerable themselves to help others? Ms. Gandy, being a teacher, has one of the most respectable and unselfish careers someone could have; however, someone with such a generous occupation still has their limitations. For Gandy, despite feeling guilty and horrible about the situation, she still had that self-preservation trait that kept her from telling everyone everything for the sake of protecting herself. This once again raises an ethical question regarding what is justified when protecting oneself versus helping the greater community. I don’t think Gandy’s act of self-preservation was such a strong reason for the tragedy, like Gladys’s or Alex’s were, but I do still believe that it was incorporated into the disaster as well. If she had less of a guard up for herself, maybe Alex’s house could have been searched numerous times and possibly found the kids earlier, but at the same time, is it fair to ask that much of Gandy? Although I am not going to give my full-hearted answer to these questions, I do think they are really important to think and discuss, as it is the basis for moral failure and human nature.
Alden Ehrenreich’s character, Paul, is also a great portrayal of self-preservation. Paul, who is the cop in the film, worries about his image and future once he makes a critical mistake on the job. While driving around, already frustrated about the situation with the disappeared kids, he sees a seemingly sketchy 20-something-year-old in an alley doing something to a building's wall. He turns the police car's lights on and goes into full pursuit; however, the kid begins to run away, and a chase commences. Eventually, once Paul tracks down and detains James (the 20-something-year-old), he asks if he has any sharp objects in his pockets before patting him down. James answers no. However, once Paul reaches into James’s pockets, he gets plucked by what seems to be a syringe to administer drugs, and instinctively knocks James out. Obviously, as a cop, he isn’t able to detain someone and then hit them, so he turns off the cameras and tells James he is free to go as long as he promises not to show up at the police station and report him. James agrees. Later, when James is trying to make a quick buck, we see him discover the missing kids in the basement of Alex’s home. So, James attempts to go to the police station to report what he has seen, but Paul sees him before he can report what he saw. This led Paul to chase after him as he thought James was there to tell the station what he had done to him. To make a long story short, Paul chases James and they eventually go to Alex’s home without telling the other police officers, and get themselves under control by Gladys. This entire subplot with Officer Paul and the drughead James depicts exactly what I’ve intended to: self-preservation and opportunism. Once again, we see someone forget about others and worry about themselves when a crisis arises. Paul, thinking James was going to tell the police station about their incident, chased after him instead of listening, showcasing that protecting himself was far more important than whatever James had to say, even information that could have saved the lives of seventeen children. James himself also indulges in opportunism; he would never have cared about those kids he discovered in the basement if it weren’t for the 50,000-dollar reward he saw at the pawn shop. That’s why we see him go to the pawn shop after discovering the children and not the station right away because it wasn’t until he saw the reward that he started to care about the information he had.
The opportunistic and self-preserving nature of humans shines bright within this movie, from the seemingly innocent and courageous characters to the blatant villains. That’s the scary thing about humanistic qualities; it doesn’t necessarily matter who you are because they are innate and rather difficult to control. In the case of Weapons, we see individuals with highly respectable, notable careers in law enforcement and education have the same self-preserving qualities as a literal witch (Aunt Gladys). If anything, I want this article to shed light on the idea that a weapon in a tragedy isn’t where the tragedy began, but the person and story itself, because most likely it started with a self-preserving need or desire of someone that causes damage to others. Overall, Weapons is a fantastic film that showcases numerous aspects of modern society with direct and indirect tie-ins to countless atrocities that must be discussed for us to prevent them from recurring in the future.
The Real Horror of Weapons: Self-Preservation
Written By: Josh Kozak
Published: August 15th, 2025