What would happen if a nuclear warhead was launched at the United States? This is the question A House of Dynamite seems poised to answer.
When I first heard the premise for this film, I was very intrigued. The idea has a lot of potential, and bringing in cast members like Idris Elba and Rebecca Ferguson showed a desire to provide an emotional center to a movie set in a political doomsday. Then I started to see posters for it on WMATA, Washington D.C.’s Metro service and if you know anything about the posters on the metro, an advertisement there doesn’t typically indicate quality. Ahem.
(Light spoilers below, but I will do my best to keep things vague)
A House of Dynamite employs a Rashomon-style method of storytelling that shows us three perspectives on the sixteen minutes leading up to a nuclear warhead hitting Chicago. The first 40 minutes or so of this film are riveting and we’re on the edge of our seats, wondering what is going to happen next as employees go through Sorkin-esque exchanges of intel and speculation.
But then we rewind, and do it all over again. Twice.
The issue with this format is that in order for it to remain interesting, we need to learn new information each time for it to stay engaging. While we learn details that ultimately have little to no impact on the story (ex: this guy has a wife, this other guy has a daughter, etc.), the majority of the time is spent rehashing the exact same lines and exchanges we already saw in the first forty minutes. Not enough new information is shared, and we rehash the details with such frequency that my husband and I were quoting the lines along with them by the time we reach version #3 of the events leading up to the attack.
This isn’t to say the movie doesn’t have anything to like though. The performances are largely very compelling, especially from Jared Harris and Rebecca Ferguson, despite only having about a half-hour of screen time each. The film is well-written for the most part, and it’s shot in a way that confirms the existential nature of the threat and our futility in repelling it. Those who like it seem to just enjoy it for what it is, despite its disjointed nature.
In terms of realism, this movie presents a believable series of events, but only to a point. Any screenagers feeling anxiety from this viewing experience should be relieved that the question “could this actually happen” is a resounding and obvious no. It’s very common for films like this made in the United States to collaborate with military personnel or governmental agencies, but it seems like Bigelow only spoke with independent contractors who worked at the Pentagon, according to her interview with CBS. The Pentagon was annoyed by this movie, and issued a whole statement about it. So make of that what you will.
For me though, this movie’s ending took it from being a misguided but ultimately decent film into bad movie territory. The ending is simply non-existent. The movie doesn’t have one. When ultimately forced into a corner and stuck with several interesting and outstanding questions about the state of the world and also the cast’s personal relationships, the movie gives us a resounding shrug. What do YOU think happened? We certainly couldn’t say. While I think ambiguous endings are great and often more thought-provoking than more definitive closures, here it just feels insulting.
While it may still be worth watching for the curious, this is a huge miss for me. Everything good about it cannot save it from its fundamental issues in storytelling. Not as upsetting as global nuclear war, but still upsetting nonetheless.
