Save this storySave this storySave this storySave this story
Kathryn Bigelow is appropriately celebrated as a notable director of action films. Her capabilities as a documentarian are less noted, specifically as a documentarian of highly astute individuals performing especially demanding, intricate, high-pressure assignments. “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), a sternly focussed suspense film concerning the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, offered a bleakly intent examination of a C.I.A. analyst embracing her predatory urges to the complete degree that her position necessitated. “The Hurt Locker” (2009), unfolding during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, functioned less as a typical war story than a calmly captivating depiction of a brilliant technician who located his true calling, dismantling explosives near Baghdad with devil-may-care insouciance. Here existed a person—and here, also, existed a filmmaker—who understood how to manage something explosive. Few other U.S. directors more fully comprehend the influence that grounded realism can exert on matters of life and death, or the manner in which character reveals itself through deed.
That’s the justification for why the nuclear-deadline thriller “A House of Dynamite,” currently screening in limited theaters prior to an October 24th streaming launch on Netflix, registers as such a puzzling misapplication of Bigelow’s aptitudes. The film, which proposes a looming atomic attack on a significant American metropolis, represents a frail yet elevated instance of doomsday camp, chiefly inhabited by nonentities in business attire and drained of the sensational joys that camp, at its peak, can present. It embodies one of those hyper-charged command-center dramas: a timer counts down in the backdrop, everyone utters dense government acronyms, and a worst-case scenario unfolds across various avenues, from the primary lines of defense to the elevated levels of authority. “A House of Dynamite” aspires to be a modern “Fail Safe” or “Seven Days in May,” a speculative suspense piece for our era. But, by the conclusion, my cuticles remained wholly unscathed, and, throughout, the sole unease I could gather concerned Bigelow—an escalating apprehension that she had engaged in combat with substandard material and been defeated.
It starts on an apparently unremarkable morning in the U.S., yet nothing genuinely registers as ordinary, because the movie dedicates such efforts to emphasizing that commonness. The script, penned by Noah Oppenheim (who composed the screenplay for Pablo Larraín’s biographical film “Jackie”), channels its concerns through a strained and engineered imitation of workplace banter, where each attempt at casualness feels forced. The figures, largely all state workers, are fleshed out akin to cells on a ledger; the lucky are granted a space in the “Personal Drama” column. At a missile-defense installation in Fort Greely, Alaska, Major Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) moves outdoors for a fraught phone conversation, presumably with his romantic interest. In Washington, D.C., a dissatisfied-appearing FEMA staffer named Cathy Rogers (Moses Ingram) chatters regarding her forthcoming divorce while moving toward her workplace, where she’ll devote a preliminary portion of her workday perusing Zillow postings. (Spoiler: she won’t require them.)
More joyful, at least initially, is Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson), who kisses her husband and young child goodbye before departing for her duties at the White House. Ferguson delivers what is plainly the picture’s most compelling enactment, partially on account of her magnetic allure to discover a genuine individual—precise, capable, practical—beneath a compilation of commonplaces. I could observe a ten-minute sequence of Walker navigating through White House security, verbally jousting with a dawdler in the breakfast line, locking away her personal mobile, then progressing into the Situation Room, where a colossal screen is poised to illuminate with some dreadful tidings.
Shortly thereafter, Fort Greely detects an intercontinental ballistic-missile launch from somewhere in the Pacific—presumably merely an evaluation, and one that will descend in the Sea of Japan. Abruptly, though, the objective pivots: “Inclination is flattening,” someone observes, and even viewers lacking their trajectory calculators will deduce, from the pressure in her intonation, what transpires. Before much time passes, the stakes crystallize into harrowing concentration: the missile will strike Chicago in fewer than twenty minutes. Rogers, the FEMA staffer, estimates that roughly ten million people will be eliminated, and an additional ten million will perish in the following fallout. Those fatalities, naturally, will simply constitute the inception, contingent on the cataclysmic reprisal campaign the U.S. opts to engage in—an issue complicated by the reality that nobody identifies the nation that instigated the incursion. Satellites failed to spot the initial launch, the initial error in an escalating progression of mistakes, encompassing numerous botched efforts to thwart or obliterate the missile, that uncover the gamble underlying our framework of nuclear protection.
Thus, this signifies the manner in which the planet concludes: not through a detonation or a whimper (any tangible impact is excluded from the camera’s view) yet with agitated rushes of office discussion. It will likewise conclude with copious ominous musical echoes—Glarrrrggghhh! Glarrrrggghhh!—which aim to clench your insides into a knot, though which alternatively assail this film’s somber objectives akin to a negative bout of flatulence. The score arises from Volker Bertelmann, whose monotonous musical mannerisms you might recollect from “All Quiet on the Western Front” (2022) and “Conclave” (2024). For “A House of Dynamite,” he has crafted another onslaught of groans, and it has the consequence of rendering some of the conversation sound even more hollow than it might in seclusion. At a specific juncture, the President of the United States (Idris Elba) laments, “This is insanity!” An inferior’s remarkably poker-faced retort: “No, sir. This is reality.” Glarrrrggghhh!
Oppenheim must have appreciated that interaction; he compels us to listen to it recurrently. “A House of Dynamite” is repetitious intentionally; it’s a crisis concerto in three parts, each addressing the identical grievous period of time, though from the vantage points of varied governmental operations and institutions. Following the opening segment, fluctuating between Fort Greely and the Situation Room, the film regresses and restages the same scenario from higher up the hierarchy, this time primarily contrasting the peace-minded assistant national-security adviser, Jake Baerington (a pleasing Gabriel Basso), against a hawkish senior military leader, General Anthony Brody (a punchable Tracy Letts). The possible perpetrators are appropriately deliberated upon; frantic phone conversations are conducted with the Russian Foreign Minister, plus a North Korea authority, Ana Park (Greta Lee), who, in a particularly heavy-handed instance of thematic irony, occurs to be present at a Battle of Gettysburg reënactment when her phone sounds. When, oh when, will the slaughter of the past cease?
The closing segment targets the President and Reid Baker (Jared Harris), the Secretary of Defense, neither of whom precisely ascends to the situation; the further up the structure of command we ascend, the less efficient the leadership becomes. The President is fractious and overwhelmed, and Elba conveys a perplexing off-key portrayal; he appears as uncertain regarding how to portray this POTUS as this POTUS feels regarding how to conserve the globe. The Defense Secretary, meanwhile, dissipates into a personal haze, contemplating exclusively his daughter (Kaitlyn Dever), who resides in Chicago. I recollected a segment, from 2005, of the real-time counterterrorism drama “24,” in which a governmental tech prodigy, understanding a nuclear power-plant meltdown, attempts unsuccessfully to extract his mother distantly. Throughout the picture, Bigelow samples the edgy formal syntax of programs like “24” and films such as Paul Greengrass’s 9/11 docudrama “United 93” (2006), which transform workplaces into combat zones and institute a sustained sensation of engagement. However, “A House of Dynamite” is excessively compartmentalized to attain the equivalent force, and the three-part arrangement is concurrently artificial and exasperatingly dense. Each instance the plot accesses the reset function, the intensity subsides.
Limited aspects of this cater to Bigelow’s assets. She has helmed at minimum one suspenseful nuclear-crisis picture prior, the Soviet-submarine thriller “K-19: The Widowmaker” (2002). However, at her peak, she possesses a knack for rendering the progression of time seem loose, mesmerizing, and poetically unspecific, not unnaturally altered and stressed. She’s an expert at carefully elaborating upon the inner existence of authentic individuals executing their positions under realistic operating circumstances. That’s not the variety of attribute you can accomplish with this type of swift and shallow “24” mimicry, regardless of the amount of immaculate D.C. production design it arrives bundled with. Even as a title, “A House of Dynamite” evokes an eye-roll—a windy mouthful of metaphor, especially originating from a director whose preceding film titles have commonly exhibited a flair for succinctly expressive verbiage (“Near Dark,” “Strange Days,” “Point Break”).
Bigelow has recurrently been accused of existing apolitical—or, on account of her preoccupation with the codes, ceremonies, and aesthetics of males at war, of progressing a zealous idealization of U.S. militarism. Within the expansive bureaucratic view of “A House of Dynamite,” she presents such a pessimistic viewpoint of a U.S. disaster response, even featuring a more functional and effective government than the one we presently possess, that it’s challenging to interpret any of it as propagandistic—or, for that matter, politically defined. (Certain character specifics propose a mixture of bipartisan connections: a woman briefing the White House press corps is a close semblance of Jen Psaki, former President Joe Biden’s initial press secretary. Elba’s President is partaking in a photo op with young basketball participants when catastrophe strikes—a more compassionate edition of the moment when President George W. Bush initially received word of the September 11th incursions, during a Florida elementary-school perusal of “The Pet Goat.”)
In another significant manner, “A House of Dynamite” registers as a distinct departure from Bigelow’s current output. Her prior pair of films were both critiqued for their utilizations and depictions of violence: “Zero Dark Thirty” was accused of contorting scenarios of torture into a defense of torture, and “Detroit” (2017), an underappreciated drama unfolding during the civil-rights era, was censured for exploiting the very horrors that it sought to denounce. By contrast, “A House of Dynamite” is devoid of visible bloodshed, completely up to its muted conclusion. I counted one death—an unexpectedly comical one—though the looming mass decimation remains an offscreen conceptualization, and perhaps even a badge of artistic limitation.
Why, in that case, does it feel more akin to a failure of grit? I’m not implying that Bigelow should have depicted the ruination of a major metropolitan center and its inhabitants; we retain Roland Emmerich for that. Nevertheless, a large-scale cataclysmic epic might truthfully have disturbed us more potently than this wobbly chamber exercise and whatever it assumes it’s accomplishing. Akin to the preceding year’s middling “September 5,” which partially dramatized the terrorist assaults at the 1972 Munich Olympics from the perspective of an ABC Sports team, “A House of Dynamite” inadvertently implies that, as a film category, the control-room suspense piece might be nearing its restrictions, with clichés, evasions, and theatrical gimmicks as formulaic as those of any blockbuster.
As fate would have it, there existed a blockbuster earlier this year that, without any semblance of realism, conjured a chilling forewarning of imminent nuclear disaster. “Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning” wasn’t an especially gratifying film, though it did showcase a sensitive, contemplative war-room discussion regarding what preemptive action, if any, the President ought to initiate, in the terrifying event of a superpowered A.I. antagonist seizing authority of the world’s nuclear weaponry. In its individual eccentric manner, the film captured the entirety of anxieties that “A House of Dynamite” is endeavoring to access: the terrors of unbridled proliferation, the uncertainties of how adversaries and confederates alike would react, and the mounting likelihood of worldwide calamity. Precisely how credible any of it was, I have no notion; the essence resided in its feeling plausible, on account of the director and co-writer Christopher McQuarrie willing it, with unapologetic cinematic fervor, into the material of vividly imagined fiction. Bigelow and Oppenheim appear keen to generate something considerably beyond mere amusement and, as a result, conclude with something evidently less. ♦
Sourse: newyorker.com
