“A House of Dynamite will shake you to your core, but it tries to do so a few too many times.”
Pros
- Immersive real-time storytelling
- Frightening and real concept
- Riveting direction
Cons
- Repetitive structure
- Emotional waning in third act
- Questions left unanswered
“You should be scared” is the thesis for Kathryn Bigelow’s new war room drama, A House of Dynamite, a nightmarish look at what happens when the destruction, unknown, and fear that inhabit the screens of Americans arrive on their doorstep.
The film chronicles the 20 or so minutes it takes from launch to possible impact of a nuclear warhead aimed directly at the continental United States. Bigelow does not hold your hand. The Oscar winner wants to throw you into the deep end of US bureaucracy with multiple perspectives on how our government would react. You will hear acronyms you didn’t know existed, see rooms only shown in famous photographs, and be a fly on the wall to the country’s sum of all fears.
How do we stop it? Where is it headed? What is the best plan of retaliation? Each question is asked to both the characters and viewers in a damning look at how ill-prepared we may be for the end of the world.
Same crisis, different perspectives
A House of Dynamite’s storytelling style is one of its most interesting components, but also what holds it back. The film’s format is similar to Rashomon or Vantage Point by telling the same story through multiple POVs, but this time never changing the details or outcome. The plot development plays out like a Russian nesting doll.
This setup allows for an explosive first act as the audience and the characters react to the missile. Brief introductions to characters like Rebecca Ferguson’s Captain Olivia Walker allow viewers to connect at an emotional level as they start their days, drinking coffee and kissing the family goodbye like any other. It provides a sense of whiplash once the missile takes flight and anxiety grows in real time.
The problems arise once the second section starts, and the expectation of a continued story is dampened by the realization that we are seeing the same set of sequences again. The gut punch of a cliffhanger in act one is an emotional letdown. Viewers are left begging to see the conclusion, only to be forced to start over from the top. The Groundhog Day nature of the storytelling is jarring — sequences and dialogue will be repeated by characters previously stationed in the background.
Fortunately, the film’s intensity is maintained by diving deeper into the militaristic decision-making regarding the fate of the US, which took a backseat in the first act. Tracy Letts chews up the scenery as a U.S. general who converses with other leaders about the missile’s origins and the realities of devastation.
The third act focuses on Idris Elba as an amalgamation of the last four presidents, who is left as the sole decision maker of a possible retaliation. The additional context to each government branch has its moments — audiences may ultimately realize they already know the answers presented to each character when it is their time to shine.
Intensity at all levels
The greatest feat of A House of Dynamite is the fear it strikes into the audience, and that starts with the eerily creepy strings that play before text cards about the world’s nuclear arsenal. The orchestra’s tense music will send shivers down your spine, leaving you permanently shaking like one of the chords you hear on the cello.
Despite its repeated nature, each section resembles a ticking time bomb. A countdown sparingly shown debilitates the audience from slipping into a sense of comfort within any of the storylines. There is palpable tension and suspense with each choice, knowing that at the end of the clock, a city is gone.
The film’s uneasiness is experienced through Bigelow’s use of handheld shots. The camera is rarely fixed on a specific point and freely moves around rooms. Succession fans will feel right at home with this floating style, where zoom-ins and focuses guide the viewers on where to look. It eliminates any fleeting feeling of control the movie has left as the world dissolves into nauseating chaos.
Is this really what would happen?
It is a question that is hard not to ask after watching the movie. Screenwriter Noah Oppenheim’s previous work as president of NBC News provides credibility and breadth of knowledge to the inner workings of the US government. Bigelow was also able to visit locations like the Situation Room to help make the film feel as real as possible. The viewer can immerse themselves in the environment while also providing an uncanny eeriness to the film’s terrors.
The hardest layer of believability for many viewers will be their opinion on the US government. Even with an apolitical depiction of the government, that won’t stop anyone from applying their own beliefs, for better or worse. Ultimately, it is best to look past that. A House of Dynamite isn’t looking to speak out against a specific administration but instead to let audiences know that any administration is ill-prepared for the current nuclear predicament.
Should you watch A House of Dynamite?
In the best way possible, A House of Dynamite is a bummer. While the tension can wane, the overall experience of what would be the darkest day in American history is something worth engaging with. It is very easy for US audiences to see destruction within other nations and assume it can’t happen here, but A House of Dynamite is here to tell you it can.
I was able to see A House of Dynamite as part of the New York Film Festival. The movie has been in limited release for the last two weeks.
A House of Dynamite is now on Netflix.
Read the full article here
