‘A House of Dynamite’ Review: Nuclear Deterrence Fails In Netflix Latest Political Thriller
Rebecca Ferguson as Captain Olivia Walker. (Netflix/Eros Hoagland)
On a seemingly ordinary day, the military base in Fort Greely, Alaska, discovers a ballistic missile heading towards the United States. Quickly, we learn that the threat could cause an unimaginable disaster, and what follows is an annihilating countdown towards a potential nuclear catastrophe. By giving a glimpse into one of the most high-stakes military challenges, this film will leave you with a racing heart and a baffling sense of urgency.
A House of Dynamite is Netflix’s most recent attempt at a nuclear war scenario, directed by acclaimed filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow and led by a notable cast of actors. While the film’s premise is as thrilling as it is relevant, the repetitive storyline and lack of political accuracy take away from the overall quality and leave some of its potential unrealized. Similarly to other thought-provoking movies by Bigelow, such as The Hurt Locker (2008) and Zero Dark Thirty (2012), the film critically examines American foreign policy and serves as a contemporary reminder that nuclear war is an ever-present threat to humanity.
When the countdown clock starts ticking and the country’s emergency protocols come into effect, the story follows the struggles of level-headed Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson), a panicking U.S. President (Idris Elba), and other American officials showing doubt, frustration and courage as they face impossible dilemmas. The film’s three chapters narrate the same 19-minute countdown from the perspective of the generals, bureaucrats and soldiers leading the American nuclear war machine. With an inter-agency video conference serving as the common thread throughout the film — emulated quite realistically according to US military experts — we see how the words and actions of the protagonists shape the outcome of this heart-stopping scenario.
To the delight of some and the frustration of others, the writers have incorporated a decent amount of military lingo to increase the credibility of their story. Acronyms such as ‘ICBM’, ‘SIGNINT’, and ‘EKV’ are shouted back and forth between the various main characters in the high-speed whirlwind of dialogue, leaving many terms unexplained. Those who are informed may automatically hear ‘Intercontinental Ballistic Missile’, ‘Signals Intelligence’, and ‘Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle’, but for those who are unfamiliar with the cryptic words, they are a major source of frustration. The often complex dialogue stands in stark contrast with the simplicity and repetitiveness of the storyline. As films like Black Hawk Down (2001) and Thirteen Days (2000) have shown, following the command-and-control chain can create a fascinating narrative, but in A House of Dynamite, the effects are unfortunately hindered by the fact that many lines are repeated in every scenario. By the third time you hear “the missile is inbound for the continental United States”, the words have lost their edge.
The most critical piece missing in A House of Dynamite is a plausible motive. Firing a nuclear missile is quite a move (to say the least), and the entire plot of the film hinges on the fact that North Korea or another adversary would have a valid reason to launch such an attack. The story offers a weak explanation at best, citing ‘fuel shortages’ and ‘crop failures’ in North Korea as a reason to start a nuclear war with the US. “They might want to negotiate relief for themselves, no more launches in exchange for aid,” says the Deputy National Security Advisor in a tense phone call with an intelligence advisor. This is completely unrealistic: if a slight economic downturn equals nuclear warfare, the world would have seen its end many times already.
The one thing A House of Dynamite does amazingly is demonstrating the fundamental paradox that underlies the nuclear arms race. “I always thought having you follow me around with that book of plans for weapons like that … just being ready is the point, right?” asks the POTUS to his military advisor, Reeves, during the film’s climax. “Keeps people in check. Keeps the world straight. If they see how prepared we are, no one starts a nuclear war, right?” Many would agree with the President’s bewildered questions and argue that deterrence is the only way to keep a nuclear war from happening. Considering the disastrous consequences of nuclear attacks, the argument goes, countries keep each other in check through fear of retaliation. But as the film shows, this is inherently a gamble.
The film’s release is unfortunately very timely, with tensions on the world stage continuously rising. Bigelow has made a commendable attempt to illustrate what it would look like were they to figuratively and literally explode. Putting aside cinematic critiques and theoretical shortcomings, the movie raises a critical question that we all should fear: Are we already living in a house of dynamite?
Sacha Gyapjas is a second-year MA student in NYU’s International Relations department, focusing on international security and peacebuilding. Originally from Amsterdam, she not only obtained her bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts and Sciences at Amsterdam University College, but also carries the city’s spirit with her by aspiring to be a determined and compassionate professional in the field of IR. In the past, Sacha has reported on the Dutch creative industry, local news in Amsterdam, and written several pieces on social issues.
