A House of Dynamite - Review 

Rating: 5 out of 5

KATHRYN Bigelow has never been one to shy away from hot button political issues, as evidenced by her work on The Hurt Locker (for which she became the first female filmmaker to win the Academy Award for best director) and Zero Dark Thirty.

With her latest, A House of Dynamite, she confronts another one, nuclear war, and offers a hypothetical (but hugely plausible) situation that invites the audience to discuss its ramifications afterwards.

The drama essentially takes place from varying perspectives over the course of 20 minutes: the time estimated to elapse between military observers reporting the launch of a nuclear bomb (or ICBM, intercontinental ballistic missile) to its projected arrival on the US mainland (in this case, Chicago).

The action is contained to a series of situation rooms and command-and-control centres, such as PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) or The White House Situation Room, and focuses on the reactions of the various military and civilian personnel involved: including the US President (Idris Elba), intelligence analyst Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson), military chief Gen Anthony Brady (Tracy Letts), defense secretary Reid Baker (Jared Harris) and young NSA adviser Jake Baerington (Gabriel Basso).

It’s pressure cooker stuff, with each character forced to make tough decisions against a ticking clock: who launched against America? Why? Can the missile be stopped using existing counter measures? What is the body count? How should the US retaliate?

The film answers some of these questions but ultimately raises more than it answers, deliberately. Bigelow and writer, the eerily named Noah Oppenheim, want audiences to engage beyond the film’s running time. They want to force a debate on the nuclear issue.

For while the threat may not be quite as pronounced as during the height of the Cold War, when nuclear stockpiles were ridiculously high between the US and Russia, it remains and could even be rising once more.

There are, for instance, now nine nuclear powers. Counter measures are largely ineffective: the hitting a bullet with a bullet ideology used in the film is real, as is the 61% success rate of counter measures.

The fact that decisions on the scale of retaliation still come down to essentially one man is scary, particularly if you don’t trust the man in charge (for fear of his volatility, inability to take an insult or overly gung-ho approach).

Bigelow invites the discussion with a view to implementing change. The nuclear threat is one of our own making. It therefore remains in our power to solve it.

Bigelow’s decision to not directly identify an enemy is deliberate and non-provocative, even though potential players are identified and discussed, along with motivations. Again, this invites debate while raising much needed awareness.

Similarly, her decision to place solid, likeable personnel in all of the key positions is designed to show how fallible even the most trustworthy politicians and military leaders might be in such a situation. What if the wrong guy was in charge.

A House of Dynamite doesn’t provoke for provocations sake. It prefers to operate from a place of informed intelligence.

That doesn’t mean it’s soft or non-committal. It remains incredibly tense and confronts difficult choices in a realistic way. But it also deals with the humanity of the situation, painting all the key players as everyday people: mothers, fathers, ball game enthusiasts, widowers, husbands and wives, some of them expectant.

It thereby places value on life and, perhaps optimistically, on decency. As a result, it’s also really well performed, allowing its top drawer cast plenty of moments to shine and to exhibit nuance.

A House of Dynamite therefore rates as must-see, highly relevant viewing. It’s Bigelow at her best. And it leaves a lasting impression.

Certificate: 15

Running time: 1hr 52mins