Kathryn Bigelow’s House of Dynamite Warns: Is America Ready?

Kathryn Bigelow’s latest film, House of Dynamite, portrays an intense armageddon scenario unfolding in real time as a mysterious nuclear missile heads toward Chicago. The movie focuses on the American government’s layered reaction, occurring far from populated areas, across defense centers and underground bunkers, highlighting the separation between those protecting and those threatened. This tense storyline raises urgent questions about readiness and decision-making in the face of national catastrophe.

The Unfolding Crisis: From Calm to Catastrophe

The film divides its narrative into three distinct parts, tracking the government’s alert levels as the situation deteriorates. Initially, there is a false sense of security with personnel engaged in everyday activities during DEFCON 4, which swiftly escalates to the nerve-wracking DEFCON 2 and ultimately to the moment of crisis. This progression creates a relentless ebb and flow between composure and panic, reflecting a harsh reality where crisis management is a continuous cycle of mounting tension and brief releases. Bigelow’s direction and the screenplay, written by Noah Oppenheim, bring detailed authenticity to the procedural aspects of missile defense alert responses.

A Clinical Portrayal of National Security Under Siege

House of Dynamite adopts a stark and uncompromising tone, reminiscent of earlier political thrillers like John Frankenheimer’s Seven Days in May and Tony Scott’s Crimson Tide, though its focus is more methodical than dramatic. The film distances itself from traditional entertainment tropes, presenting a sober and clinical examination of government operations during an unprecedented emergency. Elements of dark humor surface only momentarily, such as a scene featuring the military’s command screens dubbed “The Big Board,” invoking imagery from Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. The characters’ stunned reactions underscore the fundamental anxiety with a chilling question that encapsulates their fear:

“Is there a plan for this?”

—a line that starkly highlights the uncertainty at the core of the crisis.

Choices and Consequences: Deciders, Not Heroes

The film notably shifts focus away from heroics to those who must decide the fate of the nation under crushing pressure. Anthony Ramos leads a missile defense team attempting to identify the missile’s origin, narrowing suspicions to North Korea, Russia, or China. This ambiguous threat leaves the leadership, including figures portrayed by Tracy Letts, Jason Clarke, Jared Harris, and Idris Elba, grappling with an impossible dilemma: to retaliate blindly or hope the launch is a malfunction. The tension between the desire to act and the specter of catastrophic error permeates every scene. An especially grim moment comes from Gabriel Brasso’s Deputy National Security Advisor delivering a stark choice:

“Surrender, or suicide.”

The Film’s Urgent Message on Preparedness and Governance

House of Dynamite challenges viewers to consider the fragility of America’s defenses and the complexity of decisions made behind fortified walls. By showing government officials isolated from the people they serve, the film reveals the eerie detachment inherent in managing apocalyptic threats. Bigelow’s work compels a reflection on whether America’s systems and leaders are truly equipped to respond effectively if a nuclear disaster hits home. As the missile relentlessly approaches Chicago, the film’s somber tone and unresolved tension leave audiences questioning what comes next, both within the film’s narrative and in reality.