On October 24th, Director Kathryn Bigelow’s thriller film, “A House of Dynamite,” was released on Netflix after a short run in theaters. The film centers around the American government’s response to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on a course to hit Chicago. Audience reception of the film didn’t seem to be too good, though, with a current 6.5/10 average on IMDb and a 32% audience score average on Rotten Tomatoes. Despite these ratings, I still very much enjoyed watching “A House of Dynamite,” an engaging, stressful and relevant movie in today’s world.
To start, I believe the production team did an amazing job at making the movie as tense as possible, as a movie with a potentially world-ending plot point should be. Throughout the film, the ever-present threat of a nuclear weapon coming to hit the United States was never dismissed, and provided a natural and logical time constraint that weighed on the characters as well as the audience.
Another factor that drastically improved the suspense of the movie was its unique formatting. The plot of “A House of Dynamite” is told in 3 25-minute parts, with each segment focusing on 2 or 3 points of view. Each act also consists of the same elements: a brief prelude, the initial reactions to the missile, prevention attempts, damage control and planning and the final moments before the missile hits.
Throughout each part, the ensemble cast of key government figures are in a video conference together, notably the White House Situation Room oversight officer (Rebecca Ferguson), the Deputy National Security Advisor (Gabriel Basso) and the Secretary of Defense (Jared Harris) in their own respective acts. Due to this, the most important information and dialogue get repeated at least twice before the end of the movie. Because the audience knows essentially what will happen only 30% into the movie, they can focus on tracking the large decisions made by the characters and can only watch in fear as the situation becomes more dire. Although the structure was well put together, the real reason why the suspense was so effective was because of the realistic fear behind the plot.
Take any popular horror or thriller movie, “Child’s Play,” for example. Obviously, a talking doll possessed by the soul of a serial killer going on a killing spree is scary, but it’s a concept of pure fiction. But nuclear war and mutually assured destruction? That’s a realistic event that could happen any day. Unlike a talking doll, an ICBM isn’t completely deniable, and that is the most terrifying aspect of the movie.
There’s one scene in the third act where the President (Idris Elba) is urgently being driven from a public appearance back to the White House after hearing news of the missile launch. As the carrier of the Presidential Emergency Satchel goes over possible nuclear retaliation options, his motorcade passes a family SUV on the highway. The President, visibly distraught and nervous, glances over at a young girl waving through her window at him, excited to get a glimpse of the President.
The contrast in their emotions is stark and perfectly embodies the terrifying prospect that many other scenes present. The average civilian had no idea that anything was happening. In a modern world where information is key, that thought really stuck with me. It was what ultimately convinced me that “A House of Dynamite,” whatever genre it may be called, is at its heart a horror movie, and a more effective one than a classic knife man slasher, at that.
