Review: “A House of Dynamite” (Netflix)

REVIEW: “A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE” [NETFLIX]

A House of Dynamite is the hottest new show on Netflix. It’s so impactful that some top government officials are now commenting on it. They’re denying its realism mostly — which probably means it’s frighteningly close to being accurate. Yes, it could happen. The movie — and particularly the ending — has triggered a broad spectrum of reactions from political insiders and the general public alike. This isn’t surprising given the deep divide within our nation and the chronic depth of disinformation poisoning healthy discussion and made constructive debate difficult if not impossible.

Directed by the Oscar winner of The Hurt Locker (along with Zero Dark Thirty) the film and story are signature Kathryn Bigelow at her very best, reflecting her own unique brand of style and storytelling. Fast-pacing, jittery camera shots, imperfect angles across paper-stacked desks, awkward pauses and occasional interruptions, and devotion to the tiniest details are Bigelow’s cinematic trademark. Reminiscent of the best film adaptations of Tom Clancy’s novels a generation ago, she’s carrying that legacy and level of authenticity. Bigelow clearly hasn’t lost a step returning to the all-too familiar subject matter of another intense political and military conflict, though this crisis is not played out on battlefields, but rather beneath florescent office lights burrowed in bureaucratic concrete mazes and newsroom-looking situation rooms operating 24/7/365 under the government’s alphabet soup of letter abbreviations.

On a typical weekday work morning, out of nowhere, with no warning, the United States instantly comes under nuclear attack. An intercontinental missile flashes up on the giant scoreboard-sized screen inside the war room. It’s pointing straight at the American heartland. The warhead launch originated in a remote area of the Pacific, but no one inside our government knows for sure which global adversary gave the order to fire; nor is it known if the missile was shot by accident or intention. North Korea, perhaps? The Russians? China? A rogue terrorist? Nuclear impact approaches. We have exactly 19 minutes to decide what to do. And by the time you’ve read this far along, probably closer to 17 minutes….and counting down. What do we do? What’s your decision?

Time to call the President.

Getting important and powerful people in charge talking to each other on the phone isn’t as easy as it seems. If and when a “surprise” attack does ever come, it’s truly a surprise. More like a shock. Five minutes are wasted on everybody asking each other — “Is this real? Is this happening? It’s a drill, right? It must be a mistake.” Someplace else, the President could be speaking at a public function. The Secretary of Defense might be in the bathroom shaving. The national security duty officer is away from his desk getting a cup of coffee. The CIA’s regional expert on North Korea could be taking a personal day off. *Surprise* attacks don’t give any warnings. And now, you’ve got perhaps 16 and a half minutes to make the most important decision in your life. It may be the important decision in this nation’s history, or in the history of human civilization.

But go ahead — take your time. No pressure.

This is the intended point of A House of Dynamite. It’s not meant to entertain, though it often is spectacularly so. This is a film made to make the audience think, and think out loud — as in talk about it later. It’s a story that could happen. And if such a thing does happen, this might be close to how it plays out. We may be watching the preamble to the final chapter of humans living on the planet. The world might end not with the push of a button, but because someone who is key in the chain didn’t pick up the phone.

Bigelow’s movie does have a few flaws, and and even some minor annoyances. But these were small distractions which can easily be overlooked what’s otherwise and intensely thought-provoking film everyone should seek out and watch. Most interesting about Bigelow’s staccato scripting and exhaustive pacing (written by Noah Oppenheim) is the unusual process of repeating the same climactic 19 minutes until boom and doom three times in succession. However, each version is shown from very different vantage point and characters, each shaping his or her own opinion on the crisis. This point is critical. I won’t give away much else here, except to comment now on the ending — which will contain intentional vagueness for the benefit of those who haven’t seen it yet.

The decision as to retaliation, and when, and where exactly, and who to fire missiles back at is an excruciating one. An unidentified nuclear missile is about to hit America. So, what’s the plan? The “how to” manuals our government wrote on this question have been written, revised, and updated over seven decades, costing billions. Those manuals won’t help us now. Who has time to open up heavy binders and start reading instructions with all the war room telephones ringing, the alarms going off, staffers crying, military personnel rushing top brass off into underground bunkers, and officials frantically trying to reach their loved ones to take cover? This is the reality of how things would likely play out, even at the top with all the decision-makers. Ponder that.

Nuclear scares have been addressed in films before. From the solemn Fail Safe to the satirical Dr. Strangelove, we’ve imagined what those terrifying moments might be like for those entrusted with our fates in their hands. However, only now do we fully see the real dangers of too much dynamite in the house and not nearly enough time to decide how precisely to use that immense responsibility without getting 8 billion people killed. The ending isn’t a pretty bow with a cozy wrapped-up story that makes us all feel good. In fact, there is no ending, nor should there be. The epilogue is the discussion. The encore is in the mind.

The missile hits in less than ten minutes. And time’s running out. What’s your final decision? Do we fire back? How many missiles? What are the targets? And then, what will be do when 100 more missiles are fired right back at us, leaving us perhaps another 19 minutes time until the next round of destruction? Then, if anyone’s left, who makes the decision on round three?

You may be wondering why I posted this photo (below) to go along with my review of A House of Dynamite. I’ll explain.

Sixty-three years ago this week, on October 27, 1962 a submarine officer named Vasili Arkhipov was serving as chief of staff of a Soviet submarine group. He was aboard one of the flotilla as the executive officer. When U.S. forces dropped depth charges near the Soviet Union’s nuclear submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis, one of his submarine crews believed that war had begun and prepared to launch a nuclear torpedo against United States forces. Arkhipov refused to authorize the launch, though he was trained and instructed precisely to do so in such a situation. His brave decision prevented the use of nuclear weapons and a first strike that almost certainly would have resulted in a similar American response, thus leading to an all-out nuclear war. Over the years, many American (and later Russian) military and government officials agreed that Arkhipov may have saved the world. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., advisor to President Kennedy put it bluntly:

“This was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in human history.”

Today, we live in a time when half the population has little or no knowledge of mutually-assured destruction (MAD). The Cold War is an unknown. It may take film and other art forms to remind us all of the dangers. We do need movies about serious subjects that make us think, evolve, and perhaps even become wiser. Thanks to Bigelow, A House of Dynamite might help us do exactly that. Hopefully, a few future leaders like Vasili Arkhipov will be in charge. if that terrible moment ever comes.