A House of Dynamite (4/5 Stars)

This tense thriller takes place in less than twenty minutes and is told three times, from different viewpoints.

In the first act, the action takes place in the White House Situation room, Captain Olivia Walker (played by Rebecca Ferguson) presiding, and an army base in Alaska, Major Daniel Gonzalez (played by Anthony Ramos), presiding. A missile launch somewhere in the Far East is picked up by a satellite. Within a few minutes it is ascertained that the missile has gone suborbital and is heading toward the United States. Within a few more minutes, it is ascertained that the missile is going to hit Chicago. The operators in the first act are the first and only line of defense in what appears to be a preemptive nuclear strike. Although they have trained for their task many times, they fail to stop the missile.

In the second act, the action takes place mainly in STRATCOM, General Anthony Brady (played by Tracy Letts) presiding, and the White House’s Deputy National Security Advisor Jake Bearington’s (played by Gabriel Basso) breathless race to get to work on time and engage foreign leaders to find out what is happening abroad. STRATCOM is located in the Rocky Mountains and commands the nuclear arsenal of the United States. General Anthony Brady acts like he has been preparing for this moment for his entire life. Jake Baerington scrambles around to consult an expert on the North Koreans and the diplomat from Russia, but ultimately cannot provide the President with advice that is conclusive.

In the third act, the action follows the President of the United States (played by Idris Elba) and his belated interactions with Lieutenant Commander Robert Reeves (played by Jonah Hauer-King), the man in charge of the “football”, that briefcase which contains the nuclear codes and follows the President around everywhere he goes just for this kind of scenario. The President’s schedule has him attending a fundraiser with a WNBA star for girls’ sports. Then he is whisked away to make a decision as to whether to commit to an all-out nuclear counterstrike on the USA’s enemies. Each act ends with the President about to decide what to do.

This movie is directed by Kathryn Bigelow, a very capable director who excels at relatively realistic war movies (2008’s The Hurt Locker, 2012’s Zero Dark Thirty) and who, inexplicably, hasn’t made a movie since 2017. Somehow, she hasn’t lost her step. “A House of Dynamite” is a taut thriller that moves along briskly, introduces mainly characters and locations, and explains various procedures. Still, it keeps a clear focus and is, more or less, understandable. Above all, it is an interesting (and maybe plausible) take on a somewhat realistic scenario, which more than anything else, impresses upon the viewer not just the outward stakes in terms of human lives at issue but also the lack of time involved in the decisions that need to be made. Apparently, it would take an intercontinental nuclear strike only twenty minutes to get from somewhere near North Korea to Chicago. And apparently, the United States is so ready and prepared for that scenario, that it could initiate a world-wide counterstrike of apocalyptic proportions on all of our enemies at the same time before the first missile actually landed.

That is kind of amazing when you think about it. I vaguely knew that a man with the Football briefcase followed the President around everywhere just for that eventuality, but I never saw a movie in which that guy opens the briefcase, pulls out the armageddon menu, and ask the President whether he wants to initiate the “rare”, “medium”, or “well-done” plan. This is the type of movie where the subject matter elevates the material. The details in the plot are inherently dramatic. And the more the movie understates its delivery, the more it makes the movie feel real, which underlines that you are seeing a relatively realistic end-of-the-world scenario.

The point of this movie is to impress upon the viewer the importance of nuclear arms proliferation and an urgency for world leaders to once again enter treaties limiting their arsenals. As of next year, I believe there won’t be any of those treaties left. I believe another point the movie is trying to make is that this particular decision is in the hands of one man, the President, who may not be as prepared for this sort of thing as we may all like. In this movie, Idris Elba remarks that he received “one briefing” on this subject. This contrasts with the thousands of rehearsals that the Alaska army base and STRATCOM mention that they have had. Why is the least prepared character person in this movie in charge of the most important decision?

Counterintuitively, I think the people who should really be frightened after seeing this movie are all our would-be nuclear enemies. Although the Americans are shown to be realistically emotional about the situation, they are very competent and have plans in place to deal with it, not only in their attempts to thwart the strike before it happens, but also how to deal with the aftermath locally, and how to seek revenge immediately and on an apocalyptic scale. Consider this movie from the viewpoint of our enemies: one rogue missile is launched and before that missile even touches down 20 minutes later, it shows the American President in the process of confirming launch codes for an immediate and massive counterstrike. Meanwhile, a general impending nuclear armageddon playbook is automatically being implemented with all the functions of government being presently and immediately shuttled to a secure underground bunker in Raven Rock, Pennsylvania.

People are focused on the “House of Dynamite” quote. I think the better quote is the one preceding it, in which the President posits: “I always thought having you follow me around with that book of plans for weapons like that, just being ready is the point, right? Keeps people in check. Keeps the world straight. If they see how prepared we are, no one starts a nuclear war, right?” Hopefully, our enemies see this movie and are reminded of what the United States is capable of.

Current geopolitics affects the screenplay of this movie and also the plausibility of the United States response to the threat. Perhaps because it would be too provocative to actually name the source of the ICBM, the movie provides an excuse for the characters to not know. So there are three possibilities: North Korea, Russia, or China. Out of those three, Russia is the least likely and that is the only country the United States is able to get on the phone to talk about the threat. Not surprisingly, the Russians don’t know or won’t admit to anything. But really, if this was either Russia or China, there wouldn’t only be one missile, there would be at least fifty. It doesn’t really make sense for Russia or China to send over one nuke to wipe out Chicago just to test how the United States would react.

But really, regardless of who has lobbed this missile (and especially if it was North Korea), it doesn’t make sense to present the President with the options that he is presented with. All three options “rare”, “medium” and “well done” are for scenarios in which many nuclear warheads are moving our way, not just one, and certainly not just one from an isolated pariah state. If it is just one, then the most obvious response would be to lob one-and-only-one missile back at a similar target. Tit-for-tat. This shows that the United States will respond, but not in such a way that will necessarily provoke everyone else in shooting off all of their missiles at the same time. It might provoke that response, but not necessarily. If you ever watched “Dr. Strangelove”, you will notice a similar dynamic to “House of Dynamite”. In that movie, a rogue American military officer goes on the loose with the effect of only one nuclear missile being dropped on Russia. The obvious Russian “Tit-for-Tat” response is neutered by its new technology, the “Doomsday Device” which automatically triggers an all out nuclear response regardless of how many missiles have been sent first. Both of these movies present a worst case scenario by involving plot points that prevent the obvious game theory strategy from being implemented. I’m fairly certain our generals at STRATCOM have a basic understanding of game theory.

Finally, this decision is probably best in the hands of the President. The alternative would be to put it in the hands of Congress, which will not have the ability to act with deterrent speed, or the generals, who, let’s face it, have been training their whole lives for this moment. You want Idris Elba, who would rather be at a WNBA fundraiser, making this call, not Tracy Letts, who is unelected and sees every problem as a nail to hit with his nuclear hammer. At the end of the day, the President is a people person and cares about his legacy. He is the one going to try to avoid a nuclear war.

The Hurt Locker (5/5 Stars) July 15, 2009

The Hurt Locker is the latest by Director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break). It was written by Mark Boal (In the Valley of Elah), and is based on his experiences while following a bomb squad around Baghdad circa 2004. The squad is composed of the bomb disarmer Staff Sergeant James (played by Jeremy Brenner), Sergeant Sanborn (played by Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Eldridge (played by Brian Geraghty). In supporting are a couple of Indie heavyweights like Guy Pearce, as the doomed Staff Sergeant whom James replaces, and Ralph Fiennes, as a British mercenary. Rounding out the cast are known character actors David Morse, as a hotshot Colonel, and Evangeline Lily, as James’ estranged wife. Sometimes in great comedies you will find big name comedians jump in for short roles just because they want to be apart of something special. That seems to have happened here with these dramatic actors. 
The Iraq war so far has been a box office and critical dud. I talked for some length as to why I think this has happened in my review of Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies last fall. Having said that, I believe that Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker may have cracked the code, at least in terms of critical response. This is the best non-documentary film to come out of the Iraq War and there are a couple good reasons for it.
First of all, it is nonpartisan. Now, I’m not saying that a war film should not judge the merits of a war. Cinematic history just goes to show that the best judgmental war films were made years sometimes decades after the war had already ended. (Oliver Stone’s films Platoon (1986) and Born on the 4th of July (1989) are good examples.) This is because judging a war requires some perspective. Since we are still in the midst of the Iraq War it is hard to look upon it from a distance. So it helps that this movie is unconcerned with whether we should have gone to war in Iraq. In fact there is not a single mention of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hussein, or WMDs. The soldiers in this story are primarily concerned with doing their job and staying alive, which makes more sense then having them philosophize over American politics. One of the big turnoffs of the earlier films (Boal’s own In the Valley of Elah in particular) was that they weren’t really about soldiers in combat. They were about politics, parents of soldiers, CIA operatives, or soldiers returning home. They may have been “about” the Iraq War but all the information was abstract. Mix that with heavy-handed moral messages and the outcome was two hours of muddled theoretical outrage. The Hurt Locker is the opposite. This film shows the nuts and bolts operation of a bomb squad in Iraq presently and since the bomb squad doesn’t care about politics, the movie doesn’t either.
Second, the movie doesn’t draw too heavily on the cliche’ of the crying vet. What I mean by ‘the crying vet’ is that increasingly prevalent scene in a serious war films that either has a soldier start crying uncontrollably or, on the other hand, flying off the handle in a psychotic rage. Do these episodes happen, sure. Is PTSD a serious issue, of course. But this certainly doesn’t happen to every veteran that sees combat. In fact, what is remarkable about trained soldiers (and far more interesting) is how they can keep control in dire situations, not lose it. In this movie, Sergeant James may be described as a wild man, but he is also blessed with an extraordinary gift of concentration under fire. Sergeant Sanborn may be intensely in touch with his own mortality, but he is always disciplined, capable, and follows orders readily. Eldridge may be a rookie, but his outlook is mature. There is real danger in this movie. The bomb makers, who look just like civilians, sometimes hang out on balconies overlooking the bomb squad’s progress. Because the soldiers aren’t about to fire on people who may be civilians, serious suspense is built in these scenes. But even though there are some very intense situations, the soldiers don’t panic or make stupid mistakes. They deal with the problems in concerned but controlled ways, as if they were (gasp) trained soldiers. It makes sense to involve a crying vet in a WWII or Vietnam movie because there were plenty of enlisted men completely out of their element in those wars. But in Iraq the army is ‘all volunteer’ and it is suspected that every soldier has seen the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan and has accepted the fact that they just might die in a not so noble way. Soldiers in an Iraq War movie shouldn’t be taken completely off guard by the horrors of war. Frankly, I would suspect that they would act like they do in this movie: Courageous, not cowardly.
Third, the actions scenes are played as action scenes, not melodrama. There are no slow motion melees with violins soaring in the background. We are not subject to speeches about how people don’t understand the true nature of war. On the other hand, there isn’t any John Wayne bullshit either. The bombs explode like real bombs. One person even gets killed by a shockwave. (Say What? I thought the only way you could die from an explosion was to be engulfed in the flames, and even then you could always outrun it.) The special thing about this movie is that its action scenes are realistic, but they are played for excitement, which is a combination rarely seen in blockbusters or serious war movies. In fact, at times, the Sergeant James seems to be enjoying himself, as if defusing bombs was like some sort of death defying crossword puzzle. Unlike the vast majority of serious war movies, this one admits that war can be fun. That it can be exciting. Sergeant James has defused 873 bombs. He has volunteered to do so. He is not fighting for God and country (at least not completely). He’s there for the adrenaline rush. Is this realistic? For some people, you bet. Does firing a gun make one feel powerful? Damn right. Is wearing a full body armored suit kinda cool? Fuck yeah. Can saving trophies from bombs that almost killed you make a person feel like he is a master over life and death? Hoo-rah! Can war be a drug? Unfortunately yes. The inclusion of a character like Sergeant James makes The Hurt Locker a more complete psychological study than recent anti-war movies, which omit characters like him precisely because they are trying to make a political point. Stephen Brenner’s performance in this movie is capable of snagging a Best Actor Nomination. The film itself should easily get a Best Picture Nomination now that the category has been expanded to ten films. This is one of the best films I have seen so far this year.
Some may find it odd that this seemingly pro-war film about a gung ho bomb disarmer was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who is obviously a woman. I don’t think so. Perhaps it takes a woman to point out that some men will perform death-defying feats compulsively for no particular reason (whereas in regular blockbusters men will usually perform these feats to ‘save the world’ or ‘save the girl’ etc. etc.) Frankly, women have made some of the best movies that deal with this profoundly male trait. American Psycho was adapted for the screen by Guinevere Turner and directed by Mary Harron. Protagonist, a magnificent documentary, was made by Jessica Yu. And you can’t get much more of a testosterone fueled adventure than Bigelow’s own Pointe Break. Surely women can become obsessed and perform death-defying feats themselves, but I’ve never heard of one that would do it just for the hell of it. As Billy Crystal joked once, “Women need a reason, men just need a place.” Or maybe some of them do. Perhaps that should be the subject of Bigelow’s next movie.