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.

Ford v. Ferrari (3/5 Stars)

Ford v. Ferrari is a pretty good snapshot of all the contradictions of the sport of car racing. The fan base of this sport are red blooded Americans from those parts of the country that are all about less government and more bootstrap. They wear cowboy hats, eat steak, and drive cars, that most singular way to travel. But is there a sport out there that is less beholden to corporate interests? Look at those NASCAR cars. They are covered head to toe with advertisements. No car racer owns his own car. It is the corporation's car. This is because it takes a hell of a lot of money and engineering to build a car that can compete in these races. So much so that it may be a question as to whether the individual driver is all that important. Particularly in long races like the one at issue in this movie, the 24-hour race at Le Mans. No individual racer drives all the race. It is the car that goes the distance. But how do you tell a story about the car to the NASCAR fan base who are highly individualistic. (Were Carol Shelby and Ken Miles really ignorant of the rule that affects the end of this race? I mean, really?)

Ford v. Ferrari is a basic and competent sports story about simple and rebellious protagonists and affluent and beholden antagonists. It works on this basic level and is anchored by a cast of manly men: Matt Damon as coach/car builder Carol Shelby and Christian Bale as the driver Ken Miles get the job done on the ground. In the Ford office are Tracy Letts as Ford CEO Henry Ford II and two of his senior employees Jon Bernthal as Lee Iacocca and Josh Lucas as Leo Beebe. Ferrari is not played by a name actor and actually does not have much to do in this movie. The main conflict is between Lee Iacocca who wants to give our heroes (Damon and Bale) more discretion and Leo Beebe who is mainly interested in marketing. Why can’t our driver be more photogenic, asks Leo, we could totally sell more cars that way? This question becomes the linchpin of the movie. Will the corporation give the renegades enough leeway to succeed? Leo Beebe is portrayed as a scheming pretty boy. Josh Lucas does his smarmy best (I remember him from American Psycho).

Is Ford really an underdog here? It has all the money and talent and a willingness akin to the NFL’s Patriots to undertake courses of action that aren’t technically cheating, but probably should be. Reading between the lines, I got the feeling that Ferrari did not have much of a chance. All Ford needed to do was show up and care. The main impetus for the whole rivalry was the hurt feelings of Henry Ford II after Ferrari used the Ford Company’s interest in acquiring his company to run up the price on the other buyer, Fiat. Lee Iacocca reports this failure back to Henry Ford II and adds that Ferrari called Ford cars ugly and Henry II fat. Henry Ford II gruffly declares that the Le Mans racing team has a blank check. The rest is history. Ford won the next five years. I expect Ford stopped winning because it stopped caring. It made its point and went back to more profitable ventures, like selling cars to regular people. Meanwhile, we are told that Ferrari went bankrupt chasing perfection at Le Mans. There is a female character in this movie, the wife of Ken Miles. She feels out of place in this exorbitant high-stakes pissing contest.

This is one of those movies where I sort of wish there was a less Hollywood version. I would like to know more about the engineering and science of making a car go really fast for a very long time and less about the mystical and intangible qualities of race car drivers. Having said that, Christian Bale once again showcases his superhuman ability to gain/lose weight. Last time I saw him, he had the gut of Dick Cheney. Now, he is thin and wiry again. That talented jerk.

Lady Bird (5/5 Stars)

In one of several great moments in “Lady Bird”, the titular character, a catholic high school senior named Chistine McPherson who has given herself the “Lady Bird”, is speaking with one of her teachers, Sister Sarah Joan, about her writing sample about her hometown Sacramento. Sister Sarah Joan especially likes the writing sample because one can tell how much Lady Bird loves Sacramento. This comment surprises Lady Bird because she does not like Sacramento and has spent much of the movie stating exactly that and how she wishes to go to college somewhere on the east coast, like New York, where, as she says, “culture is”. But, Sister Sarah Joan remarks, Lady Bird’s writing is so specific and detailed. She shows so much attention to Sacramento and aren’t they the same thing, love and attention.

Sister Sarah Joan’s point is amply demonstrated by this movie, which on its surface is about a young woman who doesn’t like her neighborhood, doesn’t feel like she fits in, and wants to move. But the characters are so warmly drawn and the scenes are so wonderfully specific, it is impossible to believe that Lady Bird’s family, her catholic high-school, and Sacramento, all three of which she is trying desperately to rebel against, are not also very close to her heart. She also fights with her mother constantly, but it is the sort of fighting that comes from micro-management, not neglect, and this too the movie seemingly argues, is another type of love, maddening at times yes, but still love.

The greatness of “Lady Bird” lies in its specificity. It is a great counterargument to the prevailing wisdom about how to make and market movies about high school. Most high school movies seek to put characters into certain roles (mean girls, nerds, jocks, and the like), the idea being to appeal to the lowest common denominator. This movie could not be more different. Counterintuitively, in being very true to itself, it has apparently appealed to a large group of people anyway. It is has received an extraordinarily high RottenTomatoes rating and has made a lot of money. This was surprising to me because how many people could possibly relate to a catholic high school girl in Sacramento. Apparently everybody.

“Lady Bird” was written and directed by Greta Gerwig, better known as an actress. Greta went to a Catholic high school in Sacramento before moving to New York for college. So essentially this movie is about her. It certainly feels lived in. I felt like I could especially relate to it because I grew up in the suburbs, went to a Catholic high school, and wanted to leave for New York. I think she got that 100% correct. As important, she got correct how a rejection of one’s upbringing doesn’t necessarily mean a hatred of it. There is a particularly beautiful scene at the end of “Lady Bird” wherein Christine suffering from a hangover from night before, walks into a Catholic church for Sunday Mass and hears a choir singing. Christine isn’t religious anymore but she recognizes the feeling as that of her home and it moves her with feelings of nostaligia and gratitude. This movie, along with the musical “The Book of Mormon”, are exceedingly rare things, love letters from atheists to religious organizations. Greta Gerwig isn’t a believer, but she understands and respects it. It wasn’t for her, but she lovingly pays attention.

Lady Bird is played with perfection by Saiorise Ronan. Her mother is played by Laurie Metcalf. I expect they will both be nominated this year. Also, “Lady Bird” is a perfect candidate for Best Original Screenplay Oscar. I hope Greta Gerwig quits acting and starts writing/directing full-time. She is very good at this.

Christine (4/5 Stars)

“In keeping with the WBRZ policy, complete reports of the local blood and guts, TV 30 presents what is believed to be a television first and in living colour: An attempted suicide.”

These were the last words of Christine Chubbuck, a reporter for a local news station in Saratoga, Florida, before she shot herself in the back of the head on live television in 1974. What was perhaps so intriguing about the shocking act was its professionalism. Christine, a consummate reporter, wrote down her words in news copy and used the phrase “attempted suicide” because it was the precise way to describe what was about to happen, after all the suicide attempt might very well fail. She shot herself in the back of the head because that was where the cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls the heart and lungs. Perhaps most importantly, she chose to do it on live TV in the news station. This way, the story could not be used on other stations without first mentioning the local TV station. Christine’s suicide became the station’s biggest story ever.

This movie, aptly titled “Christine” and directed by Antonio Campos is as good as any movie can get telling this particular story. Given that you know the ending, a feeling of dread settles over the entire experience and is given expression by a creepy haunting music score. But having said that, two things make the movie exceptional. The first is the screenplay by Craig Shilowich that provides context to Christine’s choice without being so presumptuous as to settle on one definitive answer for her choice. It also happens to be frequently funny with the station’s weatherman (played by Veep’s Timothy Simons) getting the most laughs. My favorite exchange has to do with the station manager (played by Tracy Letts) trying to persuade his employees to get more violent coverage. “If it bleeds, it leads,” he says and makes an argument as to how it will help ratings. “It’s just math,” he ends. “That’s not math, that’s logic.” retorts Christine.

The second is Rebecca Hall’s performance as the title character. She is present in every scene in this movie and her presence is a clear portrait of a seemingly functional person paralyzed with anti-social nerves, well-placed pride, and the subsequent paranoia. Her Christine comes across as a reporter too competent to be at a local backwater TV station but also too much of a work-a-holic to fully function as a social being. She knows she is better than her station but can’t handle her frustration at not being able to get past it or work through. And she may have too much pride to be able to do either if she wanted to. It is hinted that she once was a reporter at a bigger station, but the same nerves may have contributed to a nervous breakdown that got her fired there. Rebecca Hall’s nuances fill in all that we know and guesses at all we will never know about the person. This may be one of those movies that only gets a single Oscar Nomination, in this case a Best Actress nod for Rebecca Hall.

Christine situation is sad but our pity for her is tempered with the realization that she is as much her problem as is the world she is fighting against. Yes, the owner of the station wants more sensational storytelling and this may be exploitative news reporting, but does Christine really have to fight him tooth and nail and attack him personally over creative differences. Yes, she has a crush on the local anchor (played by Michael C. Hall) and they seemingly could make a good couple, but is it so sad that the romance never blossoms when she ends conversations and exits social gatherings prematurely. And is her reaction to these stumbling blocks, to hate herself and grow bitter at everybody else really the productive way to go about these problems. Her suicide, it seems, was the one thing she could do right when she wasn’t willing or able to do anything else correctly. And she did it right, just the way she meticulously planned it. It was memorable. It was shocking. And it said something about her and what she disliked most about her world. And in living colour.