When I was younger and far more anxious, I had a history teacher who was intent on educating his students on the nature of the world and how it functions – and when it came time to discuss nuclear war, he told us “don’t panic until they panic”, with the “they” in this instance referring to the world leaders who are put in positions where, amongst their other duties, they are tasked with protecting their populations as far as possible. It’s an adage that I’ve carried with me for years, usually going back to it in times when it feels like the world is on the brink of collapse. They’re wise words, but also not entirely true considering the fact that we’ve seen countless examples of world leaders buckling under pressure and proving that they are far less well-equipped to handle these crises than we may hope. This is where we find Kathryn Bigelow finding the inspiration for A House of Dynamite, her first film in nearly a decade, which she developed alongside screenwriter Noah Oppenheim, a journalist whose knowledge of the political machinations that keep the United States functional stands him in good stead as an essential voice to tell this story. Set over the course of twenty minutes (in which the same time period is revisited from different perspectives, ranging from communications officers in the Situation Room to decorated military officials in the Department of Defense to the President of the United States himself), the film follows the discovery of an anomaly on their aerospace tracking system that they suddenly realise is a weapon being deployed at the United States, set to hit the country momentarily. They scramble to make decisions, determining whether to retaliate and essentially declare war against one of their adversaries or allow one of the biggest cities in the country to be reduced to rubble. A challenging, harrowing film that has a strong vision and an even more urgent message, A House of Dynamite is a welcome return to the medium for Bigelow, whose previous film, Detroit, was a noble effort but a notable misfire, something that we certainly can’t say about this haunting and timely political thriller.

Whether we are willing to admit it or not, politics is a continuous part of our daily lives, and there are very few (if any) artistic works produced today that don’t at least factor these themes into their fabric, even if only partially. Unfortunately, we live in an era where being apolitical is not an option, and any work that says it intends to avoid the subject altogether (even vaguely) is being entirely disingenuous or is simply not worth our time. We have very little reason to assert this critique on Bigelow, since she has never hidden her fondness for exploring political concepts, weaving them into every aspect of her films. Her recent emergence as a vital voice in American cinema over the past twenty years (after a fallow period where she didn’t work as much as before or since), she’s aimed at systems that claim to be protective of American values, but are secretly extremely harmful and oppressive, using ordinary people as pawns in perilous games of cat-and-mouse, in which its the masses that become the victims. This is the foundation on which A House of Dynamite is built – a daring, provocative exploration of power and the challenges that come when tasked with making big decisions, which are not at all easy to handle, regardless of level of power ot experience. Bigelow uses the concept of nuclear war – a fear that has united the world, since we know such an event will not only be catastrophic, but also apocalyptic – as a means to explore power as more than just the act of commanding, but rather a series of decisions that become more difficult the more influence someone has. We tend to look at offices such as military generals and heads of state as being level-headed, reasonable people who are informed on every aspect of their country’s skills, and who have a firm command on how it functions – and this is simply not the case, and in using a subject that is almost universally resonant, Bigelow and Oppenheim create a fascinating portrait of how power can often be a burden, especially when confronted with certain choices that have to be made – and the higher up one is, the less likely it is that the responsibility can be shifted elsewhere, a haunting realisation that serves as the cornerstone of this film.

Conceptually, A House of Dynamite is a film about the challenges of power and how it is dispersed – and the only way that this subject was going to be effectively explored would be through a unique structure. This isn’t the first instance of a film that explores the same event from different perspectives – in fact, it’s quite a classical theatrical concept that can lead to rich, fascinating deconstructions of not only a specific event (as it will be dissected from every possible angle), but also of the underlying themes that emerge in the process. The foundation on which House of Dynamite is built is centred around twenty minutes that the film covertly implies are the final moments of global peace, or at least as we know it – the tension and despair present as people urgently scramble to divert a rapidly escalating crisis is fascinating, and something that Bigelow captures very well. It does help that she holds very little reverence for those in power – she’s not anti-establishment, but she’s smart enough not to surrender to the belief that figures such as the President of the United States and his closest advisors have to be portrayed as valiant, level-headed individuals who are always in control. Instead, they’re unimpeachably human, feeling the same fear and dread that we all do – the different beings that they are, the ones making the decision, whereas the rest of us just have to accept the outcome, whatever it may be. A House of Dynamite is a tightly-wound thriller that peers behind the curtain and attempts to ask some very challenging questions about the nature of politics and the inner machinations of a system that none of us can ever truly understand. Even Bigelow and Oppenheim themselves are restricted in their knowledge, using as much as they can to make the film realistic, but never being able to cross that threshold into unrelenting truth. In the process, they still make some fascinating observations, each one pieced together to create something quite striking, even if it may not always be as satisfying as we may anticipate. It’s in this tension that the true ingenuity does emerge, even if it can occasionally be slightly frustrating in many ways.

The key distinction between A House of Dynamite and the many similar films that tackle the same topic is not found in the filmmaking (which is quite conventional, but we have to note that Bigelow was a major pioneer of the genre, so its foolish to imply that her work is derivative when she helped create these conventions that have become such distinct hallmarks of various styles), but rather in the characterisation. The film is essentially defined by three repetitions of the central event, each from a different perspective – the first two segments are focused on groups of a few characters (namely those working in the Situation Room and the Department of Defense), primarily viewed through the eyes of the people managing those departments. The deep humanity present in every moment is what gives the film its unique lustre and allows it to flourish into something much more profound. Part of this has to go to Oppenheim and Bigelow for creating these characters – but unfortunately, it is here that we do find one of the bigger flaws, which comes in the form of the film’s lack of ability to develop the characters as well as it perhaps should have done, a remnant of the fact that the structure is not at all conducive to this kind of approach. The actors do their best, but there’s simply no way to create meaningful characters when we only get a glimpse into twenty minutes of their lives. There are some highlights in the cast – Tracy Letts probably delivers the best performance in the film, perfectly fitting in the role of this general who has become so used to the routine that the moment a true crisis emerges, he is not sure how to navigate it. Jared Harris is wonderful as the volatile politician who finds himself succumbing to a nervous breakdown (and anyone who finds him too dramatic would be wise to remember that all of us would react in much the same way in his position), and a few bit players are quite solid. Less-effective work is done by Rebecca Ferguson, who is too dour and stoic to ever truly connect with the audience (but this is a common trait in a lot of her work), and as much as Idris Elba does try and capture the debonair charm of Barack Obama (who apparently was not an influence on the character, but we have to cast some doubt on this idea) in his capacity of this fictional, nameless head of state. The cast is solid, but its inability to find a real focus does slightly diminish the impact of A House of Dynamite, at least in terms of drawing our attention back to the people at the core of the story.

A House of Dynamite is a film that offers timely storytelling delivered with the kind of reliable direction that we have come to expect from Bigelow, who may not push the boundaries quite as much as she did during her younger and more ambitious days, but proves to have a firm command over the genre that she has essentially helped to define over the years. It’s a challenging film for a number of reasons. Structurally, it presents us with the same event in a few different contexts, unpacking it through a variety of perspectives, each one becoming more specific and powerful, and ultimately quite difficult. It touches on themes relating to nuclear war, political tensions and the flawed way the government functions, particularly in times of crisis. The idea of war starting not through grandiose formal declarations, but an immediate, almost impulsive choice, is terrifying in itself. The film carefully and methodically unpacks the various elements that go into the creation of such unsettling scenarios, showing that even the most powerful people can’t defend against unrelenting violence and despair. It’s not trying to be a cautionary tale, but it ultimately ends up being just that, gradually evolving into something much more profound, while also maintaining a sense of consistency in how it is a thrilling action drama about political machinations and the role of the entire government in defending the country. It should be noted that A House of Dynamite does strive for realism more than anything else, so there’s not going to be too many moments of celebratory, soul-stirring bravery to rouse the spirits of the audience – if anything, the bleakness of the story becomes a major factor in the development of the film’s core ideas. It’s ultimately not going to be viewed as Bigelow’s defining masterpiece, but it is nonetheless very entertaining, while also not avoiding the more challenging ideas that would normally define such a film, being as harsh and callous as it is deeply thought-provoking and engaging.