WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS
I wasn’t a huge fan of Kathryn Bigelow’s A House of Dynamite, a too-glossy triptych boasting too many stars and a recursive storytelling gimmick that dulls the impact of its striking premise. But I was a big fan of the ending, a bleak and powerful note of ambiguity that leaves the true cost of its nuclear stand-off premise unknown. In a staunchly critical movie that suggests pretty overtly that mutually assured destruction is an inevitable consequence of nuclear armament, and that only the slightest random event can be enough to destroy us all, this was really the only way it could have ended.
For the uninitiated, the movie is built on a simple enough premise: An unknown foreign entity launches an ICBM at the United States. Nobody knows who, nobody knows why. With only twenty-ish minutes remaining on a rapidly ticking clock, various government and military officials must scramble to figure out how best to respond to the crisis. And then, seconds before the missile hits its target, time rewinds and we take in the same events from the perspective of different characters, some of whom were glimpsed in the previous sequences on video screens or heard on the other end of phone lines.
This happens twice, making for a pretty clear three-act structure with slightly unusual pacing. Act 1 unfolds primarily from the viewpoint of Rebecca Ferguson’s Captain Olivia Walker, who is in charge of the White House situation room; Act 2 is rooted in the perspective of STRATCOM General Anthony Brady (Tracy Letts) and Deputy National Security Advisor Jake Baerington (Gabriel Basso); Act 3 finds the president himself (Idris Elba) deliberating over the ultimate decision. With America’s readiness raised to DEFCON 1, and every other major geopolitical player having oiled up their own war machines in response, does the U.S. pre-emptively strike its supposed allies to limit its own losses, or trust in foreign officials not to take advantage of their predicament?
A House of Dynamite Ends Without Ending
The answer to this crucial dramatic question is, simply, “we don’t know”. Each act of the movie ends seconds before the missile strikes Chicago, including the final one. The last thing we see is various high-ranking personnel entering a self-sufficient crisis bunker. The President has not firmly decided on either option. We don’t know what he chooses, we don’t find out who sent the missile in the first place, and we don’t know what the potential consequences might be.
You’ll notice that neither option is good. The best-case scenario is that a nuclear weapon only destroys Chicago, which is a pretty big deal in itself, and the worst-case is global nuclear war and, presumably, the decimation of the human race. Bigelow’s refusal to provide an easy resolution here is a deliberate reminder that, in the matter of nuclear weapons being used as bargaining chips in fractious geopolitics, there is no easy resolution.
In other words, nuclear exchange will be the end of us, probably in pointless circumstances, and there’s no way to avoid it. Yikes.
The Lack Of Clarity Was the Right Decision
Some viewers, conditioned by their home entertainment to expect a certain amount of resolution and payoff, will likely find this climax unsatisfying. I think it’s the best thing about the movie, which is otherwise too glossy and too littered with recognisable stars to effectively build the illusion that high-level government staffers are just well-intentioned everyday people. The fact that it ends with unavoidable calamity is the most realistic thing about it.
It should be said, though, that it’s also a fantasy in some respects. It imagines a government and military complex in which almost everyone is reasonable, competent, and wants to achieve the best outcome. That isn’t intended to be an accurate portrayal of any current administrations anywhere in the world. It’s another part of the point. Even in this best-case scenario, where everyone whose responsibility it is to prevent this calamity is prepared and equipped to do so, a terrible outcome is still unavoidable.
The point is clear enough. Our flourishing nations, held in check by the threat of mutual annihilation, are all houses of dynamite. And we’re all living in them. It only takes a spark to bring everything crashing down.
The Real Villain Is Fear
Another deliberate flourish is that the ending of A House of Dynamite never reveals who launched the missile. It could have been Russia, China, North Korea, or anyone else with the capability to do so. The absence of a “bad guy” makes room for the real villain, which is fear.
The most powerful conversation in this movie is the one POTUS has with Lieutenant Commander Robert Reeves (Jonah Hauer-King), laying out his options. Tracy Letts has an earlier monologue along the same lines. Both scenarios are bad, but one is, in many ways, worse. It should be an easier decision. But the fear of what might happen, of how other opportunistic nations might respond, makes the decision impossible.
This is better than othering a particular nation, especially these days. You’ll have seen that theme developing across all media recently, especially military-oriented movies and video games that tend to use mercenary private military companies as apolitical stand-ins. This movie isn’t about Uncle Sam having to put the smackdown on some convenient enemy; it’s about not knowing who the enemy is, and not being able to decide if becoming the enemy is the only way to fight back. My problems with A House of Dynamite notwithstanding, its non-ending is poignant, powerful, and was the best decision it could have made.