The film <House of Dynamite>, which I encountered on Netflix, deals with a subject that is breathtaking just to imagine: a nuclear missile launched at the American mainland. The nail-biting tension this film provides goes beyond simple entertainment, aiming directly at the fundamental fear of security vulnerabilities that modern society harbors. Throughout its runtime, the film grips the audience's heart, making it impossible to stop the horrifying "what if this happened right now?" line of questioning. More than the fact that it was available on Netflix, what piqued my interest was the director's name.
The simple fact that this film's director is Kathryn Bigelow is reason enough to prove <House of Dynamite>'s value. This is because, personally, I have watched all the works she has directed so far, such as <The Hurt Locker> and <Zero Dark Thirty>, and each left a powerful impression. Director Bigelow has always shown an unparalleled talent for delving into human psychology under extreme circumstances and the essence of the events they face. Her greatest weapon is her sense of balance, which prevents her from leaning to one side, even when dealing with heavy subjects like politics, the military, and war.
Kathryn Bigelow's filmography has an interesting characteristic. Despite being a female director, the worlds she depicts are decidedly "macho." Her films are set in male-dominated arenas—soldiers, bomb disposal squads, intelligence agents—but her gaze never glorifies male power or violence. Instead, she sharply captures the psychological pressure, moral dilemmas, and systemic contradictions that arise within them. Rather than pushing blind "America First" jingoism or heroism, she delivers a weighty directorial power that takes a step closer to the truth and essence hidden behind major events.
To be honest, when I first chose <House of Dynamite>, I didn't know it was a Kathryn Bigelow film. I was simply drawn to a film review I stumbled upon, which mentioned "immense tension that overwhelms the audience," and I pressed play. From the very beginning, the film builds, as if stacking a 'tech tree' in a game, piling up small clues and minor cracks one by one. The peaceful daily life begins to crumble, slowly but unstoppably, and the tension that fills the screen drives the audience into a state of anxiety that feels ready to explode at any moment.
The early part of the film begins by shedding light on the seemingly peaceful daily life of a family. 'Olivia,' played by Rebecca Ferguson, appears to be spending ordinary time with her family, but it is implied that she is a soldier who holds a critical position related to national security. It is precisely at this point that the film begins to earnestly fire up its engine of suspense. The moment Olivia's professional identity is revealed, the audience instinctively realizes that her peaceful life was, in fact, a sandcastle built upon a foundation of immense crisis, making it impossible to look away from the screen.
We often think of the United States as a "superpower" and an invincible fortress that no one would dare touch. However, the reality is that the U.S. is also the nation that reacts most sensitively to countless events happening all over the world. Although its influence is said to have waned compared to the Cold War era, it still proclaims itself the "world's police" and confronts numerous hostile forces. The film shows how this very geopolitical position of the U.S. can, ironically, be its greatest weakness. We come to understand why countless entities classified as "enemy nations" react so sensitively toward the U.S., and likewise, how the U.S. watches them.
Historically, with the exception of events like the Pearl Harbor attack or 9/11, the U.S. mainland has rarely experienced a large-scale invasion by an enemy nation. However, unlike in the past, the nature of modern warfare has completely changed. <House of Dynamite> starkly reveals how a modern weapon like an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) can render all geographical and military defenses helpless. The film convincingly portrays the existential fear that drives the U.S. to react so obsessively and sensitively to other nations' missile development, especially their possession of nuclear missiles.
It is easy to believe that even if an enemy nation launches a missile, it can be sufficiently intercepted by a state-of-the-art Missile Defense (MD) system. However, the film shatters that illusion. Accurately intercepting an incoming nuclear missile is, as the film depicts, no different from relying on the slim chance of a "coin toss." Especially if it's a nuclear warhead and not just a missile, the failure to intercept even one is a catastrophe that threatens the nation's very existence. The film presents the shock of "who would dare do this to the U.S." alongside the realization of how flustered and helpless even the U.S. could become when such an event actually occurs.
Another element that maximizes the tension in <House of Dynamite> is its depiction of leadership in crisis. The film does not feature a heroic commander who solves every situation with perfect efficiency, as is cliché in disaster movies. On the contrary, it explicitly reveals the generals in the White House, and even the President, panicking and not knowing what to do as the missile hurdles toward the mainland. This chaotic development feels far more realistic than direction that relies on Hollywood-style heroism, pulling the audience's immersion to its absolute limit.
A national state of emergency is declared, and personnel are sorted for evacuation to a safe zone (bunker) according to a predetermined protocol. The tragicomedy that unfolds between the "chosen" and the "un-chosen" in the same space shows how extreme situations can destroy human dignity. Furthermore, the desperate attempts to call family members to hear their last voice with only minutes remaining, or the inability to even convey the horrifying truth, evokes a gut-wrenching emotion. The film maintains this explosive tension until about the two-thirds mark, then stops everything just moments before the missile is set to hit Chicago. While this was clearly the director's intention, it is an ending that leaves the audience feeling somewhat hollow. But perhaps that very "unresolved" moment is the most powerful message the film throws at us.
댓글
댓글 쓰기