Contains spoilers for “A House of Dynamite”
In “A House of Dynamite,” a new thriller from “The Hurt Locker” director Kathryn Bigelow, a nuclear missile of unknown origin is hurtling towards Chicago. The film’s three acts take place simultaneously and follow different sets of government officials responding to the mounting crisis, with each act cutting off right as the President (Idris Elba) prepares to announce whether or not to retaliate. The looping structure, with the third act from the President’s perspective, builds suspense as to what he’s going to decide — which makes the its anti-climactic, almost non-existent ending come as a shock.
The film never confirms the President’s ultimate decision, nor does it reveal who sent the missile or what becomes of Chicago. Rather, all that is shown in the final scene following the dramatic cut to black and before the President’s announcement are people entering a bunker in Pennsylvania. The implication that things are going to get apocalyptically bad is clear, but the lack of answers to the film’s biggest questions is sure to frustrate audiences, who are unlikely to rank it among the best end of the world movies.
Read more: The Most Shocking Movie Endings
What’s the point of A House of Dynamite’s ambiguous ending?
Major Daniel Gonzalez kneels in front of a military truck in “A House of Dynamite” – Eros Hoagland/Netflix
The ending (or lack thereof) of “A House of Dynamite” delivers a strong statement on the existence of nuclear weapons. If there’s a 99% chance that 10 million Americans will die in a nuclear blast, the President can’t just do nothing, but without knowing who did the attack — a blackout at the time of the launch made determinations impossible — retaliating against all possible suspected nuclear powers will escalate the situation to the mutually assured destruction that J. Robert Oppenheimer feared.
Idris Elba’s President is not perfect, but he’s an intelligent man who feels the weight of his decisions. “They’re all narcissists,” one aide says about U.S. presidents, “but at least this one reads the news.” The government officials here are shown to be utmost professionals, getting across the film’s implicit argument: you can practically hear Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim implying, “If a situation like this is so terrifying when the adults are in the room, imagine what this would be like under the current clowns.”
While “A House of Dynamite” commits to its anti-nuke message, the enigmatic ending avoids taking further political bearings.Choosing to retaliate or not would make a definitive statement on America’s global power, while identifying a guilty party would also make a geopolitical stance. No conclusion could make everyone happy, but the ambiguous ending is sure to be divisive precisely because of its noncommittal nature.
“A House of Dynamite” is now in limited theatrical release and will stream on Netflix on October 24.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to our free newsletter for the biggest movie and TV news delivered straight to your inbox.
Read the original article on Looper.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.yahoo.com ’
