We forgot to breathe for 1:50. In A House of Dynamitefilm as punchy as it suggests its title, the characters face a series of impossible choices, while a nuclear shot is about to touch the American soil. In less than two hours, this dense and breathless drama does not spoil the slightest second. And Kathryn Bigelow (Deminers,, Zero Dark Thirty) Recalls in passing that she is the undisputed queen of the political thriller.
“After the Cold War, the consensus was that it would be better to limit nuclear power. This era is now over. ” It is with these words, in capital letters on a black screen, that the feature film presented in competition in 82 beginse Mostra of Venice. The pitch is simple: one morning like any other, the American army and the government detect a missile, of unknown origin, which seems to go to the United States. Impact planned in nineteen minutes.
The film then adopted a multitude of points of view to retrace these few anxiety -provoking minutes, during which all the characters will have to act in an emergency. Can we identify the origin of the missile? Is it possible to intercept it? Should we wait, or reply and take the risk of triggering a nuclear apocalypse?
Counter a “general collective anesthesia” on the issue of nuclear weapons
American director Kathryn Bigelow grew up at the time when the recommended protection strategy against a nuclear attack was to hide under her office. Met in Venice, she explains why the subject seems more relevant to her more than ever. “Several nations have enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization in a few minutesshe recalls. However, there is a kind of general collective anesthesia on this subject. In recent decades, nuclear proliferation has been standardized and no one is talking about it. I find it abominable. I think it is very important that we were informed and that we can take the subject of the best that we can. ”
The film unrolls a formidable structure, which recalls that of Dunkirkby Christopher Nolan: The same events are shown to us several times through different points of view. We first follow the Room situation From the White House, alongside Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson).
Before joining the Secretary of Defense (Jared Harris), soldiers based in the Pacific, an official of the Federal Agency for the Management of Emergency Situations (FEMA), an expert in geopolitics, or the head of the Stratcom, the Strategic Command of the United States (Tracy Lets), as well as the American president, embodied by no one other than Idris Elba. Despite the severity of the issues, we cannot help but see that the majority of the American command is embodied by British or Swedish actors. Should we deduce that Americans are not able to govern?
True to the hyperrealism that characterizes her work, the Californian filmmaker takes us, camera in the shoulder, at the heart of the theater of operations. After Breakstone (1991), Zero Dark Thirty (2012) or Deminers (2009), who made her the first woman in history to win the Oscar for best achievement, Kathryn Bigelow is once again in total mastery of her narration. With the help of a tense montage, an immersive staging and a skilfully deployed music, the filmmaker offers us a consumer work, as entertaining as intelligent. Too bad the film, which will be released on Netflix on October 24, is not available on the big screen in France.
“Emotional reaction” at the heart of the story
A House of Dynamite Also owes a lot to his scenario, signed Noah Oppenheim. This former journalist and screenwriter among others Jackiefrom Pablo Larraín (2016) carried out a rigorous research work and met many people who worked in the White House, in the Room situation or other strategic positions.
“These people train almost every day for this kind of scenario, each scenario, each step to followspecifies Noah Oppenheim. But the only thing you can never really simulate during a test is the human emotional reaction that we would have faced with such a situation. We wanted to show the fact that we may have built all these complicated systems, to have written all these procedures, ultimately, the decision is based on one person, in this case, the president. No matter how sophisticated the system is, regardless of the number of training that we do, we can never really predict the variable that is the only person responsible for making this choice. ” Thus, the more the film advances, the more you go up in the hierarchy, the more the decision -making seems insurmountable – and emotional.
“I think that each of us can recognize ourselves in at least one of these characters, faced with this crucial decision they have to take.”
This is the greatest success of A House of Dynamitewhich builds a gallery of characters immediately endearing and multidimensional, letting us glimpse their family life, their ambitions, their professional complicities or rivalries. “It was really important for me to humanize this whole processjustifies Kathryn Bigelow. Remember that in the middle of this impossible situation, it is not only a protocol, a procedure, but above all human beings. ”
Despite their training and their responsibilities, all these overtrained characters will doubt and find themselves torn between their professional duty and their intimate issues. Idris Elba shares her opinion: “I think that each of us can recognize ourselves a little in at least one of these characters, faced with this crucial decision they must take.”
“When we flatten people in 2D, we lose their humanity”
Whether in a remote military base, in the streets of Washington or in a bunker, all the characters are dependent on modern technology, which allows them to communicate instantly, but also creates an emotional distance and complicates decision -making. “It is much more difficult to obtain a consensus on a computer screen than in real lifeunderlines the playwright Tracy Letts, which embodies the general at the head of the Stratcom. When we flatten people in 2D, we lose their humanity. So, in a situation where a good dose of humanity is required and where all of humanity is at stake, being able to dialogue with people in a real way is all the more important. ”
The film, which in one of its scenes, draws up a tasty parallel with the archaic barbarism of the American civil war, underlines at each detour the absurdity of nuclear climbing. Until its final resolution, which we will obviously be revealed to you. Very great spectacle, which nevertheless draws attention to an issue that could not be more serious. Or as the Noah Oppenheim formula: “I think the question we should all ask is:” Do I want to live in a world that works like that? “”
