A House of Dynamite

A House of Dynamite - Thriller/Drama 

The Oscar-winning filmmaker speaks with The Hollywood Reporter alongside screenwriter Noah Oppenheim about the film emerging as an instant hit on Netflix, what she learned from the debate around 'Zero Dark Thirty,' and her hopes for her harrowing new film going forward.

Writers like The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, who visited the set for the film, have already disputed The Pentagon’s apparent claims. Officials including U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey have gone public praising the film for raising nuclear awareness — and getting it seemingly right. The Pentagon has complicated the conversation over the level of accuracy in A House of Dynamite, which has premiered to strong numbers on Netflix as the streamer’s number one film, with 22.1 million views in its first three days, per the company.

But Bigelow and Oppenheim welcome the debate. In an exclusive conversation with THR, they reflect on the movie’s success so far, lessons learned from the controversy around Bigelow’s Oscar-winning Zero Dark Thirty, and why they feel confident in their depiction. 

I want to get right into it and ask you, Kathryn, about this Pentagon memo that Bloomberg first reported on. What is your reaction to it? 

KATHRYN BIGELOW It’s interesting. In a perfect world, culture has the potential to drive policy — and if there’s dialogue around the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that is music to my ears, certainly.

What are your feelings around the fact that they did internally decide to respond to the movie and take some level of issue with your depiction of our missile-defense system? Why do you think that they chose to do that?

NOAH OPPENHEIM There’s no way for us to get in the minds of the folks who wrote that memo, but as Kathryn said, both of us are thrilled to see a conversation happening between policymakers and experts about how to make the world a safer place. So if the film was a catalyst in some way for that larger conversation and dialogue, that’s one of the reasons why we made it — to trigger that kind of conversation.

Do you worry, though, that this will challenge the credibility of the film? How do you feel about the fact that they’re taking a stance that opposes, to some degree, what you depict in the film?

OPPENHEIM As we see it, it’s not a debate between us as filmmakers and the Pentagon. It’s between the Pentagon and the wider community of experts in the space. Senator Edward Markey or retired general Douglas Lute; journalists like Tom Nichols and Fred Kaplan who’ve covered this issue for decades; the APS, which is a nonpartisan organization of physicists — these are the folks who are coming out and saying what we depict in the film, which is that our current missile defense system is highly imperfect, is accurate. On the other side of that conversation, you have the Pentagon apparently asserting that it’s 100 percent effective. We believe all those experts who’ve told us that the system is more like a coin toss like we depict in the film, but we’re glad all these folks are having the debate and the conversation.

The Pentagon also apparently noted you did not consult them while making the movie. Kathryn, you’ve said you felt it was important to keep this film independent. Can you talk about why, in light of this response?

BIGELOW It’s the best course of action, to consult with all of the experts that we did. We had extraordinary tech advisors on this film, and then they were our North Star.

OPPENHEIM I’m a former journalist, you’re a journalist. I think it’s safe to say that folks who are not currently serving in government are often more free to speak their minds and to give you an accurate picture, as opposed to trying to advance any particular agenda. So relying on folks who recently served in the Pentagon, recently served in our intelligence agencies in the White House — we feel pretty confident in the accuracy of the picture that they gave us.

Kathryn, Zero Dark Thirty obviously elicited a ton of response and controversy from government officials and experts. Were there any lessons learned, or wisdom gleaned, from that experience in terms of how to operate in the aftermath of the release of these films, which speak so directly and potently to our real world?

BIGELOW I just state the truth. In this piece, it’s all about realism and authenticity. Same with Zero Dark Thirty and same with Hurt Locker — even though Hurt Locker was obviously a work of fiction, and this is a work of fiction. For me, these are pieces that lean in hard on realism. You’re inviting an audience into, say, the battledeck of STRATCOM. That’s a place that’s not easily accessible, and so you want it to be authentic and honest. That’s my goal, and I think we achieved it. 

In addition to the public commentary from experts that you mentioned, Noah, what have you heard from people about the film as it’s soared on Netflix over the last few days?

OPPENHEIM It’s been really gratifying that the folks who know the subject the best have told us that they feel like we’ve captured it accurately and that this is the world that they have been examining for all their careers.

BIGELOW To be honest, nuclear weapons have been shrouded in silence for several decades now. It’s my opinion that this was a conversation that needed to happen.

This movie has struck such a chord since it premiered. It’s been at number one on Netflix for the last few days. Do you think that’s partly why it’s resonated — the fact that it is something that has been shrouded in silence, as you say?

BIGELOW Very much so. It’s grappling with the idea that we’re surrounded by 12,000 (nuclear) weapons. We live in a really combustible environment, hence the title — we live in A House of Dynamite. The unthinkable — it’s time to address it and, in a perfect world, begin discussions about reducing the nuclear stockpile. 

OPPENHEIM It is extraordinary, the power of the Netflix platform in terms of its ability to reach an audience all over the world and drive a conversation. The number of people who’ve watched the movie just in these first few days, it’s beyond our wildest expectations, and you’re seeing a conversation about this not just in the United States, but all over the world, because Netflix has that kind of global reach. Hearing from people in my past life as a journalist, hearing from friends and family all over the world whose attention has been turned to this very important issue so that they’re coming out of the movie and saying, “Wow, Kathryn Bigelow sure can make a compelling thriller,” and “I was on the edge of my seat for two hours,” and also, “I’m thinking about this really critical policy issue for the first time in a long time” — the combination of those two things is pretty great.

BIGELOW(Laughs.) I mean, I’m receiving texts and emails all over the world. It’s really very profound. The reach is extraordinary, but more importantly, the story, the concept, the subject is what’s really inspiring conversation and feedback and trepidation — in a good way. In other words, this is a conversation. That is a long time coming. We have in February the beginning of the negotiation for the START Treaty, and I’ve heard from one gentleman who will be involved in that negotiation, who’s seen the movie twice — and would like to see a meaningful impact in that negotiation.

There’s so much talk about the ending, the uncertainty that it very intentionally leaves viewers with. Have you followed the way that people are sitting with it and debating it?

OPPENHEIM Kathryn and I wanted the movie to invite the audience to lean in the end, to not kind of give anyone an easy out or tie it up with a bow. We wanted to instigate reflection and conversation, and we both give a lot of credit to Netflix for letting Kathryn make the movie that she envisioned from the very beginning. As the ending is driving people to talk more about this subject, it’s exactly what we hoped for.

BIGELOW I tend to start films with a question, or I certainly have recently anyway. With Hurt Locker, it was: What is the methodology of the insurgency in Iraq and the bloodiest part of the war? In Zero Dark Thirty, why did it take 10 years to find Osama Bin Laden? In this one, the film in itself poses a question that then gives the audience an opportunity to answer.

Noah Oppenheim, the writer of Kathryn Bigelow’s nuclear-missile thriller House of Dynamite has responded to complaints from the Pentagon over the accuracy of its depiction of the US’s defence systems, saying he “respectfully disagree[s]”.

In an internal memo dated 16 October obtained by Bloomberg, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said: “The fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target and we understand this is intended to be a compelling part of the drama intended for the entertainment of the audience,” but results from real-world testing “tell a vastly different story.”

The memo added that the US’s missile interceptors “have displayed a 100% accuracy rate in testing for more than a decade”.

Oppenheim, former president of NBC News, said that he spoke to “many missile defence experts, all on the record … our missile defence system is highly imperfect.” He added: “What we show in the movie is accurate.”

Kathryn Bigelow
‘Our world is combustible’: Kathryn Bigelow on AI, Andy Warhol and nuclear Armageddon
Read more
In the film, ground-based interceptor missiles, launched from Alaska, fail to stop a nuclear strike on Chicago.

However, nuclear physicist Laura Grego, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg that the threat represented in the film was arguably the most straightforward that the US might have to deal with. “A robust defence should anticipate facing multiple incoming ICBMs and credible decoys, and direct attacks on missile defense elements, but none of those were part of the story in this film. The fictional threat is arguably about as easy as they come.”

Bigelow told the Guardian that the film did not seek endorsement or co-operation from the Pentagon to ensure its independence, saying: “Our nuclear armoury is a fallible structure. Within it are men and women working thanklessly behind the scenes, whose competence means you and I can sit and have this conversation. But competence doesn’t mean they’re infallible.”

The US currently has 44 ground based interceptors, based in Alaska and California, and in 2020 the Pentagon awarded a $13.3bn contract to Northrop Grumman for a new generation of ground-based missiles, due for delivery in 2029. In May, Donald Trump proposed a “Golden Dome” missile system, featuring space-based weapons to intercept strikes against the US.

Seeing these messages is annoying. We know that. (Imagine what it’s like writing them … ) 

But it’s also extremely important. One of the Guardian’s greatest assets is its reader-funded model. 

1. Reader funding means we can cover what we like. We’re not beholden to the political whims of a billionaire owner. No one can tell us what not to say or what not to report.

2. Reader funding means we don’t have to chase clicks and traffic. We’re not desperately seeking your attention for its own sake: we pursue the stories that our editorial team deems important, and believe are worthy of your time.

3. Reader funding means we can keep our website open, allowing as many people as possible to read quality journalism from around the world - especially people who live in places where the free press is in peril.

The support of readers like you in Sri Lanka keeps all that possible. At the moment, just 2.4% of our regular readers help fund our work. If you want to protect independent journalism, please consider joining them today.
We know, we know, we know …

The document says the failure of the military to stop a missile headed for the continental U.S. depicted in the movie is okay as “a compelling part of the drama intended for the entertainment of the audience,” but the real-world capacities “tell a vastly different story.”

In House of Dynamite, interceptor missiles are said to have a 61% success rate in taking down incoming warheads, like the enemy missile heading to wipe out the almost 10 million residents of greater Chicago as generals and officials in the Idris Elba-led administration scramble to find a solution or unleash global destruction. The Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) they launch from Alaska to take out the threat fail, leaving the most powerful military force in human history suddenly out of options.

As a counterpoint, the DoD’s Missile Defense Agency memo earlier this month says its multibillion-dollar hit-to-kill systems “displayed a 100% accuracy rate in testing for more than a decade.”

“The numbers tell us what is occurring and we need to know,” a well-positioned military official told Deadline today of the DoD’s assertion. “The results are very very good, with the program scheduled to grow over the next decade,” he added of the interceptors, which the U.S. has developed in the post-Star Wars era and will deploy down the line.

The DoD reaction to A House of Dynamite, which premiered in Venice and opened in a limited theater run October 10 before hitting Netflix on Friday, was first reported by Bloomberg. Deadline has seen the document. It questions how on-the-money HoD is in its depiction of taking out a bullet with a bullet, to paraphrase the language in the film that co-stars Rebecca Ferguson, Jared Harris, Tracy Letts, Anthony Ramos, Jason Clarke and Gabriel Basso.

On the flip side, the project’s screenwriter Noah Oppenheim told MSNBC on Sunday that he would “respectfully disagree” with the Pentagon’s assessment.

Diplomatically, Oppenhiem, the former NBC News chief, also said: “I welcome the conversation. I’m so glad the Pentagon watched, or is watching, and is paying attention to it, because this is exactly the conversation we want to have.”

Bigelow has made it clear she kept the Pentagon at arm’s length to maintain independence. Both the Oscar-winning director and Oppenheim have said HoD “had multiple tech advisers who have worked in the Pentagon.”

For what it’s worth, none of those advisors were from the current administration, Oppenheim admitted on MSNBC.

Not spotlighted by the Pentagon’s memo is another narrative element of HoD in which, once the initial attempt to take down the enemy missile fails, brass partially decide not to try again in order to save the remainder of its Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system for possible further attacks. At that junction in the film, Defense Secretary Reid Baker (played by Harris) rages: “So, it’s a f*cking coin toss? That’s what $50 billion buys us?”

Posted on 2025/10/29 09:35 AM