Renowned director Kathryn Bigelow has responded to the Pentagon’s criticism regarding the accuracy of defense systems depicted in her latest Netflix thriller, House of Dynamite. The film portrays a dramatic scenario in which government officials are forced to react to a nuclear strike on the United States. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Bigelow, alongside writer Noah Oppenheim, defended her film, emphasizing its commitment to realism and authenticity. She stated, “I just state the truth. In this piece, it’s all about realism and authenticity.”
Bigelow drew parallels between House of Dynamite and her acclaimed previous films, Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker. She described these works as “fiction that leans in hard on realism,” suggesting that while the narratives are fictional, they are grounded in realistic scenarios. In House of Dynamite, the portrayal of ground-based interceptor missiles launched from Alaska failing to prevent a nuclear strike on Chicago serves as a central dramatic element.
On October 16, an internal memo from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) surfaced, stating that “the fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target.” The memo, obtained by Bloomberg, acknowledged that this aspect was meant to enhance the film's drama for entertainment purposes. However, it insisted that results from real-world testing indicate a “100% accuracy rate” for U.S. missile interceptors over the past decade. This claim has been met with skepticism from external agencies, including Bigelow and Oppenheim, who expressed their disagreement with the MDA's assertions.
Nuclear physicist Laura Grego from the Union of Concerned Scientists weighed in, stating that the threats represented in House of Dynamite are among the most straightforward challenges the U.S. could face. She noted that a robust defense system should be prepared to handle multiple incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), credible decoys, and direct attacks on missile defense elements, none of which were depicted in the film. Grego argued that the fictional threat presented is relatively simple compared to real-world challenges.
Bigelow expressed her aspiration that House of Dynamite would spark discussions both within government circles and among the public regarding nuclear weapons proliferation. “In a perfect world, culture has the potential to drive policy,” she remarked, adding that any dialogue surrounding nuclear weapons would be welcomed. The film's release has already made a significant impact, topping Netflix’s streaming charts and being viewed by over 20 million accounts within its first three days.
Bigelow attributed the film's appeal to the secrecy surrounding nuclear weapons, stating, “It’s grappling with the idea that we’re surrounded by 12,000 weapons. We live in a really combustible environment, hence the title – we live in A House of Dynamite.” She emphasized the importance of confronting the unthinkable and fostering conversations about reducing the nuclear stockpile.
In discussions with the Guardian, Bigelow clarified that the film did not seek any endorsement or cooperation from the Pentagon, ensuring its creative independence. She highlighted that while the U.S. nuclear arsenal is a complex and fallible structure, the competence of those working within it allows for open discussions on such critical issues. “But competence doesn’t mean they’re infallible,” she concluded, reinforcing the film’s thematic exploration of vulnerability in the face of nuclear threats.
