Displaying items by tag: Tracey Letts

A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE

US, 2025, 119 minutes, Colour.

Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, Gabriel Basso, Jared Harris, Tracy Letts, Anthony Ramos, Moses Ingram, Jonah Hauer-King, Greta Lee, Jason Clarke.

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow.

Highly explosive.

And, it is beyond highly explosive when there is a threat of nuclear destruction. And this is what A House of Dynamite dramatises, immersing the audience in the crisis, and asking the audience to decide what they would do, what decision they would make, in this world-grave situation.

Over the decades there have been quite a number of films about the nuclear threat. Several notable films emerged after the Russian-US confrontation in October 1962, the missiles of October. And the issue is dramatised in the many films and miniseries about JF Kennedy, especially 13 Days. In 1963-1964, there were Failsafe, Seven Days in May and the frighteningly satiric Dr Strangelove or; How I Learned to Stop Worrying and to Love The Bomb. There were a number of films in the early 80s in the same vein, Testament, The Day After.

But, here we are in the mid-2020s, Russian invasion of Ukraine, tensions with China, conflicts on the India-Pakistan border, Israel, Gaza and the Middle East, the bombing of Tehran…

This is an intense film, directed by Kathryn Bigelow who won an Oscar for her immersion in war, The Hurt Locker, then went on to the search for Osama bin Laden, Zero Dark Thirty. She brings the same tension to this film, giving a hypothetical scenario, the launching of a nuclear missile by an unknown attacker, threatening an American city, attempts to neutralise it, failures, a small window of time to ward off the attack, to make international contacts, diplomacy, the issue finally coming down to the decision of the American President.

The way that the drama heightens audience attention and anxiety is to introduce us to the wide range of officials in war departments, the White House, command posts in Alaska, crisis management groups in American cities, press briefings in Washington. Very quickly, the audience is introduced to, gets to know, sees in action, a wide range of experts, the pressure on them, intel coming in, changes in information, personal pressures, the demand for quick thinking, prudence, risk-taking, issues of responsibility and consequences.

In contact with Russian authorities, there is the powerful opinion of General Brody, Tracy Letts, strong hawkish stances. Important is the opinion of the Deputy National Security adviser played by Gabriel Basso, caught outside the White House, difficulties with connections, crowds, security getting into buildings, all the time having to make changing assessments as information comes in. His opinion is that the options for the president are national surrender or national suicide.

Just as the countdown is approaching, the screenplay goes back in time, the second part of the film focusing on the President, Idris Elba, enabling the audience to realise, even more fully, the responsibility of the President and his decision, personal cost, repercussions. And, memories of the version of Tom Clancy’s A Clear and Present Danger, the integrity and intelligence needed for the President with his finger on the nuclear button.

At each stage of nuclear fears over the decades, and the films dramatising the crises, audiences have been forced to focus very much on the strengths and weaknesses of incumbent presidents, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, George W. Bush – and, in 2025, Donald Trump.

A demanding film, an uncomfortable screen experience, and the film challenging each of us in the audience as to what decision, surrender or suicide, that we would make.

1. Consciousness of the arms race, nuclear weapons proliferation, the danger of a nuclear attack? In the 21^st-century?
2. The dramatising of the possibility of such an attack? How plausible given 21^st-century technology, surveillance, speed of reaction and information, possibilities for halting the attack?
3. The screenplay, establishing the scenario of the attack, the situation in Alaska, the Armed Forces, their intelligence, their position near Russia? The recognition, communication? The officer in charge, his reaction, going outside into the snow? Contacting Washington? The role played during the attack?
4. The screenplay and the narrative in Washington DC, the ordinariness of the day, Olivia Walker, at home, with her husband, depositions in Washington, going to headquarters? Her position, security issues, authorities, fellow workers? The significance of this room, security, the range of personnel, the backgrounds, personalities, interactions?
5. The information about the attack, not identifying the source, the range of speculation? The film’s detailing the activities of each person, the responsibilities, their judgements, their personal reactions and the interplay for decisions?
6. The connection with the various military personnel, shown in their situations, the Secretary for Defence, his location, personality, abilities, the connection with his daughter and contact with her, protecting her? On the move, his contact with the Deputy National Security Adviser? The adviser outside, the crowds, making his way to the office, phone calls, decisions, advice, security, entering the building? His being finally required to make an observation, Suicide or Surrender?
7. The links with General Brady, his personality, staff, experience, at a distance, but surveillance connection? His hawkish attitudes? Listening for advice, following it, his assessment, the risk of defeat and humiliation?
8. The failure to stop the missile? The visualising this on the screens? The repercussions for all concerned, disappointment, dismay, continuing planning? The uncertainty of the origins?
9. The connection with the Russians, the disavowing the attack, the delays, the consultations, decisions and advice?
10. The transition to the President, the screenplay going over the same time period, the activities of the President, his young Security Adviser in the car with him, the pressures on him, the social activities, everything genial, the crowds, the message, the president having to escape, the car, the advice?
11. The personality of the president, his integrity, intelligence, capacity for decision-making, the range of the dilemmas presented to him, the personal repercussions for his wife and family, the nation, the advice of suicidal surrender?
12. The screenplay not giving the final decision? Throwing it to the audience to empathise and identify with the situation, the decisions to be made, for the audience to make their decision and appreciate the basis for their decision?

SATURDAY NIGHT

US, 2024, 109 minutes, Colour.

Gabriel LaBelle, Rachel Senott, Corey Michael Smith, Ella Hunt, Dylan O'Brien, Emily Fairn, Matt Wood, Lamorne Morris, Kim Matula, Finn Wolfhard, Nicholas Braun, Cooper Hoffman, J.K.Simmons, Nicholas Podany, Robert Wuhl, Jon Batiste, Willem Dafoe, Paul Rust, Tracy Letts, Matthew Rhys.

This history/comedy/memoir was released at the 49^th anniversary of the opening show of what has become an American tradition, Saturday Night Live. While the program is screened in other countries, it is a particularly American television experience, comic experience, social commentary and criticism experience. While it touches the American funny bone, the response of audiences outside the United States might be something of hit and miss.

Which might be also the case with this film, American audiences relishing the re-creation of that first night, the tensions in the last hour and a half before going on air live. And there are many famous names appearing in this film, many of whom through Saturday Night Live became media celebrities – producer Lorne Michaels, comedians Chevy Chase, Jon Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtin, Lorraine Newman, Billy Crystal, George Carlin… And Nicholas Braun as both Andy Kaufmann and Jim Henson.

In many ways, this is a frantic and frenetic film because that is the situation in which Lorne Michaels found himself, the decision to do something new in the mid-1970s, live performances, sketches, satiric songs, social commentary. While NBC allowed it, there was hostility from some of the bosses, dramatised here by the talent director, David Tabet (another sinister performance from Willem Dafoe), and the rivalry with the Johnny Carson show, also dramatised here.

This film purports to be a dramatisation of what actually happened on that night, October 11, 1975. While a lot of this may have happened, putting it all together in the one film means exhaustion for the protagonists, exhaustion for the audience.

So, very much behind the scenes, the young Lorne Michaels and his initiatives, sometimes naive, sometimes shrewd, often the target, trying to get the temperamental Jon Belushi to sign a contract, encouraging his writers, new talent, placating Jim Henson and his concern about the treatment of the Muppets, supported by his wife, Rose Schuster, and all kinds of practical disasters, lighting falling almost on top of the actors, authentic bricks knocked over and having to be reset again, his being squirted with fake blood…

This is very much the show must go on despite… Everything.

The ensemble cast is very effective. Gabriel LaBellel is Lorne Michaels (he had appeared as the young Spielberg in The Fablemans). The impersonators of the famous talent are very good, Michael Wood as Jon Belushi, most credible. Corey Michael Smith as a rather arrogant but quickwitted Chevy Chase. And, surprisingly after seeing him in the Maze Runners and other action films, Dylan O’Brien enjoying himself impersonating Dan Aykroyd. One of the best surprises is the arrival of Milton Berle, arrogant, full of disdain for the younger generation, visiting the set, performing a musical number – and the fact that the performance is by J.K.Simmons rather unlike anything else he has done and making quite an impact.

There are a number of character actors in the supporting roles as well as a number of new faces. It is all put together with speed, momentum, the visuals of the time ticking down, a final crisis as to whether they were permitted to go ahead, the final permission – and, as the cliche says, the rest is history.