Key Highlights
- Kathryn Bigelow’s new Netflix film “A House of Dynamite” is set in the minutes before a hypothetical nuclear missile strikes the mainland US.
- The film features multiple perspectives on the crisis, including that of the President, played by Idris Elba.
- Bigelow’s decision not to include Donald Trump as a realistic president figure results in a “Trump-less” reality that feels outdated.
- The film’s realism is questioned due to its deviation from current political realities, despite aiming for hyperrealism.
Narrative and Realism: A House of Dynamite’s Dilemma
A House of Dynamite, the latest Netflix thriller directed by Kathryn Bigelow, is a chilling tale set in the tense minutes before a nuclear missile strikes the mainland United States. The film, which premiered on October 27, 2025, explores the complex infrastructure and decision-making processes that could be involved in such an event.
Multiple Perspectives: A Triptych of Fear
The narrative is structured as a triptych, examining the same critical period from various perspectives. Security officials, military experts, and even the US president himself are portrayed, offering a fragmented yet coherent view of the impending disaster. The film’s directorial style and focus on granular detail aim to create a sense of hyperrealism, reflecting a plausible nuclear scenario.
Idris Elba as President: A Fallible Leader
In one of the film’s central roles, Idris Elba plays the US president. His character is depicted as conflicted and overwhelmed by the situation, embodying a rational but fallible leader. However, this portrayal stands in stark contrast to the current political reality, where Donald Trump was serving as President during the events depicted.
Elba’s president is notably devoid of any resemblance to his real-world counterpart. The film avoids including even passingly analogous figures like “President Ronald Rump,” played by Jim Belushi, which would have added a layer of satire and political critique.
The Absence of Reality: A House of Dynamite’s Flaw
By situating itself within this cleaned-up, Trump-less reality, the film fails to fully capture the “real” political moment that no longer exists. The narrative feels “Obama-era,” despite Elba’s president being explicitly designed not to resemble Obama.
Bigelow and her team faced a dilemma: if they included Donald Trump, it would have significantly altered the tone and message of the film. However, this decision ultimately results in a disjointed sense of time and reality, making the scenario feel more like a “thought experiment” than a plausible scenario.
The Legacy of Dr Strangelove
Dr Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick’s iconic satirical film from 1964, remains a classic despite its age. Similarly, A House of Dynamite seeks to explore the same themes but fails to fully capture the current political climate. The film’s attempt at realism is hampered by the absence of Donald Trump in his real-world form.
The world depicted in A House of Dynamite feels out of date even weeks after its release, highlighting the rapid changes in American politics under a new administration. The film serves as both a cautionary tale and a reminder of how quickly political realities can shift.
Conclusion
A Thought-Provoking but Outdated Film
A House of Dynamite is a complex and ambitious piece of work, but its attempts at hyperrealism are undermined by the absence of Donald Trump. While the film’s messages about nuclear peril remain relevant, its portrayal of modern American politics feels stuck in a bygone era.
The juxtaposition between the film’s hyperrealistic scenarios and the current political landscape serves as a stark reminder of how quickly our world can change. As we navigate these shifting realities, films like A House of Dynamite will continue to offer both insights and cautionary tales for future generations.
