Shortly after its premiere, Kathryn Bigelow's film about nuclear warning was released. House of Dynamite deserved an interesting reward. Instead of Oscar nominations or awards, this was a warning: according to BloombergIt came in the form of an internal Pentagon memo.
The document, dated October 16, was intended to “resolve false assumptions, provide correct facts and better understanding” than what is portrayed in Bigelow's film. A film that depicts a hypothetical American response to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) heading towards the United States with less than 20 minutes' warning.
In Bigelow's film, which she and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim said was made under extensive guidance from scientists and previous members of the administration, the government's response painted a less than pleasant picture.
At one point, the Secretary of Defense (played by Jared Harris) is shocked to discover that their missile defense systems, which is effectively the only contingency plan at their disposal, have a success rate of barely more than 60 percent.
“So this is a damn coin toss?” he laments. “And this is what they will buy us for 50 billion dollars?”
WATCH | House of Dynamite trailer:
As the memo itself states, the Pentagon's response was written to provide brief information to employees who faced concerns similar to those expressed by Harris' character.
“The fictitious interceptors in the film miss the mark, and we understand that this is intended as an exciting piece of drama intended to entertain viewers,” the note said, according to Bloomberg, before saying that real-life test results “tell a very different story.”
CBC News has not seen the note.
The Pentagon says current systems are up to 100 percent effective at killing intercontinental ballistic missiles, although space experts have countered their denials. US Senator Edward J. Markey wrote an article in response to the film, saying it revealed the “hard truth” that the current US long-range missile defense system is ineffective at neutralizing a nuclear attack.
Nuclear physicist Laura Grego told Bloomberg that the situation depicted in House of Dynamite is probably much simpler than a lot of the problems the government would have to respond to in a real-life exchange, meaning that what the officials are trying to fight in the film is actually close to the best-case scenario.
International affairs expert and Atlantic writer Tom Nichols wrote an article in responsearguing that the Pentagon's claim of 100 percent effectiveness was an erroneous figure derived from cherry-picked and misleading data. The real number, he said, is likely even lower than that shown in Bigelow's film.
The film also came after US President Donald Trump's plan to invest trillions of dollars in the Golden Dome military defense project, and shortly before Trump. announced plans to resume nuclear testingdecades after the country conducted its last test.
For their part, the filmmakers rejected the government's complaints. Conversation with The Hollywood ReporterBigelow said such a strong response is a sign that they achieved their main goal in creating House of Dynamite.
“In an ideal world, culture could potentially shape policy,” she said. “And if there's a dialogue going on around nuclear proliferation, that's certainly music to my ears.”
Nuclear warnings
This isn't the first time filmmakers have sparked debate (or concern) about the realities of nuclear war. One of the first appeared in the form War game. The BBC docudrama, made by celebrated director Peter Watkins, who died this week aged 90, showed the possible consequences of a nuclear attack on Britain.
The brutal film, commissioned by the corporation's initially skittish head of the corporation's documentary department, shocked BBC executives after its screening. Although Watkins' film subsequently won an Oscar for Best Documentary Program in 1967, the BBC decided to ban the program from its airwaves for almost 20 years.
The reasons are unclear. Shortly after the film was completed, BBC executives organized a private screening for government officials, testing whether such an unnerving portrayal of the realities of nuclear war was suitable for broadcast.
It is unclear who exactly banned the film from being shown on British television: the BBC or the British government. In any case, the censorship likely arose out of fears that it might cause the public to doubt how safe they really were.
“Perhaps it is not surprising that a program attempting to expose the reality of a nuclear attack and the consequent failure of the government to control its consequences could be banned for reasons other than editorial taste,” the article said. BBC rephrases the theme.
In 1984, another horror near-future BBC film involving a nuclear holocaust captured the public's imagination. TopicsThe film, directed by Mick Jackson, showed England as a brutal hell after war broke out between the Soviet Union and the United States. Its premiere date is often cited as one of the most disturbing films ever made, and its premiere date is widely referred to as “the night the country didn't sleep.”
Besides the explosion itself, what often gets stuck in people's imaginations is depiction of a coming nuclear winter, societal collapse and food shortages. Although this stunned and sobered the public, Jackson said the film didn't change anything when it came to international politics: “It didn't change politics at all,” he said. told the Guardian.
Another TV movie, 2004 Dirty Wardepicted the possible consequences if a “dirty bomb”—an improvised nuclear weapon—exploded on the streets of London. As in House of Dynamite, Dirty WarThe filmmakers specifically sought to highlight the government's unpreparedness for a specific type of nuclear attack.
The film focuses on the efforts of emergency services to respond and assist citizens. aims to emphasize “the reality of the situation” that the world was then faced with. BBC came later forced to defend himself against accusations of alarmism in the face of public concern, citing the fact that numerous government and political figures had assured them that the threat they were portraying was real.
Ronald Reagan's Cinematic Year
The year was 1983 in North America. War gamesa film about espionage and the precarious, fatalistic protection offered “Mutually Assured Destruction.” The film is so prophetic that it prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to ask his staff whether a computer hack leading to nuclear war, as depicted in the film, was possible.
“Mr. President” answered the general“The problem is much bigger than you think.”
24:11Mick Jackson: “Thirds at 40” is his realistic vision of nuclear annihilation
Forty years ago, director Mick Jackson released Threads, which was called the scariest film ever made. But instead of showing ghosts and monsters, it realistically and disturbingly depicts what would happen in the event of a nuclear apocalypse. Mick joins guest host Talia Schlanger to discuss the film's legacy, why he wanted to scare his audience with the truth, and how he came to direct one of the biggest romances in film history: Whitney Houston's Bodyguard.
In response, the US government updated its computer security and passed anti-hacking laws. Also released the same year by ABC The next day had a similar effect. The disaster film, which premiered to an audience of 100 million, also featured thermonuclear war between the USSR and the United States, with a similar focus on the horrific consequences.
Reagan, who asked to see the film a month before its release, wrote in his diary that the film was “very effective and has left [him] severe depression.” Up to this point, he had promoted his “peace through strength” nuclear stockpile strategy for the Cold War. It also included his proposed space-based missile defense program, which was jokingly called “Star Wars.”
According to Time magazine, The next day was a key factor in pushing Reagan to disarmament. Describing the meeting at which he was informed of the details of the consequences of nuclear war, he recorded it in his diary.
“In many ways, the sequence of events is similar to those in the ABC movie,” he wrote. “This could lead to the end of civilization as we know it.”
