Post Reports: Kathryn Bigelow on ‘A House of Dynamite’ and the nuclear ‘elephant in the room’

Summary

Podcast Summary: Post Reports — Kathryn Bigelow on ‘A House of Dynamite’ and the Nuclear ‘Elephant in the Room’

Original Air Date: November 28, 2025
Podcast: The 7 (The Washington Post) — Rebroadcast of Post Reports
Host: Elahe Izadi
Guests: Kathryn Bigelow (director), Noah Oppenheim (screenwriter)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the making of the Netflix thriller A House of Dynamite, directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Noah Oppenheim. The film confronts the terrifying hypothetical of a nuclear missile targeting the United States and explores both governmental preparedness and public normalization of nuclear threats. The discussion addresses the film’s real-world implications, its creative choices, and the urgent conversation around nuclear policy—especially in light of renewed political interest in nuclear testing.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Inspiration for A House of Dynamite

• Bigelow’s Motivation:

  • Grew up during the “duck and cover” era, with nuclear fear ever-present.
  • Observes society’s dangerous normalization of nuclear risks:
    • “It really has been normalized. It’s sort of the elephant in the room and nobody talks about it anymore.” — Kathryn Bigelow [01:38, 07:01]
  • Sought to dig beneath this normalization and found a wealth of terrifying material for the story.

• Genesis of Collaboration:

  • Bigelow was introduced to Oppenheim by a colleague as a subject matter expert.
  • “I would have pretended to be a subject matter expert on almost anything for the opportunity to work with her.” — Noah Oppenheim [06:06]

The Film’s Approach to Nuclear Threat

• Direct inspiration from both creators’ fascination with national security and nuclear policy.
• Oppenheim’s perspective is informed by years in journalism and witnessing North Korea’s rise as a nuclear power; interested in both classic and commercial nuclear-themed films.

Normalization & Denial of Nuclear Risks

• Bigelow and Oppenheim discuss how the threat faded into the background, with new generations largely ignorant or indifferent:
  • “It’s unfathomable to me that we’re not in a process of denuclearizing the world.” — Kathryn Bigelow [07:43]
  • “With the end of the Cold War… the world has only grown more complicated, volatile and risky.” — Noah Oppenheim [08:02]

Film’s Journalistic, Realistic Approach

• Extensive research: interviews with current and former White House, Pentagon, CIA officials.

• Consultants included retired generals (e.g., Dan Karbler, Doug Lute), who provided technical advice and ensured accuracy on set.

  • “We were invited to the battle deck at StratCom, to the White House situation room… we’d replicate it to within an inch of its life.” — Kathryn Bigelow [13:21]

• Emphasis on:

  • Making the drama feel real, accurate, and credible, akin to Bigelow’s past work (The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty).
  • Infusing journalism’s reporting spirit into cinematic storytelling.

Unique Film Structure: Multiple Timelines

• The film unfolds in real time: 18 minutes, the window between missile launch and impact if targeting the U.S.
• Story is told repeatedly from different perspectives—military operators, advisors, President—each giving new insight.
  • “We wanted to convey that to the audience not abstractly, but in a very visceral way so they understand when those 18 minutes are over how quick that just was.” — Noah Oppenheim [11:17]

Depicting Violence and Human Impact

• Bigelow’s signature is confronting violence, but in this film, it is presented as psychological, often off-screen:
  • “I don’t think about it from a violent standpoint—of violence or lack of violence.” — Kathryn Bigelow [16:45]
• Emotional impact portrayed through characters grappling with the enormous weight of potential annihilation.
• Use of Gettysburg reenactment:
  • Reinforces the randomness of crisis, with key advisors shown as regular people caught in life’s routines.
  • “These aren’t robots… these institutions ultimately consist of normal people doing the best that they can in very difficult circumstances.” — Noah Oppenheim [19:16]

Questions of Policy and Accuracy

• Pentagon expressed concerns about the accuracy of missile defense portrayal, reportedly preparing to “address false assumptions.” [14:23]
• Oppenheim responds:
  • Test success rates (public data) are only about 60%—sometimes lower.
  • Opens debate: “Is it possible to build an impenetrable shield? Or are there other levers we should be pulling, like nonproliferation and denuclearization?” — Noah Oppenheim [15:22]

Real-World Resonance and Urgency

• The film’s release coincides with unsettling real-world events: government shutdown, nuclear oversight on furlough, news of President Trump aiming to resume U.S. nuclear testing, and Russia's response.
• Urgency is underscored:
  • “We talked about it from the very beginning… as a warning. This is something that could be very important to know about.” — Kathryn Bigelow [20:58]
  • “We hope the movie does is show the extraordinary work that these public servants do… keeping us all safe.” — Noah Oppenheim [21:22]
• Worry about normalization within the government itself:
  • Presidents receive minimal nuclear preparedness training:
  • “How often does the president rehearse for this?… Pretty much never.” — Paraphrase of a government source via Oppenheim [22:44]

Bringing the Nuclear Issue Back to the Public

• Recent political discourse has dangerously eroded taboos around nuclear weapon use.
  • “There used to be a taboo around speaking about the use of these weapons… I think both of us would like to see the world get back to a place where, you know, the use of these weapons would be so unthinkable that it’s not even theorized.” — Noah Oppenheim [23:27]

What They Hope Audiences Take Away

• Essential question:
  • “How do we make the world safer?” — Noah Oppenheim [24:08]
• Film is a provocation and call to reflection:
  • “We live, it seems like, in a house of dynamite. And not just how can we get the dynamite out of the walls, but it’s a very combustible environment… Do we want to live in that space?” — Kathryn Bigelow [24:11]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “It really has been normalized. It’s sort of the elephant in the room and nobody talks about it anymore.” — Kathryn Bigelow [01:38, repeated at 07:01]

• “I would have pretended to be a subject matter expert on almost anything for the opportunity to work with her.” — Noah Oppenheim [06:06]

• “It’s unfathomable to me that we’re not in a process of denuclearizing the world.” — Kathryn Bigelow [07:43]

• “With the end of the Cold War… the world has only grown more complicated, volatile and risky.” — Noah Oppenheim [08:02]

• “Film can be both entertaining and informational… there is an inflection point.” — Kathryn Bigelow [10:40]

• “We wanted to convey that to the audience… in a very visceral way so they understand when those 18 minutes are over how quick that just was.” — Noah Oppenheim [11:17]

• “This is not for lack of trying… But is it possible to build an impenetrable shield? Or are there other levers we should be pulling?” — Noah Oppenheim [15:22]

• “I don’t think about it from a violent standpoint—of violence or lack of violence.” — Kathryn Bigelow [16:45]

• “These aren’t robots… these institutions ultimately consist of normal people doing the best that they can in very difficult circumstances.” — Noah Oppenheim [19:16]

• “How often does the president rehearse for this?… Pretty much never.” — Government source, relayed by Noah Oppenheim [22:44]

• “There used to be a taboo around speaking about the use of these weapons… I think both of us would like to see the world get back to a place where… the use of these weapons would be so unthinkable that it’s not even theorized.” — Noah Oppenheim [23:27]

• “How do we make the world safer?” — Noah Oppenheim [24:08]

• “We live, it seems like, in a house of dynamite.” — Kathryn Bigelow [24:11]

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• 01:38 – 02:12: Bigelow on normalization, nuclear stats ("elephant in the room")
• 04:30 – 06:44: Origins of the project, Bigelow and Oppenheim’s collaboration
• 07:01 – 09:09: Normalization of nuclear threat & why this subject now
• 10:40 – 11:17: Research, authenticity, and journalistic approach
• 11:17 – 13:11: Film’s real-time, multi-perspective structure
• 14:17 – 15:22: Consulting with experts for authentic environments
• 14:51 – 15:22: Pentagon’s pushback on the depiction of missile defense effectiveness
• 16:39 – 17:15: Depicting violence psychologically
• 18:11 – 19:16: The Raven Rock bunker explained, humanizing government experts
• 20:58 – 21:22: Real-world events, film as warning and tribute to public servants
• 22:44 – 23:27: Government’s preparation; new nuclear testing discussions
• 24:08 – 24:38: What should come next: public engagement with nuclear safety

---

Concluding Thoughts

This episode offers a penetrating look at how fictional storytelling grounded in journalism and research can reignite public dialogue on nuclear threats that have faded from daily consciousness. A House of Dynamite is framed as both a cinematic thriller and a wake-up call about the realities of nuclear policy, institutional preparedness, and the very real people tasked with the unimaginable.

The conversation ultimately urges listeners to reflect: Are we willing to continue living in a "house of dynamite," or will we demand change? The film and this discussion provoke not just awareness, but further questioning and debate about how to make the world safer.

---

Film referenced:
A House of Dynamite by Kathryn Bigelow and Noah Oppenheim—available on Netflix.

Transcript

[VRBO Narrator]

With stays under $250 a night. VRBO makes it easy to celebrate sweater weather. You could book a cabin stay with leaf views for days, or a brownstone in a city where festivals are just a walk away.

[Elahe Izadi]

Or a lakeside home with a fire.

[VRBO Narrator]

Pit for cozy nights with friends. Or if you're not a sweater person, we can call it corduroy weather. More flexible and with stays under $250 a night, you can book a home that suits your exact needs. Book [e-mail].

[Hannah]

Hi, it's Hannah. I hope you had a wonderful and relaxing Thanksgiving and that you plan to make a big sandwich out of leftovers today. The seven will be back with another episode on Monday. Today we wanted to share an episode of Post Reports with you. It's about the movie A House of Dynamite, a new thriller on Netflix about nuclear war. The film explores the question what would happen if the US Were targeted by a nuclear missile? And how would the US Government respond in the face of such an attack? My colleague Alahia Ezadi sat down with the film's Oscar winning director, Catherine Bigelow, and its screenwriter, Noah Oppenheim. They discussed why they chose to make this film now and what they make of the news that President Donald Trump wants to restart nuclear testing for the first time in decades. I hope you enjoy this lesson and if you do, please give Post Reports a nice rating or review wherever you're listening.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I mean, it really has been normalized. It's sort of the elephant in the room and nobody talks about it anymore. And I thought, well, this might be interesting to kind of begin to dig beneath the surface of it. And lo and behold, there was a lot of material. There's a lot of material.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

And it's terrifying, you know, like to have 12,000 nuclear warheads, if that's if the count is accurate, nine nuclear countries, only three are members of NATO. I mean, that's a calculus that I think is kind of heart stopping.

[Elahe Izadi]

This is Kathryn Bigelow. She's been writing, producing and directing films for for the last 40 years, and much of her work grapples with power and the way the government wields it. Her 2008 film the Hurt Locker was set during the Iraq War and it won the Oscar for Best Picture. Bigelow also won for Best Director, making her the first woman ever to win that award. She went on to direct Zero Dark 30, the 2012 film about the search for Osama bin Laden. Now she's out with her first film in eight years, A House of Dynamite. The movie follows government workers and officials responding to a nuclear missile. They don't know who launched it, but they do know it's headed toward the.

[Radar Operator]

US Current velocity indicates the object will go suborbital. Current flight trajectory is consistent with impact somewhere in the continental United States. Oh, what's your level of confidence on that, Tony?

[Noah Oppenheim]

It's not an hour. We're tracking it on multiple radar systems now, I'm told. Hi, Jerry.

[Radar Operator]

We have dual phenomenology on the track. 19 minutes to impact. Confirming DEFCON 2.

[Elahe Izadi]

The film has struck a nerve. It was released a few weeks ago, and it quickly became Netflix most watched movie in the world. It racked up almost 22 million streams in the first three days. That's according to Netflix. And the movie has ignited a widespread conversation about how prepared the US Would actually be in the case of a sudden attack. From the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm Elahe izadi. It's Tuesday, November 11th, Veterans Day. Today, I sit down with the people who made A House of Dynamite, director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim, who used to also be the president of NBC News. We talk about why they chose to make this film in this moment. Catherine. Noah, thank you so much for joining me today in the studio.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

It's great to have you.

[Elahe Izadi]

Thank you, Katherine. I want to first start with you and just ask you, where did the idea for this film come from?

[Noah Oppenheim]

For you?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

It was just a kind of what if? What would happen if a nuclear ICBM was headed toward North America? And then what would happen in the halls of power? What happens in the, you know, like the command and control protocol? And I was curious about what would go on and how. Where is the chain of command? How does it go up to the president and a friend of mine, a colleague of mine said, well, there's a screenwriter you should talk to who's basically a subject matter expert. His name is Noah Oppenheim.

[Elahe Izadi]

Noah's right here.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

That's how it began. Yeah.

[Elahe Izadi]

So why was that a topic on your mind to begin with? What was the origin of that? Because I don't think that's something that most of us sit around and think about.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I've always been fascinated with national security. The whole sort of nuclear catastrophic potential was always sort of top of mind. And also I come from the era of duck and cover, where when I was very little, we had to hide under the desk in the event of a atomic bomb blast. So I've always thought about it and then recently, having done these pieces in National Security, Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty, I naturally gravitated to this subject.

[Elahe Izadi]

Noah, when you were presented with this notion of working with this acclaimed director on this topic and this story that she was, what was your entry point into it? Was this something that was also on your mind? And when Catherine says you were a subject matter expert, what is she speaking to there?

[Noah Oppenheim]

I would have pretended to be a subject matter expert on almost anything for the opportunity to work with her. It's sort of the kind of phone call and introduction you dream about if you're a screenwriter. It's an issue I shared a passion for. I'd covered it as a journalist. I had been running NBC News when North Korea was sort of revealed to be a nuclear power. And I'd also long been passionate about the genre of films about nuclear war. Whether it's Dr. Strangelove or failsafe or even more kind of commercial pop fare like War Games, I just had always been deeply interested in the subject.

[Elahe Izadi]

One thing, Catherine, you alluded to is this sense of almost normalization. You mentioned you grew up in the era of Duck and Cover, where this threat was very front and present. But it seems like now we're in an era, or at least in the past few years, we've been in an era where this is just the hum in the background that no one is.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Paying attention to, if it's even a hum. I mean, it really has been normalized. It's sort of the elephant in the room and nobody talks about it anymore. And I thought, well, this might be interesting to kind of begin to dig beneath the surface of it. And lo and behold, you know, there was a lot of material. There's a lot of material.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

And it's terrifying, you know, like, to have 12,000 nuclear warheads. That's if the count is accurate. Nine nuclear countries, only three are members of NATO. I mean, that's a calculus that I think is. Is kind of heart stopping.

[Elahe Izadi]

Why do you think that normalization has happened? Is part of it that to grapple with that reality every day is almost too much to bear?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I think that's a very good point. I think it could be. I mean, it's unfathomable to me that we're not in a process of denuclearizing the world. You know, and obviously it has to be a global embrace of that concept and effort. But. But it just doesn't seem to be.

[Noah Oppenheim]

I think there was a perception with the end of the Cold War that somehow the threat had diminished. And in reality, we all know now that the world has only grown more complicated, volatile and risky. So, yeah, and now we've seen in a weird way in the last couple weeks even, it's sort of being pushed back, front and center, which we will.

[Elahe Izadi]

Talk about in a little bit. And before we get there, I did want to bring up again, when I think about some of the other films that you've made more recently. The Hurt Locker that was set during the Iraq War, Zero Dark Thirty, about the search for Osama bin Laden. Also your film Detroit. A lot of your films are inspired by or seek to depict real life events. And I know you've spoken in other interviews about this inflection point between film and journalism. And we have Noah here, who used to run NBC News from that world in a previous life. And it strikes me that House of Dynamite is in some ways a much more theoretical inspiration, speculative film than your other films. How do you view this film within your body of work when you are thinking about I am depicting reality for audiences?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I think that's a good question. I think, yes, it's hypothetical. I mean, it hasn't happened yet, but nonetheless, it's, you know, it's degree of accuracy and authenticity and credibility is extremely heightened and I would say on a par with those other movies. Hmm.

[Elahe Izadi]

Noah, your experience, you mentioned covering some of these stories. How did that experience inform your approach to writing this screenplay?

[Noah Oppenheim]

Sure. I think, you know, both Catherine and I share a journalistic approach to filmmaking in the sense that when we're building this, when we were building this story, we began by first speaking to people who'd had these jobs, been in these rooms, people who had served at the highest levels, the White House, the Pentagon, the CIA. And we just would ask them questions as if you were reporting out a news story. How would this unfold if a missile were headed our way? What steps would these various institutions within our government take? And then we'd get to the end of the conversation and like a reporter, you'd say, well, who else should we talk to? Who else could shed some more light on this? And the other thing that I would say is sort of journalistic about the approach is, you know, Catherine's commitment these. These last, you know, couple decades to confront with her films real world issues, you know, and with this, it's an issue that is front and center in the headlines, as we see. And she's using her extraordinary storytelling powers to shed light on that and drive a conversation around it.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Well, I think film can be actually both Entertaining and informational, you know, so there is an inflection point in the two for you.

[Elahe Izadi]

When you think about that inflection point, does one have a hierarchy over the other, or do they go hand in hand?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I think they go hand in hand.

[Elahe Izadi]

Noah, just to speak about the structure of the film, this idea of we're sitting with characters who they intersect with one another throughout, but we're sitting with the same 20, 30 minutes played out from different perspectives. Why was that format. Was that format always baked in for you? And why was that format compelling to you? And why did you approach it that.

[Noah Oppenheim]

Way from the very beginning? Catherine and I both felt it was important to tell the story in real time. And by the story, I mean the 18 minutes it would take from the launch of a missile in the Pacific theater somewhere to impact in the continental United States. Because when we began our research process, one of the things that we found most terrifying was how quickly this would unfold, that it would be less than 30 minutes from that side of the world. If a Russian sub were to ever launch off our Atlantic coast, It could be 10 to 12 minutes. So you're talking about such a tight period of time for our government's decision makers to respond. And we wanted to convey that to the audience not abstractly, but in a very visceral way so they understand when those 18 minutes are over how quick that just was. And then, obviously, 18 minutes is not the length of a feature film. So we wanted to provide multiple perspectives and hopefully increase the audience's understanding with each retelling. So you start on kind of the ground floor with the first responders, if you will, the young soldiers at Fort Greely who operate our missile defense system.

[Elahe Izadi]

What is it, Sergeant?

[VRBO Narrator]

Clear.

[Hannah]

Radar acquired.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Our object, sir.

[Noah Oppenheim]

The watch officers in the White House. These people are the first to react, respond, and convene. The figures in authority.

[Radar Operator]

Current flight trajectory is consistent with impact somewhere in the continental United States.

[Noah Oppenheim]

They have no power over what scouts going to then unfold. The next telling is the commander of StratCom, the deputy national Security Advisor. These folks have a little bit more influence, and they're invited to give advice.

[Elahe Izadi]

We're tracking them now, aren't we?

[President's Aide]

Yes, Mr. President, we are. It's just that blinding a DSP satellite, it could indicate that we've been compromised.

[Noah Oppenheim]

And then the last telling is in some ways the most important telling, which is the President of the United States, who in our country is a nuclear monarch and has sole authority to make this decision.

[Elahe Izadi]

Can you speak a little bit More about how you both ensured the accuracy of this film, because really, what you're doing, you are taking viewers into rooms that none of us really get to go in except for a handful of people.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Well, that was part of what ensured the accuracy. We were able to see these environments, speak to the people that work there, actually encourage some of those people to become our tech advisors and work with us on the set every single day we were shooting.

[Elahe Izadi]

So who do you mean, people who used to work in these spaces? What are some examples, like General Dan.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Karbler, General Doug Luke. And there were other people as well. So they were there on the set every single day or with me at the monitor, too. So it was a very carefully monitored shoot for accuracy. And we were invited to the battle deck at stratcom, to the White House situation room, able to spend a little bit of time in there. And so my production designer and I would go in and just replicate it to within an inch of its life.

[Elahe Izadi]

So you were able to visit these places?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Oh, yes.

[Elahe Izadi]

Was that during the previous administration?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Yes, during the Biden administration.

[Elahe Izadi]

During the Biden administration, Since the release of this film, there's been some, you know, there's been some percolating news out there about the accuracy or a pushback about it. Bloomberg News reported that the Pentagon's Missile Defense agency had released an internal memo which told recipients to, prepare to, quote, address false assumptions, provide correct facts and a better understanding about the weapons depicted in the movie. How do you respond to that? You're going to toss it to Noah the journalist?

[Noah Oppenheim]

Well, you know, it's not really a debate between us as filmmakers and the Pentagon. It's a debate between the Pentagon and the wider community of experts. The specific thing that they're pushing back on is the efficacy of our missile defense system. And we spoke to a ton of people who work in that field who study that. And frankly, the testing statistics are publicly available. And, you know, it is unfortunately the case that those tests have demonstrated a roughly 60% accuracy.

[Elahe Izadi]

I think you all gave them a better accuracy.

[Noah Oppenheim]

Some people told us it was more like 55 or lower. And, of course, those are carefully scripted tests where they know exactly when the missile is going to come, where, what, and they can control the conditions. Now, that being said, this is not for lack of trying. The people who work in missile defense, including some of our consultants, are. Are really good at their jobs, working really hard to solve this problem. But one of the questions that we wanted to open a debate around and which the Pentagon has now engaged in, is Is it possible to build an impenetrable shield? Is that really the way to keep us safe? Or are there other levers we should be pulling, like non proliferation and denuclearization.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Reducing the nuclear stockpile.

[Elahe Izadi]

Catherine, one theme that it seems like has been constant throughout your body of work is depictions of violence. And in fact your very first, I believe your student film was precisely about. About this. And I'm sort of struck by how when we think about the violence in this film, it was more in a theoretical, off camera way. The violence that each character is just imagining in their minds and you sort of see it play out on their faces when they think about a potential nuclear strike. How were you thinking about violence as a theme since it has been something that has been.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I don't think about it. You don't?

[Elahe Izadi]

Oh great. Can you tell me that you don't think of it? Yeah, tell me more about that. I don't.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

There's not more to say. I don't think about it from a violent standpoint of violence or lack of violence.

[Elahe Izadi]

I see. That's so fascinating because one of the scenes that stood out to me was this recreation of the Battle of Gettysburg. There's a scene that takes place there.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Okay.

[Hannah]

A launch.

[Elahe Izadi]

I'm Jake, I'm sorry, I'm off to today.

[VRBO Narrator]

Okay.

[President's Aide]

Anna, where are you? What the hell?

[Elahe Izadi]

Gettysburg.

[President's Aide]

Anna, please.

[Radar Operator]

This is real.

[Elahe Izadi]

That was obviously a moment in history of extreme division and violence. I'm curious about why it was used in the film in that moment as well. Without giving away too much, obviously.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Well, really it had to do with proximity to Raven Rock. And then the battle reenactment was happening right about the time we were. And so we scrambled, got together and shot it.

[Elahe Izadi]

Can you explain for those who haven't yet seen the film Raven Rock, what that is?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Raven Rock is a nuclear bunker in Pennsylvania. It's located in Pennsylvania and it's a place where you, if you were a designated individual with respect to the government, it is a continuity of government location and you would be spirited away to Raven Rock to live out whatever the shelf life or half life of the nuclear situation.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah, it's sort of like when we think about State of the Union, the Designated Survivor, except a lot of people.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

A lot of people. And for decades and decades. And I did not go inside there. I can't imagine it's terribly accessible. Yeah, accessible or wonderful to spend decades in.

[Elahe Izadi]

So it was just happenstance that this recreation was happening at this place or can you explain a little bit more.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

About the well, no, you can talk about it. He'd written about it in the script.

[Elahe Izadi]

Oh, okay.

[President's Aide]

Yeah.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

No, not the reenactment, but the Gettysburg Memorial.

[Hannah]

Oh, that.

[Elahe Izadi]

That was always part of the story.

[Noah Oppenheim]

Yeah, I think for two reasons. One is we wanted to illustrate the fact that if an event like this were to happen, that it is likely that all of the necessary decision makers and experts and advisors would be scattered in some way. Like, you know, these, these crises don't happen at a perfectly convenient moment in time. And so, you know, in the film, a woman who's a subject matter expert on North Korea happens to be, you know, on her day off with her little boy visiting video, visiting Gettysburg.

[Elahe Izadi]

Because these are people too.

[Noah Oppenheim]

These are people too. Everyone who holds these jobs have family lives and other things competing for their interest and emotion. And that was an important piece of the story, which is these aren't robots and these institutions ultimately consists of normal people doing the best that they can in very difficult circumstances.

[Elahe Izadi]

After the break, how Catherine and Noah feel about the US possibly restarting nuclear testing for the first time in decades. We'll be right back. In some ways, when I viewed this film, it felt like a film in a way about the US government being stress tested in the most high stakes way possible, both with the stakes and the amount of time within which to make a decision. Because, you know, the film, we're following the same 20 to 30ish moments, minutes over and over. And it's also coming out at a time when our government institutions are being stress tested in, frankly, previously unthinkable ways. Right. As of this taping, right now, the government is still shut down. And I'm struck that the federal workers overseeing the US nuclear stockpile are on furlough. Obviously, neither of you knew that that would be happening unless you have access to some technology that we don't have. But given the current moment that we're in and your film coming out in this moment, how are you, Are you processing this work in a different way now than you were when you were thinking about it and making it?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

And on set, I don't think necessarily different. I mean, when we talked about it from the very beginning, we talked about it as a warning. You know, this is something that could be very important to know about and again, trying to move the needle toward, you know, reducing the nuclear stockpile. And so I don't think that agenda has shifted at all. If not, it's perhaps become more important.

[Noah Oppenheim]

I mean, one of the things I think we hope the movie does is show the Extraordinary work that these public servants do. The folks who work in the White House situation room, at StratCom, at FEMA, inside all these government agencies, they are doing their best every day, for the most part, to keep us all safe. And they're doing incredibly important work. And I think we both wanted to honor that with their portrayal in the film. And obviously, anything that kind of stresses them even further is something we should all take seriously.

[Elahe Izadi]

Going back to where we sort of began this conversation, thinking about this hum in the background, the normalization. What strikes me by what you just described, Noah, and what we see in the film is that in some ways, you know, I'm watching the fictional president say, I only got one briefing on this.

[Sarah]

I had one briefing when I was sworn in, one.

[Elahe Izadi]

And they told me that's the protocol.

[Radar Operator]

They told me the same thing.

[Elahe Izadi]

And I'm thinking, oh, wait, is this. Is there also a normalization among the people who are responsible for these decisions?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I mean, it certainly looks that way, perhaps. I mean, it just doesn't feel like it's top of mind. I think it was. But, I mean, there are whole generations that don't understand that there are nuclear weapons out there and nine nuclear countries and only three are members of NATO. And that's a very, very terrifying calculus, in my opinion.

[Noah Oppenheim]

And that lack of preparation was something that came up in our research process, was a very senior, you know, former government officials. Katherine asked, how often does the president rehearse for this? And he said, pretty much never.

[Elahe Izadi]

Well, and then to bring it back to this moment, President Donald Trump recently announced that, you know, he was gonna order nuclear tests to resume on equal footing with China and Russia. And then Russia came out and said they're gonna begin looking at nuclear testing. How did you receive that news when you heard it?

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Well, it's shocking, surprising.

[Elahe Izadi]

Well, in some ways, again, it makes the film, to me, feel a little even more urgent and relevant, frankly, like this idea that we were living in the hum and normalization. I mean, this is coming back up again.

[Noah Oppenheim]

It's one of the dangers of normalization is that there used to be a taboo around speaking about the use of these weapons. Even the mere mention or consideration or contemplation of their use used to be off limits because it was deemed to be escalatory. And I think both of us would like to see the world get back to a place where, you know, the use of these weapons would be so unthinkable that it's not even, you know, it's not even theorized right So I.

[Elahe Izadi]

Want to ask both of you, what is the next conversation, the next question that you hope people will have after engaging with this film? Noah, I'll start with you.

[Noah Oppenheim]

How do we make the world safer?

[Hannah]

Yeah.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

I mean, we live, it seems like, in a house of dynamite. And not just how can we get the dynamite out of the walls, but it's a very combustible environment. Do we want to live in that space? A movie is basically a question posed to an audience and the audience has the ability to make an answer. And it's provocative, but it's hopefully thought provoking.

[Elahe Izadi]

Well, thank you both so much for making time and joining us today. Ruby, thank you.

[Kathryn Bigelow]

Thank you.

[Elahe Izadi]

Kathryn Bigelow and Noah Oppenheim's film House of Dynamite is out now on Netflix. We reached out to the Pentagon for comment on how the film depicted the US Missile defense system. They told us they were, quote, not consulted in the production of this film and it does not reflect the views or priorities of this administration. They added that the missile defense system, quote, remains a critical component of our national defense strategy, ensuring the safety and security of the American people and our allies. That's it for Post reports. Thanks for tuning in. If you want to watch this interview, you can because we filmed it. You can find it on our YouTube channel. Washington Post Podcasts on We'll also include a link in our show notes. Today's show was produced by Peter Bresnan and Josh Carroll with help from Emma Talkoff. It was edited by Rena Flores and mixed by Shawn Carter. I'm Elahe Izadi. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

[President's Aide]

Think about why you listen to podcasts. It's like having a friend who makes you think or can help you wind down right? Well, the Washington Post has a lot of people you can turn to at any hour. You can read the most important and interesting stories. We can help you cook something delicious, give you advice on a tricky friendship. Rave about a movie or book that you shouldn't miss. When you become a Washington Post subscriber, do you have a companion for whatever part of your day needs it most? Get it all for just $4 every four weeks. That's for an entire year. After that, it's just $12 every four weeks. Cancel anytime. Go to washingtonpost.com subscribe that's washingtonpost.com subscribe.

[AMPM Narrator]

Hey, this is Sarah. Look, I'm standing out front of a.m. p.m. Right now and, well, you're sweet and all, but I found something more fulfilling, even kind of cheesy, but I like it. Sure, you met some of my dietary needs, but they've just got it all. So farewell, oatmeal. So long, you strange soggy.

[Sarah]

Break up with bland breakfast and taste AMPM's bacon, egg and cheese biscuit made with cage free eggs, smoked bacon and melty cheese on a buttery biscuit. AMPM Too much good stuff.