If You Hate 'A House of Dynamite,' Watch This Classic Nuclear Thriller Instead, By David Fear, Wired
In a world where nuclear threats feel more alarming than ever, Netflix's doomsday film "A House of Dynamite" falls frustratingly flat. For those who found Bigelow's portrayal of a nuclear crisis to be uninspiring, Sidney Lumet's 1964 masterpiece "Fail Safe" is the antidote.
Somewhere over the Arctic reaches of North America, a nuclear bomber flies in a squadron, awaiting its orders. When a secret code appears on a machine in the cockpit, the crew looks at each other, stunned. The code is instructing them to attack. Ripping open a sealed envelope marked “Top Secret,” the pilot reads the name of their target: MOSCOW. They set their course. The end of the world has begun.
Or so they think. It’s actually all a big mistake—the result of a computer glitch at a military base that sent the attack code to the bomber by accident. This is the premise of Lumet's 1964 masterpiece "Fail Safe"—a movie that asked Cold War audiences to question unbridled nuclear weapons proliferation at a time when, to many, building up a massive arsenal seemed like an imperative.
The tension in "Fail Safe" never eases. The drama gradually builds to a climax that involves personal sacrifice and other dreadful choices. Some of the key people involved must finally reckon with the situation they and their colleagues have created.
In contrast, "A House of Dynamite" envisions a world where deterrence has, inexplicably, failed. Yes, this is arguably the fault of all those who have supported nuclear posturing, that’s what the film’s title is about. But "Fail Safe" is much more successful at showing how and why the worst risks come from within. It depicts the hubris and viciousness of certain individuals involved, as well as the ridiculousness of the complex systems and protocols that people put between one another.
The bomber crew's orders are to ignore any commands once their attack run begins. Voices on their radios, training has told them, could be imitated by the enemy. And so as lead pilot Colonel Jack Grady nears his target, Fonda insists that he return to base, bellowing: “Damn it, Grady, this is the president!” All to no avail.
In "Fail Safe," after the initial computer error, the system takes over and functions exactly as designed. Many have questioned whether this chain of events would really unfold so neatly. In 1983, for instance, one real-life Russian duty officer did famously deviate from the doomsday script.
The title "Fail Safe" invokes the checks and balances intended to prevent a nuclear war starting by accident. “Who checks the checker?” asks a senator on a tour of a military control room shortly before the film’s crisis begins. “That's what really bothers me. The only thing everyone can agree on is that no one's responsible.” This line hits even harder today than it did when it was written.
The tension in "Fail Safe" never eases, gradually building to a climax that involves personal sacrifice and other dreadful choices. This film serves up a heady cocktail of human personalities and interests, including the general who is unexpectedly horrified by nuclear weapons; the political scientist determined to eliminate any and all threats to America; and the president (Henry Fonda) who finds that, when it really matters, his supposed authority actually means nothing.
Early in "Fail Safe," there's a scene in which two old-school Air Force pilots hang out and play pool. One complains that younger pilots don’t have the individuality, the humanity, of his generation of war-fighters. “You could tell them apart. They were all people,” he says. “These kids … You open them up, you'll find they run on transistors.”
Ironically, the pilot who utters these words is none other than Colonel Grady, the human button who goes on to fly unwaveringly toward Moscow.
In contrast, "A House of Dynamite" depicts a world where deterrence has, inexplicably, failed. Yes, this is arguably the fault of all those who have supported nuclear posturing. But "Fail Safe" is much more successful at showing how and why the worst risks come from within. It serves as a reminder that, in today's complex systems and protocols, accountability is often lost.
In a world where nuclear threats feel more alarming than ever, Netflix's doomsday film "A House of Dynamite" falls frustratingly flat. For those who found Bigelow's portrayal of a nuclear crisis to be uninspiring, Sidney Lumet's 1964 masterpiece "Fail Safe" is the antidote.
Somewhere over the Arctic reaches of North America, a nuclear bomber flies in a squadron, awaiting its orders. When a secret code appears on a machine in the cockpit, the crew looks at each other, stunned. The code is instructing them to attack. Ripping open a sealed envelope marked “Top Secret,” the pilot reads the name of their target: MOSCOW. They set their course. The end of the world has begun.
Or so they think. It’s actually all a big mistake—the result of a computer glitch at a military base that sent the attack code to the bomber by accident. This is the premise of Lumet's 1964 masterpiece "Fail Safe"—a movie that asked Cold War audiences to question unbridled nuclear weapons proliferation at a time when, to many, building up a massive arsenal seemed like an imperative.
The tension in "Fail Safe" never eases. The drama gradually builds to a climax that involves personal sacrifice and other dreadful choices. Some of the key people involved must finally reckon with the situation they and their colleagues have created.
In contrast, "A House of Dynamite" envisions a world where deterrence has, inexplicably, failed. Yes, this is arguably the fault of all those who have supported nuclear posturing, that’s what the film’s title is about. But "Fail Safe" is much more successful at showing how and why the worst risks come from within. It depicts the hubris and viciousness of certain individuals involved, as well as the ridiculousness of the complex systems and protocols that people put between one another.
The bomber crew's orders are to ignore any commands once their attack run begins. Voices on their radios, training has told them, could be imitated by the enemy. And so as lead pilot Colonel Jack Grady nears his target, Fonda insists that he return to base, bellowing: “Damn it, Grady, this is the president!” All to no avail.
In "Fail Safe," after the initial computer error, the system takes over and functions exactly as designed. Many have questioned whether this chain of events would really unfold so neatly. In 1983, for instance, one real-life Russian duty officer did famously deviate from the doomsday script.
The title "Fail Safe" invokes the checks and balances intended to prevent a nuclear war starting by accident. “Who checks the checker?” asks a senator on a tour of a military control room shortly before the film’s crisis begins. “That's what really bothers me. The only thing everyone can agree on is that no one's responsible.” This line hits even harder today than it did when it was written.
The tension in "Fail Safe" never eases, gradually building to a climax that involves personal sacrifice and other dreadful choices. This film serves up a heady cocktail of human personalities and interests, including the general who is unexpectedly horrified by nuclear weapons; the political scientist determined to eliminate any and all threats to America; and the president (Henry Fonda) who finds that, when it really matters, his supposed authority actually means nothing.
Early in "Fail Safe," there's a scene in which two old-school Air Force pilots hang out and play pool. One complains that younger pilots don’t have the individuality, the humanity, of his generation of war-fighters. “You could tell them apart. They were all people,” he says. “These kids … You open them up, you'll find they run on transistors.”
Ironically, the pilot who utters these words is none other than Colonel Grady, the human button who goes on to fly unwaveringly toward Moscow.
In contrast, "A House of Dynamite" depicts a world where deterrence has, inexplicably, failed. Yes, this is arguably the fault of all those who have supported nuclear posturing. But "Fail Safe" is much more successful at showing how and why the worst risks come from within. It serves as a reminder that, in today's complex systems and protocols, accountability is often lost.
it's like they're just regurgitating every anti-nuke trope without adding anything new or interesting to the conversation 
. I mean, come on, who hasn't seen that "oh no, nuclear war is coming" vibe before? It's all so predictable and formulaic. On the other hand, 'Fail Safe' is like a masterclass in tension and suspense - it's like Sidney Lumet bottled up all the anxiety of the Cold War era into this one movie 
The way Lumet explores the human side of nuclear warfare is so much more compelling than just relying on explosions and doomsday scenarios. Plus, it's crazy to think about how accurate some of those plot points are even today - like that Russian duty officer who deviated from protocol back in 1983? Mind blown 
I mean, I get what the author is saying about how deterrence has failed but it's just so... bleak 
And don't even get me started on the plot holes 
It's just so tense and suspenseful 
And the characters are all so well-developed 
I love how it shows how the hubris and viciousness of certain individuals can lead to disaster 
That with all these layers of control, it's hard to know who's responsible when things go wrong? 
. but hey, if you're into that sorta thing, go for it!
. Like, "A House of Dynamite" tries to tackle this super serious topic but it just feels like a bunch of hooey 
. On the other hand, "Fail Safe" is like a masterclass in tension and suspense - it's like you're right there with the characters as they try to figure out what's going on 
and that line about who checks the checker?? still gives me chills 
.
. Give me something with some real substance and depth. This one's just a shallow attempt at exploring complex themes . Fail Safe is where it's at! 
. Meanwhile, I've been rewatching "Fail Safe" and it's like the ultimate thrill ride 
I mean, I know it's supposed to be a commentary on nuclear threats but honestly I'd rather watch paint dry 
. I need something with some real tension and drama like Sidney Lumet's 'Fail Safe' - that film knows how to build suspense 
! The way the bomber crew is trying to figure out what's going on while they're hurtling towards their target is so intense 
The whole concept of a computer glitch leading to a nuclear attack is terrifying enough, and the way it highlights the hubris and recklessness of those involved is something we can definitely relate to in our own time 
It's also interesting to see how "Fail Safe" shows how deterrence can fail from within, rather than relying on external factors like government policy 
. We gotta take responsibility for ourselves and our role in these complex issues, or else we're just passin' the buck around 
."
lumet's direction is SO intense i loved how it shows how the bomber crew's orders to ignore commands are literally taken to an extreme level, and how that leads to these insane choices 
meanwhile "A House of Dynamite" seems like it's just kinda... banging on about deterrence 
what's the deal with fail safe anyway? 
. The way Lumet explores the human side of nuclear war is just chilling, it makes you think about how close we really are to catastrophic failure