The Fate of Chicago and Its Ambiguous Conclusion Explained

0 1 5 minutes read

The Fate of Chicago and Its Ambiguous Conclusion Explained

Contains spoilers for A House of Dynamite

The end of A house of dynamite leaves you with big questions thanks to its ambiguous nature. Kathryn Bigelow’s political thriller is now streaming on Netflix after receiving mostly positive reviews, as the director delivers a tense feature film showing the lives of many people as America is threatened with being hit by an enemy nuclear missile.

The film’s narrative is divided into three sections, A house of dynamite shows how various individuals within the U.S. government are responding to the growing nuclear threat. And with the clock ticking until Chicago is hit, it’s understandable to think the ending will reveal what’s happening to America in this crisis and how the president (Idris Elba) is fighting back.

A house of dynamiteThe ending is far from definitive, leaving viewers with several major cliffhangers and questions as the credits roll. So what really happened to Chicago and the president? Who was America potentially at war with? And will there be more to this story? Let’s go.

What happened to Chicago and America?

Any frustration over A house of dynamite ending the story where it occurs is understandable. Major Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) kneeling in front of the Alaska base is not where you would think this story would end.

This leaves uncertainty as to whether he is still out there, recovering from vomiting after the GBIs failed to stop the missile in the first section, or whether this is a return to the outside world after the Chicago strike. Considering Park (Greta Lee) and Rogers (Moses Ingram) enter a nuclear bunker moments before, this suggests Chicago was hit.

This probability then provides additional clarity on what the president has decided to do in terms of retaliation. Although his decision was not heard, the fact that he gave his code to make a nuclear strike possible made an American response more likely. And if Chicago was decimated, then he would definitely give the order.

The certainty of Chicago’s destruction is likely why Baker (Sean Harris) killed himself instead of getting on the helicopter, knowing his daughter was about to die and America was about to launch an all-out nuclear war.

That said, it is not confirmed that Chicago was destroyed or that America fought back. Gonzalez might be relieved to know that his position is not responsible for more than 10 million deaths, with the missile could malfunction before impact. Park and Rogers could be taken to the bunker as a precaution as the situation calms down and America exits Defcom 1 status.

However, I don’t believe that this so-called “happy ending” for A house of dynamite where America avoids war and everyone lives, that’s what Bigelow was looking for. The film is essentially a warning about the danger of nuclear weapons and how everything could go wrong so quickly. A happy and peaceful conclusion would undermine this objective.

Ambiguity over what happened in Chicago sells A house of dynamiteBut it ends briefly in the same vein. There is a lack of emotional and narrative payoff. Not knowing for sure what happened to everyone is frustrating.

So why would the film end like this? Bigelow may have wanted to keep the conclusion from becoming too dark by showing the nuclear fallout. A house of dynamite also lends itself to conversation and interpretation with this ambiguous endingwhich could also be a reason why filmmaker and writer Noah Oppenheim designed it that way.

Who launched the missile?

Kyle Allen on a jet in A House of Dynamite

The other unanswered question at the heart of A house of dynamite this is who exactly America is on the brink of war with. The film refuses to give any indication as to which country exactly launched the missile, giving the film a faceless, nameless and vague country as the enemy.

The film crosses out a few possible options, such as China and Russia.if everyone is to be believed. This still leaves many other countries with which America has difficult relations in real life as potential answers to who the adversary is in the film.

It may seem surprising that a filmmaker like Bigelow, who has tackled films like The injury record And Zero Dark Thirty with very real countries in the Middle East as enemies of America, would avoid being specific about the country in this fictional story. Yet it’s much more common in modern Hollywood.

Movies like Top Gun: Maverick used unnamed countries as enemies of Tom Cruise’s pilot and all of America. Even James Gunn denied the actual inspiration behind SupermanThis is international war. It seems A house of dynamite did not want to risk political controversy by naming who launched the missile.

Will there be a dynamite house, part 2?

Anthony Ramos kneeling outside in A House of Dynamite

With A house of dynamite ending like this and launching on Netflix, one might get the impression that this is a possible franchise game. A sequel directly answering the various lingering questions would make sense on paper, and it’s something that could help many audiences appreciate the first film more.

Again, there are no plans for A house of dynamite have a second part. Bigelow has never made a sequel before, and there is no indication that anyone involved considered continuing the story.

Even if the film does incredibly well on Netflix and breaks streaming records, you shouldn’t expect a second part. A house of dynamiteThe ending is meant to leave everyone with questions about what happened.

If Bigelow wanted answers to these questions, she would have done so with this film. SO, don’t expect that A house from Dynamite 2 this will happen and show the fate of Chicago, American reprisals, etc. That’s the end of the story.

What the cast of A House Of Dynamite thinks of the ending

Although each viewer will have their own opinion on the ending, the actors also have their own point of view. In an exclusive interview with ScreenRant, A house of dynamiteThe cast of shared their thoughts on the ending and how they interpret the different decisions.

Regarding the ambiguous conclusion, Rebecca Ferguson said it was “one of the most amazing things” about the film. Harris said something similar, noting that ambiguity “that’s the goal” and opens the door to broader conversations:

But the fact that they left it up to you to end the movie the way you want to end the movie in your mind is why there are conversations afterward.

As for the fate of Chicago and how the president would respond, Elba confirmed: “We didn’t want to know the answer.” But he believes the president would have kept the plight of the entire world in mind when considering how to respond: “Unfortunately, sacrificing the death of 10 million people against the entire planet would probably have been his decision.”

As for the potentially happier ending where the missile didn’t wipe out Chicago, Ramos said that wasn’t his character’s state of mind in the final frame. He said he is “I don’t think it’s malfunctioning” and instead “He’s just in disbelief. There’s guilt, shame and deep sadness.”

It’s clear from the actors’ opinions that they agree with Bigelow and Oppenheim’s decision to give the film an ambiguous ending and believe the worst-case scenario is what happened. None of them know the latter for sure either, but it gives a deeper insight into the meaning of A house of dynamite.

The film raises the question of whether this power structure is fit for the world and shows how dangerous the current status quo really is. This is not about resolving the current potential crisis, but rather being the starting point for potentially necessary conversations.