theartsdesk Q&A: Idris Elba on playing a US President faced with a missile crisis in 'A House of Dynamite'

Idris Elba has only just appeared as the British Prime Minister in the action comedy Heads of State (2025) – now he's portraying the American President in Kathryn Bigelow's tense political thriller A House of Dynamite.

The White House Situation Room is on red alert, and Elba's President must avert a nuclear escalation. He runs through theoretical emergency scenarios with his staff at hand yet ultimately has to act alone by making the critical decision.

That's the setup of Bigelow's film, which plays out like a triptych, with the imminent nuclear strike repeated three times from different perspectives. Elba is perfectly cast here as the noble statesman who gets the bad news while performing a few basketball shots in front of excited high-school kids. 

It's the humanity Elba radiates combined with his tough looks and calm nature that makes him a standout President. Playing a hard-boiled cop in the BBC thriller series Luther (2010-2019) and a drug kingpin in the HBO crime drama The Wire, Elba cut a reliably imposing figure.

As well as being part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe – from Thor (2011) to Avengers: Infinity War (2018) – Elba played the villain Krall in Star Trek Beyond (2016) and showed off his comedy chops in the American version of The Office (2009). He was the older Nelson Mandela in Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom (2013).

A House of Dynamite struck a different note for him personally, as he explains in the following interview, which took place shortly after its premiere at the Venice Film Festival.

PAMELA JAHN: How realistic do you feel A House of Dynamite is in terms of representing a crisis in the White House Situation Room?

IDRIS ELBA: Noah Oppenheim's screenplay is so thoroughly researched that, as a viewer, you almost get the impression that you are watching a documentary. It's important because that's the only way you quickly understand what's happening on screen. The clock is ticking: These men and women in charge have 18 minutes to ward off a suspected nuclear attack. It's a race against time in which everything comes together – different perspectives, arguments, emotions and expectations.

How well do you personally deal with extreme situations?

I am an only child and used to spend a lot of time with adults. Thankfully, my parents are very calm and relaxed people, and I tend to take my cue from them. When there's a fire or someone needs help, I do what needs to be done. At least, that's what I'd like to believe.

Do you find it easy to make difficult decisions?

Only when it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise, I'm more of a person who procrastinates and hesitates. Too many options overwhelm me.

Like the choice between the three different emergency protocols your President in the film must weigh up in little to no time?

It's unimaginable for me. Especially since it's not just a question of "medium, rare, or well done". It's about human lives, human dignity, and national security.

On the other hand, there are always countless possibilities for playing a character, and you need to find your own personal way in.

Absolutely, and for me it was crucial that my character here asks a lot of questions. He weighs things up before making his decision, and some people might think: What is he doing? It's obvious what needs to be done. But he says no – that's the key point.

Should a head of state always ask lots of questions?

Yes, anyone appointed to [such a position] must have the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions for all of us. A president or prime minister is not elected just because of his or her smart looks. Ideally, he or she is a clever thinker and strategist in the spirit of an open society and a democracy worthy of the name. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

What other qualities did you feel your character should have?

Kathryn Bigelow and I knew from the outset that the third part of the story had to offer the audience a certain down-to-earth quality. The first two episodes are shocking and nerve-wracking. No one knows exactly what is happening. The final act is about humanity. Suddenly, a relatively simple, affable man enters the picture, carrying the fate of a country and possibly the whole world on his shoulders.

What is his backstory?

For me, he is a down-to-earth but ambitious guy, a civil servant who has worked his way up to become President. In other words, a man of the people who knows the hardships of ordinary life because he has experienced it himself.

Did you have any role models in mind?

No, I wanted to avoid imitating a real person. It would be distracting. It would be a faux pas. What matters is that even those who cannot identify with him feel that they can relate to the situation he finds himself in. Ultimately, it all boils down to the question: what would I do?

How important was it to you to make this film right now, given the current global tensions and geopolitical conflicts?

The older I get, the more I want to work only on films that really get under your skin and make you think, otherwise there's no point. I sense a generational change. I sense that young people are largely overwhelmed by reality because they are fed vast amounts of information as quickly as they are fed fast food. They can't even sit still in the cinema for three hours any more. Attention has become the most important currency – not only in art.

You have now played both the UK Prime Minister and the US President. Would you ever consider running for office yourself?

No way.

Why not?

Because most heads of government today are at an age where they are no longer flexible enough to act in the right way. The younger generations think differently, so politics must also change or adapt accordingly, but very few succeed. I wouldn't want to be one of them who fail.

• More film interviews on theartsdesk