← Back to Reviews
in
Eye in the Sky - Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war
Throughout the history of war, armies have striven to kill more of the enemy while taking fewer losses themselves. Catapults, Greek Fire, bowmen, guns, machine guns, long distance artillery, airborne bombers have all been ways to kill with fewer risks to your own forces. Eye in the Sky takes us to the current frontier, remote drone warfare. It is also one of those “ripped from the headlines” political movies, fictional but a plausible story. Movies like Fail Safe and it’s evil twin, Dr Strangelove, the Manchurian Candidate, All The President’s Men, etc, take believable situations, and fictionalize them. Sometimes they are good enough to reveal truths about politics that are more understandable than real news. In this case, it’s somewhere around the present, and Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is the commander of a military group assigned to take out high value terrorists. Her “eye in the sky” (satellite and drone surveillance) has located the hide out of a bunch of notorious players, high up on the “kill or capture list”. They have a clear drone view on a building in Kenya and have a chance at a capture. Things change, however, when surveillance reveals that two men are preparing vests for imminent suicide bombings. The story plays out in multiple locations, Powell in the UK, the crew that operates a drone that will fire the missile in Las Vegas, political leaders in Europe and the US and the target in Kenya. It looks like a clear shot with little probability of “collateral damage” until an innocent girl sets up a table, selling bread on the street, right outside the building. It it’s hit, she will likely be blown to pieces. If the shot is not taken, the two terrorists with explosive vests will be detonating in public places within minutes. Many innocent people, including other young girls, will certainly be killed in the explosions.
The other half of the drama is how the military and politicians will handle this choice. The crew has initial approval to make the shot, but, in the US, the drone operator, Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), sees the girl and is unwilling to make the shot unless the politicians acknowledge that the girl will be killed and order him to do it. Meanwhile, General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) is trying to get a clear statement from the politicians, up to the British Prime Minister and even the US President, on how to proceed, wanting someone to take direct responsibility. Is it OK to kill the girl if her death prevents many others? Is it OK to shoot if her survival chance is 60% rather than 40%? Who wins the propaganda war? Does the US lose if it kills the girl; does Boko Haram lose if they detonate their bombs? Since some of the terrorists are British and US citizens, are those political leaders OK with killing their own citizens?
The tension in this story is so thick, you can cut it with a knife. Moral conundrums abound and constantly collide with military expediency. It’s a very uncomfortable movie because, while it’s fiction, you can’t help thinking that these sort of decisions are made in your name every day. We don’t even know about them but will still have to live in the world where these things happen. What I really liked about the film is that it is NOT preachy but it really drives home the deadly seriousness of what they have to do without making the players into villains. There’s no escaping the fact that this is a really ugly business and nobody wants responsibility. Politicians understand the controversy and the military guys have to deal with the reality. As a world weary Gen. Benson says to a group of politicians, “NEVER!!! tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war”.
As much as you can enjoy this sort of story, I did. The script is intelligent, poses the moral quandary and the subsequent reality but doesn’t hammer in a “correct” decision. Helen Mirren is excellent as the Colonel trying to get approval to make the hit. She realizes how much is at stake and wants a resolution. Alan Rickman, in his final on-screen appearance, is also excellent as the General who has to deal with the politicians and who has a first hand, “on the ground” understanding about the consequences of both action and inaction. I also liked seeing Aaron Paul, outside Breaking Bad, as the drone operator who has personal misgivings about killing the girl and knowing that it will be he who presses the button and watches her die. Also excellent is Barked Abdi as Jama Farah, the spy on the ground, who risks his life trying to see inside the building and get the girl away. I put this up high on my list of political/military thrillers. It’s tight, smart and really brings home the ugliness of a war that seems so remote. Eye in the Sky was directed by a director I'm not familiar with, Gavin Hood; filmed in South Africa. It was written by Guy Hibbert. Both definitely have a feel for drama. It’s well worth seeing.
Throughout the history of war, armies have striven to kill more of the enemy while taking fewer losses themselves. Catapults, Greek Fire, bowmen, guns, machine guns, long distance artillery, airborne bombers have all been ways to kill with fewer risks to your own forces. Eye in the Sky takes us to the current frontier, remote drone warfare. It is also one of those “ripped from the headlines” political movies, fictional but a plausible story. Movies like Fail Safe and it’s evil twin, Dr Strangelove, the Manchurian Candidate, All The President’s Men, etc, take believable situations, and fictionalize them. Sometimes they are good enough to reveal truths about politics that are more understandable than real news. In this case, it’s somewhere around the present, and Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is the commander of a military group assigned to take out high value terrorists. Her “eye in the sky” (satellite and drone surveillance) has located the hide out of a bunch of notorious players, high up on the “kill or capture list”. They have a clear drone view on a building in Kenya and have a chance at a capture. Things change, however, when surveillance reveals that two men are preparing vests for imminent suicide bombings. The story plays out in multiple locations, Powell in the UK, the crew that operates a drone that will fire the missile in Las Vegas, political leaders in Europe and the US and the target in Kenya. It looks like a clear shot with little probability of “collateral damage” until an innocent girl sets up a table, selling bread on the street, right outside the building. It it’s hit, she will likely be blown to pieces. If the shot is not taken, the two terrorists with explosive vests will be detonating in public places within minutes. Many innocent people, including other young girls, will certainly be killed in the explosions.
The other half of the drama is how the military and politicians will handle this choice. The crew has initial approval to make the shot, but, in the US, the drone operator, Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), sees the girl and is unwilling to make the shot unless the politicians acknowledge that the girl will be killed and order him to do it. Meanwhile, General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) is trying to get a clear statement from the politicians, up to the British Prime Minister and even the US President, on how to proceed, wanting someone to take direct responsibility. Is it OK to kill the girl if her death prevents many others? Is it OK to shoot if her survival chance is 60% rather than 40%? Who wins the propaganda war? Does the US lose if it kills the girl; does Boko Haram lose if they detonate their bombs? Since some of the terrorists are British and US citizens, are those political leaders OK with killing their own citizens?
The tension in this story is so thick, you can cut it with a knife. Moral conundrums abound and constantly collide with military expediency. It’s a very uncomfortable movie because, while it’s fiction, you can’t help thinking that these sort of decisions are made in your name every day. We don’t even know about them but will still have to live in the world where these things happen. What I really liked about the film is that it is NOT preachy but it really drives home the deadly seriousness of what they have to do without making the players into villains. There’s no escaping the fact that this is a really ugly business and nobody wants responsibility. Politicians understand the controversy and the military guys have to deal with the reality. As a world weary Gen. Benson says to a group of politicians, “NEVER!!! tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war”.
As much as you can enjoy this sort of story, I did. The script is intelligent, poses the moral quandary and the subsequent reality but doesn’t hammer in a “correct” decision. Helen Mirren is excellent as the Colonel trying to get approval to make the hit. She realizes how much is at stake and wants a resolution. Alan Rickman, in his final on-screen appearance, is also excellent as the General who has to deal with the politicians and who has a first hand, “on the ground” understanding about the consequences of both action and inaction. I also liked seeing Aaron Paul, outside Breaking Bad, as the drone operator who has personal misgivings about killing the girl and knowing that it will be he who presses the button and watches her die. Also excellent is Barked Abdi as Jama Farah, the spy on the ground, who risks his life trying to see inside the building and get the girl away. I put this up high on my list of political/military thrillers. It’s tight, smart and really brings home the ugliness of a war that seems so remote. Eye in the Sky was directed by a director I'm not familiar with, Gavin Hood; filmed in South Africa. It was written by Guy Hibbert. Both definitely have a feel for drama. It’s well worth seeing.