Movie Review: Eye in the Sky
“Now, for our consciences, the arms are fair, when the intent of bearing them is just.” –Henry IV, Part I, Act 5, Scene II
I would hazard a guess that there are more clichés and known sayings about war and warfare than almost any other human activity. War is hell; War never changes; Let those that desire peace prepare for war; Only the dead have seen the end of war; The list goes on and on. Regardless of what we all may think of the efficacy or morality of warfare, the one thing that has to be acknowledged is that it is a present and violent reality that we all, in various forms and capacities, must deal with. For our purposes here, there are two quotes most worth considering. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau once said, “War is too important to be left to the generals.” In Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964), one of my personal favorite films, General Ripper answers Clemenceau with an inversion saying, “War is too important to be left to the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.” In our present age of democratic nation states, where the military is subservient to the civil government and under its authority, the clash between politicians, lawyers, and military officials in prosecuting war is the crux of our debates. The civilian government gives the military a mission and sets the rules of engagement, but the question becomes how much leeway is the military given and how much oversight and control does the civil government exert? Eye in the Sky deals directly with this question and the others surrounding warfare in the present era, where orders and rules can change rapidly, and the complicated nature of prosecuting the war on terror.
Eye in the Sky is centered on a multinational mission to fight Al Shabaab in East Africa, particularly in Somalia and Kenya. Colonel Powell (Helen Mirren) is a British officer in command of the operation to track and capture several leaders of Al Shabaab, including two British nationals and one American. Powell coordinates with local Kenyan intelligence and security forces on the ground in Nairobi, Americans pilot the drone from Las Vegas, and this is all being overseen by General Benson (Alan Rickman) and representatives of the British government in COBRA from London. The initial plan to capture the targets by the Kenyan security forces is scrapped after the targets move into an Al Shabaab controlled slum, and Powell requests new rules of engagement for a kill mission. The situation becomes more urgent when a Kenyan intelligence mini-drone finds explosives and vests in the house containing the targets, and the connection is made that Al Shabaab is intending to launch a suicide attack. The mission is further complicated by the presence of a young girl in the outer edge of the blast radius who, based on damage assessments, has a 65% chance of suffering fatal injury in the event of the drone strike. The heart of the film then revolves around the debate about how to proceed and the inherent risks of any course of action.
The first road-block encountered in the kill mission is the change in the rules of engagement and the unwillingness of anyone in the chain of command to give the military a yes or no answer on bombing the target. The legal officer attached to Powell’s command refers the issue up to General Benson who must get authorization from the witnessing members of the British government in COBRA. The members of COBRA all offer different and conflicting opinions on how to proceed and refer up to the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary declines to make a decision and, based on the presence of an American national, defers to the US Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is annoyed that the Brits have referred this to him, stating that the American government’s position is quite clear that the targets should be eliminated seeing as they are in the top five of the President’s Kill List for Eastern Africa. The decision is bounced back down to the British officials overseeing the mission, and the decision is made to try and proceed with as minimal collateral damage as possible. In short, this is how modern warfare works when politicians and lawyers all start throwing everything at the wall in a time sensitive operation rather than being willing to live with a decision one way or another. It is complicated.
The crux of the debate within the film is what to do when presented with the option of eliminating an enemy when there is a strong chance that innocents will also be affected. The scenario is, bomb the target and probably kill one innocent bystander or do not bomb the target, allowing the leadership to escape and the suicide bomber to potentially kill dozens of civilians. This is a grim and difficult decision to make because at the end of the day, in this scenario, innocents are probably going to die. I applaud the filmmakers and writers for showing how complex this decision making can be, because the policy makers and politicians have to consider the political fallout of killing a civilian and the military only has the window to act for so long. None of these decisions are easy, but the decisions have to be made.
The one argument against taking action that I found completely morally bankrupt was the propaganda argument of allowing the suicide bomber to carry out his attack. The politician that delivers this argument states she would rather Al Shabaab kill dozens of innocents and prove themselves to be the murders and extremists that they are, rather than sacrifice the life of the one girl. The argument goes, if the girl is killed, Al Shabaab wins the propaganda war. If the suicide bomber kills civilians, the West wins the propaganda war. Essentially, do nothing and allow the status quo to remain the same. As an American, and the reader is welcome to cast judgment on my position here, having the ability to stop an act of terror and not acting for the sake of propaganda is not only wrong but evil. It is an even greater evil than sacrificing the life of one innocent to stop a potential attack. The fact that the audience is allowed to come to its own conclusions and weigh the arguments for themselves is one of the reasons the film should be applauded. A person could just as easily hear the same arguments and understanding as myself, and come to radically different conclusions. This is good filmmaking as it keeps the audience engaged with its ideas long after the credits roll and encourages open debate.
Eye in the Sky is a thriller that somehow manages to remain engaging and tense despite the fact that it is dialogue heavy. The members of COBRA and the military argue throughout the course of the film. They cover every, and I do mean every, possible angle on the scenario presented. Some might find this debate tedious, but the purpose is to show how complicated modern warfare and these situations are. The public perception of military action generally is that it is callous and quick to pull the trigger. Not much thought is given to the myriad positions and possibilities that make up every military decision. The point is to make audiences think. The debate is interspersed with scenes on the ground and intercut with the drone shots tracking the targets, along with all the moving parts and elements that cause the scenario to change from moment to moment. Colonel Powell attempts to have the girl move by having a Kenyan intelligence agent buy the bread the girl is selling, but this effort fails when the girl retrieves more bread. The military waits, trying to allow the girl time to move away and even changes the targeting location for the missile strike to lower the chance of fatality for the girl from 65% to 45%. In short, the military exhausts every effort to minimize the civilian casualties without risking the mission objective. These events do not happen in a vacuum in reality, and situations can and do change rapidly.
The only complaint I have with the film is with the portrayal of the American drone pilots. Aaron Paul and Phoebe Fox play our USAF pilots, yet the choices made for the characters did not strike as authentic. Paul’s character, Steve Watts, is ordered to fire upon the building. However, Watts hesitates greatly and is concerned about the collateral damage risk to the girl. He basically throws protocols in the face of Colonel Powell by demanding a revised damage assessment with respect to the collateral damage, as is his right. However, Watts and his co-operator are so emotionally upset that they weep when finally firing upon the target. I saw this film with a former member of the US Navy and he and I discussed this at length after the film. What was the purpose of having the US Airmen resist the order to shoot? Were the filmmakers trying to do the US a favor and make our pilots more sympathetic? If so, the message could still be conveyed without sacrificing the professionalism expected of military members. What did the two pilots think they would be doing for the USAF by flying drones? Did they believe they would be flying a scenic aerial tour of East Africa? Did the thought never occur to them that they might be required to launch weapons at some point? Would the USAF not have trained its people well enough and done enough psychological evaluations on these two to know how they would react? It struck us both as a little silly that the two drone pilots would be so emotionally disturbed by their job, and it especially bothered the former sailor I was with that Watts would not execute his orders and hesitated after all criteria and rules for engagement were exhausted and the strike was authorized.
In conclusion, Eye in the Sky is a smart and tense military thriller for the drone warfare era. The camerawork is sharp, and the performances from its cast are solid all around. This is a war film made to engage audiences with the arguments and debates about how warfare is and ought to be conducted at present. The film also offers no hard answer one way or another and allows for the audience to come to its own conclusions about the justification for lethal force with collateral damage. All we can hope is that our elected officials and decision makers are actually willing to make a decision and live with the consequences. It also does not forget the human element, as a good portion of the film is dedicated to the little girl and her family in the slum. It is not her fault that Al Shabaab has taken over the place where she lives. It forces the audience to deal with the reality of these situations. Those civilians that are pro-drone attacks need to remember the cost of civilian life in such strikes, and those that are against such strikes need to remember that these decisions are not made lightly. No one comes out of war clean or unchanged. The only group of people that do not need to be reminded of the cost of war are the soldiers themselves.
4 stars out of 5.
