I grew up in South Africa. The politicians, from the attorney general, defence and foreign secretaries to incoming junior minister wriggle uncomfortably with the political as well as legal decisions, played admirably as ill-prepared and out-of-their-depth amateurs by Iain Glen, Jeremy Northam, Monica Dolan and Richard McCabe.
That is, the brutal truth that the ultimate decision of whether or not to sacrifice a little girl has little to do with a sense of moral duty.
But ultimately it must be confronted. I grew up in South Africa. But I did speak to people in the military, including drone pilots, who gave me great insight into the way the program works. A fictional world indeed.
In a way, the audience is the jury. We were asked if we would like technical support from the U. That document meant something, and it was something to aspire to. What kind of technical advice did you get.
I remember as a young law student in South Africa, at the height of apartheid, in the early and mids, there would be security police on campus every two weeks with their tear gas, beating up students for having our rallies and protests.
And with that one question, the film takes this usual split-second decision and expands it to a far-reaching examination of wartime ethics and all the parties involved. The film, which is currently in theaters, shifts rapidly between the Nairobi streets; a bunker commanded by a hawkish British colonel Helen Mirren ; a London situation room where politicians, military officers among them the late Alan Rickmanand lawyers ask ever-higher authorities to approve the strike; and a U.
At first, the politicians seem to be following the old saw of CYA, passing the responsibility for making the decision to other officials higher up in the political food chain.
Going further, this is a test of our intuitions about the morality of war itself, for the fact is that collateral damage is an unavoidable reality of war and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
For the public officials, process trumps outcome, prompting the question: As a reporting fellow at ProPublica, she covered national security and finance. Makes you think, feel and debate.
Taking out the house with a Hellfire missile should be simple enough, but it risks the lives of civilians, including a young girl in the house next door. Seen in close-up in full colour from drones and ground surveillance, this is not video game warfare.
Granted, outside of clever aerial photography and a low-rumbling score that appropriately evokes a sandstorm on the horizon, the direction isn't especially stylish.
Before joining ProPublica, she was on the editorial staff of The New Yorker and a lead researcher on several books of history and politics. She lives in New York. I think the abandonment of our principles is actually the security risk. This requires us to apply the following four-step test: Unbelievably tense and really makes you think and wonder what is the right thing to do.
What we were studying, as young lawyers, was the American constitution. Up until the very end you aren't sure how the movie is going to end up, and that really adds to the tension and the quality of the movie.
The real lingering question is: But once you suspend your disbelief, "Eye in the Sky" provides solid entertainment through and through. Indeed, "Eye in the Sky" is all about optics, from the more literal visuals of drone espionage, to the all-important PID Positive identificationto the more subjective nature of "good vs bad".
The real question at the end of the movie is not: What kind of technical advice did you get. Throughout these proceedings, the film makes its most astute observation. Drone pilot Steve Watts Paul is about to fire when he sees a young girl in the kill zone.
And like countless other anti-war films, its narrative weighs the cost of this decision against its perceived benefits. I spoke with the film’s director, Gavin Hood, about the movie and the political impact he hopes it has. (The interview has been edited and condensed.) This film shows a fraught counterterrorism operation from every possible angle, almost like a drone war explainer.
Eye in the Sky isn’t the first attempt to tackle the ethical complications created by this new age of warfare (see Homeland seasons one and four as just one example) but it is perhaps the most successful, managing to focus the audience’s attention for almost an hour and a half on the impossible decisions which have to be made by those.
Eye in the Sky is a British military-political thriller, directed by Gavin Hood to a screenplay by Guy Hibbert. It stars Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, and Barkhad Abdi. Aug 23, · Gavin Hood's drone reading list. To learn more about the ethics and technology of drone strikes, the "Eye in the Sky" director recommends these books: "Drone Theory" (Grégoire Chamayou) A great book about the ethics of drones.
"Kill Chain" (Andrew Cockburn) An excellent book on the history and rise of high-tech weapons of war and remote assassination. Eye in the Sky is a British thriller film starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, and Barkhad Abdi. Directed by Gavin Hood and based on a screenplay by Guy Hibbert, the film explores the ethical challenges of drone warfare.
Gavin Hood's "Eye in the Sky" is a thrilling document of modern warfare, an uneasy slice of life about a drone strike involving various people across the globe who never see each other. Helen Mirren plays Colonel Katherine Powell, a UK military official who wants to strike on a house in Kenya inhabited by terrorists on her Most Wanted list; an immediate action that faces an endless amount of complications.Ethical reasoning in eye in the sky a movie by gavin hood