Eye in the Sky

Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky pulls a breathtaking entertainment out of an intellectually rigorous debate on the ethics of remote war-making.  

An opening title quotes Aeschylus: “Truth is the first casualty of war.” Even in this lettering, the “truth” fades away.

As the various American, British and African principles debate the chance to kill three most-wanted Islamic terrorists and prevent two suicide bombers, the dialogue demonstrates increasingly thin shavings off the truth. Colonel Powell (Helen Mirren) is the prime practitioner as she strives to persuade the political, legal and military consultants to fire the missile, despite its threat to a nine-year-old Nairobi girl who pauses her hula hooping to sell her mother’s bread. That is: she’s really cute.

The girl has to be cute, plucky, endearing, and — to boot — harassed by an Islamic fanatic, to fully flesh out the value of the “innocent” threatened in collateral damage. A statistic is one thing, but fleshing out such an appealing “innocent” really focuses the debate. 

And a brilliant, circumspect debate this film provides. How much “collateral damage” can we allow when there’s a chance to snuff major terrorist operatives, especially when it would prevent two suicide bombings? What latitude is allowed the military, especially as conditions change from the original mission’s approval? What legal issues arise and what clout is allowed them? How pertinent should political considerations be?
      And that great god, public relations? Hence the "idealist" who would rather blame the terrorists for 80 lost innocent lives than have America blamed for one. This character deserves the closing slam: "Never tell a soldier he doesn't know the human cost of war."

When American and British citizens are targeted, of course, the dilemmas compound, even if they are converts to terrorism. International sensitivities abound when American soldiers join a British operation to kill three nationalities of terrorism — in a friendly country.

This film has the virtue of giving each side in the debate a full, respectful airing. It’s not an easy matter. The situations are too complex for simple positions and confidence. But if we don’t acknowledge the legal and moral shadings then we’re akin to the terrorists.

Our initial takeaway from the plot is confidence in the technological power at the West’s disposal, with its spy and firing drones and its incredible communication systems — till a battery dies. 

But the additional point is that which separates us from the radicals. For all our technology we are also ruled by — if not afflicted with — moral and ethical responsibilities. That’s what puts us at a disadvantage when we face unscrupulous radicals. We are ruled by principles, where they can do what they can.
     Our moral restraints may balance out our technological advantages — but they are precisely what justifies our fight against the lawless. If we are no more moral than they, what right have we to fight them? The eye in the sky is not just the drone but our conscience -- and sense of judgment from above. That could even range beyond the Prime Minister.

     To the film’s credit, we don’t get the sentimental happy ending we’re hoping for. We can't just wish away the suffering and loss of the innocent. The little girl’s death leaves us properly unsettled by the power of modern technology and the moral ambiguity that surrounds its use. Especially when we succeed.