Eye in the Sky: What We Choose to Believe

What exactly are the costs of war? That is one of the big questions posed in the 2015 British film, Eye in the Sky, starring Alan Rickman and Helen Mirren (portraying Lieutenant General Frank Benson and Colonel Katherine Powell, respectively). The film, a thriller centered around the decisions of military personnel regarding advanced spy technology and drone warfare, spends a lot of time showing some of the less obvious effects of modern warfare. When the military is given an opportunity to eliminate a terrorist threat in Nairobi, Kenya, the Powell and Benson see this as a one-time chance. However, a young girl named Alia, whose life and personality are well-developed throughout the first part of the film, sets up a table to sell bread outside, unbeknownst to her, the building that the target group has taken shelter in. Throughout the film, the aforementioned officers must go through the necessary bureaucratic means in order to permissibly launch a drone strike on the terrorist group, who is shown to be planning an attack on a nearby civilian shopping center. However, the politicians observing the mission are equally worried about the innocent, young girl who may be caught in the cross-fire. Eventually, the decision to strike is made and Alia, caught in the explosion radius, dies from her injuries.

Often, especially in our own nation, we are given information about military actions that show ourselves in a favorable light. Even beginning in grade school, the way we are taught about our history largely ignores the people who also suffered at our nation’s hands. Take, for instance, the initial colonization of North America. “Advanced” European settlers arrived on the shores and had to defend themselves from “savage” indigenous peoples in order to simply live. However, the story is much more sinister than that. European settlers used brutal war techniques, such as burning down the homes and agricultural fields of indigenous people in order to turn them into refugees, on top of hunting them as much as possible. These methods were employed to expand their land, accrue wealth, and establish their way of life as the norm. They saw this as their right. Even in this one way, the way we understand our history from an early age has been distorted to fit a narrative that makes us comfortable. Eye in the Sky brings to light this same kind of narrative, and emphasizes this with a particularly chilling quote from the Attorney General George Matherson (portrayed by Richard McCabe): “If they kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war; If we kill one child in a drone strike … they do.” Here we can clearly see that the focus here is not just on exterminating a threat, but doing it in such a way that saves face as much as possible. Though the film is centered around futuristic technology, much of its implications are relevant today and have been for centuries.

In Dr. Merinda Simmons’s essay, “We Are What We Choose to Remember,” she highlights this type of recollection in what she calls commemoration. Essentially, regardless of which side any particular conveyor of history is on, they will relay the information they feel is most prudent to the point they think should be emphasized. Even when one tries to tell what “really happened,” they eventually will leave out information that does not ideally conform to the narrative they are trying to convey (p. 2-3). One of the things this film does beautifully is that it allows the audience to make their judgments on the actions and situations presented to them. Everyone agrees that the terror threat must be eliminated, but there is also an exasperated sense of dread at the thought of Alia, the girl selling bread outside, dying. If we are presented with this kind of information with regards to our own military operations, how might we feel? Would we be able to continue our country’s long-expected support of whatever military actions they take? Does the life of one innocent person outweigh potential, much more threatening outcomes? Had this story not focused on developing Alia as a character, and instead only mentioned her as a casualty after the fact, would we care? Eye in the Sky forces the audience to consider these viewpoints and make their own judgments based on the actions that unfold before them.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. The pacing, acting, and themes were well-executed and made for a atypical war thriller experience. This movie challenges the viewer to examine the world around them more closely, and question the way they assume aspects of their daily lives might be or how they could change in an instant due to the decisions of others. On top of that, it allows us to critically examine the ethical issues commonly seen in war and either justify or condemn some aspects, based on the way the information is presented. Anyone who is looking for something different and challenging, but still accessible, would appreciate this work and could gain a lot from watching it.