Eye in the Sky

From: David McMahon [mailto:david@davidrmcmahon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 March 2016 15:16
To: Cynthia Haskell
Subject: "Eye in the Sky", no stars, by a distinguished critic
Importance: High

Hi Cynthia,

I followed your recommendation and saw “Eye in the Sky” last night, and was more than disappointed, I was annoyed.

The film is certainly dealing with significant contemporary issues: the so-called “war on terror”, the breaches of international law, the moral ambiguity (at least) of many of the actions of major powers, and the interaction of those powers with each other, and the connection and conflict between the political and military imperatives.

Unfortunately, the film is a superficial melange of national, political and military stereotypes, placed in a highly contrived scenario with cardboard-cut-out characters, and with a plot with more holes than the victims of the hell-fire missiles that were ultimately unleashed.

The British politicians are pass-the-buck ditherers, the Americans are no-nonsense decisive action men and women, at least those in powerful positions, the military are supernaturally efficient (unlike the tales of Homer where the gods themselves were error-prone) and extremely concerned about civilian casualties (as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as Dresden and others). The footsoldiers are the only characters with any moral dimension. (This is another fanciful stereotype, the opposite of most western killers sent to the Middle East, whether in person or via “RPA”s, many of whom seem to be wannabe rambos.  See for example the autobiography of the US sniper, called “Sniper”, later a movie, where the protagonist had no difficulty taking our women and girls at a safe 100 metres, because he could see that they were “the embodiment of pure evil”.)

The movie has a great cast, wasted in this travesty.  Only her superb acting saves Helen Mirren’s character from the banal, where the story and script would otherwise take it.  Alan Rickman is steadfastly persistent in dealing with his political superiors, although he “knows” what must be done and is certain that it is the right thing to do.  The logic in his dialogue is that this is a military decision about military effectiveness.  Perhaps if it were a normal war with a defined enemy that logic might apply; in a phony war declared on an amorphous enemy, with air strikes occurring in non-warring countries with the certainty of innocent civilian casualties, this logic is a little suspect.

The plot holes are too numerous to detail.  It is beyond my credulity that no alternative to the air strike is possible when all “enemy” have been identified, they are under observation on the ground and in the air, the Kenyan special forces are massed nearby, and the “good guys” seem to have endless technological tricks to win the day.

After the first hellfire missile, cameras reveal the UK woman badly wounded but alive, and Mirren’s character heavy-handedly orders a second missile, heedless of any additional civilian casualties, despite 2 of the 3 on the “kill list” being destroyed by the first missile, along with the 2 potential suicide bombers and their explosives.  She is apparently unconcerned that the main rationale for the attack, to prevent a suicide bombing, had already been achieved by the first missile.

Perhaps that was simply a heavy-handed attempt to drive home the bleeding obvious about her character, that she was more motivated about winning against the UK woman who had been eluding her for 6 years, something she stated several times through the movie. Perhaps this is her “Major Kong moment”, after the character in Dr Strangelove who released and rode the nuclear bomb that launched Armageddon?

And the footsoldiers?  All forced to “do their duty” against their own consciences: a female bombardier who had never flown in combat before dissolves in tears at the action she is forced to perform, very Hollywood.  Aaron Paul is a fine actor as the RPA pilot (formerly sidekick Jess in “Breaking Bad”), again portrayed as the helpless pawn who strives to use the limited control open to him to serve his conscience. And the black “CDE” estimator forced by Mirren to fudge his already rubbery and imprecise estimates to legitimise an atrocity.

This perpetuates a soppy stereotype that the good footsoldiers are reluctant to act in these situations.  History teaches otherwise, most soldiers in that situation have long ago “drunk the Kool-Aid”.

And the Kenyan special forces, happy to remain loyally in the background, ready to rush in only when ordered by Mirren?  Is that a realistic portrayal of the integration of a corrupt third-world country’s military with foreign overlords?

And the legal advisers?  When GWB can appoint an Attorney-General who spuriously advises that torture is permissible, can we believe that this legal nicety has any role in drone warfare?

Rickman had the final word with his “soldier’s speech” to the stereotypically soft-hearted female Minister: a fine piece of acting, but pure sophistry in the script.  Throughout the story he was resolutely determined to attack, not seeking alternatives, and convinced of the inevitability of a worse outcome otherwise. Could this have been a deliberate demolition of her character’s motivations and concerns, showing her as unfit for such difficult decisions, the camera lingering on her tearful face after Rickman’s speech, perhaps indicating that she has seen her error?

In short, the film is propaganda for failed policies and tactics, trying to camouflage evil actions with a moral ambiguity.  There is absolutely no canvassing of “the other side”, of why they might be using suicide bomber tactics in the face of western might, or any attempt to humanise “the terrorists” by showing their characters and motivations. 

No stars for this Rambo in the sky without the Sly.  I give it the big brown eye.

Regards,

David

PS I might be interested in your opinion, depending on what it is.