Eye in the Sky (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Eye in the Sky (2015) – G. Hood

Another of those political thrillers that takes a specific event and zooms in on it, examining it from all angles and from the perspectives of different stakeholders.  In this case, we get a very topical look at what drones can do in the context of the “war on terrorism” – in particular, we learn the unbelievable extent of their ability to spy on anyone (“eye in the sky” indeed) as well as their use as an assassination tool.  Of course, the use of drones for either purpose is highly morally charged – except that we appear to have foregone debate on their use, as long as citizens of our own countries are not targeted.  In this British film focused on the battle against Al-Shabaab terrorists in Nairobi, Kenya, there is absolutely no questioning of the freedom to spy on anyone, even inside their private dwellings.  Given that an impending suicide bomb attack is uncovered through such spying, it is taken for granted that it is morally justified.  The film really focuses on the moral quandaries associated with the next decision, to use the drone to assassinate those responsible for terrorism, and tries to heighten those complexities by making it likely that an innocent young girl will also die if the drone attack goes ahead (this is akin to Philippa Foot’s Trolley problem, asking participants to choose between options that lead to the death of one child through action or the passive death of many more people through inaction).  Yet the filmmakers clearly seem to be barracking for the “attack” option, with Helen Mirren playing the Colonel in charge of the operation who strongly advocates for dropping the hellfire bomb (and Alan Rickman, in his last film role, the General who supports her).  Those who raise moral doubts are pooh-poohed and dismissed.  However, as events unfold, the likelihood of innocent deaths cannot be simply written off (and none of the British politicians want to make the decision, even as ALL of the Americans asked can’t see any of the moral objections).  Regardless of whether the filmmakers given equal and fair hearings to both sides of the argument, the film itself is a heart-pounding thriller that manages to put viewers on the edge of their seats even though the majority of the running time is consumed by hesitation and inaction rather than action itself.