Opération Eye in the Sky

Director Gavin Hood's previous film, the underrated Ender's Game, focused upon the increasingly virtual, high-tech surveillance and disengaged nature of modern warfare. These elements of Ender's Game are clearly visible in the director's latest thriller offering, Eye in the Sky. The story here involves disparate groups of military and political personnel scattered around the world, all watching the live stream of a terrorist compound in Nairobi and debating whether or not to fire a drone into a heavily-populated ethnically Somali suburb of the Kenyan capital.

The operation is shown to be a joint British and American backed mission and the debate revolves around the collateral damage a drone strike would cause. The collateral damage is given a human face through a young girl who has set up a bread stall near the compound. Eye in the Sky's original title was "Kill Chain" and the reasoning becomes evident as the rest of the film involves people referring up the chain of command to avoid making a decision. The running time consists mainly of people talking to each other on phones and via video screens, however Hood manages to make these scenes some of the tensest, most cinematic, Skype calls you will ever see.

Eye in the Sky highlights the "hawk" and "dove" nature of the politicians of the two countries involved, one memorable scene being the US Secretary of State angry that his game of table tennis is interrupted because the British are dithering. However, the film's demonstration of realpolitik was weaker and has been presented far more successfully in Armando Iannucci's In the Loop, a film based on the run-up to the Iraq War. The film also lacked any strong, coherent argument against the drone strike apart from the contrived little girl selling bread nearby; not touching at all on the long-term consequences of dropping a bomb on a Somali suburb. The film reduces the complicated morality of drone warfare to a simplistic choice: it's either this little girl or a terrorist attack in a busy shopping mall. There's no concern however for civilians nearby who aren't cute children, or that the potential civilian casualties from this attack could be used by Al Shabab to garner more support amongst the population.

Alan Rickman is fantastically dry in his last on-screen role as a British Lieutenant General and Aaron Paul is also very impressive, despite spending the majority of the film in a Portacabin with his finger hovering over the trigger. But while Eye in the Sky may be one of the year's most gripping thrillers, the film's morality is more dubious rather than ambiguous.

Since 2008, around 2800 people have been reported killed in drone strikes. The vast majority of those strikes run up the chain of command and back down relatively quickly, and are carried out without hesitation.

But you'd never know any of that watching this film, where prominent, decorated, diplomats sit, white-knuckled, solemnly carrying out their duty to get a single drone-strike right. You may infer from the film that this happens commonly, or even for every strike. If that were the case, strikes would take up a significant amount of these poor people's time. The unusually high-level nature of this strike is never addressed.

Conveniently, the British have their finger on the trigger, not America. Conveniently, it's not the British Airforce pulling the trigger, but the American. So there's an international inversion happening that keeps this film from being important, valid or thought provoking.

A Non-American has to make the hard call and kill for the greater good, which lets us off the hook. Conveniently, the drone-operators, who are American, get to be the heroic conscience of the film. They just won't take the chance of accidentally killing a young girl. They're just too valiant and honorable. They stand up to the chain of command, but a Britt is at the top, which makes their act hollow and without statement.

The melodrama is so dishonest, so clearly politically manipulated, I am baffled that anyone would ever take this film seriously. Alan Moore once said the film V For Vendetta was made by "people too timid to set a political satire in their own country." Well this is a film about the American drone program that doesn't have the guts to discuss the American drone program. Five stars given for being exceptionally well made. Five stars withheld for being insultingly brazen propaganda.

'Eye in the Sky's' main attraction was not for me the fascinating subject. It was not because of my love for the genre. It was because of the immensely talented cast, Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Barkhad Abdi and Aaron Paul have been great and more in other things, with my main reason for seeing 'Eye in the Sky' being Rickman in his final screen role before his ultimely death two years ago from pancreatic cancer (a loss still very deeply felt).

While not a flawless film as such, and it has proven to be a film that has polarised viewers, 'Eye in the Sky' is truly impressive. There are many fine things and its best elements are superb. What some have found heavy handed, dull, dubious morally and one-sided, was to me a film that was gripping, tense and one that approached its subject matter intelligently and strived not to be too conventional or too simple. Can totally understand the polarisation though, it's a controversial subject in the first place and it was always going to be very hard for any film how to approach it, 'Eye in the Sky' does this well.

Maybe the sentimentality towards the end is a touch too much and maybe the message was hammered home a little too thickly.

Otherwise, there was nothing to fault 'Eye in the Sky'. Where it most excels is with the casting, with Helen Mirren being cast against type and doing so with authoritative steel. Aaron Paul is as great as he was in 'Breaking Bad' and Barkhad Abdi shows his versatility in a role different to the one he had in 'Captain Phillips'. Alan Rickman however gives the best performance, he is commanding and splendidly droll and there was an element of poignancy too knowing that it was his last performance.

The film has nail-biting tension and suspense, unfolds deliberately but never dully (was actually on the edge of my seat the whole time) and was never hard to follow while not ever getting simplistic. It made a real effort to be balanced and handles a difficult subject with tact and intelligence, with it not overdoing or trivialising the full impact of the situation and bravely not falling into clichéd genre tropes or providing easy or over-convenient answers. The main point and moral is generally made effectively. The script is thoughtful and well written and some of the film is also very heartfelt and brings a lump to the throat.

It is a very well made film visually, having the right amount of grit and stylishness and capturing the claustrophobic confinement of the setting with authenticity. The direction is always at ease with the material and doesn't lose control or let go.

Although, truly impressive. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I can't see this film as an insider. I don't know enough about the realities of drone warfare. I would be surprised that those chosen to do the jobs would be so indecisive. Either you do the work of finding the worst of the worst and act on it, or you don't do it at all. To be so badly trained for the possibility of dealing with civilian casualties should probably be grounds for never being in this position. I'm not saying there is no room for compassion, but, let's face it, the people they were honing in on we're capable of a thousand times worse activity. The movie is contrived because if the bread salesman had been an emaciated, middle aged woman, I doubt that there would have been hesitation. It pulls at our heartstrings, right. The person I was most fearful for was the man who put his life in danger again and again, using devices to spy on the little compound. But he is also victimized by the filmmaker. He is careless with his remote control device, allowing that little boy to become a nuisance. What is the lesson here? What do we want to do with suicide bombers? Is all life sacred or isn't it? Those are the questions we need to confront.

The armed forces and political leaders would have established rules of engagement and operation well in advance so the agonised protracted dilemma about loss of life would not have been faced in real time.