Eye in The Sky Film Essay

Political Issues Based on the Film "Eye in The Sky" In Which Government Attitude, Which Decides Who Lives and Who Dies for The Cause of The Nation Is Examined



The film "Eye in the Sky" is somewhat a literal depiction of war fare between the drones. This is a flagrantly contrived film that examines the ethics of using remote control to kill. The subject was dramatized a year ago in Andrew Niccol's film "Good Kill." In this film, there is a simplistic device of the little girl in which it is made clear that the new ones have no chance of winning hearts. The debate is getting awful to change any mind; even though, there is no attempt to try and change the mind. That is where its strength lies. In the film "Eye in the Sky" the case is argued on all fronts: the merits and the perils of the radical approach of fighting wars. In the cast, there is Alan Rickman who seems to have run out of energy in his final appearance on the stage (Morgentern, 2016).



Throughout the movie, a little innocent girl plus her hula hoop's images keep appearing. Images that "eyes in the sky," a small drone automated bees and birds ever more threatening project on the numerous laptop screens of the grim faces of military, political officials in the United Kingdom, on a small cell phone in Africa, and the attack base located in Nevada. These small devices are capable of flying under the radar and entering into private homes to find out the inhabitants' hiding places. Although interesting to watch at the outset, they gradually become menacing on realizing that they will -- onscreen and off-screen - result in the watchers targeting humans. We watch both the politicians plus soldiers in the United Kingdom and the U.S. getting prepared not just to attack, but to make the resolution to attack (Mccurdy, 2016). This painful, process is known as "referring up" whereby every man or woman who panics about accountability and feels that it is necessary to have that decision made by passing the buck up the chain of command - even the PM, or that fails, passes it to their American allies, who although basically cannot comprehend why the British are so indecisive, give mixed responses (Mccurdy, 2016).



Although the moral dilemma of "Eye in the Sky" is one of the experiment that is relevant to the U.S. Coalition drone programme, its effect is negligible. Framing a debate on the drone warfare's ethics is risky since it disregards and conceals ethical questions that are much more pertinent. Instead of considering whether to murder one guiltless individual in order to save 80 persons, think of the morals of murdering many innocent people so as to kill a single guilty person. A report released by Reprieve established that as many as 1147 people might have been killed by the U.S. Coalition while trying to kill 41 men who were on their hit list. For instance, 221 people including 103 children were killed during CIA strikes in Pakistan in a bid to kill merely 4 men. These figures tell a totally different story to "Eye in the Sky." The movie does not only fail to explore the U.S. Coalition drone programme's actual utilitarian calculations, but its erroneous representation of the way targets are recognized actually makes this reality look impossible (Browne, 2016).



"Eye in the Sky" depicts target detection as a process that is closely followed as well as extremely accurate. Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) says: 'I cannot authorise a strike without a positive ID' after which the kill chain swings into action, banking on an assortment of technology to fulfill the Colonel's request. A micro-drone that looks like a beetle is then skilfully flown into the house where the terrorists are setting up their suicide bombing, and soon it captures premium video footage which is instantly relayed to the image analyst who is based in the U.S. The U.S. -- based analyst then proceeds to run the videotape through the facial recognition's software, and obtains positive IDs (Browne, 2016).



The film "Eye in the Sky" actually did a commendable job at depicting the all-inclusive work setting that persons involved in the program face. Using the doll as the general's daughter and the statement "I'm going to need you back here in 12 hours" were brilliant. It offered a true sense of the twin existence in all the drone community's aspects. The earlier exchange between the young sensor operator and the pilot showed that, apart from some economic and social reasons, their youth was also reason for their joining. Another thing that was too apparent in the entire film was their isolation from not just the decision-makers, but the rest of the drone program. Distance between participants and the mission is also another aspect. With the Defense Minister on the toilet seat suffering from food poisoning, or the U.S. Secretary of State on his ping pong in China and not wanting any interference, certainly depicts a perception which a good number of us share in regard to the general disconnect. The fact that this movie surpassed the pilot's and sensor operator's perspective was appreciated, and while it could have been even better if the Imagery Analysts had further role, it was able to depict the ethical weight carried in the mission's numerous roles (Westmoreland, 2016).



In this film, the law is omnipresent and critically examines the change of mission from capturing to killing. This law is rejected but it is subsequently approved through the use of legal language as well as application of the legal criteria. Even though, it is clear that the chain of command is adhered to, to the latter. Apparently, there is the running of a complicated calculation involving collateral damage. The calculation is run and rerun until the correct outcome is reached. Colonel Powell turns to the military legal advisor to help him not to break…