**SPOILERS BE HERE!!
** Eye In The Sky (Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman)
Just saw this last night, and boy was I disappointed. I’d like to hear what those of you with experience in the military have to say about it, because I thought the movie was preposterous.
Highly trained soldiers in sensitive hi-tech positions, dragging their feet while examining their consciences, in open defiance of direct orders because a child wandered into a dangerous area?
I have no military experience, but to me this seemed unlikely in the extreme. Pulled me out of the movie entirely. In my ignorance, I would think Mirren’s order to FIRE would have been executed immediately, movie over.
It’s a piece about acceptable collateral damage and moral choices made. Military members are not obliged to carry out every order, after all - there’s the issue of legality for a start, and then there’s the interpretation of the rules of engagement, and at what level on-the-spot grey-area decisions are made at. It’s a film that tries to illustrate that.
I have no military experience, but I thought the film was a version of the trolley problem. The military could do nothing, and the people in the house would strap on the suicide vests and go on to kill multiple people. Or they could blow up the house, but the girl selling bread would probably be killed.
[Semi-serious answer]The movie is about how the British consider themselves more civilized than the Americans.[/Semi-serious answer] As an American watching this movie, I found myself agreeing with the American officials in the movie who were perplexed that this issue was even being referred that far up the chain of command. A crowd of innocent people in a square or market outweighs one innocent child selling bread, every day and twice on Sunday. :rolleyes: Needs of the many and all that.
As to legality, the Brits were working with the Kenyan government, and presumably the Kenyan general and his troops had authority for the armed raid they had been planning before the suspects moved. The drone and its rockets is merely a different weapon than the Kenyans’ rifles.
My thought when the Brits were dithering, kicking the problem farther and farther up their Cabinet, was that Mirren’s character should’ve asked the Kenyan general to ask his civilian boss (Minister of Defense or Prime Minister) for authorization. :smack: It’s their country and their citizens, I would be very surprised if they would weigh one girl more heavily than a whole crowd of people, and then the British Cabinet officials could salve their consciences.
I haven’t seen the movie, but the discussions raised some questions. Why is there reference to one little girl, and separate references to a crowd of innocent people?
Interesting comments, much appreciated, but I’d like to narrow my focus to a more specific question. For the moment, put aside the movie’s obvious allegorical properties.
Now- consider the American drone pilot/triggerman. He’s locked on to his target, ready to pull the trigger when the order comes. Soon enough, the order in fact is given.
**My question is: in the real world, wouldn’t his reaction be to immediately obey the order? Isn’t that what soldiers do?
**
Fire at will upon my ignorance.
The drone pilot’s job is to obey lawful orders. The reason for his hesitation is because he isn’t confident that the order to fire falls within the established rules of engagement.
