Eye in the Sky (2016) ☆ ☆ 1/2

Modern warfare is wholly different than it used to be, as evidenced by Eye in the Sky, in which suspected terrorists in Kenya are targeted for capture by British and American forces, and then as the situation escalates, termination.  But this story isn’t about combat — it instead explores the moral implications of using a drone strike which is almost certain to involve civilian casualties.  The story becomes a political parlor game in which responsibility is something to be avoided if at all possible because of the terrible consequences of war.

Gavin Hood’s film is solidly structured and acted, employing heavyweight talents Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Jeremy Northam, Iain Glen, Aaron Paul, Barkhad Abdi and Phoebe Fox to guide the audience through the nuances of long-distance warfare and the legal maneuvering that is now inevitable in such situations.  It is fascinating to watch, yet intrinsically troublesome to consider, especially when one specific young girl (Aisha Takow) sits down to sell bread at exactly the wrong place at the wrong time.

The girl’s presence is the film’s moral compass — yet it is also it’s biggest fault.  The surveillance used to follow and target the suspected terrorists is smart and impressive, giving us taxpayers a glimpse into a world we hardly ever see, and the capabilities our funding is providing for this stuff to happen.  The weakness is the human element; cooperating Kenyan forces are nearby, but unable to deploy for a political reason I don’t recall.  Nobody thinks to send a few men, at irregular intervals, to buy the youngster’s bread and guide her away from the targeted house.  Instead, one man (Abdi) risks his life and almost blows the entire operation.  The lack of preparation and common sense at this critical juncture just about sinks the drama just when it should be at its most intense.

The film also suffers because officers watching computer screens and calling each other is just not cinematic, no matter how it is dressed up for the cameras.  The drone always shows the house at the same angle (impossible if it is circling the area) and, oddly, the person everyone is trying to capture leaves the room under surveillance and nobody watching mentions that she has disappeared.  Plus, the action inside the house under surveillance clearly calls for immediate action, no matter the cost, so the interminable delays are infuriating (which is partly the point, of course).  This good premise is only partially fulfilled.  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  6 April 2016.

Leave a Reply