Eye in the Sky Parent Guide

The high technologies of war are upon us and Eye in the Sky opens our eyes to the moral and ethical dilemmas of joystick assaults. In this case, a US operated drone hovers thousands of feet above a Kenyan shantytown. With a precision zoom lens pointed at a house, British military Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is convinced she has pinpointed the location of three people on the UK and US most wanted terrorists list (one of whom is played by Lex King). In a global collaborative effort Airman First Class Lucy Galvez (Kim Engelbrecht) located in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, measures facial features from the drone’s camera and confirms the identities. This verification solidifies Powell’s determination to eliminate the targets. Figuring a catch like this should be a clear decision to “shoot-to-kill”, she’s frustrated when her request for permission from British Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) is met with delays.

Benson’s initial hesitation is based on the fact that two of the targets are British citizens, while the third is a US passport holder. A call to the US Secretary of State (Michael O’Keefe), who is visiting China, returns an immediate response: The American citizen is obviously a danger to the homeland so there is no question the termination is justified. Even more persuasive is the discovery, through the use of a tiny insect-like camera deftly controlled by an undercover Kenyan operative (Barkhad Abdi), that one of the men is suiting up in an explosives vest and preparing for a suicide bomb attack. With the “go” signal, a calculation of estimated collateral damage is made and it’s determined there is little chance of loss of innocent lives in the surrounding, densely populated neighborhood. That is until a young girl, oblivious to what’s happening, appears and sets up a stand to sell bread just outside the terrorist’s fence.

At this point Powell orders the US drone pilot, located on an air force base in Las Vegas, Nevada, to pull the trigger. But Lieutenant Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) reads the rules of engagement back to Powell, and exercises his right to demand a new collateral damage report be generated that takes the girl’s location into account. Not surprisingly odds are good she may die, or at the very least be severely injured. This leaves a frustrated Powell with no other option but to work her way up the chain of command which results in a massive ethical debate. The question posed: Should one innocent life be taken to prevent the likely loss of many more in a suicide bombing?

This is a dialogue heavy film that pulls audiences into the moral issues of real world threats and examines our desire to avoid putting “boots on the ground.” It depicts an increasing reliance on unmanned aircraft and sophisticated surveillance equipment (some of which are still fictional) that are monitored and controlled by people far detached from the actual threat. The exceptions in this story are the Kenyan operatives who, somewhat like the robotic drones, are puppets asked to risk their lives after receiving orders in a text message.

Solid performances and a taut script kept me on the edge of my seat as the movie worked toward an uncertain conclusion. All I’ll say is this British film doesn’t necessarily adhere to American filmmaking constructs. Yes, the terrorists are the “bad guys”, but values and principles are the real combatants as the script tackles classical ethics (like consequentialism and negative responsibility) and teeter-totters between choosing or neglecting the good of the one in favor of the good of the many. While the military wants the deed done now, other voices see the slaughter of an innocent child as unforgiveable—and the public relations consequences as a nightmare. These two points of view are carefully balanced throughout.

Parents and/or teachers considering sharing this fine movie with teens should be aware of brief grotesque images of corpses and scenes of injured people with blood effects. Infrequent profanities include at least five uses of a sexual expletive (the likely reason for the MPAA’s R-rating in the US) and a few Christian religious expletives. However, Eye in the Sky offers a unique perspective that could lead to some important discussions between older adolescents and adults.

About author

Rod Gustafson

Rod Gustafson has worked in various media industries since 1977. He founded Parent Previews in 1993, and today continues to write and broadcast the reviews in newspapers, on radio and (of course) on the Internet. His efforts also include writing and researching media in all its forms and observing how it effects society and culture. He and his wife Donna have four children.