Eye In The Sky (2016): Trolleys and Drones

Eye In The Sky, the new drama starring Helen Mirren, engagingly updates and enlivens the moral quandary known in ethical studies as the Trolley Problem, within the gripping context of drone warfare and the struggle against Islamic terrorism. It sucks you in, holds you tight, and leaves you with something to chew on when the lights come on.

Imagine that you are a military commander charged with seeking out and capturing terrorists in a friendly, but vulnerable African nation.  Your intelligence says that some high level insurgent leaders will meet today at a compound in the capital city. Local government forces on the ground are ready to assist if you can confirm that the meeting is, in fact, happening and that the bad guys are actually there.  You’ve got  super-sophisticated spy drones – eyes in the sky, so to speak – surveying the scene. Watching from a remote location, you see a vehicle arriving at a compound. Several people get out and enter the small house. This may be what you’ve been waiting for, but you need to confirm the suspects’ identities before you can act. In the process of doing that, you also see vests loaded with high-powered explosives and two men beginning to suit up. It's not just a pow-wow you are watching! They’re preparing a suicide bombing - an attack, probably imminent, presumably in the nearby marketplace, i.e. an explosion which may kill and maim scores of people. Now what?

Imagine that your drone also carries a precision missile which could take out the terrorists right now. Should you use it?  Would it matter if some of the terrorists are citizens of your own country? What about 'collateral damage'?  If some nearby residents might be injured or killed, but hitting the compound could save many more innocents in the marketplace, do you pull the trigger? Suppose there’s a little girl sitting just outside the compound walls? Would just seeing her there affect your decision? Which is worse – risking the death of a child or other innocents in the course of taking out bad guys, or doing nothing, despite the probability that many more civilians will thus be killed by the terrorists? In this connection, is it even morally acceptable to kill remotely, via drone strike? If you choose inaction, do you become morally responsible for the subsequent suicide bombing? Should political or other P.R. ramifications play a role in your decision?  Is it even your decision? If not yours, whose?

 

This is the setup and a few of the questions contemplated by Eye In The Sky, directed by Gavin Hood (Enders Game [2013], Tsotsi [winner of the 2006 Oscar for best foreign language film]). Mirren is Colonel Katherine Powell, a British commander in the hot seat in Surrey, UK. Given the potential shift in her mission - from capture to kill – Col. Powell requires hierarchical authorization to approve a missile strike.  Her superior officer, Lt. General Frank Benson (the late Alan Rickman [Harry Potter series, Sense and Sensibility (1995)] sits in a London situation room along with his legal advisor and two members of the British cabinet, monitoring the bad guys in Nairobi, Kenya.  The operation had been pre-authorized, but the discovery of suicide bombers has raised the ante considerably. There is very little time and a quick decision is needed.  But is this decision – a matter of life and death - one for the military or for the politicians?  Is it within General Benson’s  jurisdiction? The cabinet officers'? Or ought they go further up the chain of command – to the British PM or even to the White House?  

The Americans are also part of the deal, you see.  And the drone pilots, played by Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad) and Phoebe Fox (A Poet In New York (2014), operating out of a shed in Nevada, have moral issues of their own to confront – for they can also see what’s happening on the ground, and they, ultimately, will be the ones to  pull the trigger.  Then there is Jama Farah (Somalian actor Barkhad Abdi [Captain Phillips (2013)]), an operative just outside the Nairobi compound, and the one member of the team whose life is personally at risk here.

Everyone is in place early on, and, except for Farah, all are far removed from the terrorists neighborhood – sitting (or standing) in rooms loaded with computer terminals and screens – remotely watching. The paucity of physical “action”, makes for a  remarkably static thriller. And indeed, the strength of this picture is neither plot nor derring do. If it is not as visceral or suspenseful as certain episodes of shows like Homeland or action-thrillers such as the Bourne movies, Eye In The Sky is nevertheless emotionally and intellectually quite gripping due to the taut situation it presents and the finesse with which it explores that situation.  

It works because director Hood keeps it simple and focused, frequently shifting tone and perspective, and economically setting up a most plausible yet morally complex scenario, while tautly and intelligently exploring its ethical, emotional and geopolitical ramifications. Although there is very little backstory, the actors manage to draw us in, allowing us to see them as individuals and to empathize with their doubts, their frustration, their personal convictions, and seemingly to see the gears turning in their heads, as they struggle with their responsibilities.  

I also found the technical elements of the story – use of ultra-tiny  spy drones (some as small as flying beetles) and international video and telephone connections for instant consultation, as two examples – to be amazing and fascinating (and maybe a bit scary), particularly because the filmmakers have assured us that all this high-tech stuff is accurate and true, not just Hollywood sci-fi.

Recommended.

Eye In The Sky opens nationally in the U.S. in select theaters beginning on Friday, March 11, 2016 in New York and L.A. and March 18 in other metro areas, including the SF Bay Area.