3 years ago500+ Views
There's always that one critical moment of psychological disposition at the job site where anything could change at a given moment, even if you have to do so by permission. Then there's the debates of how to execute the perfect action from different view points. That's what you could call emotional paralysis. In fact, keeping tabs from a viewpoint can change from anywhere, especially on a classified mission. So, here's what I've learned.
Somebody's looking.
Observation is the key game in the movie. Colonial Powell is at the forefront in the basis of the operation, along with other members of the military and political figures. And if there is a god above, it would be the surveillance drone provided by Lieutenant Watts, and others looking in on possible suspects from different parts of the globe. That's the not the point of the film to show some action on the ground. It's about spying on what is left from the public. Whatever may happen, which includes breaking privacy in order to report possible drastic actions, it is clear that the one who's watching will know everything.
Risk assessment.
Before proceeding over a collaboration that could potentially endure a certain amount of people to die, you need administrators and advisers to perform a legal warrant to reduce the collateral damage surrounding the target area. Each choice, in this case when a child shows up near the target area where terrorists are plotting their next uproar, will be the most difficult. And not the kind of difficulty where you can cheat your way out. There is a long debate from five superiors over whether or not to capture or kill the enemies and, as you can tell if you've seen the film, lots of frustration is happening. The big question is either kill and complete the mission and explain how illegal it can be when innocent victims are killed, or let the enemies go on with their mission which will increase the level of urgency for future threats and saving most lives in the surrounding area, and having to explain in a report the cost of avoidance and not fulfilling your duties. Risks like these lead to the overall casualty of war: Truth, hence the quote at the opening credits.
The cost of war.
In the end when all is said and done, you have to move on with your day. Another job well done and a paycheck. What you actually give up is your innocence and converge guilt upon yourself, and trusting your team to keep the facts on the down low. The movie is intense during each issue that's brought up, making it a complex thriller. Of course, there are no happy endings when something unexpectedly pops up and you have to avert in another direction; you have to know what you're going to give up and being ready to do so.
Special mention: Alan Rickman's character, Lieutenant General Benson, is someone who makes the struggle of making his fellow politicians fall in to the mission accordingly is quite the relieve, and yet, wounded way of looking on what happens in the field. Being in the armed forces for a long time, Benson is the true definition why you shouldn't argue about what trauma is like versus what others who have not seen it, but keep barraging the subject otherwise.
So, what did you think of Eye In The Sky? What were some things you found interesting?
1 comment
I never saw this but by the sound of what you wrote its right up my dad's alley. Sending this to him ASAP!