Hollywood's famous anti-war movie "Eye of the Sky" - the eternal paradox

Today's selection is a war movie "Eye of the Sky". This movie gave me a great shock at the beginning of my systematic viewing, and I revisited it for a short review, which was also shocking. For this masterpiece, there are too many things worth exploring, and it may not be possible to know one or two of them in tens of thousands of words. I'll just peek into the sun and talk a little bit.

The film takes place in Kenya, in a joint Anglo-American anti-terrorist operation, planning to capture terrorists on the way, accidentally discovered the suicide bomb attack plan, immediately changed the plan to bomb and eliminate, but because an innocent civilian was within the scope of the explosion, and caused many differences between the british and American political and military sides.

The Eye of the Sky is a U.S. military drone carrying missiles in the film, which can be monitored in real time at tens of thousands of feet and has a weapon system with lethal strikes.

The three main characters in the story are Colonel Catherine, the front-line commander of the bombing operation, Colonel Katherine, "Little Pink" as the young drone pilot Watts, and the well-known Professor Snape as General Frank. The three actors put aside the level of performance in this film, and they are quite plump in terms of the role itself. Colonel Catherine is an excellent tracker who is extremely persistent in the face of the target (tracking for six years) and a monopolist who pressures his subordinates to change the data in order to achieve the bombing mission; the drone pilot Watts is an ordinary person who joins the army to pay off student loans to play a courageous challenger later in the story; General Frank is both a decisive commander with extensive war experience and a father who is at a loss for choosing birthday gifts for his children.

At the heart of the story is an issue that has been discussed countless times, the choice of interests of the minority and the majority. The vast majority of people will choose the latter, and yes, I am the same, after all, dialectical thinking teaches us that to see the main contradiction and the secondary contradiction, people must have a big picture view. But reason exists only in calculations, no one wants to get their hands dirty, subject to moral self-blame and pressure from public opinion, but life is not a fairy tale, and there will always be someone to play the wicked, and this wicked man is General Frank. He has been decisive in the battlefield, and his social role determines that he needs to withstand the criticism and incomprehension of many people. Just as the end of the film comes from politicians using shameful words to each other, and the general's calm seriousness also contains a hint of contempt in response: "Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war."

There is a saying in the anime "Realm" that everyone carries sin at the beginning of the war.

Now that the order has been given, it's time for the story to end. No, if that's all there is to it, it's far from the best part of the film. The pilot of the drone played a human role, exercising his least powerful power to request that the attack instructions be re-examined. I don't know if a low-ranking soldier in reality really has such power, but it is undoubtedly a great stroke on the story level. Returning to reality, if the operation really fails because of the soldier's momentary hesitation, it will undoubtedly cause great disaster. We appreciate his spirit, but that does not mean that we approve of this kind of behavior, after all, it is the duty of the soldier to obey orders. The difference in the perspective of the position is also very likely to bring about wrong judgment and unexpected losses.

Like the tram paradox, war and morality are always opposites, just as there is no absolute fairness or freedom. This is always an unsolvable proposition, and which one would you choose, the bad outcome of shame and the worse outcome of inaction?

It's interesting to note that China also appears in the film, and there's a clip, because someone on a bombing mission has a U.S. passport, and in order to determine whether to continue or not, you need to ask the U.S. secretary of state who is visiting Beijing, of course, the result is certain, but the director's shot, you taste, you taste.