Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WAR FILMS HAVE been around for a long time in Hollywood. All Quiet on the Western Front, Apocalypse Now and Platoon all spring to mind – but they can often lack realistic detail of what is the reality of war.
In modern warfare there are less boots on the ground these days and more drones in the sky carrying out the dirty work. There are over 10,000 military drones in operation around the world.
Eye in the Sky, starring Helen Mirren and the late Alan Rickman, is one of the first films to shine a light on the legal and ethical dilemma with the use of drone attacks.
The Hollywood movie focuses on Colonel Katherine Powell, played by Helen Mirren, who is in command of a top secret drone operation to capture military targets in Nairobi.
Just when they think they have secured their target, the operation stalls when a nine-year-old girl enters the kill zone. Action is needed and as the minutes pass a decision must be made on whether the military should carry out the strike.
Making decisions from a room
Ethical discussions ensue between military leaders, soldiers, and government ministers on what is the correct decision. If they strike, they kill their targets, but also risk killing the young girl. If they don’t, their targets escape and could go on to carry out further atrocities.
War waged by remote control, with men and women thousands of miles away in an office making the call, is often the reality of war these days. The film raises the issue of whether the consequences are as considered as were the people on the ground pulling the trigger.
Chris Lincoln-Jones, a former artillery officer with a career spanning 25 years, was the military advisor on set.
As an Intelligence Surveillance and Target Acquisition Specialist he has specialised knowledge of unmanned air systems and has operational experience in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Cambodia, Afghanistan and the Libya Campaign.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie, Lincoln-Jones said Eye in the Sky is the most accurate portrayal of modern war he has seen.
“Those moral discussions do take place,” he said.
He advised the director, Gavin Hood, on the tactics that would be used in a situation like this, the procedures that would have to be carried out under rules of engagement, right down to the uniforms, where he supplied real medals worn by the actors.
In most war movies, when decisions are made, they are just done, without question. However, in reality, it is very different, explained Lincoln-Jones.
‘Referring up’
During the movie, when decisions can’t be made or are outside Mirren’s control, the saying “refer up” is used, whereby a military lawyer steps in to tell the colonel if she is operating within the rules of engagement agreed for the mission.
If he can’t tell her she is in the clear, she has to put it to the Attorney General and on to the relevant government ministers to make the call.
So, does this really happen? Yes, says Lincoln-Jones.
“The interaction between the lawyer and Dame Helen Mirren, that was really realistic.”
“Every year there are military training tests. One is on law of armed conflict (LOAC). It is set in stone, yearly,” he said.
Collateral damage
LOAC training informs military personnel “what is lawful and what is proportional”.
Sitting in a room in Las Vegas, the drone pilots Steve Watts, played by Aaron Paul and Carrie Gershon, played by Phoebe Fox, get visibly emotional throughout the mission at the thought that the young girl could die at their hands.
Lincoln-Jones said the emotion portrayed in the movie is for dramatic effect.
He was in the bunker where Mirren shot most of her scenes. He said he would often step in and tell the director that certain emotions would just not be present in an operation like this.
“I’m making a drama, Chris, not a documentary,” the director told him, adding that he understood drama was needed in the movie if it was going to appeal to an audience.
In reality, Lincoln-Jones said emotion or upset really would not happen in the tactics of war.
“Our rules are strict. When you get orders to execute you wouldn’t delay. The pilots I know wouldn’t be so bothered about it – they would regret it – but they would look at the wider picture,” said Lincoln-James.
Dealing with emotions
He explained that pilots are specially trained to put their emotions aside in conflict and execute the orders given to them, trusting that the senior officials have a mission to complete.
The movie also features robotic birds and beetles that spy on the terrorists in the target house by flying inside buildings and sending back video images.
Lincoln-Jones said the micro prototypes are based on real-life military initiatives, however, he said the movie uses liberties as nothing as advanced is being used in the field at present.
Facial recognition software also features, as does software that give a “collateral damage estimate”.
The military analyst uses the software to look at the area where death or injury will be most prevalent in the strike zone. Lincoln-Jones said this system is in operation and basically attempts to predict where a blast will impact the most, and give a percentage estimate on the loss of life or injury of civilians.
What percentage risk to the innocent is acceptable?
In reality, it depends on the mission. In the movie, the leaders want it below 50%.
Eye in the Sky raises some important questions about the future of warfare. Many leaders in the past have said that war is a necessary evil, and in order to spare the lives of soldiers technology has stepped in, removed the boots on the ground and allowed drones be operated by soldiers thousands of miles away.
Eye in the Sky makes for tense viewing, as the leaders sitting in a boardroom make decisions from far away and soldiers control the MQ-9 Reaper drone and Hellfire missiles from the comfort of their chair.
“It’s the most accurate and authentic portrayal of what actually happens,” said Lincoln-Jones.
If you watch the news, see the air strikes and really want to understand what goes on behind the scenes, this film will be an awakening to most about the removed, cold and calculated approach to modern warfare.
Eye in the Sky is out on general release.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Is this like jobsbridge but overseas?
How many billions have the countries mentioned spent on arms and wars in the past few decades alone?
There are thousands of Irish families in severe need, get that sorted before looking overseas for people to help.
we need all our volunteers at home to try and sort our own country out,could we just curtail the do gooding for a while,i think at this stage we are not respected for all our relentless do gooding we do,,we are probably look on as fools in some quarters.
What? Volunteering to help the worlds poorest is a bad thing? Encouraging people to expand their horizons and to help others, while doing good is bad?
Noel we have many volunteers in this country, I’m in my final year studying community development with little job prospects at the min of a job in what I’d like to. I’d rather use my 4 years education in overseas development as a volunteer and gain experience as in Ireland if I were to volunteer in this kind of work people would be saying it’s job displacement which of course it is. Now you see my situation which of the two is more beneficial to me and the community here and overseas, a year overseas working and developing my professional skills or be another statistic on the live register
Large scale aid, corruption, mass immigration along with the other globalisation policy of fractional reserve banking foisted onto the 3rd world thereby creating a massive debt burden have a lot to do with keeping Africa in poverty. The worst thing one can do is strip a country’s people of their will to fight, become resourceful or independent & siphon off the people who are most capable & energetic to effect that change. A draw down of aid, end to mass immigration, whilst fostering help in other ways would in the longer term end the cycle of constant impoverishment in the 3rd world.
How many billions in aid have we sent in addition to the above volunteer efforts for decades. Yet if indigenous Europeans wish to protect their ethnicities, protect their ethnic territories, they are told by the recipients of our generous never-ending aid, that we are evil & racist.
Volunteers me ar*e! They’ve been goin out foreign for the past 50 years and what have the done to help long term??? Nothing!! Leave them fend for themselves for once and they might start getting off their arses and help themselves!
Charity begins at home!
The immigration industry & Immigrant Council of Ireland have deemed your comment to be racist. You are being investigated for hate-speech & thought-crime.
Volunteer my arse, for what? To make some CEO a nice bonus on the back of my hard work or provide a nice election setup to a candidate claiming my work. Thats what it is really about. money ,power ,political movement, not helping people.
Some very disappointing negative opinions around volunteering. I had the pleasure of volunteering in Malawi in a clinical professional capacity for almost 6 months in 2012/13. The opportunity was very worthwhile and I believe one grows and matures in many ways from the experience. I self-funded this time away. Many are unaware that volunteering is very costly. Including opportunity cost and actual costs of flight and daily expenses I estimated that it costed €30,000 for 6 months. On this basis might it be worthwhile that the Irish government perhaps contribute less financially to individual countries but support individuals who wish to go to these countries? Additionally, I would like by law (similar to mat leave) job protection for individuals who volunteer in developing countries. In other words if an employee wants to volunteer abroad the same job protection right are afforded as a female going on mat leave.
So true it ain’t like there’s too many jobs out at home
I am too self obsessed for the volunteering lark but at least I admit it.
Though I would gladly volunteer to help the needy in Australia providing I got my flight, food and accommodation all paid for me.
have your say