Film Eye in the Sky

Scan page 10

“Eye in the Sky,” (2016), a film directed by Gavin Hood, written by Guy Hibbert, with Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman.

The arc of the suspense story is familiar enough. Be­ gin the tale in normal times, introduce a disruptive element whose threat deepens until it is ultimately destroyed, and conclude with a return to normalcy.

To this successful formula, “Eye in the Sky” adds a sheen of high seriousness by basing the film’s conflict on a moral question fraught with a contemporary ur­ gency. In the war against terrorism, what is the value of a single human life—especially when that life be­ longs to an innocent, young girl?

To sweeten the question, know that this child—hap­ piest when playing with her hula-hoop—is no terror­ ist herself and shows no inclination of ever becoming one. An early scene reveals her reluctant submission to sharia law and dislike of the Muslim extremists who would prohibit her free-spirited play. Foreigner she may be, but at bottom, she’s just like us. Hers, there­ fore, is a life that matters.

The story begins with Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren), a British officer in command of an in­ telligence unit, using surveillance drones to track an Islamic terrorist organization in Kenya. One of their leaders is a British national, who thus far has been an elusive target.

With the assistance of these U.S. Air Force drones and agents on the ground, the terrorists and their leaders have been detected and followed to a safehouse. A Kenyan military unit is standing by to arrest the group, until an undercover agent discovers that several young men are being outfitted with bombs hidden in suicide vests. The British-American mis­ sion is thus changed from “capture” to “kill,” which requires Col. Powell to obtain legal authorization.

Here the story and setting shift from military bun­ kers to government offices, back and forth, in a mad­ dening game of political hot-potato, as each political official tries to avoid taking responsibility for a deci­ sion that, should it backfire, would most certainly re­ sult in career-ending blame.

... Verizon (continued from page 12: “Verizon workers fight corporate greed”)

On.” Verizon started alleging that union sabotage was responsible for glitches in service. This was likely an exaggeration, if not an outright lie, to cover up incom­ petence of management and “tempo­ rary replacement” scabs who were at­ tempting to do strikers’ work.

On the 15th day of the strike, the com­ pany made their “last, best and final of­ fer.” Their wage proposal was improved to 7.5 percent over the life of the con­ tract. But they wouldn’t move on issues like lengthy out-of-town transfers, or limits on outsourcing—or even on off­ shoring of bargaining unit work. The of­ fer was rejected without scheduling any further palaver.

Strikers have received an outpouring of support in many local communities. One CWA worker from Local 1051 in Springfield, Mass., stated that they’ve received a much stronger expression 10 SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 2016 of support from people passing by the picket line than they had on their 2011 strike.

The two unions have mobilized im­ pressive demonstrations of thousands of members and allies in several cit­ ies. In an afternoon rally that took place on of the day of the walkout, about 8000 workers marched in the streets of New York City. They were joined by Democratic Party presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton at different times. Both candidates gave lip service in support of the striking workers, although it should come as no surprise that the Wall Street-backed Clinton has had close ties with Verizon in the past, even receiving a $225,000 honorarium for a speech given in 2013.

Senator Sanders paid a visit to a wire­ less retail store in Brooklyn, where he addressed a crowd of about 150 workers. As his campaign rallies have swelled into the tens of thousands, however, Sanders has failed to use them as a forum to rally solidarity with the Intensifying the legal and moral dilemma is the ap­ pearance next to the “kill site” of a young Kenyan girl of elementary-school age. She arrives to sell the bread her mother bakes and sets up a make-shift stand by the road-side. The presence of an innocent civilian could possibly abort the attack—a possibility the military officers are desperate to avoid. The American drone-operator, in fact, refuses to launch the Hellfire missiles on Col. Powell’s order and insists that appro­ priate procedures be followed and verified, despite the growing likelihood of a terrorist suicide bombing that would murder scores of people.

Therefore, given the imminent threat, Col. Powell de­ cides to go around the military regulations that would protect noncombatants. She issues a command-bysuggestion to one of her officers to create the com­ puter model that will “prove” the relative safety of the child when the bombs rain down. Permission is thus granted, and the airstrike is launched, with predict­ able results.

“Eye in the Sky” is an excellent film of its type. Tautly written, fast-paced, well acted and directed, the movie has earned critical and financial success. The flaws of the film, which become apparent with a slight degree of thought, are actually no obstacle to its popularity. Popcorn and propaganda mix well.

Of course, the characters must be simplified and the plot streamlined, but most importantly of all, the Americans and British—at least their military—must be favorably portrayed. Criticism is largely confined to government officials, who provide a convenient and enjoyable foil.

Begin with Dame Helen Mirren, who plays the colo­ nel in combat camouflage. She is an appealing contrast to the “testosterone-deprived” civilian politicians. As the latter bunch dicker and dither, her job is to bark, “We have to strike now!” with ever-increasing degrees of urgency.

Veteran actor Jeremy Northam, in the role of Defense Minister, shows that in his acting school days he sure­ ly earned top grades in the Spineless Bureaucrat and Sniveling Coward classes. The late Alan Rickman, as a character who need only be named “General,” is large­ ly limited to expressions of respectful exasperation with the politicians and government officials, all ap­ strike and to call on his supporters to join the workers on the picket line.

Although the Democratic Party has claimed to be the friend of organized la­ bor, it has frequently acted to snuff out working-class struggles. As far back as 1941, for example, “New Deal” Presi­ dent Roosevelt broke the 75-day AllisChalmers strike by sending in the Na­ tional Guard to smash the pickets.

A more modern example of betrayal of the labor movement by the Demo­ crats can be found in Chicago. On April 1, nearly 20,000 CTU teachers and sup­ porters gathered to fight austerity mea­ sures put forth by Republican Governor Bruce Rauner and Democratic Mayor Rahm Emmanuel to privatize schools, break unions, and cut desperately needed social services.

A few days later, in Connecticut, nearly 1000 marched to oppose $900 million in cuts proposed by Democratic Gov.

Daniel P. Malloy. In a state with one of the highest wealth gaps between the richest 1% and the 99%, it’s obvious is, a statement “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Only soldiers know the terrible price of war? Unspo­ ken in this simple-minded platitude is the presump­ tion that the fierce, unforgiving urgency of combat creates the circumstances that requires and even ex­ cuses any instance of indiscriminate killing. It’s the standard-issue defense of war crimes and atrocities. Of course, it is also a point that must not be men­ tioned, much less acknowledged.

Unacknowledged too is the consideration that hard­ ship and poverty are at the center of this movie, di­ rectly linking the soldier who fires the drone missile to the young girl who is killed by it. He’s sitting in a desert bunker, sweating, with a reluctant finger on the trigger, because, after college, jobs were scarce, and the Air Force offered four years of a secure income. The girl could have left the target site after selling her wares, but a plot twist allows her to re-sell them, and poverty compels her to stay. Financial need drives both these characters, damaging the psyche of one and destroying the body of the other—a word chosen for all of its connotations.

This is the story within the movie that the audience will not notice, much less consider. Will the film com­ pel many of its viewers to ask about the estimated number of civilian deaths resulting from drone air strikes? Not likely. Will many viewers notice that while the “Eye in the Sky” centers on the possible risk to one civilian, real-life scenarios frequently involve multiple victims? Again, not likely.

To ask these kinds of questions is to spoil the fun. Maybe soldiers know the cost of war, but movies are made to guarantee that audiences know the pleasure of it.

After the film credits roll, viewers of the movie will later that evening become viewers of television news. They will eventually see reports—if not one night, then another—of the U.S. military’s accidentally blow­ ing up a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghani­ stan, bombing a wedding party in Yemen, or Air Force gunships launching drone strikes that shred the flesh of dusky-skinned people in various parts of the world.

“Eye in the Sky” will reassure these viewers that every measure possible to secure civilian safety was considered and taken, even at risk to the lives of U.S. soldiers. Surely, the federal government and its armed forces could do no less.

After all, they’re the good guys. n that such cuts would affect the most vulnerable people in the state. Many social services would be without fund­ ing, schools would be closed, and 2000 state employees would find themselves unemployed. And all the while, no taxes would be increased on the rich.

In an era when walkouts of 39,000 are seldom seen, and the labor movement struggles to gain footing after decades of union busting by both the Demo­ cratic and the Republican wings of the ruling class, the battle being waged by the workers of the CWA and IBEW must be admired. A victory for the workers of Verizon would be momentous for the labor movement and an inspiration for workers not only in the U.S. but world­ wide.

At our press deadline, May 5, the unions have asked for support as they expand picketing and demonstrations at Veri­ zon stores nationwide. Verizon workers need and deserve active solidarity from the entire labor movement in what will likely be a bitter battle. n