Originally published in the 8th issue of 2016, "Watching Movies Midnight", limited by the length stipulated by the magazine, I always feel that it has not been explained clearly, and it is quite unfinished; limited by certain publishing regulations, the magazine has a , with some minor revisions to sensitive words; the following is the original version:
Before "Eyes in the Sky", no film has achieved such a successful effect - using drones as the "protagonist" of the film, and won the audience's full applause. In the era of information warfare, military drones have become the "new darling" on the battlefield. The film and television works on the theme of war also seized the selling point in time, using the electronic optical equipment, infrared system, low-light TV and synthetic aperture radar of the drone as the lens to open the "God's perspective" of the drone for the audience.
The good attacker moves on the nine heavens
This isn't the first time military drones have appeared on the screen. In 2005, the "villain protagonist" in "Top Secret Flight" was a fully intelligent unmanned fighter jet that developed a "self-personality". However, this fighter is too advanced, and human technology has not been able to achieve it so far, making it more like a "fighter version" of "Terminator".
In 2006, "Mission Impossible 3" appeared in the footage of the U.S. MQ-1 "Predator" drone launching a missile. This same seemingly sci-fi scene has become a reality as early as the 2001 war in Afghanistan. Two years before the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan, drones were only used for reconnaissance and surveillance missions during the NATO airstrikes against the Yugoslavia. In 2007, in "Transformers", when the U.S. special forces fought against the "Sack Scorpion", an MQ-1 was the first to arrive on the battlefield, which timely provided the U.S. military command with image information intelligence.
Since then, drones have been flying on the screen frequently, and they are out of control. From 2008 to 2016, in "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "The Bourne 4" and "Killing in Goodwill", the U.S. MQ-1 "Predator" drone appeared. In "Hawkeye", "Skyline", "Dragon Special Forces", "8th SEAL: Deep in the Enemy" and "13 Hours of Crisis", the U.S. MQ-9 "Reaper" UAV appeared. Among them, "Skyline" also appeared in the X-47 "Pegasus" drone, which was still in the test, and launched a tactical nuclear bomb on the alien mothership. Some viewers mistook it for the U.S. B-2 "Ghost" stealth bomber. In fact, the bulky B-2 couldn't fly up and down as nimble as the X-47 in the movie. In "Eagle Eye", there is a "Wasp" 3 small drone that can be released by hand tossing. Even "Fast and Furious 7", a "car movie" that has nothing to do with aircraft, fictionalized a sci-fi version of the "Predator"-style drone with a forward-swept airfoil to join in the fun. In the nondescript "Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot", there are also clips of drone strikes, but no specific models are shown. In "Eye in the Sky", in addition to the MQ-9 "Reaper" hovering high in the sky, the miniature drones disguised as hummingbirds and beetles must have left a deep impression on the audience. These seemingly "sci-fi" technologies have become a reality.
Except for "Transformers" and "13 Hours of Crisis" directed by Michael Bay, the drones are only used for reconnaissance and surveillance, and the drones in other related movies have all performed ground attack or air combat missions, right? A true "air killer". Almost all the drones featured in the movie are US military models. This is of course due to the "double development" of the US military science and technology and the film and cultural industry. In the new military revolution and high-tech warfare led by the US military, it is the general trend that drones dominate the future sky. Even the hostile countries of the United States, as long as they have the technical conditions, are chanting through the official media that "the weakness of the US military's information warfare and the unreliability of UAVs", while working hard to develop their own UAVs.
"God" Perspective
Generally speaking, regular genre films don't use too many subjective shots. Since "Saving Private Ryan", war films have begun to feature frequent subjective shots to enhance the audience's "immersive" experience. This is a subjective lens based on shaking, and successfully found the main body that the audience can substitute - the officers and soldiers participating in the battle. The drone in the movie justifiably created a new lens language-"drone perspective". Essentially, the audience is put into the pilot of the drone, and what they see is the LCD screen of the console. The perspective of the drone has not changed the basic lens movement forms such as "push, pull, shake, move, lift, and drop", and the shooting angle is almost all overhead shooting. In past movies, it wasn't that there were no overhead shots or an omniscient "God" perspective. However, these lenses are difficult to find the subject to substitute. "Alexander the Great" hopes to show the grandeur of the battle of Gaugamela through high-altitude aerial photography, and has to substitute the perspective into an eagle. The advantage of the UAV's perspective is that the UAV's flight and monitoring methods allow it to continuously hover over the target, but the reconnaissance equipment is always aimed at the target, providing continuous target images without the target being aware of it. In extremely fast fighter jets, the pilots have to concentrate on flight control, unable to concentrate on monitoring for long periods of time, and the roar of the engines can also make the target run away, making the monitoring operation impossible.
In September 2014, when director Gavin Hood filmed the film in his hometown of South Africa, the South African government did not open its airspace to the drones it used for filming. In fact, all the drone perspective shots in the film were made through post-production visual effects. Even more surprising is that during the filming, the four main characters of the film - Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, Buckde Abati, who never even met, all It was shot alone with the director. As one of Alan Rickman's last works, people commemorate him and add to the popularity of the film. "Rickman has never been nominated for an Oscar, and it's hard to say now that he'll win Best Supporting Actor for this film, but he's in it," said Richard Roper, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. The performance is enough to prove his unique talent."
In the end, the film, which had a budget of $13 million, won $32.8 million at the box office. It has a 95% freshness rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is widely praised by audiences and critics.
The paradox of the war on terror
In any case, the drone is just a tool for the movie. The appearance of drones is not only to enhance the "force" of the movie, but the main purpose is to use its hovering and monitoring functions to create narratives. The same is true of "Eye in the Sky". The role of the drone perspective is to more clearly explain the causes, consequences and situations, which leads to the paradox of the war on terror-the collateral damage to civilians. In the past, people used to say that "bullets/shells/bombs" don't have eyes. Today, the accuracy and hit rate of guided bombs and missiles are enough to be regarded as "eyes." However, the power of the explosion makes collateral damage still unavoidable.
As early as 2014, the film "Killing in Kindness", which is also from the perspective of drones, once expressed such a theme. However, the emotional tendencies of this film are more emotional than rational thinking. The male protagonist and the female adjutant could not confirm whether the targets instructed by the CIA were terrorists, so they thought that killing them was indiscriminate killing of innocent people. This kind of judgment based on simple emotions and morals is obviously unconvincing, so that the film's criticism of war seems so pale. Since the Vietnam War, the anti-war ideology expressed by individualism versus nationalism has almost become "political correctness" in Europe and the United States. Some countries have kept a secret about the reflection on the previous political movements that have harmed their own people in their film and television works. The reason for this is nothing more than because they "eat too well and live too well".
In contrast, "Eye in the Sky", whose subject matter and perspective are highly similar to it, is much more successful. The entire movie is mostly limited to a few scenes, and it is mostly an indoor scene, but the rhythm is relaxed. The film was planned to be titled Kill Chain, which in military parlance means "target identification, assignment, determination, attack and destruction". In the movie, the program of the drone air strike follows exactly this step. The British government insisted on "political correctness" and asked for instructions step by step, causing the British army to delay the fighter planes many times. This kind of evasion and inefficiency of government departments and officials "has quite the style of my great dynasty." In the movie, the U.S. government is much more ruthless and efficient, with every order hitting the nail on the head.
In terms of standpoint, "Eye in the Sky" has no obvious emotional tendencies. It is neither completely biased towards "anti-war", but it also focuses on showing the harm of war to civilians. It seems that there is no answer - asking questions, not giving answers, can be more thought-provoking. It not only shows the tragic fate of an innocent little girl, but also reflects the necessity of the war on terror; it not only clarifies the cruelty of terrorists, but also shows that terrorists will lend a helping hand in times of crisis; it not only shows the "general" and The cold-blooded and chilling "female colonel" also showed their kindness and gentleness through details. Even with contradictory and classic lines, the dilemma of the war on terror is repeatedly expressed - "a YouTube video may also cause a revolution", "terrorists blow up 80 innocent people, we win; we blow up 1 An innocent person, the terrorist wins", "Never say that the soldier does not know the cost of war". The only official British person who really cares about the little girl's life and death is the "female political adviser" who is eventually refuted by the term "general" played by Rickman. However, her "Virgin of the Heart" is almost a "Virgin of the Bitch". No matter how profound the ethical dilemma of the "trolley paradox" is, it can only be considered in a philosophy classroom. At that critical juncture, the only thing needed is to act decisively.
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
