Movie Analysis Through The Lens Of NATURAL LAW and ANARCHY - EYE IN THE SKY

steeminganarchy (69)in #anarchy • 7 years ago (edited)

Euphemism-free analysis of the ethical and psychological aspects of Hollywood films.

"Eye In The Sky" from 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015_film)

Premise: A military themed thriller film. According to wikipedia, it “highlights the ethical challenges of drone warfare”.

Premise without euphemisms:

Murderous-order-following gang propaganda. Attempts to justify murder.

Basically, the entire film revolves around psychopaths calling themselves government debating weather or not murdering a little girl is acceptable in order to murder some "Bad Muslims" in Nairobi, Kenya.

The “thrilling” part is supposed to be: “Will the order-followers pull the trigger and murder a child with a missile, or not?”

Themes and psychological aspects in the film (all of which, in reality, are not moral and/or true):

Authoritarianism

Order-following as a virtue

Praising hired murderers (troops)

Normalization of drone surveillance

US Government Mafia and UK Government Mafia coordination

Ubiquitous surveillance/Big Brother is here and inevitable, so get used to it

Government as protector

Dangerous Muslims “Us” vs. “Them” dialectic. (fails to point out, of course, that many psychopathic murderers from the Middle East are funded and trained by disgusting individuals within “Western” military organizations)

Creates a controlled debate dialectic. For nearly the entire film, various authoritarians in different “government” positions debate the “ethics” of firing a missile from a drone in order to murder some “terrorists”, with the unintended consequences of murdering a child as “collateral damage”. So the debate is framed like this:

How much murder by people in costumes is morally acceptable?

Meanwhile, what is never mentioned in the film (of course), but should be painfully obvious to a peaceful anarchist knowledgeable of Natural Law is:

The individuals wearing costumes, funded by extortion, and murdering around the world are the biggest terrorists on the planet. Murder is not acceptable. Period.

And what does a statist see in the controlled debate that is offered up by the movie?

Yes, it’s heartbreaking that things like this have to happen, but that little girl died for the “greater good” (some bad guys got killed). The troops did what they had to do.

In addition to this, it’s amazing how many “government agents” (individuals claiming the right to do violence, a right that doesn’t exist) in the film “pass the buck” to one another, up and down various levels of hierarchy. Nobody really wants to “suffer” any political or moral consequences by “authorizing” the murder of a child.

Except for one…..

One of the main characters of the film is Colonel Katherine Powell.

She spends nearly the entire film having conference calls with various other psychopaths calling themselves government, in an effort to have the murderous drone strike "authorized".

At one point, she actually asks one of her “subordinates” to fudge some numbers to make it look like a lesser chance that the little girl will die in the drone strike. She wants the numbers fudged, of course, because her psychopathic “superiors” that she’s trying to convince to “authorize” the strike, have some arbitrary idea of a number they call “acceptable risk”.

Meanwhile, the movie never mentions that the two order-followers who are actually controlling the drone and are ultimately responsible for firing the missile and for murder, are the ones in control.

They can choose to murder, or not.

Choose to follow orders, or not.

Instead, as in nearly all Hollywood films, they are indirectly portrayed as some form of biological robots who must “follow orders”, as if not following orders is inconceivable.