The movie Eye in the Sky directed by Gavin Hood is a British thriller war movie that follows the story of a lieutenant general (Alan Rickman) and a colonel (Helen Mirren) along with their political and military alliances. The characters of the movie face a moral and political dilemma when a young girl is caught in the radius of a drone missile strike to take out a group of high value targets in Kenya who are getting ready for a suicide bombing. The movie is a lot to unpack in itself as it is both emotionally and mentally suspenseful. While there were several things that can be discussed about the film such as: the ethics involved, foreign policy, and the effects a decision like this could make on one’s mental health. I will be discussing the concept of myth and the gender roles challenged within the movie.
On the topic of myth and stories, I think the biggest thing that stood out to me was the idea of propaganda. It was made clear that, even for a moment, the decision was to allow the suicide bomber to continue with their assault in order to keep up an image. This can be seen when it is said that “If we kill one girl, they win the propaganda war, but if they kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war.” This really hit home when it comes to the importance of story. Propaganda is crucial in the art of war, because it dehumanizes the enemy, either internal or external, by creating a constructed image of the opposing side. This allows hatred to form towards said enemy. This opens the door for soldiers to be more driven, citizens to get behind a political movement and the citizen of the opposing nation to revolt. Much like the movie, propaganda relies of the emotions of the audience to bring to surface a reaction, in many cases unity or nationalism.
Equality important is gender roles within this film. Specifically, the effect that “boardroom warfare” has on the viewer’s idea of masculinity. By definition, masculinity is the characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men. For many reasons, warfare is seen to be masculine. For example, when thinking of war one usually thinks: strength, courage, violence, and many more. Most of which, are words typically associated with men rather than females. I personally believe that there are both masculine and feminine features in battle, which is probably why there are both male and female deities for war in most cultures. However, I think that Boardroom warfare seems more feminine. Simply because the way the movie portrays it. Unlike on the battlefield, the pilots and chain of command were able to rationalize their decisions and discuss possible outcomes with one another. Giving this style of warfare a more intellectual and strategical feel. On the battlefield, I think, there is less organized thought, and you are more reliant on your instincts and physical strengths. It also seems like Boardroom warfare allows room for more emotion because you are not in immediate danger and can express your emotions without it costing your life.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie appreciated that it challenged my perspective of war, ethics and opened my eyes to what it may be like to experience such a intense situation. I believe that the director, Gavin Hood, did a beautiful job at balancing the suspense in what, in theory is a simple story, making it more developed and enthralling. One of my favorite parts of the movie was the emphasis on the doll. While not directly related to the story, I believe it plays on the idea that although these men and women’s decisions have led to the death of several other humans their lives still continue. Life does not stop in these events and they must continue on with their lives. This can also be seen when the pilots are told to report back for duty in 12 hours. As a whole, this movie shows the truth and complexity of the concept of truth and story.
Works Cited:
Hood, Gavin, Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, and Alan Rickman. Eye in the Sky., 2016.
“Masculinity, n.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, January 2021
REL 310 Movie Reviews 
I agree with the part about the idea of propaganda throughout this film. The director makes it a point for the audience to understand how each decision, the officers and people in high-ranking governmental jobs, has a further impact on people past the battlefield. It also brings to light how easily peoples’ opinions about something can sway. I also enjoyed this movie because it challenged the typical tropes of a war movie; this movie did not have a lot of physical tension with bullets flying around at all times. It instead made the viewer think about their own morals and what they would do in this scenrio.
LikeLike
Great job in your description in the themes, motives, and emotions portrayed by the movie! I like how you examine the components of war and war films that are usually associated with either masculinity or being feminine and show why they are able to be parts of either genders role. Highlighting the differences in boardroom and battlefield warfare was also a good way of showing examples of why traits for both genders are important in war.
LikeLike