At the end of the movie, when the two drone pilots weepily walk away into the sunrise the camera pans up and away and the title of the movie appears on-screen again. Immediately I thought of a deeper reference to the film's title (besides drones, obviously). God. God is the "eye in the sky" always watching us, judging us, holding us to ethical standards. It makes sense regarding the ethical and moral conundrums of the film.
Just a theory (I'm agnostic) but I think it's intentional, based on the ham-fisted moralising of the film.
god is in the ground, not in the sky. Else not, people would not bury their lost in the ground but would send their in the sky (by burning them, not bury them).
in the ground, god can see nothing at all of what is append on earth, that is why there is a lot of injustice things and events in the world.
In the sky, there is satan who is the puppet master because it can see all.
You are wrong, God and Satan are the singular entity - an entity that exists entirely as a spoil for humanity.
In this case, the OP is correct in that the film may be referencing drone warfare as being akin to a 'higher power' or humans playing at being gods (be those gods christian, satanic or even pagan).
What gives one human (or group of humans) the right to decide the fate of other humans from a position of total distance and safety? This is the real question the film Eye in the Sky asks - yes, each character in the film has their own POV, as reference points for us to form our opinions - but the central question is never resolved.
as i say, What gives one terrorist (or group of terrorist) the right to decide the fate of other humans from a position of total religious guide? This is another question the film Eye in the Sky DID not show.
Terrorists, who chose the public place (to not be easily shoot by army) , are the real repsonsable of collateral damage, and it is certainly not the remote drone pilot, neither the army.
but, without a "global policeman" state, the world would be ever ever ever worse than actually !
don't expect single people would regroup to form a global police in the world whereas the bad people (terorist, religious activists...) regrouped themselves...
America have a background to play the hard job task.
but, without a "global policeman" state, the world would be ever ever ever worse than actually !
We don't know because we haven't been able to experience it this millennium.
don't expect single people would regroup to form a global police in the world whereas the bad people (terorist, religious activists...) regrouped themselves...
Who knows?
I agree fundamentalists, in all forms, be they religious, capitalists or SJWs, are bad but I think they should all be given space to resolve themselves internally first.
I do not think that the human species is mature enough for a globalised world.
America have a background to play the hard job task.
Except they are not taking the position of a purely righteous policeman. Under the guise of democracy, they are actually spreading corporatism and most of the world is opposed to this, especially the fundamental religious world.
For instance - I bet the majority of middle eastern people, though being Muslim, dislike the actions of fanatics like Isis. But I bet all of them hate the amount of McDonald stores that have popped up in their countries over the last 20 years.
There is very little difference to what America is doing now to what the Christians did in previous centurys - except that instead of preaching conversion to a Christian God, they are preaching conversion to consumerism.
reply share
look at where there are conflicts and not "world american police" there, it is worse :
- where "police chinese " is - where there is no petrol and war (africa) - where there is no good weather, no petrol, no interets at all
if the world police state was russia or china, the world will continue to criticize the concept of a world police (because ONU is a failure).
When "a God" is the world global cop, no one commplains. Strange fact. When the Weather too.
The movie also demonstrates that no one want to be the puppet of another man or country whereas it accepts to be killed by a god or the weather (natrual catastroph).
in this world like in this movie, i think it is very strange that no one complains of been the puppet of terrorists whereas people protest against comercial and marketing power (a custom is a puppet now).
speaking of me, i think the most strage thing in the world and conflicts, that is there not a global police for muslim and to manage all the problem of islam people. If there was a "king of islam cult", the world would be more peaceful.
Imagine the movie turned like that : behind the drone, it would had been a ismal representant person, does your judgement would change ?
Imagine the world police state would be a muslim one, would you protest against the fact there is a world global police ?
When "a God" is the world global cop, no one commplains. Strange fact. When the Weather too.
I complain - some people complain.
I agree all is a question of POV - but, knowing this, all POVs therefore become invalid.
I don't think Muslims would make good global cops - what I am saying is that we should not have global cops. Globalisation, both economically and politically, is a failure - the world is not ready and it is still controlled by inherently selfish ideals.
The world needs to return to more localised control and it will, sooner or later, because the US/West is is exactly the same as any Empire that reaches the end of it's span. It is in a state of decay, a culture in decline and it will fall, not because of conflict without but because of conflict within. When America falls, the concept of globalisation will also fall, for a while - and I bet the global terrorism threat ceases to exist because we will all be focused on solving internal problems.
reply share
LOL, I'm very glad that god give only Americans conscience & humanity. And in abundance obviously. Dropping bombs on innocent people and killing them in thousands so you can keep your interests in other people's countries doesn't count, does it? That is just collateral, right? And you can do it with all the conscience & humanity that god gave you. It was obviously not the only thing god gave you :) Good for you.
You are talking about this situation and of course I would like to stop it too, or any other terrorist attack in the world. And I'm not talking religious things either. Where did you get that from?
You asked a question in one of your comments. "What gives one terrorist (or group of terrorist) the right to decide the fate of other humans from a position of total religious guide?"
First off, these terrorists are often as religious as Bush was when he was president and every day asked Jesus for guidance about what country to bomb.
Second, if you ask that question then you MUST also ask: "What gives one country (or group of countries) the right to decide the fate of other humans from a position of total superiority guide?"
Are a few terrorist really that much more terrifying than countries invading other countries, bombing them to stone age and killing/causing the death of hundreds of thousands of their people?
If you think terrorist bombings are terrifying, then what do you call hundreds of airplanes bombing cities with bombs falling all of the cities and people running around sacred to death and in sheer terror?
So what? Is one side's terror "better" or justified? Is that it.
Problems that divide people on this planet is that one sides actions, no matter how unfair or terrifying, are all OK. But any reactions from the other side is always seen as terror. So why bomb them in the first place and create those terrorists? How many wars have some unnamed country started in the Middle East? Mind you, it's actually and literally on the other side of the planet :)
The oil companies got what they wanted, so did the arms companies and banks. What is left is common people blaming each other for all these killings. Job well done.
to close this discussion ,i would pose this reverse situation :
imagine a muslim soldier behind the button(and a group of musilim army commander in the remote place) , sit in Liban (example), imagine the little girl is australian, imagine the place is Sydney, imagine the terrorist-group (who exchange bomb belt) is new-zealand people.
would you agree to push the button ?
i do.
question is not about the origine or the religious or the localisation. question is about saving most people as possible whatever this people is.
would you kill a innocent one to save 1000 gilty others ?
would you kill 1000 gilty ones to save 1 innocent one?
now, ask yourself this : imagine a unseen man behind the button(your supposed god) and a group of unseen army commander in the remote place , sit in heaven, imagine the little girl is just a human , imagine the place is earth, imagine the terrorist-group (who exchange bomb belt) is priest or mosquee chief.
would you agree to push the button ?
The right to give a people/country the right to kill other is to save more life than doing nothing.
It's a British movie, we shipped the evangelicals off to the new world in the 1600's, what would a modern day Brit be doing hiding messages about religion in a movie?
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov