From the filming technique and narrative point of view alone, it passed the test, but unfortunately the Madonna Bai Zuo.
When watching, the multi-threaded narrative can feel the sense of mutual evasion and entanglement in decision-making. The characters in the movie are anxious, aggrieved, lengthy and procrastinated, and the decision-making process of kicking the ball. The taste of "The Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" can also be deeply felt by the audience, but its ass is a bit crooked, and the concept of output is problematic, and it is whitewashed by the West.
The American, British, and Australian troops have killed so many civilians indiscriminately in the Middle East. At this time, for a little girl, suddenly make such a careful decision and cherish life?
In reality, the Australian army killed more than ten square meters of unarmed children in Afghanistan who had their throats cut. The British and American soldiers killed a dozen civilians because they accidentally killed a civilian and were seen by the other dozen civilians. In the movie, the United Kingdom and the United States, just because they do not want to kill a little girl by mistake, struggle with whether to launch missiles for two hours, hehe.
This movie is said to be a figurative version of the tram problem. The train is about to hit. There are 5 people on one side and 1 person on the other side. They ask you which side you hit, but the problem is, the scene in this movie is not comparable to the tram problem at all. Sex, the preconditions are different.
One is the elevator problem, it will inevitably hit it, it will happen, one or five will die, but in the eye of the sky, the "terrorists" considered by the United Kingdom and the United States have suicide bomb vests, and it is estimated that there will be 80 people. The casualties, these 80 casualties, will it happen? "Terrorists" carry explosives, and they may not explode. Maybe they will explode after 10 years, or they may not explode in the end. Just like if you carry a weapon and there are bullets in the gun, will you definitely kill someone, can you be arrested and executed as a murderer?
The second is the elevator problem. There is no pre-qualification for running a train. The premise is that the two forked roads in the front are originally train tracks. Long-arm jurisdiction, what about going to a foreign country to kill the terrorists they think in advance? Are you qualified to be the world policeman? Do you have the right to enter the territory of other countries recklessly, to bomb or kill? Do they have the right to wantonly in the internal affairs of other countries in Africa, the Middle East, etc., to kill you first with "I think you are a potential criminal danger, I think you are a terrorist"? Although terrorists are guilty, even if they are guilty, they should be executed and dealt with by a subject with real right to deal with them, and they should be dealt with by their own country, Kenya. Even if 80 people were really killed, these terrorists, one did not blow up your homeland, and the other did not blow up your Americans (except that there was a "terrorist" inside with an American passport), even if it did explode, the surrounding People from Kenya, Somalia and other African countries, what does it have to do with you, Britain and the United States? What's more, people don't necessarily explode, and it doesn't necessarily cause as many as 80 deaths.
The final ending is also very ironic. The British and American troops killed several "terrorists", killed the little girl, and finally helped the little girl's parents to send the little girl to the hospital for rescue, but it was these "terrorists" in the eyes of the United Kingdom and the United States. The "terrorists" also specially dismantled the machine guns in the car, made room for the little girl and her parents to sit, and sent the little girl to the hospital for emergency treatment. Britain, the United States and the "Shabaab", who is the real terrorist in the world? Woolen cloth?
The Taliban and ISIS are all funded and cultivated by the United States. The United States has launched wars, carried out color revolutions, established puppet governments, and plundered resources. The United States and its Western brothers are the biggest terrorists in the world. Interfering in other countries' internal affairs, wanton destruction of other people's homes, deprivation of other people's lives. Is such a precondition comparable to the tram problem? Anglo-American, do you have the right to drive a train?
After watching the movie, discuss with a few friends whether you would choose to press the radiation button. Personally, I feel that this is completely different from the premise of the trolley problem and cannot be discussed as a trolley problem. Personally, I feel that Britain and the United States have no right to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, and have no right to go to other countries to kill what they consider "terrorists". In addition, in terms of legal principles, for crimes that have not yet been committed, for those who only have the possibility of committing crimes, they can rely on the possibility of Does sex convict you? Even if it can be convicted and dealt with based on this, who has the right to deal with it? Are you UK and US the world court? Do you have that power to enforce the law? Does this look like lynching in ancient times?
Step back 10,000 steps, ignoring the question of legitimacy, let’s say it’s really the little girl and the other 80 civilians, all standing on the two forked tracks of the tram, and they have to choose one to kill, the movie The shooting method is also very white and left, and it is very tendentious. The movie gave the little girl a lot of close-ups and a lot of descriptions of her life. She likes to read books and play hula hoops. Unlike other women who are restricted by ysl rules, she is a living person, just like your neighbor The little girl, and for the other 80 people, it is a match, without any description of life, but if you change the way of expression, also shoot the lives and stories of some of the 80 people, such as which little boy in the 80 people, very cute , very good, worked for his sick father since he was a child, and took up the burden of life to take care of the family since childhood. For example, one of the 80 people has a single mother. Although her life is very difficult, she raises several children by herself, and tries her best to help the people around her. Among those 80 people, if there are a few people who are vividly described and make the audience feel affection for them, will some people be very naive and think that they can kill another 80 people for the sake of one person's life?
The trolley problem is a classic problem in the freshman philosophy class. There are two major ideas. One is Bentham's utilitarianism. The interests of the majority make the lives of the majority better. Under this doctrine, the minority must be sacrificed for the majority. , one is Kant's deontology, I make a choice, not based on the number of people who benefit, but based on the rationale, whether it is right to do this, the rules, right or not, under this kind of thinking, sacrifice for 5 people One person is wrong, they are all innocent people, innocent people don't deserve to die, why should they sacrifice that one person?
The problem caused by utilitarianism is that, in a small society, if there are 10 people, one is very hard-working, earns more money, and has 10 million yuan, and the other 9 people are lazy, do not work actively, and make little money, each of whom only has 10,000 yuan. Yuan assets, in terms of utilitarianism, is it possible to deprive the wealth of that industrious person and divide it into the remaining 9 people equally, each of which is divided into one million, is this fair? There is a problem with working hard and not getting much, and lazy people just reap the rewards.
The deontological problem is that purely from a quantitative point of view, the death of 1 person is indeed less than the death of 5 people. The death of 1 person destroys a family, and the death of 5 people may destroy several families. If it is more extreme, the flood and the dam will collapse. If the embankment is broken, it will drown one person in the flood discharge area. If the embankment breaks downstream, it will drown 1 million people downstream. Then you, will you bomb? You won't sacrifice 5 people for 1 person, how about 1 person to 1 million people, and 1 person to 10 million people? Is the value of one person infinitely higher than the value of multiple people? If you think about it further, it is easy for Bai Zuo and Our Lady to replace one person with a cat, a dog, and a bird? A cat is also a life. A cat and 5 people, which one do you choose to kill? This year, a building in Florida collapsed. No one was rescued. When he found a cat nearby, he was so happy that he died, "Although more than 100 people died, we found a cat! This is the hope of life! "In the past, there was a joke on the Internet, saying that in order to save a bird on a power line, the United States would black out the whole city, and would not ignore a tiny life, hehe. Some time ago, Afghanistan withdrew troops, and military dogs got on the plane, but Afghans who have worked for the US military for many years were not allowed to get on the plane. ? Unlimited exaggeration of the value of a single individual or a small number of people can easily make decisions slip into strange places.
The movie itself, in terms of technology and plot, is a good movie, and it can also trigger intense discussion and thinking, but it secretly beautifies and whitewashes the West, which I don't like.
Including, the clip of playing table tennis with China, too bbc filter, gray, deliberately adding a layer of smog to you, and then, all athletes only wear a single red, the banner is also red, the whole picture, except for a single The mechanical red is black. The athletes' clothes are still in the same style as prisoners of reform through labor. Then a group of masked Chinese leaders in black suits and big-backed heads are specially arranged to applaud, which is clearly to smear China in secret, implying that China is a zhuanzhi, non-democratic, authoritarian country, oppressive and repressive. The real Chinese team uniforms are so lively and bright, they are scrambled with tomatoes, red and yellow, or red and white, as well as beautiful blue-and-white porcelain patterns. How could they look like the ugly ones in the movie? Private goods, it is obvious.
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
