Humans have always been complex, and human nature is inherently incapable of judgment. Everyone here is fresh, emotional and rational. Faced with this dilemma, which is similar to crushing one person on the train with the controller, and dozens of people dying on the train without breaking the controller, it depicts everyone's psychology. so clear. Even more rare is that it not only depicts the individual, but also depicts the system and a deeper and broader human nature.
Institutions are human creations. It really serves people. Officials here are "constrained" by the system, seeking opinions from multiple parties and examining and approving at all levels in such a tight time. Those who do not take responsibility are decisive, and those who have to take responsibility are timid and hesitant. Not because people are different, but because of responsibilities. Looking at the affirmation and pressure from the officials of the U.S. Foreign Office, I have no doubt that if the action is initiated by the United States, they are different from the British. On the contrary, whether they insist on attacking or not, the people in the army have shown their firmness, even if they distort the facts. Can't judge good or bad, good or bad, can only say that it is too different. The general finally asked, "Can you attack?" The look in his eyes, which portrayed the helplessness of human nature incisively and vividly.
Human nature is so complex and so difficult to evaluate.
What impressed me the most in the movie were the two people who resolutely disagreed with the attack. One was a drone operator who defied orders from his superiors, and the other was a woman in the general's office whose title I didn't know. Their decisions are all the same, for diametrically opposed reasons. One is sentimental pity, he doesn't know that the person inside has put on a suicide vest, but he just can't bear to hurt the innocent. One is concerned with moral warfare, and would rather risk the lives of others to win morality. Of course, if morality wins, there may be more people in the future, but she seems to keep emphasizing the present, not the future. She was right and so was he. However, her repeated emphasis on "politically speaking" has to be thought-provoking. Politics, what is it?
Quite helpless. Really helpless. The most helpless thing is that we are all human, and we all have this kind of humanity, and no one can get rid of it. Buddhists say that life is suffering, maybe that's what it means.
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
