The Word of 'Na: Not Exactly 20/20 for the Eagle Eye

And here we have another classic case of “it is what it is.”

I enjoyed the film, jumped in my seat of few times, maybe laughed once or twice. I would recommend it as a fun flick for the end of summer. But I wouldn’t say Eagle Eye is an example of why filmgoers anticipate the post-September season.

The concept behind Eagle Eye—a take on the corruptive potential in the Patriot Act—is masked by a less thrilling riff on technology’s overwhelming capabilities and our human capacity to abuse it. In fact, if a single line of dialogue near the end of the script hadn’t tagged the Patriot Act as the root of conflict, the audience easily may have mistaken this film for a Man v. Machine flick, a chip off the old I, Robot block—which was sad enough on its own without a companion-piece film, am I right?

After a brief opening sequence of U.S. counter-terrorist agression in the Middle East, the story jumps trains to life in Chicago where Shia LaBeouf plays Jerry Shaw (a college drop out, now copy shop boy, whose deceased genius twin, in life, worked at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense). Jerry is just a regular Joe. He has succumbed to the shame of living in his brother's shadow, and so disappoints his dad by living the Low Life, until who can say why, but a seductive female voice calls Jerry up to inform him that he has been "activated."

Confused and disoriented, Jerry looks around his apartment to find the makings of a terrorist's workshop: guns and gas tanks, high-tech software, computer tracking systems, government classified files, etc. And in 30 seconds--he learns from the Voice--the FBI will arrive. And so begins the chase.

Jerry is soon joined by the equally confused "Female"--as the Voice identifies her--Rachel Hollowman (Michelle Monagham). Rachel's son embarks on a school band field trip at the start of the film, and is quickly used as leverage. Rachel must carry out the Voice’s agenda or her son will die. So together Jerry and Rachel run from the FBI on a mission to..."establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

In the end, the pair of refugees come to find the newest technological advancement, developed under the Secretary of Defense, has turned against its creator. All because--oh wait, did you forget this detail?--the President authorized the execution of a supposed terrorist abroad and in so doing became a threat to his own nation as an incompetent leader. What?

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the whole opening sequence in the Middle East could have been dropped. Giving the machine an easy alibi loses the film its credibility. The revenge becomes petty. Furthermore, it creates more questions for an entirely separate story line that we don't have time for in the setting of this one film. Who did the President accidentally assassinate? What consequences may come of it from abroad? Besides which, the Eagle Eye technology openly nominates the Sec. of Defense to be President once the current Chief of Justice is terminated…Another new story line! What of the Secretary’s own greed? Or is he a saint? The suggestion is thrown out there and never touched again.

What bothers me is not just the little logistical inconsistencies, or run-on tangential plot lines. Nor is it that Eagle Eye reminds me so much of I, Robot, or Phone Booth for that matter—with a dash of stolen moments from the Italian Job. What bothers me is that this movie could have been so much more, and I feel like somewhere along the way, somebody started cutting, censoring details that might be controversial. I will admit, I’m exhausted with the politics of Hollywood that have nothing to do with the politics of the nation. I’m exhausted by loud-mouthed movie-makers high on their power to reach so many millions of Americans in order to sing their agendas. However, this film could have made a cool and decisive argument against the Patriot Act. And rather than hearing an intelligent and confident opinion, what I perceived was a childish, petty, panicky jab. The quick reference was lost amidst sound and special effects during a calamitous scene. Instead, taking the limelight and the brunt of the blame was a mere computer. A computer decided to use its own technology to get the better of mankind. A computer abused its own power to pursue its own ends, but at the same time “for the common good.” What a disappointment.

What is miraculous, dramatic, crazy, scary, is this: Man doesn’t just fashion tools or create fire, he puts them to use. Mankind was hungry enough to manufacture the technologies we have today, so why skirt away from the possibility that we are also thirsty enough for power, money, fame, whathaveyou, to abuse those tools? And what are the consequences? It might have been a wonderful risk to put an actual bad guy behind the plot. Sure blame the machines, but nastier and infinitely more fascinating is the fact that we all have it in ourselves to be evil. And what captures an audience in the theater is a person's inner struggle to tip the balance one way or the other, toward good or evil impulses. We have both in us, we just, hopefully, use one more than the other. That is drama. Pinpointing a radical machine devoid of emotion, doomed Eagle Eye to its Blockbuster “is what it is” end of summer status. We got a lot of action, but not a lot of drama. Drama is conflict: our human capacity to do well for ourselves against our animal hunger for Alpha power, our selfish impulses contradicting our better conscience. Eagle Eye had the initial momentum to be a 1984 of the new millennium. That’s what bothers me, what could have been.