User Reviews

National Bird profiles three young Americans who have spoken out publicly about the US use of drones to conduct reconnaissance and assassinations in Afghanistan, and follows one woman to Afghanistan to meet with the survivors of drone attacks. The film details the PTSD suffered by the three subjects, the fear of indictment for espionage as a result of speaking out, and the disconnect between the reality of the drone program and the video game face put on it by US Air Force recruitment material.

I saw the movie in San Francisco on the second night of its national opening. There were perhaps twenty people in a small theater, and I think most of us were old enough to be parents of two of the three drone program participants in the film as well as of its two producers. I'd gone to see the film thinking its subject was the program by which the US assassinates Iraqi, Afghani, Pakistani and US citizens abroad, using missiles launched from aircraft piloted by youthful operators in the Nevada desert. National Bird instead seems largely about the young US personnel who are rightfully traumatized by the murder of people based on often faulty intelligence as well as the murder of those who happen to be near the target of US assassinations. I thought the trauma suffered by the two young women came across very effectively. The young man, Daniel, seemed pretty matter of fact about his involvement and was being interviewed while he continued to work in an intelligence role for a US military contractor. While Heather and Lisa spoke at length about the emotional toll their actions took on them, Daniel seemed to speak largely to the fear of prosecution for speaking about the drone assassination program and the experience of some thirty men raiding his home with guns drawn. Those of us who are saddened and angered by the killings done in our name or who have had agents of the US state point guns at us will be moved by the PTSD and fear suffered by those who might be our children. Interviews with Heather's mother and grandfather competently support this.

There is a curious parity in National Bird between Heather and Lisa's psychological trauma and the trauma of Afghani drone attack survivors. A woman sits in a family group and tells how her husband was killed trying to save their children, two of whom were killed. Her son, not yet a teenager, sits next to her. He is missing a leg. An Afghani man who had hoped to study medicine tells of being in a drone attack and it is only towards the end of his testimony that we realize he too has had a leg blasted off. It was unclear to me, however, who had been more victimized. There was such a focus on Heather, Lisa, and Daniel's situations that the Afghani portion of the film seemed almost to be saying the Afghanis had suffered as well. Heather and her family speak movingly about her suffering from guilt. Afghani families speak of, and the viewer is shown, the burnt blasted corpses of women and children.

National Bird's protagonists are shown repeatedly speaking of their being described as similar to Edward Snowden in revealing truths about the US intelligence apparatus, yet there is nothing mentioned in the film which has not been copiously documented elsewhere, if one is interested in looking for it. This flirting with danger about revealing secrets, and the fear of being indicted for espionage, was curious. Daniel's eyes light when he mentions some aspect of the drone operation which he says is quite obvious and mundane yet kept top secret and I found myself wondering why the viewer should care. We are being shown a film documenting how the US kills people around the globe who are merely suspected of sympathizing with groups the US declares political enemies, with no semblance of legality, no rules of war, no courts or tribunals, just the hunches of some bureaucrats in the White House based on intelligence vetted at one level by twenty-somethings who seem they would be as at home in the local mall as in a command and control bunker. Is this not enough? Why the inclusion of the frisson around classified material?

National Bird is certainly worth seeing for its depiction of the effects of drone killing involvement on young military personnel. For the drone war viewers will likely be more interested in Jeremy Scahill's The Assassination Complex.

we were in Berlinale Film festival in Feb and was emotionally overwhelmed with this documentary film. We were shocked to know that such Things are really happening. We have sympathy for the innocent victims. This is really an eyes opening for all of us living in Europe It is good to know that there are brave citizens who risk their families and lives coming out and telling the world their stories. This will encourage more people to come out and protest on the unnecessary killing.

This is not a Cyber games! Many innocent people for no reason got killed. The world have to know what is happening in Afghanistan and the neighboring Countries.

We support this film and it should be shown everywhere round the world. I am glad that I had the chance to see the film.

In this eye-opening documentary, we are introduced to several former drone operators and the individuals who make that job possible. You can safely ignore the "reviews" which claim to "debunk" the material based on semantics, unclear statements and somewhat badly formulated interview questions. The fact is that this film documents the horrible personal and sociological effects felt here at home by those who were participants in the mostly secret or intentionally obscured from the public drone wars under Bush, but then on steroids under Obama and Trump (and likely continuing w/ Biden).

Whether one of these individuals actually pulled the trigger or was, rather, a cog in the machine which comprises the drone war program(s) is immaterial to the filmmaker's points and the psychological impact felt by those who learned they were, as often as not, participating in the cold blooded remote murders of innocent men, women, children and infants in places far, far away (in most cases, some drones are operated from OCONUS military installations). If you're a part of the operation, directly participate in surveillance, targeting or image analysis, you're as guilty as the "pilots" (really more akin to a video game or remote controlled model plane w/ munitions) are and the subjects of this documentary recognize and acknowledge it.

To the content of the movie itself, it's essentially what you might think it is. A long hard look at what this kind of warfare and the shattered and maimed lives it leaves behind abroad does to those who carry it out. And to the would-be critics leaving IMDB reviews, especially the ones invoking the God fearing "democracy" that is allegedly the USA and the innate trust in their government which has lied to them countless times, if this program is so successful in its *stated* aims, why the dark, impenetrable curtain of secrecy? Why the million-person long lists, accessible mainly to those with high level security clearances, without any transparency whatsoever? Why are "we" still there in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other places which pose absolutely zero threat to any American civilian at home or abroad?

The answers, partially documented here, are actually quite simple and they all tie back to the intense secrecy surrounding not only the drone program(s), but many, many other policies and actions carried out in far flung countries of the Global South. It's all about the Benjamins, and anything - including exposure of its existence, the telling of the horrible psychological toll it puts on the participants, and even more so, the loss of too many innocent lives to really fathom - will be attacked from every angle possible rather than simply explained, justified and debated. To continue along that thread - and following the one this film lays out - I would argue that anyone attempting to discredit this film or discourage others from watching it are nearly as guilty as the untouchable policy makers and politicians whose military-industrial-complex constituencies they serve over the actual people in their districts and states.

9/10 with a single star deducted for some editing and in the formulation of interview questions which would have precluded several of the negative "debunking" comments based only on semantics and a claimed true understanding of this awful system.

One easily notices that a lot of effort went into the production of this masterpiece. The American military tries hard to dehumanise their folks and this film succeeds to show what tremendous impact the drone program has on a personal level.

Truly touching and frightening. Please spread the awareness!

The potential for the use of drone warfare to reduce loss of life in our military is definitely a paradigm shift. Of course when you can kill the enemy with less risk and even more efficiently there comes a huge morality element. It is a new psychology when one is able to kill with ease and without great immediate risk.

What I get in the first half hour of this film is this kind of killing might not be a job for but a few. I'm thinking these people claiming to suffer here may be too emotionally immature for the job they chose and were assigned. This is in part a failure of the vetting system as to who is equipped and suited to engage in a new very lethal element of war.

I'd like to think as a nation and military we are not using this death from above willy nilly. We must have extreme moral litmus tests in the pipe before we feel it is appropriate to resort to this kind of remote control judge, jury, and executioner. I think our military leaders do take this all into account and that when a deadly drone strike is used it passes multiple reviews of appropriateness. Sadly as in all war there will be horrendous mistakes. That isn't what, however, this film is looking at.

National Bird is a film where negatively affected former drone operators tell their PTSD stories, vent, and , pretty much, claim the way they worked was often morally wrong. While they may have a valid point the incompatibility of many of the young drone operators with their jobs once the killing starts must be addressed. It's clear these folks weren't well suited or prepared for their actual jobs. They were poorly vetted and ill-equipped for sure. I don't see this as particularly patriotic, but they have the right most certainly to make this film. I find it tilted toward propaganda. Propaganda that is heartfelt, but none the less propaganda. We all know there are always those who push an agenda in which it really is heartfelt which never assures that it is right however.

Like germ warfare drone warfare needs to be very tightly ruled over with morals at the very center of it all. Nations not abiding must be called out and dealt with by a moral code. I am not naive so I know like The Geneva Convention agreements there is still plenty of evil deviations. I trust The US, Canada, England, and all other freedom loving God fearing nations to set the bar and soon. I also think we're going to have to set new standards for those who we train for these drone related jobs. We need seasoned soldiers proven not to crack under deadly pressure who have chosen the military as a career. Not types here today and running their negative agendas when they leave the next week. These youngsters are the types I can see more fickle like that. They will suffer and they will make lots of negative interviews, even films, muddying the water claiming to be bastions of truth in their zeal, and pioneering yet another new form of PTSD. I feel for them, but I also think they weren't right for the job even before they began. I hope they move toward wellness and find peace. I didn't, however, want to finish this film after about half...too much propaganda for me. I do respect their right to make this film and for those who find it vital.