The Bridge

[Touring Mars]

I watched a film last night on More 4 (Channel 4 digital channel) as part of their "True Stories" documentary series called "The Bridge" (2006) by filmmaker Eric Steel - it was a fairly controversial movie since it deals with the issue of people who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The film makers filmed the bridge for a whole year, not passively, but actively training their cameras on specific individuals, and even documented many of the 24 people who successfully took their own lives by jumping from the bridge in 2004. The film included prolonged footage of one individual, called Gene, who was on the bridge for some period of time, before climbing atop the barrier, leaning backward and falling to his death...

I was rather surprised, not to mention a bit offended and hacked off, by the reaction I have just received at lunch, when I asked if anyone else had heard of or seen this movie. A couple of my workmates found the whole idea of filming this and "not intervening" to be the actions of "despicable human beings". When I attempted to defend the whole concept of documentary filmmaking, I too stood accused of being a "heartless" fiend... ironic, then, that I actually took the time to watch the film and raise the discussion in the first place, and that my workmates didn't know anything about the film other than what I told them about it!

The question is, at what point is a filmmaker/documenter of events obliged to influence said events? I personally reject the idea that documentary makers are "evil" or "inhuman" for not intervening (and infact, in this case, that is not even what happened), and I particularly find it alarming to be tarred with the same brush for daring to argue that this is the very purpose of documentary - to observe and not to influence. Should a war correspondent ask those naughty militia men to play nice and stop shooting at their enemies?...

Anyway, what do you guys think? Did anyone else see this film?

 

[FoolKiller]

I am guessing the filmmakers were not stanidng on the bridge chatting the guys up? The most they could have done then was call police and hope they get there in time.


But each situation varies. If a filmmaker, reporter, or whatever is in the position to save a life, and no one else is there to do it, and instead takes the time to record a man dying it has some definite ethical implications.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I've seen two specials about this movie and the man who made it. Very controversial, but overall, I think he did do it for 'good' reasons and not just to exploit tragic events.

However, odd how he claims he doesn't have an idea if somebody is going to jump, yet he constantly video taped an individual for well over two hours, at times, ultimately showing the individual's fatal fall. To his defense, he did notify bridge authority whenever he noticed somebody acting odd or suspicious and did save the lives of several people. To be honest, I feel he could have done that more often.

Haven't watched it and never plan to, though. I don't object to this sort of thing, but it's not a topic I really care to get into.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I was hoping to see this but forgot about it luckily someone uploaded it to google video and found it rather fascinating and rather strange how some of the relatives were trying to find justifications to how and why they did it,especially the mother and daughter who kept controdicting each other.

I think its pretty easy to accuse the fim-maker for not doing anything but if you watch the film several times the police would stop and ask the person what they were up to etc but when it came to the time, they just stood up on the edge and jump,no waiting,no warning they just jumped.Not much you can do really.