- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
The Bridge is a highly skillful film that hardly anyone has seen. That's not only because its topic is suicide, but because director Eric Steel actually shot people jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge - the single highest suicide location in the world - capturing most of the 24 deaths there in 2004. Was this morally justifiable? Read More
Does the camera crew have blood on its hands?
I caught the film half way through and couldn't really believe what i was watching. One thing struck me...which was the length of time one or two of the victims lingered before they jumped. And it was all captured by the camera...the viewer all along knowing how the story would end. But leaving moral issues aside, don't we all instinctively want to prevent the deaths of each other? And if so, what does it say about the camera crew who bore witness to it all without even so much as flinching to act as samaritans? A simple walkie-talkie and five deaths could have been prevented. Sorry, but those film makers went too far.
Actually, if you read about
Actually, if you read about the making of the film, you'll discover that lives were probably actually saved by the camera crew during the year in which it was made because, after they had seen several suicides early on, they began speed-dialing bridge authorities when they saw what seemed to be a likely jumper.
However, I have two complaints about the film, one aesthetic, the other ethical.
(1) The soundtrack is cloyingly obtrusive -- and oddly so, in light the potently suggestive reticence with which the bridge is shot from so many different angles, encouraging humbly expansive wonder in the viewer.
(2) I'm uneasy with how the final jumper (the guy in black with the long hair) is used in the film as a source of suspense: we know he's going to jump, since his friends are interviewed; the film periodically reverts to him on the bridge; and the film thus implicates the viewer in a relationship of anticipation and suspense over -- what? Over *how* he's going to jump. This strikes me as a serious flaw in an otherwise laudable film. I'm a great admirer of films which provoke and edify through discomfiture in the viewer (e.g. the films of Michael Haneke, Gaspar Noe, Ulrich Seidl, etc.), but there's something deeply wrong, I think, about how the viewer's relationship is established in THE BRIDGE to this particular person's last moments of life.
very well put
This is a reality of many
This is a reality of many people-we have documentaries of people who die of cancer, which yes, is different, for it is not a choice,then there are the documentaries of addiction, which we all know can kill and many times does, but depression and suicide are very much a huge part of our society yet has such a stigma attached to it. There is not the help that is needed for people who suffer from this disease, it is shunned over and over. If anything, perhaps a documentary like this, as morbid as it may be, may someday bring light to this and help to the ones who need it.
this film isn't about disease
Many have yet to understand
Many have yet to understand suicide. Many have yet to accept depression. I saw the film, my perspective of it is that there needs to be more of an awareness overall. And yes, you are right, sometimes treatment does not always help, but a good beginning would be to eliminate the stigma attached to depression in the first place.
Snuff Film
Isn't this movie, by definition, a snuff film ?
But hey, at least the friends and family of the
jumpers have the satisfaction of knowing that
the death of their loved one helped some film-makers
make a name for themselves (and a few bucks).
According to Wikipedia's entry on Copycat Suicides:
"Publishing the means of suicides, romanticized
and sensationalized reporting, particularly about
celebrities, suggestions that there is an epidemic,
glorifying the deceased and simplifying the reasons
all lead to increases in the suicide rate. Increased
rate of suicides has been shown to occur up to ten
days after a television report.[4] Studies in Japan[5]
and Germany[6] have replicated findings of an imitative
effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Factors_in_suicide_reporting
"Watching someone die is a stunning experience"
and, nothing, nothing is more important than
providing stunning "experiences" for jaded, callous
audiences everywhere.
Simplification
Photogenic Suicide
According to this post on the American Foundation
for Suicide Prevention wesite:
Research finds an increase in suicide by readers
or viewers when:
- The number of stories about individual suicides increases3,4
- A particular death is reported at length or in many stories3,5
- The story of an individual death by suicide is placed on the
front page or at the beginning of a broadcast 3,4
- The headlines about specific suicide deaths are dramatic3
(A recent example: "Boy, 10, Kills Himself Over Poor Grades")
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=7852EBBC-...
Note especially: "A particular death is reported at length"
and "headlines about specific suicide deaths are dramatic".
These two descriptions also describe this movie.
In addition, this is the Golden Gate bridge we're talking
about. A gorgeous bridge with beautiful vistas.
A suicide off the Golden Gate bridge is going to
be very photogenic.
I'm sure the people involved in making this
film believe, or have convinced themselves, that
they are not promoting suicide. But if they had
bothered to do any research they would see how
dangerously insprirational such a movie would
be to someone so desperate as to be contemplating
suicide.
Here's a Los Angeles Times article about the film:
"From half a mile away, Steel began filming the
bridge on New Year’s Day in 2004. A crew of 12 took
shifts from dawn to dusk. With one camera, they
recorded the span and water. With a second one,
they used a telephoto lens to scan for pedestrians."
...
"Steel established guidelines on when to intervene,
instructing the crew to call emergency officials
if a pedestrian set down a bag or briefcase,
removed shoes or wallet, or climbed onto the rail.
They intervened five times to stop jumpers, he said."
...
"Steel did not inform family members that he had
filmed their loved one’s suicides. Later, he acknowledged,
“individual people called and were upset I didn’t tell them.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/28/local/me-bridge28
Of course if they had been really interested in stopping
suicides, they could have posted someone much closer and
then called them (in addition to the emergency officials
who may or may not be close by) to intervene. Of course,
that might have gotten in the way of what they were there
for, footage of real live suicides.
Again, according to the American Foundation
for Suicide Prevention wesite:
"The media can play a powerful role in educating the
public about suicide prevention. Stories about suicide
can inform readers and viewers about the likely causes
of suicide, its warning signs, trends in suicide rates,
and recent treatment advances. They can also highlight
opportunities to prevent suicide. Media stories about
individual deaths by suicide may be newsworthy and
need to be covered, but they also have the potential
to do harm. Implementation of recommendations for media
coverage of suicide has been shown to decrease suicide rates.1,2"
Hopefully, any future documentaries of suicide, will
put responsibility over drama, and perhaps save some lives.
Wikipedia can be editted by
Wikipedia can be editted by anyone so your source is flawed...interesting that you immediately connected PORN to this movie. perhaps u have an issue of your own to deal with...
Suggestions
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (1) the intent behind the making of the film and (2) its potentially negative effects.
Those so ready to impugn the director's motives should at least watch this brief Charlie Rose interview:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/64
Those who believe that the state of the art in knowledge about suicide is sufficient to justify censorious claims about the film's supposed effects should perhaps read this recent NY Times article ("The Urge to End it All"):
"While a universal phenomenon, the incidence of suicide varies so immensely across different population groups — among nations and cultures, ages and gender, race and religion — that any overarching theory about its root cause is rendered useless."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=1&pagewan...
Finally, I can't recommend highly enough San Francisco-based film-maker Jenni Olson's sublime meditation made in tribute to a friend of hers who jumped:
http://www.joyoflifemovie.com/
I watched the Charlie Rose
I watched the Charlie Rose clip with
Eric Steele. The part that struck me was when
Rose talked about how cinematographers and
photographers turned their cameras away when
people jumped from the World Trade Center on 911.
Steele said that he thought that a lot of people
did take pictures, but that not a lot were published,
and that there was "this sort of censorship".
Then Rose jumped in and said "or self-censorship,
or editorial decisions". Steel agreed, and then said
"I still try to understand why that is".
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/64
For me, at a visceral level, publishing film of
the world trade victims jumping, and publishing film
of the Golden Gate suicides are equally repugnant.
In both cases, people are being filmed at their
most vulnerable, for public consumption, without
their consent.
I didn't watch the whole interview, just the clip,
but certainly in the clip, Rose never asked (and
Steel never volunteered) if Steel wasn't concerned
that his movie might romanticize the Golden Gate
bridge as a suicide spot.
I think this film is very much an advertisement
for the Golden Gate bridge as a beautiful, romantic,
and easy suicide spot.
And as the very fascinating New York Times article
(that Mr. Sica recommended) points out, the qualities
of the bridge are actually very important.
As for the issue of a suicide barrier for the
Golden Gate Bridge, that article makes an amazingly
brilliant case for *why* such a barrier would work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=2&pagewan...
Having criticized commenters,
this is the best string of comments on PT blogs I have ever seen, certainly in reaction to one of my posts. I don't think it will easily be topped for thoughtfulness, humanity, and expansion of the original posting.
While I find Eric Steel's
While I find Eric Steel's film problematic (particularly the footage of the jumpers) and I feel strongly that the film would have benefited from some contextual interviews with mental health professionals there is no doubt in my mind that his intentions in making the film were honorable. And ultimately, the film will be saving lives — it played a crucial role in putting the spotlight on the need for a suicide barrier.
Thank you to Rob Sica for mentioning my film, THE JOY OF LIFE. I hope some of you will have a chance to see it (you can get it at Netflix, Amazon, etc.). You can read some of my historical research (including a bit on "The Werther Effect") at the website link below.
I'm grateful that my film, too, was able to play a role in shedding light on the need for a barrier. It is only a matter of time before the barrier is erected.
http://www.goldengatebridgemovie.com
Post new comment