MovieChat Forums > The Bridge (2007) Discussion > Understanding the production team's moti...

Understanding the production team's motivation

posted 13 years ago by quinmurphy
5 replies | jump to latest

Much has been said concerning the intentions of the production team and the director Eric Steel. Critics and film goers alike have derided Mr. Steel and his crew for glorifying/exploiting the suicides of over 20 men and women. In response to those who inquire: (often angrily) why didn't the production crew do more to stop those intending to jump? Well, in fact they did. The filmmakers called the highway patrol in regards to those who appeared to be preparing to jump over 30 times. Recall, for a moment, the number of scenes where LEOs arrived on scene and talked people down. (I would wager there are as many instances of this occurring in the film as there are actual jumps.) Often, no one on the bridge actually realized these people's intentions. The filmmakers are certainly responsible for saving a number of lives. The good documentarian never draws attention to how he/she influence the events on film, they strive to appear a pure third party observer(Think any Herzog doc). Mr. Steel shot himself in the foot a bit with his set up of Gene's jump. Obviously, Gene's jump is present throughout the film as a finale to be built up. Shots of Gene strolling along are presented intermittently between segments, seemingly from different angles. This gives the audience the impression that Gene was pacing back and forth on the bridge for an extended period of time, and that the crew recognized his "potential"(a word I use with much deference). In reality, the film only displays about 90 seconds of Gene from his initial appearance to his unfortunate (and remarkable) self-defenestration. If you look at it closely, the "alternate angle" of Gene walking and falling is in fact the A camera footage mirrored in post. Whoever was filming at the time noted Gene, most likely because of his unique appearance and stature, and was doing what this crew did for 99.99999 percent of its time, filming people on the bridge. So, there's about 70 seconds of Gene walking, then he hops up on the rail, and as one of the opening monologues notes "was gone, just like that." It was most likely not apparent what his intention's were until he initiated them. Recall for a moment, the photographer from Pittsburgh, Richard Waters. I consider his interview to be what film classes often term the "documentarian's take," essentially, the filmmaker's message born from the words of one of their interviewees. He noted that, through his camera's lens, the image of a girl climbing the rail was unreal and inconceivable. He was frozen, separated from the real world by his medium of art.

The others cry exploitation as soon as they hear the words, "a film that has footage of people jumping off a bridge." People feel as though suicide, and death in general, is not something appropriate for media dissemination. For some reason, there is a strong social stigma against the visualization of the deaths of real people on any kind of visual medium. I've always found it strange that perhaps the two most important human experiences, sex and death, are conversely two of the most censored. Clearly these people wanted witness to their ends. Otherwise they wouldn't have leapt from one of the most photographed structures on planet earth on bright shining days. Gene, as did others, traveled from other states over and past alternate bridges, to jump off the Golden Gate. Obviously, they were unaware they were being actively filmed (the crew went to great lengths to prevent word getting out their project was underway, for fear it might inspire more individuals to jump in an attempt to be immortalized) but regardless, they took action in the public square for all to see. The film is intended to make us consciously realize that people actually jump off of bridges. Steel wishes to draw attention to taboo social issues, which he does magnificently. Like perhaps one of the finest documentaries ever produced, Werner Herzog's "Encounters at the End of the World" Mr. Steel strives to make this world real for his audience. The film runs for 94 minuets, about 1 and a half of those minuets actually depict falls. The other the other ninety-two and a half? Trying to bring attention to the plight of mental illness and the victims left alive after a human being takes their own life.

I am reminded by Mr. Herzog's postulate that, "anyone who shoots enough film will capture something beautiful."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fast_fierce_and_funny 13 years ago

In fact, I will never watch this documentary simply because of that. I struggle with severe depression and suicidal ideation myself, and I just do not need to see such things,

I'm sorry to hear that you've decided not to watch The Bridge. However, I support your decision to watch or not watch this film, whichever you see fit. After all, your eyeballs are your eyeballs, and you ought to be able to decide for yourself what does and doesn't pass in front of them in the way of information and entertainment.

and no one else really does, either,

While I support your decision to not watch The Bridge yourself, I can't maintain the same enthusiasm when it comes to you (or anyone) making (or desiring to make) that same decision for other folks.

Just as you are the best judge of what should and shouldn't pass in front of your eyeballs movie-wise, other folks are the best judge about what should pass in front of theirs. If someone else wants to put The Bridge into their own DVD players, don't you think that's their own decision to make?

unless they work in a profession which is attempting to study and prevent it (i.e. public officials and mental health workers).

Perhaps the more people who are at work examining the problem, (assuming there is a problem) the more readily it can be understood. I've never heard of an advance in human progress that was aided (rather than hindered) by restricting the flow of information.

Same with all those crime and accident scene images that leak onto shock sites.

Are you sure that all the interest in those images you mention isn't a good sign?

As human beings, we are social creatures. That means we tend to take an interest in what our fellow human beings get up to, and what happens to them. The fact that such images are pretty popular would seem to indicate that people are busy taking an interest in the fate of their fellow human beings.

Me, I'd be more alarmed if people didn't take an interest in that kind of thing. From my own vantage point, that would be an indication people no longer cared about their fellow humans, and the fates they met with.

(To each his own.)

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fast_fierce_and_funny 13 years ago

Not when you're talking about shock sites, it isn't. The people who regularly visit those sites are, for lack of a better term, ghouls who thrive off of such things. They don't care about the people involved, they just want to see some fu|cked up sh!t.

But how do you know that these other individuals don't care? Or what their motivations are for visiting such sites?

I guess the question I'm really trying to ask here is: what is so wrong about being curious on the subject of death? I mean, real-world accident scenes always draw a crowd, don't they? I'm not so sure that the people who visit shock sites aren't satisfying the same kind of curiosity, only they're doing it from the InterTubes as opposed to doing it from their car or standing on the sidewalk.

(Granted, you could substitute the word "ghoulishness" for the word "curiosity" in that last sentence.)

I should know, I used to go those sites a lot and watch those types of videos a lot, when I was a very different person.

Certainly you may have had your own set of reasons for visiting such sites at one time. What I have difficulty understanding is how it's possible to assess and describe why other people might visit those sites.

I'n not saying it isn't possible, just that I'm not clear on how you would get that kind of insight. Is there a shock site equivalent to the IMDb where people natter on about "good" car crashes or something?

It really makes me disgusted with some aspects of humanity.

As a previous poster said, "I've always found it strange that perhaps the two most important human experiences, sex and death, are conversely two of the most censored." My own take on censorship is that when people censor or repress something, they help to stimulate interest in it (people want to know what it is they're missing). I'm not sure if I'd ascribe the popularity of shock sites entirely to ghoulishness (or callousness). I mean, what separates a "ghoul" from the idly curious?

All this isn't to say that I disagree with you entirely about why people visit shock boards. It's just that, from my own perpsective, the Internet is all about people trying to reach out and make connections to other people. As improbable as it might sound, I wonder if people visiting shock boards isn't part of that "reaching out," too?

I find myself wondering if someone who spends time on model airplane sites would be commonly perceived as being "curious" about model airplanes while the same person spending time on shock sites is going to be labeled a "ghoul" simply because their subject of interest happens to be the taboo one of death as opposed to the prosaic one of model airplanes.

Perhaps the line between being someone being "curious" and that same someone being "ghoulish" is crossed when they derive actual enjoyment from scenes of death, as opposed to merely wanting to see something they're "not supposed" to see?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]