The Bridge

If you have ever stood and looked at the Golden Gate Bridge, you know its undeniable effect on the psyche. It is an amazing and (for me) eerie structure.

"The Bridge" is a low budget documentary that delicately, yet honestly presents a common occurrence on the bridge: suicide jumpers. Actual footage of several jumpers is shown in the midst of interviews with loved ones trying to make sense out of the senseless.

Effectively, "The Bridge" is tied together by a single story of one individual whose footage is featured through-out the film to be concluded with a quite dramatic sequence.

What I enjoyed most was the interview and story of a young teen boy who decided he wanted to live as he was plummeting to the water below and miraculously survived.

One portion of the film that I would have preferred edited out was the mother and sister of one of the victims. Their interview became obnoxious as the sister kept interrupting the mother.

"The Bridge" dug into me and clenched a nerve. It will stay with me for some time.

what brings a human being to intentionally finish his own life, to commit suicide? This documentary deeply analyzes the dynamics that pushed 24 people to kill themselves in 2004, jumping from the icon Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The movie premiered today at the new Rome Film Festival and I must say I was amazed by the accurate and shocking job the director did, putting a camera for one year long looking the bridge. He achieved a moving documentary that reflects the reality without being pathetic, always balancing the story, without being banal or simply an evil way of being voyeuristic. This movie aims to be almost anthropological in its precision, and really leaves the audience asking questions, they go out of the theatre thinking, and this is a great achievement because the theme itself is more than a taboo. The interviews of friends and parents are beyond easy interpretations, they show how sometimes life can affect human beings and change other people's life, that not always is possible to find the responsibilities or to answer the question:why did he do that? Extremely interesting, strong, but really worth it.

Several reviewers have criticized this film for its moral/ethical bankruptcy. They point out that if film crews were at the Golden Gate Bridge monitoring jumpers and filming them (often from multiple cameras), they could have done more to prevent the tragedies. If you take that approach to watching this film, you will certainly be offended.

But I don't believe it was the intent of the filmmakers to make any sort of moral/ethical statement. Rather, they simply present us with an eye through which we see what happens in the world. It's no different from a National Geographic special which tracks a leopard stalking some unsuspecting gazelle and the bloody carnage that ensues. Should the camera crews be criticized for not warning the gazelle?

OK, enough of the ethical debate. Chances are, if you're prepared to see live footage of people jumping off bridges, you won't get too bent out of shape at the underlying morality (or lack thereof). Let me just say that it was tastefully done--or as tastefully as you can do a subject like this.

Interviews with well-spoken, competent individuals added a refreshing, "scientific" approach to this highly emotional subject. Yes, family members and close friends are interviewed, but (unlike Fox News et al) we don't get the hysterical, weepy ad hominem clips. Instead we get very lucid and enlightening insights as spoken by the people who knew the victims well. Overall, it presents a compelling point of view, far more provoking than the usual "suicide is evil, and all suicidal people are losers" mantra which we often hear. If you are a psychology student or if you are in some way familiar with severe depression, this is a great film to watch. It documents the last hours of those who have truly gone to the extreme of mental anguish. This subject has been taboo for centuries, and I'm not quite sure why. But I'm glad to see that films like this are bringing it into the open.

MY ONLY CRITICISM: While most "jumping" scenes were handled well, there are a few which I found a bit tacky. This was due to the camera work being a bit too greedy. When the individual climbs onto the ledge, suddenly we see the camera jockeying into position as if to get the best view of the fall. Sometimes the overzealous camera operator jumps the gun and pans down to the water far ahead of the body. This comes across as just a tad bit bloodthirsty. But hey, I guess I'd get a little excited behind the lens, too.

But really that's a minor criticism. In contrast, I have to praise the film for being professionally done, even with a decent musical score (not too sappy, not too sterile). But really it's the objectivity and lack of obvious bias which makes it a great documentary, something which Michael Moore could learn a lot from (sorry, someone had to say it). Also, just because it's a documentary, don't expect that it'll be linear and boring. The filmmakers were very adept at weaving suspense and an underlying drama which culminates with a truly stunning climax at the end. I must applaud this film on both an academic and an artistic level.

Initially this documentary hit the headlines with complaints of the company that own the Golden Gate Bridge stating they were deceived that the director and his crew were filming "Great American Landmarks" and that they were merely filming stock footage for the project. I believe this is an acceptable lie, being that if someone posed you a question asking if they could film your property because of the notoriety of the popularity of it as a suicide spot, you would decline the offer! That aside, this documentary does feature real deaths and (in the press screening I attended in the UK) they are uncensored-albeit a large splash rather than blood splatter, which is not brilliant viewing material for those of weak dispositions, but does cause very interesting discussion points around the reason as to why those who choose to jump do so. We are subjected to watch a number of jumpers of various ages plunge the four seconds to their death by means of a hand-held camera from a distance. As filmmakers, a moral question is raised as to why they just filmed the jumpers and didn't prevent it from happening. My understanding of this is that the director did actually prevent the majority from jumping (evident in the film) but others were simply too quick to save. One of the witnesses interviewed from the reported 100 hours + of film stock, actually comments as to why he photographed a woman about to jump before attempting to save her. He says that any nature film cameraman would carry on filming, even if a tiger was running straight at them as a) objectively this makes brilliant aesthetics for the finished product and b) looking upon any act through a viewfinder makes any event slightly unreal and psychologically you are compelled not to anything until 'reality' slaps you in the face! Watching the documentary some of the suicides (especially those shot static, long distance) look like they were captured 'by accident'.

The witnesses interviewed in the film, including some of the jumper's parents and close family, are very brave to give their thoughts and opinions as to why they believe the jumpers committed the final act. As an audience we feel every emotion conveyed by their friends and family. The interviews and deaths are intertwined with montage of beautiful shots of the bridge showing it as a very romantic setting, not too dissimilar to the Humber Bridge in Hessle (near Hull), England-which is also notoriously known for it's high suicide rates, but what the Humber estuary lacks is the sheer awe of the surrounding landscape and slightly better achievements of engineering. A gradual picture is built up of the bridge, we see it objectively, as a constant unchanging structure ruling the landscape it inhabits. We are shown the bridge by day and by night, during busy summer periods, during misty autumn and winter mornings, as a tourist hot-spot; thousands of tourists walking across it, people playfully mimicking jumping from the bridge or hanging from it to scare their friends, visitors painting it, as a working bridge; workmen climbing it for maintenance and drivers going to and from work. The observation is clear and obvious, again touched upon by the interviewees, the jumpers (like everyone else) are wooed by the sheer beauty of the bridge.

The only flaw in the film is that there is no expert witness (i.e. a psychiatrist or doctor) interviewed which would solidify the documentaries main objective at focusing on mental illness as the reason for getting to the point of giving up and as a by product, tarnishing a beautiful setting.

On a positive note the filmmakers do not romanticise the jumpers in any way, we are merely observing how people fall, (all individual styles), even if we are made to keep returning to one particular person, Gene, a little too often. Also, one the key interviewees has the power to make you laugh and make you cry within an instant and it is this person who gives the strongest arguments towards the reasons for why the jumpers do it.

As a whole, the film does actually achieve what the director supposedly made the owners of the bridge initially believe he was making in the first place-document an important historical American landmark as a living entity! The main focus, however, falls (no pun intended) onto the jumpers that dwell on the bridge. There is a fitting tribute to the jumpers at the end, all being credited by individual name and when they jumped during 2004.

This documentary is plainly and simply a year in the life of a bridge. It should be viewed by all as it is an interesting (if only scratching the surface) piece on the subject of mental illness. It is refreshing to view an unbiased documentary like this (such as Grizzly Man), in an increasingly politically motivated documentary age (Inconvenient Truth, etc). Maybe the reason why this is hitting the headlines is because the truth scares. If any change is to be made, it is the safety barrier of the walkway, although this is NOT suggested once in the film.

In 2004 director Eric Steel set up cameras to cover the pedestrian side of the Golden Gate Bridge. During this year he capture many people walking along the bridge, tourists, people going to work, people taking in the scenery and some people who had come to commit suicide by jumping from the bridge. His film explores the backgrounds and motivations to the people that we see jump to their deaths.

There is a real question within this film and it is one that is only really touched on by one person (not Steel himself I note) and that is the distance provided by the camera as we observe but do not stop the deaths we see. The film doesn't let you build to facing this as the opening credits are a man hopping up onto the barrier and then jumping to his death; it is here where you decide if you want to watch the rest because it is a strange experience where I at once felt dirty but also distant. I'm not suggesting Steel did nothing to prevent people he saw acting suspiciously from jumping but it is hard to have so much footage of the last guy with the long hair in particular and then follow him to the water and death.

The act of looking at it through a camera is weirdly distancing and I felt wrong watching these things while sitting in my warm front room with a reasonably good life, physical and mental health. This distance remained for me in the film itself as I was strangely emotionally distant from the jumpers and their families. The lack of message and structure doesn't help this and I suppose it is a danger of making the film the way he did because he was very much at the "mercy" of what happens as to how his film turned out. If we had had a year of spoilt rich kids then of course the musings would have been very different. This is also a strength though because the film does provide food for thought in the discussions with the families and friends; I found myself thinking about the topic and this is really what you need to be doing because in terms of substance and message the film does rather sit back and let the viewers do what they want.

This is a real shame because it means the most arresting images and footage are the jumpers themselves and it is hard to avoid watching but also not wanting to at the same time. I don't want to accuse of it of not backing up this footage with substance but I'm afraid that is where I am going with this. The documentary doesn't really explore the themes so much as the individuals and the film is rather repetitive. The lack of emotion drawn from me didn't help me get involved in the people and the things that made me engaged seemed to be mostly happening in my head rather than on the screen.

Overall then this is certainly an interesting film but this interest comes mostly from the viewer rather than the film. The suicides are shocking but yet hypnotic and also morally challenging as you sit there as part of a paying audience watching people die from a distance of space and time. The film is nowhere near good or insightful enough to totally justify the use of this footage and, while I think the footage is more than enough to grab viewers' attention, it is not that great a documentary if you were to watch it with these scenes removed – and that for me says quite a lot about the film.