The Bridge
Eric Steel’s disturbing documentary follows one year in the life of the mythical Golden Gate Bridge. Over the course of 2004, Steel and his team recorded over 10,000 hours of footage, capturing 23 of the year’s 24 tragic suicides. Reactions to The Bridge can be described as divirse. Critic Stephen Holden of the New York Times called the documentary “one of the most moving and brutally honest films about suicide,” while critic Andrew Culver of The Guardian gave it a harsher review, only awarding it 1 of 5 stars and claiming “it could be the most morally loathsome film ever made.”
Like Culver , I am appalled by Steel’s project. While making the film, Steel hid his intentions from both the families of the deceased and bridge authorities. Rather than telling them about the real intentions of his film, he told the Golden Gate National Recreation Area that he wanted to “capture the powerful, spectacular intersection of monument and nature that takes place everyday at the Golden Gate Bridge.” More despicable was his deception of the victims’ families. While interviewing, he never made it known that he had footage of their loved ones jumping to their doom. Steel packages desperate people at their most hopeless final moments into a film for a profit, which many have condemned as ruthlessly self-seeking and insensitive. I’m even more troubled by the thought that Steel and his crew could have done something to stop the suicides but chose not to. However there is also an argument that these people were going to jump anyway therefore by just videoing it they couldn't have stopped what they were planning to do anyway.
As such, The Bridge raises interesting questions about the ethics of intervention: when do filmmakers have a moral obligation to intervene-rather than record- preventable events?
Like Culver , I am appalled by Steel’s project. While making the film, Steel hid his intentions from both the families of the deceased and bridge authorities. Rather than telling them about the real intentions of his film, he told the Golden Gate National Recreation Area that he wanted to “capture the powerful, spectacular intersection of monument and nature that takes place everyday at the Golden Gate Bridge.” More despicable was his deception of the victims’ families. While interviewing, he never made it known that he had footage of their loved ones jumping to their doom. Steel packages desperate people at their most hopeless final moments into a film for a profit, which many have condemned as ruthlessly self-seeking and insensitive. I’m even more troubled by the thought that Steel and his crew could have done something to stop the suicides but chose not to. However there is also an argument that these people were going to jump anyway therefore by just videoing it they couldn't have stopped what they were planning to do anyway.
As such, The Bridge raises interesting questions about the ethics of intervention: when do filmmakers have a moral obligation to intervene-rather than record- preventable events?
Comments
Post a Comment