Talk About Documentary Ethics
The documentary film “The Bridge” is just begging to be criticized (this may be exactly what the director counted on but it’s hard to tell just where this guy is coming from). The film is about suicide and those that choose San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge as their point of departure. In interviews, the film maker speaks about mixing the beauty of the bridge with the darkness of suicide and such discussions – that’s all fine and well. But what is contentious is the fact that there was a group of camera men and women who sat around the bridge filming in hopes of catching the exact moment when someone jumps {why?}. Considering that jumping from the Golden Gate Brdige is an all too common event it’s kind of like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. In this case though you just have to have the perciverance and time. {what value does this capture add to such a film?}
In watching the special features included on the DVD, the people behind the cameras remark that they had cell phones programmed and walkie talkies ready and would immediately call bridge authorities when a jump occurred {uh, but isn’t that a little late}. Did they ever call when they “thought” a jump would occur? That isn’t clear. What is confusing is that they say that they didn’t ever know when a person would jump {this was their kind of ‘defense’} AND that “you could just tell.” My question is, if you could just tell then why not “just call” before the actual jump? Even if you are wrong what’s the harm – obviously, no movie (at least as the director sees it). Is this not taking cinema verite (fly on the wall style) to an extreme limit {beyond limit}? And do you really need to capture someone jumping to make this a compelling story? I personally don’t think that it adds any more than if they had filmed some actors standing around the bridge in comteplative moods (that’s essentially what much of the film is and the most dramatic footage…not the actual jumping).
I never felt any attachment to the subjects and so the film always feels “distant.” One might say that a person would have trouble relating because many of the subjects have some sharp mental disabilities and can therefore be capable of anything. But I don’t think so. I feel like the director took a conscious path about how his movie would be made and it is this path that will keep it from truly being succesful.
While overall the film lacks integrity there are some very strong statements made by a couple of the friends and family members of people who died in the film. The father of one of the bridge’s vitctims is especially compelling. But does that and some pretty cinematography justify the selfish style in which the film was made? I don’t think so…
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.hellasolutions.com/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed")