Cinema Vitæ

The documentary film, The Bridge, offers a compelling look at the suicide epidemic occurring at the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. According to the documentary, filmed in 2004, the Golden Gate Bridge is the number one suicide location in the world (24 people killed themselves there in 2004). In this post, I thought it would be interesting to consider what ethical relationship exists, if any, between the filmmakers themselves and the people they filmed committing suicide.

The creators of The Bridge, notably the film’s director Eric Steel, never appear on camera nor do they offer any commentary or narrative voiceover in their film. The only information we receive directly from the filmmakers comes at the very end and takes the form of statistics printed on the screen. We never hear their voices as the documentary’s story is carried forward by those people being interviewed. The hand of the creators is certainly present in their choice of people interviewed as well as their choice of which sound bites to include or exclude. Still, it is a curious choice not to offer any personal narration on how they came upon this subject matter, why they chose to film it, and what they hoped would result from it. I appreciate their desire not to bias the audience and to let the images speak for themselves, but I wonder if their lack of voice in the film is out of respect for the dead and those that knew them or because they did not want to be identified.

What must it mean for a filmmaker to go to a popular suicide destination almost every day for a year, set-up his camera, and wait. Not only that, but to actively scan the bridge looking, wondering, “Is that the next person to jump?” What must go through that filmmaker’s head? Unlike the gentleman interviewed in the film who pulls back to safety a potential suicide victim, the creators of the The Bridge do not make an attempt to save their actors — the people starring in their story. An even more interesting fact to consider is that the documentary only goes forward, there is only a story to tell, if people do jump. Is this exploitive cinema or cinema with a purpose? It’s hard to say since the filmmakers never weigh-in on their reasons for telling this story.

If the filmmakers behind this documentary could make an almost daily trip to the Golden Gate Bridge with the purpose of catching on camera those committing suicide, why couldn’t they have instead walked-up and down the bridge to save these very people they were filming? What made them pick-up their camera instead of reaching out a hand to help? Are they glorifying suicide here or giving us a glimpse of the impact of this action on those people left behind? Perhaps the point being made by the filmmakers is that there are no easy answers to these questions.

The ethical considerations for documentary filmmakers can certainly be great. While I wish the filmmakers here would have made a more proactive attempt to save these people, it remains difficult to say when documentary creators should stop telling the story and actively participate in it. This is perhaps a matter best left up to individual conscience.

Regardless of the ethical considerations pondered here, The Bridge provides a story well worth viewing and discussing.

Follow-up note: After writing this post, I did find clarifying information on how the filmmakers approached this documentary. These details are available here and as a bonus feature on some DVD copies of this film. I am glad to note that many of my above stated assumptions are inaccurate. You know what they say about assumptions . . .