[REVIEW] The Bridge

[pinbacker]

This is one of those movies that generates more discussion about the movie itself rather than the content presented within.

We know this is a documentary. Here is the first scene: Shots of people walking along the Golden Gate Bridge. This one's riding a bike, that one's talking on a phone, there's a family taking pictures, just regular ol' douchebags going about their lives.

Then one of the regular old douchebags, looking not unlike any of the others, stops, looks around for a couple seconds, hops over the railing, and jumps to his death.

Now, if you didn't know ahead of time what the movie was about, this is shocking. It is still shocking if you know (which you will) that it's a documentary about the Golden Gate Bridge being the #1 spot in the world, statistically, for people to commit suicide, and that the filmmakers camped out for an entire year, filming the bridge to capture suicides (24 in all, in 2004), then the entire time you're watching the opening shot, you're thinking... "he's the one. No, he's gonna do it. No, THAT one..."

This was a very controversial film, and its detractors besmirch it as an "art-house snuff film", questioning whether the filmmakers did all they could to prevent the suicides they capture on film, and the fact that apparently the filmmaker lied about the nature of the project, both to the bridge directors and the families (not telling them he already had video of their demises). These questions exist, and which side you come down on them is your choice. The filmmaker's position, in the interviews on the DVD, is that they did as much as they could, calling the bridge authorities as soon as they knew something was up (according to them, six attempts were thwarted in this manner), and that while there are things to look for ("suspicious activity", as a cameraman puts it), you really can't tell. One jumper looked in high spirits, talking to people on his phone and laughing, before he made the plunge. If they'd called in for every person they saw who "could have done it", they'd have been on the phone sending in false alarms all day.

The first sequence drives this home as much as anything, as you sit there thinking... he's gonna do it... no, she's gonna do it... no...

So, all controversies aside, here you have a documentary about the #1 spot for suicides in the world. Is it any good? Well, on the one hand, I think much more could have been done with the material. Other than actual footage from the bridge, all you get are interviews with friends/families of the departed, along with an interview from the only jumper who survived that year. They all do a fine job of painting portraits of depressed, unstable people, but it is not a revelation that people who commit suicide are generally depressed and unstable. More inquisition into the nature of depression, the psychological draw of the bridge as the final resting spot, the implications of the fact that a vast majority of jumpers jump from the side facing San Francisco, how the bridge workers deal with this seemingly bi-monthly occurrence, etc, etc. More could have been done with it, and I think if more HAD been done with it, there would be less questioning of the director's motives and methods.

That being said, how much more powerful can you make a movie that shows people making the ultimate choice. You may forget the interviews, but you'll likely not forget the images, and you're left to do the questioning yourself.

The Golden Gate Bridge is 1.7 miles long. The most chilling element of suicide at this spot is that most jump from somewhere in the middle, and there's a long, long walk to that middle.

It is difficult to imagine what they are thinking while they make that walk.

THREE (3) STARS (***)

[Worm]

I heard they actually do prevent a few suicides. Does that ruin it?

Fuck the controversy. The world is snuff, and anyone with a fucking brain in their head realizes this already.

[Worm]

This was a very controversial film, and its detractors besmirch it as an "art-house snuff film", questioning whether the filmmakers did all they could to prevent the suicides they capture on film, and the fact that apparently the filmmaker lied about the nature of the project, both to the bridge directors and the families (not telling them he already had video of their demises). These questions exist, and which side you come down on them is your choice. The filmmaker's position, in the interviews on the DVD, is that they did as much as they could, calling the bridge authorities as soon as they knew something was up (according to them, six attempts were thwarted in this manner), and that while there are things to look for ("suspicious activity", as a cameraman puts it), you really can't tell. One jumper looked in high spirits, talking to people on his phone and laughing, before he made the plunge. If they'd called in for every person they saw who "could have done it", they'd have been on the phone sending in false alarms all day.

I'd like to reinforce my point about life being snuff. I personally don't think they should have done anything to prevent the suicides, but they don't include any of their actions in the documentary. So it doesn't play like SUICIDE STOPPER 2000 STARRING ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. I feel they tried to sculpt the uncertainty as a defense. You really cannot tell who is going to do it until they are identified by the people being interviewed.

More inquisition into the nature of depression, the psychological draw of the bridge as the final resting spot, the implications of the fact that a vast majority of jumpers jump from the side facing San Francisco, how the bridge workers deal with this seemingly bi-monthly occurrence, etc, etc.

I disagree. I think doing some of that stuff would have risked it becoming too self referenced. If more was done it denies people the ability to draw their own conclusions. The way people hug that bridge, it's very intimate, that footage shouldn't have been exchanged for a douchebag journalist blabbing or some Michael Moore/Loose Change style blabbing.

More could have been done with it, and I think if more HAD been done with it, there would be less questioning of the director's motives and methods.

I think the interviews they picked really play well. Even some of the more obnoxious interviewees are pretty crucial. It paints a very good picture. However, I think it would be obnoxious for them to try to make more of a statement, rather than an impact. I think an attempt to say too much would have flown in the face of the interviewee who finished up the film.

That being said, how much more powerful can you make a movie that shows people making the ultimate choice. You may forget the interviews, but you'll likely not forget the images, and you're left to do the questioning yourself.

It's just a very good film. Everyone should see it.