Eric Steel’s The Bridge is a dramatic piece of filmmaking to say the least. Steel captures suicidal individuals jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge interlaced with interviews with family/friends of the jumpers. This approach to documentary filmmaking has some ethical issues. One of the obvious issues is the simple fact that Steel filmed people committing suicide for a whole year straight. A second issue being that he went to relatives/friends of the jumper after filming said suicide. The family did not know of this until the film’s release but were pleased nonetheless that they participating in it.
The online article raises an interesting point about the filmmaker, Eric Steel. The author states, “how does the production history of The Bridge not accord with the worst shock tactics of desperate filmmakers?” I tend to agree with this even though the author does point out that the jumpers were indeed putting themselves on public display in a dramatic fashion. Eric Steel’s film typical wouldn’t be classified as a desperate attempt to be noticed as a filmmaker due to the subject matter, but this is still an interesting opinion to contemplate. Lastly, the film centers around Gene, a man whose story was quite similar to all the other people (jumpers) involved in the film and not necessarily more interesting. The author of the online article states that Gene was used as a “needless narrative crutch” throughout the film. I also agree with this quote noting again that Gene wasn’t any more special than the rest of the jumpers.
Eric Steel's "The Bridge" is a good documentary yet very dark. The opening scenes of fog followed by what seemed to be a happy feeling of people biking and talking changes quickly of a man deciding to end his life. from an Ethical standpoint Steel really goes unethical here with from the most obvious, having actual footage of people committing suicide and using that footage to make a film that he hopes to gain financially out. The argument of him using this to raise awareness may be true, but regardless, seems in poor taste. Another ethical issue is he has the audacity to interview victims of a few of the family members of a "jumper" and it isn't until after he gets the footage of the family, who are under the impression of a man there filming to learn about the person who has never actually met but in reality he was one of the last persons to see that individual on this earth.
The article "Borderline: Eric Steel's 'The Bridge'" by indiewire was an excellent piece. The comments at the bottom were also very informative and easily agreeable. One thing that I read and couldn't agree more with was from username "ALEXANDERKATZEFF" when they say, "this is an exploitation of suicide, plain and simple. Why would a filmmaker want to tape people jumping? Do photojournalists look for military deaths?" That really hit home for me, something we don't typically see, films about military and the amount of US soldiers killed, as well as agreeing with this shouldn't have ever seen the light of day. However, the username "M" said anyone could jump from this, its a four foot high railing, even a 4 year old.
The Bridge gripped many viewers by its intimate portrayal of suicide victims leaping from one of America's most noted structures, the Golden State Bridge. Director Eric Steel had multiple cameras positioned around the bridge to capture these deaths for a whole year. Of course, there are many ethical concerns about how Steel went about building this story and gaining footage. One of the people who commented on the article felt that the film exploited the suicide jumpers. I feel that this could be a very true, especially since Steel misled bridge officials about what he was filming the bridge for. Also, there may have been a leak of his secret films. Jumpers may have knew there were cameras and sought out to make there suicides glorified on camera. Why didn't cameramen do more to prevent these people from actually taking their lives? There were a small number of suicide attempts stopped because of Steel and his crew, but they do not compare to the number of people who actually succeeded in their suicide.The article itself, however seems to take a different perspective on Steel's film.
Though very exploitative and in-depth, The Bridge does have a very powerful impact on viewers. To actually see a person take their own life over and over again on camera can be very disturbing. The Bridge spreads awareness of suicide through scare tactics almost. The article mentions that the jumpers put themselves out into public eye, so how could one blame Steel for capturing what he and everyone else around saw? Also, the interviews and testimonials of family members and friends displayed the impact suicide can have on those connected to victims. Numerous suicides occur on the Golden State Bridge every year because there is no preventive covering attached to the bridge. The Bridge brings that issue to the surface and questions why is aesthetics put before human life. From this viewpoint, the jumpers can be seen as martyrs for a cause that they had no idea they were dying for. Steel could be using their deaths as a means to advocate for bridge safety and suicide prevention. While still very ethically concerning, this viewpoint makes Steel look more like a nice guy. However, some will still view him as a money hungry director who saw an opportunity to increase his success rather than awareness. I guess only Steel knows his true intentions.
"The Bridge" documentary that Eric Steel made was very depressing to say the least. Suicide is a very touchy subject with a lot of people and I admit that I tried to distract myself from the movie. A family friend just committed suicide two days before we watched this film in class so therefore I'm a little biased on an ethical standpoint. I actually did not know that so many people attempted suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. It definitely makes a statement but I do not think it was ethical in anyway for the filmmaker to tape these people. Clearly Steel has no compassion for others or he wouldn't of been able to produce this documentary. I know that if it were me, I would be trying to stop/save every person that I could and I would be heartbroken by the ones that I couldn't help.
I agree with the article when it stated that "it was an exploitation of suicide". I honestly do not think this should of been filmed but then it also makes you wonder if these people did want the attention because they were jumping in such a public place. Was it to make a statement? Was it to end their life quickly? We will never know. I understand that Steel was more than likely making this film as a sort of suicide and prevention awareness tactic but I personally did not feel that way about the film. I also didn't think it was ethical when they were interviewing the jumper who survived the jump. The whole conversation during the interview seemed forced. The man tried to take his life and now you want to put him in the spotlight. Something just doesn't seem right about that concept.
The moment a person takes their own life is deeply personal and undeniably tragic. The Bridge is a film that builds its foundation on capturing this moment. Despite what Eric Steel may say, his intention was never to prevent people from jumping. It was to capture suicides on film. It’s difficult to find a more unethical premise for a film.
Beyond the obvious consent issues, there’s something deeply troubling about the manner in which The Bridge was shot. They deliberately looked for potential jumpers and succeeded in capturing all but one of the suicides that took place in 2004. There’s something to be said for the attempts that were thwarted by the production, but it doesn’t make the core concept any less unethical. It’s an invasion in one of the most intimate times in these subjects’ lives. To make a film with this footage at its heart is morally dubious at best. One has to raise the question of whether it was a worthwhile endeavor at all.
"The Bridge," a documentary by Eric Steel, is about the tortured souls who decide to take their lives by jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The documentary has sparked many debates as to whether Steel's motives for the film are ethically correct or not. Many do not believe that it is in good taste - or morally right - to document the final seconds of a person's life. Others believe that Steel did the best that he could (under the circumstances of the film's storyline) to portray suicide in the most ethically sound way.
While Eric Steel did not necessarily have the intentions to stop people from jumping from the bridge, he did not have the intention to make them jump either. I have been very conflicted in trying to decide if this film was bad taste or not. I actually enjoyed the film (as best I could with the subject matter being what it was, or course) and thought that it was made in a respectful way. Granted, Steel may not have contacted proper authorities quickly enough while he and his crew were observing people and potential victims walking on the bridge, but I don't believe that makes him a bad person morally or a bad director ethically. In my opinion, Steel's main objective of the film was to capture the horrors of suicide and the emotional effects that it has on everyone that is left behind - whether is be the bystanders on the bridge at the time of a jump, the family members and friends of the victims, or the officials that work on the bridge - I believe Steel's motive of the film was more of an attempt as a suicide prevention than it was an exploitation of the "jumpers." To make a film of this subject matter will be dangerous any way you look at it because it will have different effects on all of the viewers and it is out of the director's control. Eric Steel decided to take the route of pulling on heart strings and using the shock factor by showing the victims' final seconds as they jumped from the Gold Gate Bridge in a way to make his film. Was it the correct way to portray suicide? Maybe not, but that really is up to interpretation for whoever the viewer may be.
"The Bridge" has to be the most powerful documentary we have watched all semester. As most of us have probably known someone who has taken their life, it is probably unlikely that any of us have witnessed it. After taken in this documentary for days and remaining frustrated. I have to believe the director is only human and is has a purpose behind it. Knowing several people that have taken their lives, I am still very angry at the director but realized one thing. The families all said after that they were fine with the film. After watching the people fall from the bridge and witnessing humans wake back and fourth for their last seconds, I realized that the filmers captured real life. So often we take that for granted in films, and signing up for this class I expected to see real life. That is what we got. Even though I have a big hate for the director and despise for the film, it is the most real thing we will ever witness.
The article makes great points in that the film represents the "human stories" rather than just the why they did it. And that the "steel" was a very powerful thing to notice. How steel is a powerful image, yet used to due this almost un-human thing. Overall this is a documntary. We have witnessed people dying in this class and people coming to life. This is the most powerful documentary, yet the most important. It means that we can take in these films and talk about them for what they are worth with a new viewpoint.
"The Bridge" by Eric Steel was a movie that made me think in way different than every other movie prior. I was and still am upset with the ethics involved in this movie. I feel that Steel's intentions were wrong throughout the film. I think that there were many ways he could have done a better job preventing the 24 people from jumping.
There were many scenes that I felt were very preventable and I feel that the entire concept of the movie was ethically wrong. If he would have changed the theme of the movie to helping the city of San Francisco change the bridge, or if he would have made a movie encouraging people not to jump that would have been different. At the end when we watched the interview with the director, I felt that when he said the spent $100,000 on equipment, that's when i felt his true character was shown. I felt that he made this movie for fame, rather than an informational documentary. In the end, I guess only the director himself will know his true intentions for the film, and the real reasons he made the documentary to begin with.
"The Bridge" is a documentary that was filmed over a year in San Francisco about the Golden Gate Bridge and the suicides that occur on it. In just one year, they filmed around 24 suicides from the bridge. Eric Steel, the filmmaker, also interviewed the friends and families of the people who jumped from the bridge to put in the documentary as well. As I watched the film two times, questions and thoughts run through my head as I not only watch it again but learn more about the movie when I did some research on it as well.
This is a very powerful, yet dark film and as well as the most unique documentary I have ever seen. To make a film that has people ending their lives and show casing it to the world, gives me an uneasy feeling because it makes you wonder could he, Steel, done something to prevent the deaths, or was he to put aside his morals and watch these people jump something that had to be done in order to get his message across? To me this film exploited not only the victims but suicide as a whole. Was a documentary really the only way to show case his point across? After doing some research and watching the movie more than once and seeing interviews he did, I felt as if he had no compassion or remorse for the people who jumped. He was just cold in his tone and didnt give me the feeling that he cared at all.
"The Bridge" is a very heavy film and was kind of hard for me to watch. Obviously, because it is about suicide, it is extremely depressing. The director films people jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge for a whole year and then follows by interviewing the jumpers family/friends. Basically this whole entire film is one big ethical issue. Steel showed little compassion by literally taping people jumping to their death. I don't think I will watch this film again, it is way too depressing and Steel making this film in the first place just makes me angry.
Eric Steel’s The Bridge is a dramatic piece of filmmaking to say the least. Steel captures suicidal individuals jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge interlaced with interviews with family/friends of the jumpers. This approach to documentary filmmaking has some ethical issues. One of the obvious issues is the simple fact that Steel filmed people committing suicide for a whole year straight. A second issue being that he went to relatives/friends of the jumper after filming said suicide. The family did not know of this until the film’s release but were pleased nonetheless that they participating in it.
ReplyDeleteThe online article raises an interesting point about the filmmaker, Eric Steel. The author states, “how does the production history of The Bridge not accord with the worst shock tactics of desperate filmmakers?” I tend to agree with this even though the author does point out that the jumpers were indeed putting themselves on public display in a dramatic fashion. Eric Steel’s film typical wouldn’t be classified as a desperate attempt to be noticed as a filmmaker due to the subject matter, but this is still an interesting opinion to contemplate. Lastly, the film centers around Gene, a man whose story was quite similar to all the other people (jumpers) involved in the film and not necessarily more interesting. The author of the online article states that Gene was used as a “needless narrative crutch” throughout the film. I also agree with this quote noting again that Gene wasn’t any more special than the rest of the jumpers.
Eric Steel's "The Bridge" is a good documentary yet very dark. The opening scenes of fog followed by what seemed to be a happy feeling of people biking and talking changes quickly of a man deciding to end his life. from an Ethical standpoint Steel really goes unethical here with from the most obvious, having actual footage of people committing suicide and using that footage to make a film that he hopes to gain financially out. The argument of him using this to raise awareness may be true, but regardless, seems in poor taste. Another ethical issue is he has the audacity to interview victims of a few of the family members of a "jumper" and it isn't until after he gets the footage of the family, who are under the impression of a man there filming to learn about the person who has never actually met but in reality he was one of the last persons to see that individual on this earth.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Borderline: Eric Steel's 'The Bridge'" by indiewire was an excellent piece. The comments at the bottom were also very informative and easily agreeable. One thing that I read and couldn't agree more with was from username "ALEXANDERKATZEFF" when they say, "this is an exploitation of suicide, plain and simple. Why would a filmmaker want to tape people jumping? Do photojournalists look for military deaths?" That really hit home for me, something we don't typically see, films about military and the amount of US soldiers killed, as well as agreeing with this shouldn't have ever seen the light of day. However, the username "M" said anyone could jump from this, its a four foot high railing, even a 4 year old.
The Bridge gripped many viewers by its intimate portrayal of suicide victims leaping from one of America's most noted structures, the Golden State Bridge. Director Eric Steel had multiple cameras positioned around the bridge to capture these deaths for a whole year. Of course, there are many ethical concerns about how Steel went about building this story and gaining footage. One of the people who commented on the article felt that the film exploited the suicide jumpers. I feel that this could be a very true, especially since Steel misled bridge officials about what he was filming the bridge for. Also, there may have been a leak of his secret films. Jumpers may have knew there were cameras and sought out to make there suicides glorified on camera. Why didn't cameramen do more to prevent these people from actually taking their lives? There were a small number of suicide attempts stopped because of Steel and his crew, but they do not compare to the number of people who actually succeeded in their suicide.The article itself, however seems to take a different perspective on Steel's film.
ReplyDeleteThough very exploitative and in-depth, The Bridge does have a very powerful impact on viewers. To actually see a person take their own life over and over again on camera can be very disturbing. The Bridge spreads awareness of suicide through scare tactics almost. The article mentions that the jumpers put themselves out into public eye, so how could one blame Steel for capturing what he and everyone else around saw? Also, the interviews and testimonials of family members and friends displayed the impact suicide can have on those connected to victims. Numerous suicides occur on the Golden State Bridge every year because there is no preventive covering attached to the bridge. The Bridge brings that issue to the surface and questions why is aesthetics put before human life. From this viewpoint, the jumpers can be seen as martyrs for a cause that they had no idea they were dying for. Steel could be using their deaths as a means to advocate for bridge safety and suicide prevention. While still very ethically concerning, this viewpoint makes Steel look more like a nice guy. However, some will still view him as a money hungry director who saw an opportunity to increase his success rather than awareness. I guess only Steel knows his true intentions.
"The Bridge" documentary that Eric Steel made was very depressing to say the least. Suicide is a very touchy subject with a lot of people and I admit that I tried to distract myself from the movie. A family friend just committed suicide two days before we watched this film in class so therefore I'm a little biased on an ethical standpoint. I actually did not know that so many people attempted suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. It definitely makes a statement but I do not think it was ethical in anyway for the filmmaker to tape these people. Clearly Steel has no compassion for others or he wouldn't of been able to produce this documentary. I know that if it were me, I would be trying to stop/save every person that I could and I would be heartbroken by the ones that I couldn't help.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the article when it stated that "it was an exploitation of suicide". I honestly do not think this should of been filmed but then it also makes you wonder if these people did want the attention because they were jumping in such a public place. Was it to make a statement? Was it to end their life quickly? We will never know. I understand that Steel was more than likely making this film as a sort of suicide and prevention awareness tactic but I personally did not feel that way about the film. I also didn't think it was ethical when they were interviewing the jumper who survived the jump. The whole conversation during the interview seemed forced. The man tried to take his life and now you want to put him in the spotlight. Something just doesn't seem right about that concept.
The moment a person takes their own life is deeply personal and undeniably tragic. The Bridge is a film that builds its foundation on capturing this moment. Despite what Eric Steel may say, his intention was never to prevent people from jumping. It was to capture suicides on film. It’s difficult to find a more unethical premise for a film.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the obvious consent issues, there’s something deeply troubling about the manner in which The Bridge was shot. They deliberately looked for potential jumpers and succeeded in capturing all but one of the suicides that took place in 2004. There’s something to be said for the attempts that were thwarted by the production, but it doesn’t make the core concept any less unethical. It’s an invasion in one of the most intimate times in these subjects’ lives. To make a film with this footage at its heart is morally dubious at best. One has to raise the question of whether it was a worthwhile endeavor at all.
"The Bridge," a documentary by Eric Steel, is about the tortured souls who decide to take their lives by jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The documentary has sparked many debates as to whether Steel's motives for the film are ethically correct or not. Many do not believe that it is in good taste - or morally right - to document the final seconds of a person's life. Others believe that Steel did the best that he could (under the circumstances of the film's storyline) to portray suicide in the most ethically sound way.
ReplyDeleteWhile Eric Steel did not necessarily have the intentions to stop people from jumping from the bridge, he did not have the intention to make them jump either. I have been very conflicted in trying to decide if this film was bad taste or not. I actually enjoyed the film (as best I could with the subject matter being what it was, or course) and thought that it was made in a respectful way. Granted, Steel may not have contacted proper authorities quickly enough while he and his crew were observing people and potential victims walking on the bridge, but I don't believe that makes him a bad person morally or a bad director ethically. In my opinion, Steel's main objective of the film was to capture the horrors of suicide and the emotional effects that it has on everyone that is left behind - whether is be the bystanders on the bridge at the time of a jump, the family members and friends of the victims, or the officials that work on the bridge - I believe Steel's motive of the film was more of an attempt as a suicide prevention than it was an exploitation of the "jumpers." To make a film of this subject matter will be dangerous any way you look at it because it will have different effects on all of the viewers and it is out of the director's control. Eric Steel decided to take the route of pulling on heart strings and using the shock factor by showing the victims' final seconds as they jumped from the Gold Gate Bridge in a way to make his film. Was it the correct way to portray suicide? Maybe not, but that really is up to interpretation for whoever the viewer may be.
"The Bridge" has to be the most powerful documentary we have watched all semester. As most of us have probably known someone who has taken their life, it is probably unlikely that any of us have witnessed it. After taken in this documentary for days and remaining frustrated. I have to believe the director is only human and is has a purpose behind it. Knowing several people that have taken their lives, I am still very angry at the director but realized one thing. The families all said after that they were fine with the film. After watching the people fall from the bridge and witnessing humans wake back and fourth for their last seconds, I realized that the filmers captured real life. So often we take that for granted in films, and signing up for this class I expected to see real life. That is what we got. Even though I have a big hate for the director and despise for the film, it is the most real thing we will ever witness.
ReplyDeleteThe article makes great points in that the film represents the "human stories" rather than just the why they did it. And that the "steel" was a very powerful thing to notice. How steel is a powerful image, yet used to due this almost un-human thing. Overall this is a documntary. We have witnessed people dying in this class and people coming to life. This is the most powerful documentary, yet the most important. It means that we can take in these films and talk about them for what they are worth with a new viewpoint.
"The Bridge" by Eric Steel was a movie that made me think in way different than every other movie prior. I was and still am upset with the ethics involved in this movie. I feel that Steel's intentions were wrong throughout the film. I think that there were many ways he could have done a better job preventing the 24 people from jumping.
ReplyDeleteThere were many scenes that I felt were very preventable and I feel that the entire concept of the movie was ethically wrong. If he would have changed the theme of the movie to helping the city of San Francisco change the bridge, or if he would have made a movie encouraging people not to jump that would have been different. At the end when we watched the interview with the director, I felt that when he said the spent $100,000 on equipment, that's when i felt his true character was shown. I felt that he made this movie for fame, rather than an informational documentary. In the end, I guess only the director himself will know his true intentions for the film, and the real reasons he made the documentary to begin with.
"The Bridge" is a documentary that was filmed over a year in San Francisco about the Golden Gate Bridge and the suicides that occur on it. In just one year, they filmed around 24 suicides from the bridge. Eric Steel, the filmmaker, also interviewed the friends and families of the people who jumped from the bridge to put in the documentary as well. As I watched the film two times, questions and thoughts run through my head as I not only watch it again but learn more about the movie when I did some research on it as well.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very powerful, yet dark film and as well as the most unique documentary I have ever seen. To make a film that has people ending their lives and show casing it to the world, gives me an uneasy feeling because it makes you wonder could he, Steel, done something to prevent the deaths, or was he to put aside his morals and watch these people jump something that had to be done in order to get his message across? To me this film exploited not only the victims but suicide as a whole. Was a documentary really the only way to show case his point across? After doing some research and watching the movie more than once and seeing interviews he did, I felt as if he had no compassion or remorse for the people who jumped. He was just cold in his tone and didnt give me the feeling that he cared at all.
"The Bridge" is a very heavy film and was kind of hard for me to watch. Obviously, because it is about suicide, it is extremely depressing. The director films people jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge for a whole year and then follows by interviewing the jumpers family/friends. Basically this whole entire film is one big ethical issue. Steel showed little compassion by literally taping people jumping to their death. I don't think I will watch this film again, it is way too depressing and Steel making this film in the first place just makes me angry.
ReplyDelete