The Bridge

[Fawkes]

Anyone seen it? The director set up multiple cameras aimed at the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco which is the most popular spot for suicides in the world and had the cameras rolling for a few months I think it was. There's something like 14 suicides caught on tape, plus interviews with eyewitnesses and relatives. I've only seen the beginning of it, and I'm gonna be completely honest, I don't know if I want to watch the whole thing. Normally I'm totally desensitized to stuff like this, but seeing a close up of someone's face as they jump and watching their hat blow off is a little too much for someone who has pretty bad suicidal stages. Either way, unique and interesting concept for a film, not to mention incredibly controversial. Any way, just wondering if anyone's seen it. It's available in its entirety for free on Hulu.

Edit: they filmed for a year and caught 24 suicides, not all of which are shown.

[x359594]

I haven't seen it, but it sounds like another exploitation of suffering movie, along the lines of the Faces of Death series and Murder in America.

Personally I find these kinds of movie reprehensible.

[Fawkes]

Though I obviously can't offer a really good opinion on it as I haven't seen it in its entirety, it seems much less like death porn a la Faces of Death and more of an exploration of what can cause somebody to want to jump off of a bridge and end their own life. Eventually I think I'll watch it, but it doesn't strike me as being an exploitation of human suffering, more so an attempt at understanding it.

[Sam_b]

It depends what your take on contemporary cinema is, to be honest. IFC is an independent mostly concerned with documentaries, right? Is all filmmaking conducted by a ruling class in order to create profit? Because if it is this would indeed be exploitation.

By this logic anyway, do documentaries showing death in a very frank way also come under the umbrella of 'exploitation'?

[Sam_b]

I just saw it. Wow, what a piece.

I think you should watch it if you're in the questioning state of mind and not in a particularly bad place now. It's frank, brutal and honest; and fortunately hasn't gone down the path of any leading narration which could sway a potential bias (or at least as much as could potentially be there).

TBH, I find these sort of documentary films valuable, and shows the wide range that cinema has as a comment piece and an art form. All the time watching it I was thinking not just about the people, but questioning the motives of making the film as well as those affected by it: and also myself and family (as cliched as that sounds). The thing is, we can hear on the news or read on wikipedia about suicide and bridge jumping and become completely sensativised, or even flippant, about it; but the way in which we are presented here is a story in itself by friends and family and a striking visual images which enforces the very true realism of the situation.

Many of us believe we have a firm understanding of mental health, but after watching it I realise I know precious little, and although having been in a bad place for a wee while whilst younger and had many close friends have brutal times grappling mental illness, cannot fully understand how dark and scary those times can be. I also found it fascinating the interviews with family which gave an picture of how life was for these people both pre and post suicide, and how they themselves are forced to deal with it - either by grief, anger, denial or misunderstanding.

The count of deaths isn't important here. There are several times that you almost certainly know what happens to these individuals but it doesn't desensativise you to it or point you away. Each experience is unique, shows the uniqueness of human life itself and that is the tragedy here.

I think this film could have been butchered, could have been morbid. It wasn't. Controversial yes, but a valuable contribution into an insight to mental illness, suicide and society itself.

Sorry for going on, and thanks Fawkes for bringing this piece to my attention. I'll close this post with a quote I found particularly striking and one which will resonate with users on here (apologies if I paraphrase/misquote):

"He said he thought he was depressed and needed medication, but because he didn't have health insurance he couldn't get any help"

[x359594]

...By this logic anyway, do documentaries showing death in a very frank way also come under the umbrella of 'exploitation'?

Not if their intent is to expose the brutality of war or the lack of safety on the job or some other purpose that links the death to an invidious social relationship. In short, it depends on the context in which a graphically depicted death is occurring.

[Sam_b]

So if it shows something it must be to your standards informative, yes?

What about in the context of the 'shock factor' or to provoke an emotion to the piece at hand. Why can there be boundaries for an art form's ability to provoke very real feelings, be them positive and negative? This is a question worth some discussion.

[Fawkes]

Not if their intent is to expose the brutality of war or the lack of safety on the job or some other purpose that links the death to an invidious social relationship. In short, it depends on the context in which a graphically depicted death is occurring.

Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the filmmaker(s) intent behind a certain piece was, it matters what your experience of it is. Relying on the intent of the creator is problematic because
1. The artist(s) may not be alive to disclose their intent
2. Knowing the artist's intent clouds your own judgement and experience because people have a tendency to give more credence to the original artist's interpretation of something than anybody else's, and this influences their own interpretation.


Is all filmmaking conducted by a ruling class in order to create profit?
No, though profit is often a/the driving motive. By that argument, wouldn't it mean that every film that isn't distributed for free with no profit for anyone is exploitative of its subject matter, whether that be the lives of suburban teens (Superbad) or the psychological problems of a young woman (Girl, Interrupted)?

[Sam_b]

This was a rhetorical question, I disagree that it does.

[Fawkes]

Yeah, I figured it was, I was just addressing it for anyone that may actually think that.

[x359594]

...What about in the context of the 'shock factor' or to provoke an emotion to the piece at hand. Why can there be boundaries for an art form's ability to provoke very real feelings, be them positive and negative? This is a question worth some discussion.

For purposes of documentary representation, reason is more reliable than emotion.

It seems to me to be a characteristic of bourgeois subjective ideology that feeling and intuition are surer guides than reason. The less articulable the emotion, the poignant, the more seriously it's to be taken. When the dichotomy between reason and feeling is denied (and the commonest gesture of this class is to triumph on paper over some dualism or other), it's denied at the expense of reason. Moral terms for moral choices are replaced by psychologizing. Action is subsumed in "experience", experience in mood. Finally, one can't tell how passive one's become, since one's only measure is feeling rather than effect. And where all is feeling, where one's responsibility is to feel, feeling itself becomes wearisome.

[Sam_b]

For purposes of documentary representation, reason is more reliable than emotion.

Indeed.


It seems to me to be a characteristic of bourgeois subjective ideology that feeling and intuition are surer guides than reason. The less articulable the emotion, the poignant, the more seriously it's to be taken. When the dichotomy between reason and feeling is denied (and the commonest gesture of this class is to triumph on paper over some dualism or other), it's denied at the expense of reason. Moral terms for moral choices are replaced by psychologizing. Action is subsumed in "experience", experience in mood. Finally, one can't tell how passive one's become, since one's only measure is feeling rather than effect. And where all is feeling, where one's responsibility is to feel, feeling itself becomes wearisome.

If you're talking about cinema here over documentary then I couldn't disagree fast enough. I don't think you are though.

[x359594]

Intent is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the filmmaker(s) intent behind a certain piece was, it matters what your experience of it is...

You're quite right. Art necessarily communicates of course, though just as necessarily its communications are delayed, misperceived and unintended. If an artist abandons control over her artworks, history will still force meaning on them, and responsibility for that meaning onto the artist.

[Fawkes]

You're quite right. Art necessarily communicates of course, though just as necessarily its communications are delayed, misperceived and unintended. If an artist abandons control over her artworks, history will still force meaning on them, and responsibility for that meaning onto the artist.

Could you expound upon that? I'm having trouble seeing how that serves to help the point you made earlier.

Edit: I understand both posts in and of themselves, but I don't see how they build upon one another.

[x359594]

If you're talking about cinema here over documentary then I couldn't disagree fast enough. I don't think you are though.

That's right I'm talking about documentary. Cinema is another matter.

[x359594]

Could you expound upon that? I'm having trouble seeing how that serves to help the point you made earlier.

The point I made earlier about intention is wrong; a moment's careful reflection of your response made that clear to me. I wanted to add that once the artwork is lose in the world the intention of the artist is secondary if it can even be known at all, so I'm in agreement with you in the end.

One of the good things about posting here is that ideas get challenged, and if the challenge is thoughtful it merits thoughtful consideration. Of course, there are all too frequent overheated attacks, but that's not the case in this discussion, and i appreciate it.

[Fawkes]

The point I made earlier about intention is wrong; a moment's careful reflection of your response made that clear to me. I wanted to add that once the artwork is lose in the world the intention of the artist is secondary if it can even be known at all, so I'm in agreement with you in the end.

One of the good things about posting here is that ideas get challenged, and if the challenge is thoughtful it merits thoughtful consideration. Of course, there are all too frequent overheated attacks, but that's not the case in this discussion, and i appreciate it.

Oh, okay, I was confused at first how the two reconciled each other. Yeah, I know what you mean, it's annoying, not that I am entirely guilt-free, but it is easier to actually be constructive when people don't just overreact and get all pissy all the time.

[Sam_b]

Cinema is another matter

Except both can merge.