MovieChat Forums > The Bridge (2007) Discussion > I don't get it...

I don't get it...

posted 14 years ago by Dreamcatcher9000
21 replies | jump to latest

At the beginning,I thought that the people who were shown jumping from the bridge were professional stuntmen who were recreating the jumps of the deceased. You know,I thought that it would be impossible for someone to actually shoot the jumpers, because a)how did they know when somone was gonna job?, and b)whould they just sit there filming their death instead of calling the police?
But then I thought...stuntmen are no super men. As trained as you are, you can die jumping from that high...So, watching the film,I was more and more conveinced of the unbelievable...That these were the actual people who jumped and died...And I'm thinking...how can this be possible? How could the filmakers of this documentary sit there every day for a year or something waiting for someone to kill himself? This is not "Animal Planet",watching a lion chasing and eating a zebra or something. These were human beings.

I just can't conceive how were they sitting there and watching for people to jump...This is not just inhuman...This is a moral crime...I can't even think of myself doing such a thing!

I liked the movie,it was serious,and it was a subject that had to be said. But,the way they chose to get us emotional...Filming the real people jumping...Ok,if it was accidental footage, or something that happened right then and there (like the people jumping from the Twin Towers, for example), ok,I understand...But can all of them be "accidental" footage?? Like someone was passing and filming the bridge and accidentally caught a jump on camera? I don't think so...

I really wonder what the families said/thought about this. If a relative or a friend of mine had jumped,and the filmakers were just sitting there filming him/her to make their movie...Oh boy...They would be in a lot of trouble if I'd find them...

[–] tidalwaves1 14 years ago

The issues you have with the film are the same as a lot of other people and that's what has made this documentary as controversial as it is.

The director had read an article in the NY Times about how people wanted San Francisco to put up a "suicide barrier" to keep people from jumping as this has been a common occurence for many years. He decided to film the Golden Gate Bridge because he was curious as to why people chose this structure to end their life. He didn't tell the bridge patrol that his intention was to film people killing themselves, he just said he wanted "to capture the powerful, spectacular intersection of monument and nature that takes place every day at the Golden Gate Bridge". So they had cameras set up for 24 hours a day for a year, scanning across the bridge watching people that looked "suspicious" as they put it, which meant people that were walking alone or seemed anxious or sullen. They had walkie talkies with them and when they thought a person was about to jump, they'd immediately contact the bridge patrol. Many of those people weren't reached in time, so they ended up jumping over and died. They did end up saving a few people, the bridge patrol got to them in time and most likely talked them out of it.

But basically, they didn't make this film to just try and shock people, I think they wanted to try to shed light on why people commit suicide, show the effects it has on loved ones and also show the beauty and mystery of the Golden Gate Bridge. All of these people would have jumped regardless if the camera crew was there or not, they were observers just filming what was going on.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 14 years ago

"Many of those people weren't reached in time, so they ended up jumping over and died."

That Gene guy was there for about 90 minutes!! It was more than obvious that he was going to jump! He was looking down the water all the time! How didn't they reach him on time??

Anyway,I think the film would have been MUCH more better if we didn't see all these jumps...It's cruel...Totally cruel...I can't understand how the families accepted that (did the filmakers ask them anyway?). I wish it had been only the families' interviews,the shots of the bridge and stuff,and photographs and other info of the poor people who jumped...And maybe,MAYBE,some "fake" recreation (not jumping,just someone pretending being someone of them walking and looking sad down the bridge,just for us to get a "feeling" of how thet were BEFORE the jump). Depicting them doing this desperate act, is a disgrace to them and what they've been through. And it's totally different than the Twin Towers example I used in my previous post. The victims of 9/11 didn't choose to jump to their deaths that day...That was a tragic even that belongs to American (modern) History. In the "Bridge" we talk about isolated events of desperate people. Some privacy and respect to what they went through is required.

If a friend or a relative of mine had jumped and they had put it on film, I would do anything possible to sue them or something. Like you said,they LIED to the authorities about their intentions. Again,they were not ACCIDENTS. They were something personal.

What if the director's wife or son had jumped? Would he put it in the movie? I don't think so...
He wanted to prevent these suicides? Then he (and his crew) should be ON the bridge. Not a mile away. All he wanted was to get shots for his movie.

p.s.: Since so many people jump from that bridge, you know what would be a solution? To put posters or signs in as many spots of the bridge as possible (spots from where the most jumps have occured,which I guess they are somewhere in the middle of the bridge,where is the highest altitude from the water),with psychological support messages and a phone number for help. Think about it. The people who jump from the bridge,at the moment before they jump,they feel all alone...People and tourist pass and nobody notices/care...That's what that Kevin guy (who survived the jump) said. "Nobody cared...". So,if the person who is about to jump sees a sign that says something like "You are not alone. We're here to help you. Call -------",there would be a lot of possibilities that he/she would reconsider and wouldn't jump...And they would call instead...

But...of course,I know,that wouldn't be a great "picture" for the Golden Gate's tourism...You know,there are some people who don't know about this "thing",so,they would think "WTF?? People commit suicide from this bridge?? Let's get outta here!! Rachel,take the kids!!"

But...it was just an idea...

[–] tidalwaves1 14 years ago

That Gene guy was there for about 90 minutes!! It was more than obvious that he was going to jump! He was looking down the water all the time! How didn't they reach him on time??

I think almost everybody looks down at the water all the time, unless they're deathly afraid of heights. I believe Eric Steel said he honestly couldn't tell that Gene was going to jump. He said Gene was pacing back and forth on the bridge but that's what most tourists do. Do you think he could read Gene's mind? I think if he really thought Gene would jump he would try to help him.

I can't understand how the families accepted that (did the filmakers ask them anyway?)

I've also wondered if the families/loved ones of these people were consented with and gave Eric permission to show their suicides on film. I imagine that's probably the case.

Since so many people jump from that bridge, you know what would be a solution? To put posters or signs in as many spots of the bridge as possible (spots from where the most jumps have occured,which I guess they are somewhere in the middle of the bridge,where is the highest altitude from the water),with psychological support messages and a phone number for help.

You really think that a poster with a phone number would change a suicidal persons mind? People already know of suicidal hotlines that are available but don't bother calling them oftentimes because they don't think they'll help. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I sort of doubt it would work. The best thing to change their mind would probably be if someone came up to them (like if they noticed they were crying) and ask them if they were okay and if they could help them.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 14 years ago

About the last thing you said, it was "funny" what Kevin said, that he was crying and was about to jump, and a tourist with a German accent came and asked him to take her picture, and Kevin thought "I'm about to commit suicide,and you ask me to take your picture? What's wrong with you?". You know,it was "funny" in a dramatic way,because she couldn't know what he was thinking to jump,but,in his mind,at that moment,he thought that nobody gives a damn about him...

p.s.: If that German (or whatever she was) tourist saw this film, and remembered Kevin...I wonder how she'd feel looking at that photo of hers that he took...

[–] tidalwaves1 14 years ago

If that German (or whatever she was) tourist saw this film, and remembered Kevin...I wonder how she'd feel looking at that photo of hers that he took...

Yeah, I'm sure she'd feel terrible. But like Kevin said, she was having a great time at the bridge, on a natural high and probably just wasn't paying enough attention. Or she may just not have cared. Who knows. Still, it's not like she would have known he was suicidal because he was crying, but the least she could have done is ask "Are you okay?" and listened to him. That's what I probably would have done.

BTW the idea that you mentioned about putting suicide posters and phones on the bridge - looks like it's already been done. --> http://www.flickr.com/photos/25695066@N00/5515601286/

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 14 years ago

.......................................
Unbelievable...How did you find it?? I can't believe that they actually did it. They're quick! Somebody saw my message here and they did it in a couple of days!
Ok,jokes aside,I'm shocked! Well,it wasn't a stupid idea after all! I hope it has results...

p.s.: Have you been to the bridge?

[–] tidalwaves1 14 years ago

Have you been to the bridge?

No I haven't, but I would love to visit it someday. I have a terrible fear of heights, so it would be a little scary for me, but the view would be breathtaking! Though after seeing this film I'd be thinking in the back of my mind about the people that jumped off. :(

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 14 years ago

Yeah, I haven't been there neither, but if I ever, I'll think of the film too... Although I knew about the suicides long ago before I watch it. First time I think was in 1998, in this film:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119019/, where at a night scene, David Arquette attemps to jump from the Golden Gate bridge (at least I think that it's from there, it has been a long time since I saw it!), but the other guy comes and "prevents" him. Well,it's a very good scene,with a very good dialogue,watch it if you haven't.

"I have a terrible fear of heights..."
Join the club! I can't understand people who DON'T have fear of heights! I find it inconceivable to be on the top of a skyscraper and look down from a window and not have a heart attack! Some people feel they're "brave" that they don't have fear of heights and climb all these skyscrapers. Forgive me, but I find it rather stupid...
But,ok,I admit that this film : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155592/ was very good, because it gave another dimension to the subject, a slightly "philosophical" one about existence in general.

I've walked across the Brooklyn bridge,where I didn't have any height problem,because the walkpath is in the middle,so it's like walking on a boardwalk,and also all these people walking and jogging give a feeling of safety.
BUT...I did have a problem walking across the Queensborough bridge... First,I was totally alone (yeah,no tourists there...). Second,it was windy. Third,all these cars passing so fast right next to you don't exactly offer you relaxation...And forth...the walkpath is on the SIDE of the bridge...Which means,that if you turned your head on your right, you could see the..."situation"... I honestly remember that I wanted to go back after some point,but then I pulled myself together and I tried step by step to go to the Manhattan side. I was looking STRAIGHT ahead during the whole route...What a relief it was when I finally reached GROUND!

[–] ohmyohdeer 13 years ago

Part of the issue with catching people before they jump is that you can't just go accosting everybody on the bridge that looks sad /looks at the water/ is alone. This has been an issue in the past, if someone says they are ok and not going to jump the police can't just detain them based on a feeling.

Because it's a documentary they don't have to have permission to show the suicides. The people who were interviewed were not told that the film makers had footage of their lover ones suicides until after all the interviews were complete and though at first they were upset in the end they realized the value of the film and didn't try to stop its release.

I live in the bay area and do not recommend a trip to the bridge, its the saddest place I've ever been.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 13 years ago

"The people who were interviewed were not told that the film makers had footage of their lover ones suicides until after all the interviews were complete..."

How do you know?

p.s.: Well,the bridge is sad because of what's going on there. Otherwise...it's just a bridge. Is there anything else sad about it except the suicides?

[–] ohmyohdeer 13 years ago

Steel interviewed relatives of the suicide victims, not informing them that he had footage of their loved ones' deaths. He claimed that "All the family members now, at this point, have seen the film, [and are] glad that they had participated in it." It's from an ABC news article.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2592841&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 13 years ago

1.500 suicides??? Wow...I don't remember if this is referenced in the film...1.500 since when?

I went to Ground Zero 3 months after 9/11. A part of one of the towers was still standing, and some smell was there even after 3 months. It was really strange being there, especially only 3 months after I was watching it live from my house in Greece. They made a platform where people could go and take a better look at Ground Zero. This I think was a controversial move, but who wouldn't want to take a closer look? It's not a "disrespect" to the victims, it wasn't like a "show" the whole thing. It was for people to understand better the disaster. I actually got lost looking for the platform entrance, and I found myself IN Ground Zero. I didn't have time to realise that I was in the point where the biggest disaster of American History took place, because after a few seconds some policemen spot me and sent me away (almost arrested me, in fact).

After a few months, when spring came, the weather got better, etc., I had the feeling that New Yorkers had already got over what happened. I don't mean that they forgot, of course, but you know, they were beginning to leave it behind them and move on. So no, even 6 months after 9/11, the feeling wasn't that "black". It was sad, yes, but people had accepted what happened and moved on living like they used to. And I guess now, 10 years (wow...) after it, I'm sure they don't even notice it. It has become a fact, and they have learned to live with it.

I don't know if I'm "for" or "against" the building of another skyscraper there. What would you suggest the place to become?
If you see this short documentary http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343986/ , you'll hear a strange suggestion...This guy suggests that the place should become a small...buffalo park...Yeah, buffalos...(In cages, I hope). Watch the film for his explanation.

Anyway, back to the Bridge. When I suggested here my idea about the emergency posters and signs, I had NO clue that this was, or would ever be done. I thought it was a naive idea, and a) wouldn't help, b) would scare tourists. So when the other poster attached the link with the photo, I was speechless...And now I see that they even have telephones!
Do you know when they put these signs? Maybe it was after the film, because if it was before,I guess the film would have made a reference. Anyway, I hope they will help...The people who thought and did this are very brave and deserve congratulations.

But I still wonder why all these people choose this bridge to end their lifes...I remember one of the first victims that the movie shows, an old man wearing a cap on his head, he's just looking down, and then just jumps...Like it's the most natural thing to do...I couldn't believe that this scene was REAL! I though it was somehow fake! How can someone who has lived so many years, has met so many people, has done so many things, one day wears his cap, leaves his house, goes to the bridge and jump...

And I wonder about these passers who witness a thing like that...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ohmyohdeer 13 years ago

You know what's fun? when the phones are out of order.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 13 years ago

About the short documentary, if I remember correctly, the guy says that it would be a good symbolic move to put a small park with buffalos in Ground Zero, because buffalos where highly massacred during the 19th - early 20th Century, so now that people were massacred there, maybe putting buffalos at the point where the biggest disaster on American soil ever happened, would be a good restart for Americans to realise where they went, and what was before.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 13 years ago

Yes, I doubt it! But it would be a good idea for a movie! You know, with these buffallos escaping from their cages and running in the streets of lower Manhattan in slow motion...Hey,I'm not kidding, that would be a really good idea!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]