NEWS: Movie Preview : An Unflinching Look at Suicide from "The Bridge"

I watched the trailer twice and I feel pretty wrecked. I can't imagine being the person filming it in real time or being someone who was involved in the project. I think the making of the film would probably be far more interesting than the film itself. I'm interested in hearing more about the filmmakers and what thier motivation and perspective was, somewhere in there, there must be an attachment to the subject matter.

Well, to start, was Schindler's List actual film footage of actual Nazis slaughtering actual Jews?

For another thing, the two aren't comparable. The Holocaust is relevant to the general public because it was a mass atrocity committed by the leadership of a country who'd also invaded other countries and provoked a world war. That's relevant.

And suicide is also relevant to the general public--true. Explore it all you want; that'd be great. But there's no reason other than sensationalism to put film footage of the individual deaths of individual people, whose deaths by themselves were not issues of relevance to the general public or society at large, on the movie screen. The general public does not need to be able to witness that guy sitting on the railing in that pic on the first page jump to his death to explore the issue of suicide. Sure is a lot more shocking and provoking, though, ain't it? To know that you're watching an actual person actually die?

That's not exploration. That's voyeurism.

And no, I don't think every guy in America is going to take his date to see The Bridge, and you bringing up the number of people in the general public who may or may not pay to see the movie is entirely irrelevant to my point.

Voyeurism, not exploration.


"Well, to start, was Schindler's List actual film footage of actual Nazis slaughtering actual Jews?"

I also mentioned Night and Fog, which is a documentary that contains real footage of dead bodies.

"For another thing, the two aren't comparable. The Holocaust is relevant to the general public because it was a mass atrocity committed by the leadership of a country who'd also invaded other countries and provoked a world war. That's relevant."

Well, you see--

"And suicide is also relevant to the general public--true."

Oh, well, you countered your own argument.

"Explore it all you want; that'd be great. But there's no reason other than sensationalism to put film footage of the individual deaths of individual people, whose deaths by themselves were not issues of relevance to the general public or society at large, on the movie screen. The general public does not need to be able to witness that guy sitting on the railing in that pic on the first page jump to his death to explore the issue of suicide. Sure is a lot more shocking and provoking, though, ain't it? To know that you're watching an actual person actually die?"

Yes, it is. Images have power.

I completely disagree. Everything in the public is public. If you choose to die in public, you have a public death.

It has to do with fundamentally differing views on suicide. You are deciding what they should have cared about, Life, and privacy.
While I am taking the position that their final wish was a public death, beyond what you might think they should have done. They obviously didn't care about the outcome.

Again, not comparable. That was a war that involved the coordinated actions of the governments and militaries of multiple countries and societies; the people who died and were affected there were all affected by the same thing, and that thing is of relevance to society overall because it was the result of societal and governmental action. It was not the result of random unaffiliated individuals killing one another; it was a military conflict between groups of many people. There's a reason for the general public to look at what happened there: because armed conflict between societies of people is an issue that's relevant to societies of people.

You posting that picture does not respond in any way to my statement that watching one individual make a private choice to kill himself--a choice that, on its own, does not impact society at large in any way--is not the same as bearing witness to large wars and mass atrocities involving millions of people in many different areas of the globe under the direction of organized societies. There is a reason to make people aware of what happened during the Holocaust, or in Vietnam and Cambodia, or in Iraq: because it's relevant to the functioning of society overall. And again, suicide as an issue may be relevant to society overall in a way; however, suicide is not a war, or an organized atrocity, or an act of governments or nations, or a single event with large-scale repercussions for much of the world. It is not a result of the functioning of society or militaries or countries, and individual instances of suicide do not have repercussions or effects for whole groups and nations and societies of people. Suicide in general is a concept; a suicide is an individual choice to end his or her individual life, and thus one individual's specific suicide is relevant to that individual and the people who knew that individual, and perhaps that individual's immediate community--but that specific individual's suicide is not an event that has relevance or repercussions for society at large. That specific individual's suicide isn't any of the business of society at large; it's that individual's business.

Thus, again, there is no benefit to be gained from the general public, who is not affiliated with or affected in any way by that specific individual's choice to commit suicide, watching that specific individual die. It provides shock value and provokes strong emotions. That specific individual's suicide is not part of a larger societal conflict or event. In fact, I don't even think you can tie one specific individual's suicide to some sort of overall societal problem with suicide, because it's an individual act and and individual choice.

*sigh*

Can you at least tell me that you see the difference between large-scale military conflict carried out by governments and societies of many people and one specific individual's independent choice to jump off a bridge? Let's at least get that far.

The point is that images have power, that showing the death of an actual human being is not always VOYEURISM, as you insist. And that such images can be integral in affecting change.

No, I agree with you that they chose to die in public, and I did mention earlier that maybe I misdirected my rant by bringing up the issue of the wishes of the deceased. That's not really my concern; I have a sort of gut reaction that leans toward seeing this as a bit disrespectful to the dead, but logically I can't really argue that since it's a matter of personal reaction or sentiment.

What I have a problem with is this idea that it's somehow beneficial to random moviegoers to watch those specific deaths--that a lot of unaffiliated, unaffected people should watch these random suicides for some greater reason than to sate their curiosity or to have an emotional experience and be entertained or intrigued by that. People are voyeuristic, and modern-day media marketing encourages that to the extreme. But let's not pretend that there's some societal good to be derived from watching isolated, individual instances of suicide on film. One guy killing himself is in no way related to any overarching societal event and does not have long-range repercussions; it affects the people who knew him, and him obviously, and perhaps his immediate community. But that's it. I hope that made a little more sense.

Suicide as a concept or a theoretical problem could be argued to be relevant to society at large--that's true. But an individual instance of suicide isn't part of some unified or identified problem that society can combat. People have their own reasons for killing themselves that can have nothing to do with the reasons of anyone else who kills him/herself. Watching isolated, unrelated incidents of self-inflicted death doesn't give insight into "suicide" overall (which, really, is probably a bit too complex in and of itself to be lumped into one concept or problem or whatever--like I said, suicide is an individual choice).

And yes, images do have power. But to do what? And why? I'm not someone who thinks that everything should be on public display for everyone to watch for the sake of watching. That's my problem here. I don't see a reason to watch individual, isolated, unrelated instances of people's independent choices to kill themselves other than just for the sake of seeing it--and I think that's a little fucked up. Not every last moment in every last day in every last individual life is made for you (the general "you") to see, and sometimes we need to think about what we're intending to do with the power of an image before we put it out there for mass consumption simply for the sake of consuming it.

I agree with you there. That I definitely understand.

I just don't see this particular instance as being an effective way to effect the change that I've gathered the filmmaker's were perhaps going for, and because of that I find the idea of general public viewing of actual footage of an individual's choice to die fairly disturbing. Images do have power--lots of it. But toward what ends are we using that power, and is the power of those images an effective means to reach that end? And I guess I don't think that the power of these images is an effective way to reach the end of exploring the issue suicide in general (whatever that means). I don't agree that watching as 23 unrelated individuals kill themselves will give the audience a better understanding of suicide or the motives behind such a choice or anything like that. If the power of the images of those people's deaths is just being used to provoke an emotional response from an audience who's there to be entertained, that's unsettling to me--and I think that it's a lot more likely that the power of those images will have a sensationalizing effect and not the effect of providing deeper insight into or understanding of the act of suicide. I could be wrong, andI don't mean to say that no one will get anything out of seeing it. But generallly, that's where I'm coming from.

I can dig that and I respect that viewpoint. It was your previous insistence that the filmmaker intended nothing more than titillation with the film that bugged me more than anything else. There are people that'll be excited and entertained by a lot of horrible things, but that doesn't mean the filmmaker or artist behind a work is less noble in their pursuit.

Yeah, as fascinating as it would be it's just too sad.

What was the site called where there was the most repulsive photo evidence of rotten things?

My own therapist told me suicide was a sin. That really made me feel a lot better.

CrimeScenes...? it was in the "True Crime" section at a Borders Express. not sure, honestly...sorry.

It sounds like Death Scenes.

that's similar...the cover was different...but maybe it's a different edition...
that one looks fun!!

rotten.com

That pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Can' t thank Britney enough for bringing the subject of suicide up in 2003. Although that wasn' t her mission in the first place.
I wonder if the movie makes it to Finland ( Conan O' Brien did ). I used to be a movie critic and have some connections but I' m not that powerful anymore.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061026/REVIEWS/610260301

Here's a really good review of The Bridge by Jim Emerson.

Who were those people?

I suppose it depends on if the film seems like a glorification or not.

The baot at 43 seconds looks fake.

Just saying.