Case study:

Eric Steele’s documentary The Bridge tells the story of theGolden Gate Bridge— the leading location for suicide in the world—and the people who travel from around the nation to end their livesthere. The documentary also features interviews with the familiesof the deceased and a lone jumper who survived.46Chapter 2Steele’screw spent 365 days recording the bridge and documented 23 of the24 suicides that occurred in 2004. According to Steele, he and hiscrew were often the first callers to the bridge patrol office toreport jumpers, but they never stopped recording during incidentswith potential jumpers and those that followed through. Toaccurately portray the amount of suicides that take place annuallyat the bridge, Steele and his crew did not personally interferewith any of the jumpers.In the United States, approximately 30,000people kill themselves each year. The average age for the GoldenGate Bridge is in the 20s. Eleven men died building the structure.In an interview, Steele said he had once considered suicide. “It’sthat Humpty Dumpty moment when it’s all going to fall apart,” hesaid. “For me and many others, it didn’t come. For the people inthis film, it did” (Glionna 2006).Soon after Steele’s crew wrappedup filming, the San Francisco Chroniclereported that multiplegovernment officials claimed that Steele lied about the intentionsof his documentary. When applying for a permit to film in theGolden Gate National Recreation Area, Steele said he planned tofilm the “powerful and spectacular interaction between the monumentand nature.” He later emailed bridge officials to confess the trueintentions of his documentary, knowing there was little they coulddo.Many critics lambasted the documentary, claiming that featuringthe bridge as a prominent suicide destination in such a sombermanner would only increase the number of suicides. It was called“voyeuristic,” “ghastly,” and “immoral” in various reviews andcalled the equivalent of a “snuff film” by one San Franciscosupervisor.“This is like a newspaper carrying a front- page photoof someone blowing his head off; it’s irresponsible, exploitive,”said Mark Chaffee, president of Suicide Prevention Advocacy NetworkCalifornia.Other detractors rebuked the film for failing to includeinterviews with any mental illness experts or psychologists. Thereview on the BBC website (Mattin 2007) noted that “despite theshocking, up- close look, we’re no closer to a real understandingof the terrible urge to end it all.”The New York Times (Holden2006) took a middle road, observing that The Bridge raisesinevitable questions about the filmmaker’s motives and methods andwhether he could have tried harder to save lives. It raises age-old moral and aesthetic questions about the detachment from one’ssurroundings that gazing through the camera’s lens tends toproduce.” The author goes on to say that such discussion was beyondthe scope of a movie review.However, just as many supporters cameto the defense of the documentary, arguing that the film broughtawareness to an important Information Ethics47topic that is notdiscussed openly enough in society. Reviewer Jim Emerson (2006),writing for Roger Ebert’s website, said of the film:The Bridge isneither a well- intentioned humanitarian project, nor a voyeuristicsnuff film. It succeeds because it is honest about exhibitingundeniable elements of both. It’s a profoundly affecting work ofart that peers into an abyss that most of us are terrified toface.Following the release of the film, the city of San Franciscovoted to spend $2 million on a study to examine building apedestrian suicide barrier, a move they had resisted in the past(Glionna 2006).

1. Should the makers of the documentary have tried to intervene inany of the twenty-plus suicides they witnessed? Why or why not?Justify your answer
2. Does the recording of the last moments of nearly two dozenlives violate the privacy of individuals suffering from severemental illness? The privacy of their families? If so, is thisviolation justified?