A bridge too far.

Recently, for their monthly "Movie Night," our psychiatry residents chose to screen Eric Steel's 2006 production, "The Bridge," the first documentary, to my knowledge, that films suicidal acts as they are occurring, in this case leaps from San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge (GGB).

Before "Bridge" Steel had been involved as a producer of several narrative films, including "Bringing Out the Dead" and "Angela's Ashes," but he had had no experience with nonfictional filmmaking. According to an article by Jordan Rosenfeld in the Marin County (Calif.) weekly, Pacific Sun (Oct. 20, 2006), the making of "Bridge" was inspired in part by Steel's reading of a 2003 article, "Jumpers," by Tad Friend, in the New Yorker magazine, about GGB suicides (average 23 per year; 98% of leaps are fatal; and, popular beliefs to the contrary, 87% of those who jump are locals). Rosenfeld also reported that a second influence on Steel was his personal witnessing of people leaping to their deaths from the World Trade Towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

Methods and Results of the Shoot

Steel set up cameras with powerful zoom lenses on the ground at both ends of the bridge, and filmed every day during daylight hours for a year (calendar year 2004), focusing on "suspicious" individuals, persons the film crew suspected might be potential jumpers. Among the cues they used were: persons walking alone, a "hunched over" posture, listless or agitated behavior, or, when faces could be discerned, a "depressed expression." In a several hour shift, Steel said he might focus on 5 or 6 suspicious people while also scanning perhaps 50 others. (Information presented here on the technical aspects of the film, crew selection and responses, training, and other procedures is included in a 20 minute "making of the film" extra on the DVD of "The Bridge" that is now available.)

Of the 24 completed suicides that year (18 were men), most were captured on film while jumping, and footage of over half is shown in the movie. Witnesses are interviewed, as are surviving family members and friends, the latter painfully conveying their anguish, their varying efforts to cope with their loss and reconcile the event. They tell their own stories and those of their deceased loved ones, stories of struggles with depression, schizophrenia, substance abuse, or losses. These accounts are in every instance poignant, compelling and highly instructive.

The Ethics of Photojournalism

Almost 40 years ago, cinematographer Haskell Wexler made an extraordinary film, "Medium Cool," that, among other themes, outlined the fundamental conflict for photojournalists when confronted by people in danger: whether to remain behind the camera and get the shot or to intervene, to aid the person in peril. A young man--not one of the film crew--interviewed for "Bridge," who had been photographing people walking along the GGB one day, noticed a woman apparently about to jump. He describes the unusual experience that can occur at such a moment. To paraphrase his comments, a situation like this "is not real when looking through the lens; you have to pull yourself away from the camera to grasp what is really happening and take action." (Putting himself in danger, this man was able to pull the woman back to safety.)

The filming crew for "Bridge" consisted of Steel and five or more young amateurs recruited from ads on Craigslist that were purposely vague about the nature of the project. Responders were fully informed, and those still desiring the job were then interviewed. None had a background in mental health or filmmaking. They were taught how to use the equipment and had a single, 2-hour training session with a suicide prevention hotline counselor.

The procedures for intervention are presented with some ambiguity in the film and in the extra ("making of") segment. Whenever a camera operator saw a person they felt might be at serious risk for a jump, they were to use a walkie-talkie to notify the California Highway Patrol (CHP) bridge patrol team. But it is unclear whether the more inclusive group of all suspicious persons were to be reported to the CHP, or a more narrowly defined group of persons behaving with more obvious intent to jump.

Other Ethical Concerns

A question of timing is also raised in the account of the first suicide to occur during filming. A camera operator, Sarah, describes filming this man for 9 minutes before contacting Eric Steel at the other end of the bridge; Steel then called the CHP. Two minutes after Sarah's call to Steel, the man jumped to his death. If she was so concerned, why did she wait 9 minutes? Once she was more certain of the likelihood of a jump, why did she not call the CHP herself? Is it too much to ask of a minimally trained, inexperienced person to know when to act in such circumstances? (For that matter, could a mental health professional do any better?) What obligations does such a project impose on the filmmaker? Is there an inherent 'conflict of interest,' as Wexler suggested, for photographers placed in the position of this crew? These unsettling questions go unanswered in both films.

Ethical issues do not end here. Steel is reported by Rosenfeld to have applied for permits to shoot the film without disclosing his intent to feature suicidal jumps. Instead, he indicated on the application that his aim was to '... capture the powerful, spectacular intersection of monument and nature....' (Had he not been disingenuous, he might still have obtained permits, according to an official quoted by Rosenfeld.)

There is also the issue of potential copycat suicides by persons at risk who might be influenced by the film. In fact, according to Rosenfeld's report, after the film was first screened in April 2006, at New York's Tribeca Film Festival, and a few days later at the San Francisco International Film Festival, in the following month there were 11 suicidal leaps from the GGB--nearly half the number occurring in an average year--compared with just 3 suicides in the month before the screenings.

Finally, by choosing amateurs (probably the only help Steel could attract and afford for this yearlong project) without any background to prepare them for confronting the chilling events they would be recording, he also ran the risk of traumatizing his young crew. Indeed, in the "making of" film, each crew member is interviewed a year after the shoot, and several attest to both immediate and long-term distressing memories and thoughts about what was for most (not all) an emotional ordeal. More than one speaks of his experiences as "unforgettable."

The Perplexing Structure of the Film

Several persons who completed suicides are introduced by name. Footage of them in the minutes before, and during, their jumps is interspersed with clips from interviews with loved ones. We see one such person, Gene Sprague, restlessly pacing along the bridge rail, often running his hands through his long, windblown black hair (he's dressed entirely in black). Brief cuts of him are shown throughout the film, culminating in his eventual leap near the end. We can't be sure how long an elapsed interval (minutes? hours?) these cuts represent, or even if they were all filmed on one occasion. We do learn from loved ones that Sprague had been suicidal for years.

There are no talking heads, which might have been useful to give more perspective about the shocking events we witness (four San Francisco psychiatrists advised on the project). Oddly intercut with the suicide-related material are many, often long and breathtakingly beautiful, views of the GGB, from close and far away locations, of surfers and kite surfers at play below the bridge, sailboats and larger ships moving under the bridge, sometimes in accelerated motion, seagulls flying, seals surfacing, fog rushing in and out of the bay, bridge maintenance men at work, and close-ups of tower structural details.

What is Steel up to? Is he attempting to conflate a lovely travelogue with a shock-doc? To create a trope for irony and tragedy: the bridge as grand, sublime architecture set against the grotesquery of the suicidal leaps? (One of our residents coined the term "pornography of suicide" to convey the impact of these graphic events.) To give the viewer respite from the horrors portrayed here? To suggest the possibly romantic allure of the bridge as a place for dying? (A grieving girlfriend of a man who jumped speaks of the "false romantic promise" of the bridge, a promise that lasted "maybe 2 minutes and gained him no benefit.")

Positive Impact of 'The Bridge'

While some civic leaders have deplored this film, others have praised it, including survivors of intended bridge jumps and a number of local psychiatrists, several of whom staff the psychiatric emergency unit at the San Francisco General Hospital, the city's major receiving station for suicidal persons. One particular enthusiast is psychiatrist Mel Blaustein, who served as an adviser for this film and who heads a task force advocating a protective barrier for the GGB. Dr. Blaustein, according to Rosenfeld, says that the film has influenced the board that oversees the bridge to fund a barrier feasibility study.

There can be little doubt that this film has powerful educational and public interest value. The question is whether these ends justify the means of making it. Whatever qualms one may have about Eric Steel's judgment, his sincerity seems beyond question. When this film screened at the Silverdocs documentary film festival in Silver Spring, Md., in June 2006, Steel was seen outside the theater holding a stack of suicide prevention brochures.

DR. ATKINSON is a professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. For more reviews, visit his Web sites at www.AtkinsonOnFilm.com and www.psychflix.com. Please share your thoughts with Dr. Atkinson by writing him at www.cpnews@elsevier.com.

BY ROLAND ATKINSON, M.D.