Films that make me feel strong emotions are the reason I enjoy watching them so much. Even the films that knock me on my knees and make me feel despair or uncomfortable I enjoy as they created a powerful response within me. Its rare for a film to make me feel such intense emotions like The Bridge as it is an objectively moving documentary, but that does not forgive how unethical it’s footage is.
Minus the final shot of the film where a title card reads “more people have chosen to end their lives at the Golden Gate Bridge than anywhere else in the world,” there is not any other contextualization to why the film was made. Is the goal to bring awareness for the need of taller barriers and safety measures on the Golden Gate Bridge to discourage people from jumping? If so, that was not explained or suggested at all.
I understand that suicide is tragic and seeing the deep sadness in friends and family can help in creating awareness to suicide prevention efforts but filming people committing the act is extreme.
Throughout the film there are many wide angle shots of the Golden Gate Bridge used as transitions between scenes. The films holds on these shots for a while, much longer than a typical scenic shot and some of them end with a visible and audible splash indicating that someone jumped. Every time one of these wide shots lingered on the screen I scanned for a falling spec and waited for a splash, but often there wasn’t one. Using real footage of suicide to build tension in transition shots is grossly exploitative.
The film uses one specific jumper named Gene as a framing device to organize the film around. He receives more back story than the other people filmed and shots of him pacing on the bridge building up the courage to jump are included all throughout the documentary. The final scene of the film is of Gene finally standing on top of the railing and falling backwards with his arms spread out wide as he fell. Audio of Gene’s grandmother speculating on why he chose to jump off the bridge as his method for suicide, “maybe he just wanted to fly one time” was edited in right before he swiftly climbed the rail, stood up straight, and fell backwards. The scene is objectively captivating and emotional but also brutally tasteless.
I do believe the filmmakers had good intentions in developing and creating this project, but it is more of a eloquent snuff film than it is a documentary.
I can't argue with the people who claim this is more of a wiki page visualization than it is a documentary, but Woodstock 99 is a wiki page worthy of this treatment.
The found footage and framing device of attendee journal entries adds a interesting narration element to this story and provides a unique insight to how the festival was perceived at the time.
The major flaw of this film is choosing to focus on the societal and political factors that led to the angry "white dude bro" crowd and eventual rioting. I am not denying that those forces outside of the festival were a factor, but I believe it was opportunistic and bias driven to make those the main target of the documentary. I believe it is fairly apparent that the prominent white dude bro crowd was attracted by the nu metal heavy lineup and the aggressive angry vibe of the festival was more caused by the poor planning and high water/food prices than it was having first generation feminist parents.
The incredible footage combined with my potent nostalgia for late 90s culture was enough to overcome some of the forced political commentary and enjoy the contextualization of this infamous event.
