Friday, September 25, 2009
2 Bridges - Brendan Colo
It seems to me that the false romantic promise spoken about in regard to the Golden Gate Bridge suicides does not accurately justify the mindset these jumpers are in. A romantic promise, even if it be false, insinuates that the action of jumping off of the bridge is one of a type of showmanship. That the act of killing one's self in such a way is about ending one's life in a manner that is either beautiful or daring, but ultimately, memorable. "Bridge" made it clear that these people were not killing themselves because of attention. I will not deny the complexities of the case on suicide by stating that wanting attention is not a motive for suicide--because it is, but I disagree that it is a main variable in the decision to commit to jumping in these specific cases. I believe it is not the act of jumping off of the bridge, or rather, the final dramatic gesture, but the bridge itself that attracts these jumpers. The bridge is not only grand in its aesthetic, but grand in its promise to the jumpers in the means that it will end their life--not for them to be romanticized but for the termination of suffering. Staring down the bridge into the water is not like staring down a barrel, at a knife, or at a wall from the inside of a noose. The bridge serves as a physical embodiment of the promise of a release, and in other words, both a literal and figurative relatively "safe" passage. It is important to remember, that for one to view the bridge as an escape from life--that individual must have gone through considerable suffering to view jumping as an escape and not a death trap--from this point, I think showmanship is irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make a powerful statement on behalf of the clear and very real pain that each (even potential) jumper must be in to get to that point, Brendan. Sometimes it can be difficult to even discuss these things because sensitive people do not want to be insensitive to that pain. On the other hand, suicide is one of the leading killers in our society and yet we rarely discuss it; so perhaps it can be a good thing to spur some discussion on it.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm wondering whether we *have* to see the choice of the bridge as a negative element, even if we *were* to accept the notion that it revealed 'showmanship'. We are, after all, social creatures, and 'showmanship' plays a substantial role in our lives. Why should we look upon such 'showmanship so negatively if it happens to be the final statement of a person's life?
You mention an understandable reason for choosing the bridge that has nothing to do with 'showmanship', anyway -- the 'release' -- the once-in-a-lifetime release -- that it offers. What if we also view it as a capstone of sorts on a life? Knowing that each of us will die, does such a 'capstone' on one's life not seem possibly desirable?
A "capstone" such as a grandiose bridge jump could only, to me, appear potentially desirable if it is made in a proper context with the jumper's life. I do not see a suicide as an ornament on one's life however in the proper context a "capstone" such as this has the potential to be desirable. I believe that for a truly and honestly turbulent life, it could be justified and argued, but for the average person, jumping off of a bridge is not a cause for personal or social decoration. If such a "capstone" is viewed from the perspective of a type of "showmanship"--as we are indeed social creatures, I feel that we are remembered much more for what we do in our lives than how we end them. I believe this is supported heavily in the film as the topic was not only about the jumpers final moments, but how they were as people before they were contemplating suicide. To me, the ultimate "showmanship" exists in perseverance--in living.
ReplyDeleteYour argument lacks the understanding of the gravity of the situation and therefore fails to strongly argue about this idea of a "capstone" and "showmanship" and what these two things mean. When a person ends their life, they give up everything. I don't just mean the "bad" things, because that's not what it is. People who commit suicide also have things they love. They are not blind to rainbows, insensitive to chocolate, and numb to a lover's touch. All of those are given up as well. But not only that, but EVERYTHING else is lost as well. Like what? Like knowledge, trees, physics, the moon, electricity, music, friendship and family, socks, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone decides to give that away, it is undeniable that it is just a decision, it is THE decision. It says more about a person and what they were thinking and feeling throughout their life than anything else. The decision even reveals more about the person than all the other things we can remember of them. Why? Because they decided to end all of the things we can remember about them. So there must be something more critical to who they are and more important in their mind than...anything.
Understanding those thoughts of theirs is the way to understanding what was in their mind and thus, who they were.
And they know that. People who consider or complete the act of suicide know the gravity of the situation and are well aware of how they will be remembered. They know that people will not be able to think of them without remembering the one most important act of their lives. Understanding the little details is critical to understanding what the person wanted in the message of their act. They are like hints and trails that can open up a window into their lives.
It is thus not "showmanship" so much as it is the execution of a message, and we should thus do all but ignore and look down upon it.
And it is not a "capstone" so much as it is everything else. The act is the result of their life. It is the end of the complicated web of events and thoughts and feelings that the person had. Thus, it is not a "capstone" of their life so much as it is their life.
Apologies for any misstatements and any confusion of the structure of this argument, I found it hard to bound the idea into words.
I'm not sure I follow your argument, Gabe -- though I certainly understand how difficult it can be to put these things into words. One way of dealing with this difficulty is to start with making 1 point at a time, as clearly as possible -- particularly in the comments section.
ReplyDeleteThat said, in general, I can't really see here how you and Brandon differ so much. A couple points you made do jump out to me: first, 'It says more about a person and what they were thinking and feeling throughout their life than anything else' -- is this always (if even often) the case? What about someone who leads a flourishing life, then seems to hit a rough patch, and then decides to end it? Why shouldn't we focus on the flourishing part in such a case?
Second, when you say that 'It is thus not "showmanship" so much as it is the execution of a message, and we should thus do all but ignore and look down upon it', I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't see how it follows at all that we should 'ignore' *or* 'look down upon' someone's last act, *whether or not* it includes 'showmanship'.
I agree in that "I do not see a suicide as an ornament on one's life" however I still believe that people are remembered more for what they did when they were alive than how they committed suicide. I can understand in the case where the true motivation of a suicide is vague and the actual act is a surprise to friends and family where such a "critical" part of the person is revealed to where the suicide may carry more impact on those who recollect it but the majority of those who commit suicide give off signs. Most of the jumpers in "Bridge" had friends and family who knew that they were going through turbulence and tribulations and some of them knew that their son/daughtor/friend was going to commit suicide. This "critical" part of their person did not become evident along with the suicide but rather in their lifetime. People who commit suicide are, exactly as stated, not numb to the good of life and neither are their friends and family. Because of this, it is human to want to reminisce of when things were good. If I am not able to "grasp the reality of the situation", who says everybody can? Friends and family of the jumpers all have to deal with it and it is not my argument to say whether or not they have been able to deal with the force of vacuum in their life where a loved one used to exist, but remembering the good in life--such as the "rainbows" and "chocolate" is how many of us deal with a loss of this degree. On the extreme end of the spectrum, one brother (I believe it was a brother...) of the jumper could not even fathom that his sister would consider jumping and subsequently ruled it out as a possibility. Even famous people who commit suicide are still known by what they did in their life over the fact that they did kill themselves--and there are times when the suicide itself compliments the life in an extremely twisted, but appropriate way. Take Hemmingway for example, his suicide was almost so Hemmingway, that people are still able to argue about what happened and how exactly he did everything. Some can argue that the suicide was a product of his drinking while some are able to argue his drinking was to deal with what he was facing. Additionally, the product of his life is so grand, that he remains studied and his influence is near immortalized. Does a suicide render someone's life in a different color? Of course it does, but I believe that people are remembered by how they were when they were alive--it goes in accordance to the very amount to recollect, and is embedded in the preservation of our sanity when surviving when another has chosen not to.
ReplyDelete