I would not call this movie a ‘snuff film’ and I agree with Erbert when he said Ebert ‘“The Bridge” is neither a well-intentioned humanitarian project, nor a voyeuristic snuff film. It succeeds because it is honest about exhibiting undeniable elements of both.’ It was a very powerful and moving movie but did not try to shove a message down your throat. Only presented the information on the screen. I do also think that the film is exploitative and that it was wrong for the directors to have set up the cameras around the bridge for the purpose of filming a private matter as one's suicide. I think it was a very inappropriate film. I also can't think that any of those people who ended their lives on the bridge wanted the world to watch or wanted to be filmed while doing so. It is horrendously rude to take advantage of a person in that frail of a state of mind. I think that the film makers took the ending of a life to their advantage. The movie did not seem to be in remembrance of any of those people. It seemed to rekindle awful memories for the families and friends of those who took their life on the bridge. Although those living were able to chose to be in the film or not, I would be interested to know how they picked which people to show as they jumped and what had to be done in order to show the act. Just as the one photographer had to snap out of his trance behind the camera to do what he could to help, I think the film makers could have done a lot more to help these people than to show their death to the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're certainly right, Shannon, that it is hard to believe that any of those who jumped thought they were being filmed. I wonder if filming people in public without their permission -- which has become quite widespread, both overtly and covertly -- is something that we should be reexamining? I don't know the law on this matter, but it's clearly legal to film people in public and, most of the time it seems, publish that film.
ReplyDelete