 |
<< Back to section 3
Ethical Dilemmas and Making The Bridge:
Putting politics aside, Steel admittedly lied to officials about his intent when obtaining permits to film at the bridge. When he wrote families to set up interviews with them about their loved one's suicides, he did not tell them that he had footage of their last moments. Specifically, it's a problem if you make a film that's treading delicate ethical ground concerning issues of illness and consent without being ethical. Steel says, in defending the way he acquired the permits to film, that he didn't want the media to publicize his filming for fear that those who were mentally imbalanced would see this as a chance to immortalize themselves on film. It's a reasonable point, but it doesn't necessarily trump the myriad ethical issues involved.
Beyond ethics and accountability, when making a documentary film the question becomes: Is the duty to document an act or moment and show it to others more important than the situation at hand? Is it even possible to intervene in another's suicide? These questions are the same ones that are dealt with in reporting on wars, global conflicts, and environmental disasters. Steel did, in fact, alert the authorities when he saw someone climbing a guardrail, and he told the New York Times that he "might have saved six lives." Steel's position, as one can tell in the interview, is not neutral, but the film, in its tactics and positioning, is far from neutral in the issues it raises and the ground it treads. Add to that a volatile political situation, and The Bridge seems to be a film that's been dismissed not necessarily because it is controversial--it is--but mainly because of preexisting political and social agendas.Continue >>
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|