UPDATE: Filmmaker Trevor Anderson, a very classy guy, sent me the full five-minute version of High Level Bridge. I have apologized to him for being too hasty, and basing my original critique (below) on the film’s trailer. Lesson learned on my part.
It is a beautiful and gracious film, an artistic tribute to those who have jumped from the bridge, and also a poetic contemplation of the High Level Bridge itself and its role within the city’s collective psyche.
My main non-artistic point, however, still stands: That making a direct link between the High Level Bridge and its suicides may be very emotionally painful to the families and friends of victims other than those to whom the film is dedicated. And, you never know, viewing the film might trigger a “copy cat” response in those feeling suicidal. Hence the policies of the mainstream media and police when it comes to the reporting of High Level Bridge suicides.
•••••••••••••••
There used to be a code of honour in the media, when it came to the High Level Bridge.
Everybody knows the bridge, way up over the North Saskatchewan River connecting the south and north sides of the city, is a spot where suicides occur.
It’s a long ways down. Death is usually certain. But the “old” media – i.e. newspapers, TV and radio stations – choses not to report the sad suicides that occur … unless such suicide is relevant to a much bigger story – i.e. man kills five, then jumps off the High Level.
Likewise, there’s an understanding in police communications. “Run-of-the-mill” jump-off-the-bridge suicides are not reported. Usually a press release is written in such a way that hints at bridge suicide, but doesn’t say it directly. “The man’s body was found downstream. Foul play was not a factor.”
I think it’s an honourable policy, as a courtesy to the family of the person who has chosen to kill themselves, families bearing enough pain and guilt as it is.
And nobody wants to encourage suicide. To repeatedly suggest 10, 20, 30 – who knows – people committed suicide off the High Level Bridge last year is to plant the idea in the minds of those so emotionally disturbed as to be thinking of ways to kill themselves. Not that they haven’t already thought of the bridge, but why make the obvious even more obvious?
So along comes quite well-respected performance artist Trevor Anderson, who last winter made a five-minute short film entitled The High Level Bridge, portions of which can be viewed on YouTube and this website.
The film has garnered far more exposure last week, with its honourable mention in the “best live action short film” category at the 2010 American Film Institute Festival in Hollywood.
The film is all about jumping off the High Level Bridge! It’s artistic, weirdly humourous and sensitive in its own way.
But it’s all about High Level jumpers … “a portrait,” to quote Mr. Anderson from past interviews, “in absentia for those who have jumped from it.”
Sorry, to me it’s in questionable taste. It may be a tribute – Trevor made it, he says, in reponse to two acquaintances he knew who’d so killed themselves – but to so many with direct connections to so many others who have died, possibly offensive and disturbing.
It seems symptomatic, or illustrative, of an attitude on the part of many contemporary artists that’s now commonly seen as quite OK, witness this film winning an honourable mention in a major film festival. If it is of interest to me as the artist, if I think it’s a tribute, therefore it’s OK, and that outweighs the fact that others with a different perspective may have to re-live the emotional pain of losing their loved ones.
That’s not a code of honour. It’s a cone of silence. Moreover, it’s stupid and inappropriate.
Who in the media, the police, or the health profession, thinks that suicidal people don’t know about the relative effectiveness of the High Level Bridge as a way to end their lives?
Do they really think that they’re helping anyone at all by masking the location of a suicide? What else are the police not telling us, in the name of “protecting the innocent?”
I haven’t seen the film; I suspect you haven’t either, given your reporting on it. But I won’t comment sight unseen as you have seen fit to do, nor will I cast aspersions on Anderson’s intentions as you have no problem doing. I will however point you to a documentary called “The Bidge” which started out as a documentary of the Golden Gate Bridge and turned into a very touching, very compelling documentary on those who have jumped, those who thought of jumping but were saved, and the people they left behind.
If Anderson’s film is one one-hundredth as compassionate as that documentary this will be a net public good.
In closing — that’s an awfully high horse you’re riding. Better be careful when you finally climb down off it.
Completely agree with your perspective, Graham. Thank-you for all that you are!
To make the content of this story harder to bear, on the evening of Monday, November 15th, a car filled with some young friends of mine were heading across our High Level Bridge and had the unfortunate opportunity to watch a man jump to his death.
How ironic it would coincide with the date of this article. My young friends stopped and ran to this man’s aid only to discover that the jump had indeed taken his life.
These young men will never forget what they witnessed or what they ran to help. Trevor Anderson may make a name for himself, but at whose expense.
Graham, I completely agree with you that this is a sensitive subject that must be handled with tact and honour.
That’s why I don’t suggest any statistics of how many people jump, as you seem to imply I do: I agree with the reasoning of the police and media. It’s why I don’t reference anyone who’s jumped except my two personal friends. It’s why I don’t name those two friends, out of respect for their families. It’s why I end the film with a personal story of someone who was saved from jumping.
My intention is not to make a name for myself on the backs of the dead. My intentions are to deal with my own difficult emotions around this subject; to talk openly, if carefully, about a taboo subject; and hopefully to offer comfort to my community by making what I hope is a responsible, thoughtful piece of art that can stand in the face of fear and grief.
Rather than being “self-absorbed” as you accuse me of being, I absolutely believe it is my responsibility to consider the audience very carefully, and to remember that my work will have an emotional reality for them.
I also believe it’s your responsibility as a journalist to see the film before passing judgment on it. To that end, I’m dropping a copy off for you this afternoon at the Sun offices. If you still find the work tasteless after you’ve seen it, I respect your opinion. Everyone’s entitled to one.
(And just one point of clarity: I would never describe my own work as “beautiful and creepy”. I said that about the Bridge itself.)
I HAVE seen the film and I will tell you it is touching and in no way seemed to me to be encouraging suicide. I think you should really find out more about something before passing judgement on it. It is very easy to express a snap judgment on something but not helpful to publish it. Trevor Anderson is not reporting on suicides but rather telling a story from a point of view which remains respectful and poignant. I encourage you to see it and discover why it was given an honorable mention at AFI fest.
As someone who has not only seen the film, but knew the two acquaintances to whom Mr. Anderson is paying tribute—I was actually the last person to speak to one of them—the only thing I find in poor taste is this piece.
Setting aside any arguments about the importance of being open and honest about the causes and effects of suicide, Mr. Anderson’s film is a respectful and deeply moving film about people we have lost—or rather, I should say, I have lost.
It works not only as a tribute to their memory, but as a thoughtful way of imbuing one of Edmonton’s landmarks with meaning and depth that simply wouldn’t be possible without the open acknowledgment of some of the tragedy that has transpired there.
I won’t presume to speak for the dead, but as someone directly affected by the suicides Mr. Anderson documented, I am proud that two people I knew quite well—people who made a choice that to this day is still hard to comprehend, emotionally and intellectually—were afforded such a thoughtful and moving elegy.
Trevor Anderson should be proud of his accomplishment as an artist—as someone whose role in society is to affect our intellects and emotions—and I’m glad people are recognizing Trevor for it.
As someone who has seen someone jump off the bridge in high school I am emotional about this subject. As someone who’s father was a firefighter downtown, and was the first to respond to a lot of the jumpers and had to deal with the aftermath, my family is emotional about this subject matter.
As someone who has seen many of Trevor Anderson’s films, I know how sensitive he is to his subject matter, he is one of the most socially conscious people I know or have ever met.
Too many people are too quick to judge, to quick to hand down an opinion, even if we are all entitled to one. I wonder if you truly saw the film? Because your story makes me think otherwise. But I must say you have made people talk about it, it is now in a public forum, right here on your paper’s sight.
Is that not going against the very thing, the code of honour you just wrote about? Trevor Anderson tells stories with such compassion, I applaud him yet again for bringing us all together to discuss a subject that few will touch otherwise.
Wait…the producer of the Edmonton film fest agrees with this? That’s sad.
It would trigger emotional pain in relatives of the millions who died in WW2 to see a documentary about it, but we still produce them, partly in an attempt to understand why so that it can be avoided in the future.
So too we should look at and discuss suicide more than we do so that we can understand better the reasons some people feel so compelled to commit it. By discussing these things, and exploring them in artistic form, perhaps people would see that there are other options. People might realize the pain that they will cause their loved ones and choose a different path.
Perhaps the relatives might derive some real benefit out of having such a painful part of their experience brought out of the closet and into the light. Perhaps it would help with the recovery process.
These are the reasons art and specifically documentary art exist. The antithesis of art is uninformed judgement, silence, and censorship.
Hicks says: “It seems symptomatic, or illustrative, of a self-absorbed attitude on the part of many contemporary artists that’s now commonly seen as quite OK, witness this film winning an honourable mention in a major film festival.”
This is a real nugget of contention, Hicks’ instinctive, “even though I haven’t seen the film”(!) damning of all artists for self-absorption – because of an actually only-assumed-by-him “crime” of specific filmmakers not trying to hide the existence of suicide like we did in the “old” days (instead of discussing severe depression and showing it’s a natural human state sometimes, like the psychological community does now).
Let me be clear: hiding suicide as a function of our society is a mistake. Names need not be named, we all agree on this, but sweeping self-destruction under the carpet is a form of public whitewash that’s irresponsible to others who feel rotten and often alone. By putting a wall around the existence of other suicides, we tell the suicidal they are even more alone.
Outside this, your instinct to attack a wider body of artists’ ethics especially infuriated me, Graham, and while I’m sorry I swore at you on the voicemail (but happy you got to return the favour), this kind of broad brush stroke against the arts community is at the very least irresponsible. You’ve helped people to stick their head in the sand on this issue as well, which I guess is how things were done in the ” ‘old’ media,” as you eloquently put it.
It does not bode well for print journalism when even the most basic research (ie., viewing something you are reviewing) is neglected. If one of the arguments of newsprint against blogging/new media is that it is unreliable, it’s irresponsible to abandon whatever integrity remains of this already troubled industry in the name of either laziness or desire for petty insult.
Every time I’ve gone in front of the cameras or the microphones, I’ve worried: The sound bites won’t express the full meal deal. The hook won’t capture the soul of the fish. Really, I’m grateful this discourse has gone beyond “red carpet” imagery, back to the question of whether or not we’re properly honouring our dead. And in his way, Mr. Hicks is right: what does the suburban mother-in-law, trapped into consuming the news instead of art, make of this story? What does she feel, with no way to see the film, because I choose to work in currently obscure forms? And what of her queer, youngest son in the basement? Thank you, Graham Hicks, for opening some talk: otherwise, as we all know, “Silence Equals Death!”
Kerry Long! Yikes! The EIF is in questionable hands, apparently.
Thank you Scott !
I caught a screening of The High Level Bridge at the EIFF and was immediately overcome with the biggest epiphany of my lifetime: the only thing holding me back from killing myself was never actually figuring out how to do it! Trevor laid down perfect, specific instructions during his movie, even demonstrating the fall I would experience at the end of the short.
Well, it was obvious what was to be done now. Buy a bag of popcorn, walk to the bridge, and end it all. Just like the movie told me!
On my way there, I tripped on an old copy of The Sun sporting this headline: Killer In A Trance During Teen’s Murder. Now, there are a lot of people in my life that I’m not particularly fond of, but I had no idea that you could actually get rid of them for good! This story featured a brave man going into detail on how he killed his victim, with the method he used and his victims’ reactions to his action. This would definitely prepare me for a murder spree of my own!
I was going to go around killing people, just like the paper told me to!
I began walking towards WalMart to get a deal on a hunting knife, when I came across another copy of The Sun with this headline: Rape Victim Takes Story Public .
I consider myself fairly well educated with what sex is all about, but I’d never known you could have it with someone that had didn’t WANT to have sex with you. I always assumed it had to be consensual! I read on, my soul bursting with joy at the methods outlined that would allow me to carry out this published plan!
The article gave me the name of the substances to use (GHB), a way to administer it to an unsuspecting victim, the proper dosage to use per pound of body weight, and a suitable location to make the magic happen.
I have no idea what was holding me back before, but I commend Mr. Anderson and The Sun for describing things in great detail for me to re-enact without giving a second thought. I mean, if I don’t let the media think for me, then who’s going to?
In the 90’s they stopped reporting suicide in the German media. I always thought it’s wrong! :like throwing beggars out of downtowns, we change the real image of our country.
I did not see the film. but if all this is true, what I read here,I am angry. it is film business and if the documentation is any good and independent, it should be supported like hell in these days!
Greetings from Berlin. (same s**t over here I guess!)
Graham Hicks, you are saying that no art should use controversial and sensitive issues. Are you mad?
If I was Alanis I would be crooning, “Thank U Edmonton” right now.
Just when I think systematically uninformed (S-UN) backwards reasoning will remain unchecked, you dispatch your triumvirate of righteous anger, illuminating irony, and constructive grace. *swoon* I fall in love all over again.
p.s. Kerrie Long: Your full-bore support of this soft censorship is troubling.
Next year the funds usually reserved for my family’s 2-3 EIFF passes will be diverted to FAVA, Global Visions, Fairy Tales the CIFF and more. This isn’t a boycott. We’re just taking few eggs out of your problematic basket.
I have seen this film, and while it is not my favourite Trevor Anderson film, I respect and understand why he did it. Bringing awareness to an issue is important. He was dealing with his own feelings, attempting to understand what the people who jumped felt and saw in their last moments. This is his art, an expression of perspective.
Film is meant to bring awareness, certainly Trevor’s films do.
High Level Bridge does not offer any answers except to pose the questions of “Why are we not being there at the right place and the right time more often to prevent suicide and offer hope to those in need?” And “why are we denying the problem of depression and suicide in our society and allowing it to go unreported and untreated?”
I find the film sad, the fall comes quick, and there is no resolution to the problem, or comfort left for anyone. Perhaps this is fitting since it is a reflection of how our society is currently dealing with this issue.
This film is a cinematic poem, which may or may not scrape at you in various ways to make you feel raw, at least challenged, to renew your strength in life, and commit to being in the right place at the right time to be an everyday hero in the lives of others who may need your grace. Whatever way you want to look at it, Trevor’s art comes from a place of love, concern, education, and hope.
It up to the individual audience members to take from the film what they need, be it an emotional stirring, a call to take positive community action, facing the pain of a lost loved one, or their own feelings of despair.
Each person is responsible for their own lives and feelings, though perhaps as a community we can find a way to reach out to those who are depressed before they have a chance to reach the bridge. Perhaps we can build open healing centers where people can go to get free help to heal their emotional pain and find a positive way out.
Perhaps seeing films like this one will be just one more step to bringing us closer to building a bridge to a better future for all those who never knew it was possible. No matter how painful a subject is(most likely due to guilt and fear), it is essential that we face that pain, come to terms with loss, create the solution, and move on to a happier healthier existence.
Every life is precious and has value to the whole. We need to be teaching a lot more important things in schools! At least we have films like this one to initiate the education process.
Thanks to Trevor Anderson for his ever important thoughtful creative works!
I have waited to comment until I had a chance to see exactly what the sides of the Highlevel Bridge look like, which I did a couple of hours ago. I was appalled at what I saw: no suicide fencing. The only “prison height” fencing was over River Road. “Oh good”, I thought, “this City only cares about kids dropping rocks on cars, but doesn’t give a hang about suicides.”
Why has there been no public outcry? Because the media saw fit to maintain a “code of honour”. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!
I moved here in 1975, subscribed to the Alberta Report, read an article about suicides off the Highlevel Bridge, but never heard about it again in any media. And assumed the problem had been solved.
There should be suicide fencing on every “tempting” (to suicide) overpass and bridge in this City. The Whitemud Freeway pedestrian overpass got what is effectively suicide fencing after a rock was dropped on to a school bus. But a lady from Millet jumps off a vehicle overpass a few blocks away and nothing is done. Why is her death any less tragic than the school bus driver’s?
The media must take the blame here, at least a big part of it, for their insane “Code of Honour”. Can anyone claim to be sane who believes that a bridge conveniently located so close to 34,000 intelligent U of A students will not be “noticed” by the small percentage contemplating suicide just because the media doesn’t talk about it? Not putting up suicide fencing on the High Level Bridge makes as much sense as leaving loaded firearms lying around the University campus and then telling the media that they aren’t allow to talk about their existence.
I am totally disgusted by this situation.
Congratulations to Trevor Anderson and THE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE accepted to the 2011 Sundance Film Festival International Documentary Shorts program.
Suggesting that that social avoidance of suicide is part of an honourable attempt to prevent “copy cats” is an idea both backwards and harmful. Interesting that we’re worried about people copying suicide and not murder, violence, robbery, shallowness, racism, and all the other things that make up our daily headlines. Tragic that the media and police would sooner turn their backs on the suffering of the suicidal, including those within their own ranks, and gloss it over with the cover of “honour”. Please. What is honourable about ignoring those in need? Using the glorified ideal of “honour” to cover up what makes us squeamish: that’s in questionable taste.
My heart is still broken. My brother died over 3 years ago. He jumped off the High Level Bridge.
I have not seen this film but I’m sure that my morbid curiosity will get the best of me eventually. As such, I cannot comment on the film itself so in the meantime, I hope that this film opens a dialogue about suicide in our society. My thoughts:
(1) To the witnesses of suicides, and jumpers in particular, I can only imagine the trauma that you suffered. I would like you to know that if you called 911 and EMS workers were able to recover the person’s body, then your actions spared the family the anguish of a missing person’s case. Someone called 911 when my brother jumped, and I am forever grateful to them because we knew on that day, and did not have to endure weeks or months of the unknown. Thank-you to those who have taken action.
(2) Some jumpers stand on the edge of the bridge, trying to make their final decision. This inevitably causes traffic jams while police try to talk the person down. I have often heard people get angry because of the inconvenience that they are caused due to traffic delays. My advice to them: Ask yourself, “Is the person on the bridge someone that I love? Is it my child, my sibling, my parent, or my friend?” If the answer could be yes, then likely you wouldn’t be angry at the inconvenience. If the answer is no, then perhaps you should have some consideration for the person in distress, and if that person is successful, then have some consideration for the family and friends of their loved one who died. To those of you who drive past and yell “Jump!” because you are mad at having to wait, you should be ashamed of yourself!
(3) Some in our society shame people who take their lives and/or shame their families. I have never felt shame over my brother’s suicide. I have always respected his choice. It was his life and his do with as he chose. I read his last words, and I cannot refute his arguments. I do get really angry with people who tell me that it is not the person’s decision to take their own life and that only “god” has that right. I find that attitude as offensive as I find their fictional bible.
(4) The aftermath of loss of a loved one is excruciatingly painful. The most distasteful person was my brother’s landlord who demanded payment for his last month’s rent. At first I was mad that my brother didn’t pay his rent. Then I realized that he wasn’t planning to be there. I laughed. It was a moment of levity. However, when the landlord turned the case over to a debt collection agency and hounded my family for months, I was disgusted at their lack of humanity.
To Mr. Anderson: thank-you for considering the effect that your film will have on the family and friends of those who have jumped off the High Level Bridge. It’s been 3 years since my brother died, and hearing the news of this film today brought me to tears yet again.