Raggett clan member in plot to deny God-given right to die with dignity/sleep with the fishes

Grrr. I not rite so gud..

Any relation, Ned?

That's my uncle! Great guy.

Their main incentive for preventing bridge jumps is just the expense of finding/retrieving bodies, right? (Plus bumming out tourists?)

It doesn't bum tourists out at all. Well maybe little kids.

Seriously though tourists spend so much time gawking and gabbing about it, I seriously doubt it impacts their crap mean at Pasta Whatchamacallit in North Beach.

If you haven't seen The Bridge, I highly recommend it.

I dunno that movie seems pretty exploitative - the ways the filmmakers lied to get it made make me rather uncomfortable

I mean, when someone jumps, do they have to send out searchers and divers and body-retrievers and whatnot? Not like they can pretend they didn't notice and just wait for the body to wash ashore.

"I dunno that movie seems pretty exploitative - the ways the filmmakers lied to get it made make me rather uncomfortable"

I didn't hear this story. What was the deal?

I think "lied" is a bit strong.

Film captures suicides on Golden Gate Bridge

as I remember it there was a review in the Weekly that reported that the filmmakers didn't tell the deceased' families' being interviewed that they footage of the suicides/misled them about what the interviews were for, and the filmmakers also deliberately violated a bunch of restrictions on where they could film, among other things. It just seems really creepy and exploitative to me, and I don't really buy the argument about how the filmmakers made a vow to intervene if they could... I mean in the interview the director himself notes that they could've reached a jumper quicker than it took the emergency reponse guys to get there. I have a hard time with anyone who prefers to observe something going wrong (and then make money off it) rather than try to stop it.

SF Weekly review

My bad. You're right about the families. I thought you were referring just to the permit issue.

it strikes me as a deeply shitty/manipulative way to treat an interview subject.

I agree.

Guardian interview with filmmakers

Hmmn that is pretty shitty. It's a pretty affecting film none-the-less.

I agree about it's being a tad shitty, though, having actually worked for a film that shot on the bridge, I don't have as much compunction about the permit thing as about ommitting telling the families about the footage. The film IS powerful, however.

I mean, when someone jumps, do they have to send out searchers and divers and body-retrievers and whatnot? Not like they can pretend they didn't notice and just wait for the body to wash ashore.

The CHP deals with people on the deck and the Coast Guard with jumpers. If not found, the bodies tend to be carried out to sea.

I don't care so much about the letter of the law in terms of permitting either, but if yr gonna break the law, do it for a better (non-morbidly exploitative) reason

See, I usually would but otherwise no such film could be made. This isn't an attempt to boost a paper's daily sales, it's one-off film that examines the attraction the Bridge has for suicides and the affect that has on their loved ones. I'm a little ambivalent but I admired the film, too, and some of the footage is magnificently beautiful.

okay, full confession - I've witnessed a jumper/suicide (albeit not from the Bridge) and its not something I ever want to see again, nor can I fathom why a movie documenting such things could/should be made.

Yes, it's all best ignored and forgotten.

there are other ways of dealing with things besides making movies about them and dishonestly manipulating those most deeply affected by them

...which, to bring it full circle, is a good part of why my uncle does what he does kthxbye.