《金门大桥》是一部由Eric Steel执导，纪录片主演的一部英国 / 美国类型的电影，特精心从网络上整理的一些观众的观后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《金门大桥》观后感(一)：等一等的理由
我很喜欢聪明人，也一度以为看很多书，变聪明之后，就能避免很多不幸，就能充满义无反顾的正面能量。但是，后来却发现，世界上有些事，如果你没有经历过，那么你唯一知道的，就是你真的没经历过。比如性高潮，还比如抑郁症。
《金门大桥》这部电影论技巧，论访谈，都不算顶级，可以很明显看到镜头的摇晃和失焦，不过说从另一个角度看也可以叫真实质朴，体现了一种漂泊宿命感。即使是广受赞誉的配乐，其实说到底也只是一部纪录片渲染气氛的规定动作，不然，你要大家怎么在这么沉重的话题画面前坚持看完90分钟？
但是我依然很想推荐这个电影，也很乐意来探讨其中所希望回答、但没有给出答案、其实也未必有答案的问题。（我觉得我好无聊啊，但不做无聊之事，何度有生之涯？）
其实当你每天就吃饭睡觉上班上课，没事儿看看娱乐八卦，从没经历过跌宕起伏的人生，也没有在内心上演过大戏的时候，你的确是无法理解有些人为什么要用自杀这种方式来结束人生。我的意思是，其实大部分人都差不多，中人之姿，中人之智，不是金字塔尖的那些精英，但也没沦落到社会底层，甚至，社会底层人民也有自己的乐子，在没满足温饱的时候，懒得不会去想“价值感”“人生”这种问题。
但是就是他们，那些你觉得明明身边朋友很多，家庭尚可，才干足以支持他们活下去甚至可以活得很好的人，居然在某一天就在这个世界自动离席了。
他们其实很清醒，他们也不愚蠢，你可以说他们悲观主义，但是，如果你是他们的话，或许就会懂得在被生活灌倒后，不论怎么样用力，其实都爬不出门的感觉。
电影里有一点很有意思，自杀者的朋友们很矛盾，当初究竟应该不论他是否尴尬都要多管一些，还是尊重他的选择，即使是去死的选择。
换作几年前，我一定会觉得这群朋友真的没尽到责任，而现在，我会说，别自责，那是他的人生，他有权决定是继续还是结束。你即使与他再亲近，也不一定能帮到他，因为你无法触及他的死穴。
这对于父母、亲朋好友而言是伤害吗？也许是的，面对一个曾经与你生命紧密相连的人的离去，而且是以这种让人难以理解、很像无理取闹的方式离去，的确给人留下无穷无尽的悲伤回忆。但是，如果一个人无法自由选择人生中的每一步，至少，还可以有退出游戏的自由。
这种终结并不值得任何形式的美化，但是抑郁症患者眼中的世界，真的和我们不一样。而我们口口声声所说的“等一等，坚持一下，会好的”，有时候连我们自己都会认为是谎言。这世界，真的有变好过吗？每个人自己都有许多我们无法解决的问题，又如何说服别人来迈过这个坎？“感同身受”，从来都只是自欺欺人。
那些执意寻死的人，只是等不及改变了，对自身的失败失去了耐心。
作为一个想以自然死亡结束人生的人，并不一定更坚强（因为你并未体验过别人的痛苦），并不一定更富有智慧（不然怎么有那么多自杀的天才），但是仅仅做到一点都够了：
在你找到意义之前，不妨勇于接受这个世界的调戏。这其间有许多绝望，你可以认真执着，也可以扮演玩咖情圣，培养一点跟自己的核心价值观无关的兴趣，可以打发掉很多恼人的虚无感，消解掉与周遭找茬的斗志。
没错，安分活到最后的，都是折中主义者，都是能够忍受时间流逝的勇者或庸者。
《金门大桥》观后感(二)：被留下的人
教授告诉我们一个关于这部纪录片的数据。
该纪录片发行后，有三个人，是确实因为看过这部片后才决定要跳桥自杀，也因此而过世。
但从长期来说，《金门大桥》阻止了约两百人跳下这座桥。
随后教授问道，这部记录片打从一开始，该不该出现？
从数据上说，这完全是可行的。三个人的去世以及两百人的生命，比都不用比，也可知孰轻孰重。但是，那三个人所在的家庭，也因此承受了或者他们本不用承受的痛苦。他们的难过不会因为有两百人得救而被减轻，他们失去的就是永远所失去的，从今往后不能再见到爱的人。
那节课是教授特意腾出来开的自杀专题。纪录片只看了片断，我们吵了一个多小时，有人说这是他们的权利，有人说这对被留下的人不公平。谁都说服不了谁，没有争出个结论来，教授最后说，如果预防自杀是不必要的，那她这辈子都在为了什么而奋斗？
一个多星期后，我的二姨丈自杀过世了。
我和二姨丈见得不多，二姨见得多些。只知道他是好人，有时和他聊天，他会问两句学业辛不辛苦我问两句小侄女的事。他会经常带大包小包的家乡土产给我们，每家人都照顾到。每年大概只能见到六七次，每次见着他他都是乐呵呵的。不善言辞，笑起来很憨厚，对我们小的一辈都很好。
二姨是那种很典型的家庭妇女。持家，节俭，做饭很好吃。二姨和二姨丈之间都是直接喊名字的。他们还有一个女儿一个儿子，大女儿结婚了，也生了个女儿。儿子刚上正轨，开始正经干活。
可是，这些都被二姨丈放弃了。
家长不想让我知道这事，我只能私下从我姐那听到些消息。
我偷偷跟我姐说，办葬礼前告诉我，我要买机票回去。
我姐过了好一会才告诉我，好像已经葬下了，可能不会有葬礼。
我至今都没有实感。
我不觉得这是真的，虽然明知道家人不会拿这种事乱说，但我依然不觉得这事是真的。
出事两天前还是我妈生日，我姐还在说大家都到家里来给她过生日就差我了，说再过几天外婆生日也要全家一起吃饭。
随后突然少了一个人。
真的就是永远都见不到了。我们连他最后一面都见不了。
可我那时不觉得，二姨丈不在了我的生活有什么变化。这么讲出来很难看，但除了开头几天一直在哭，后来很快恢复了过来。该吃吃该笑笑，一周后和家人视频，他们也一如既往。
直到看这部纪录片时，一直在想他的事。
边想边哭。
二姨丈选择了离开我们的生活。
在专题课上，有个女生快哭出来。她说她因为个人经历，曾经自杀过，被救回来了。她真的很感谢那时候她的父母没有放弃她，坚持带她去做咨询，让她熬过了那段日子。
那段时间是她一生中最黑暗的回忆，可是她很庆幸，她走过来了。
她到最后哽咽着说千万不要放弃那些想自杀的人。
真的写不下去。
记录片里有一段，是Jene的朋友。他说，Jene had people in this world that loved him. And he hurt them. He hurt me.
《金门大桥》观后感(三)：桥在，人不在
金门大桥，热门的自杀胜地，我曾在上面跑过步，记得那天冷嗖嗖的，刚下飞机，刚吃完麦当劳早饭和咖啡，为了保持身体的温暖，只好在桥上跑起来。有雾的清早，车辆川流不息，有在跑步的人，也有各种肤色的游客。但无论从任何角度看，在我记忆中，在片子中这是一座美丽的桥，所以做为绝望人生的结尾，应该是绝佳的选择。
拍摄者用了一年的时间拍桥，记录桥上逝去的生命。片子里雾气中的桥，明媚阳光的桥，以桥为背景的百态人生，工人在桥旁午饭，艺术家在画桥，桥在他们的身旁；孩子在绿地上奔跑，企业家挥舞着球杆，桥在他们的身后；帆船者穿梭水面，游泳者纵身入水，旅行者在游轮上朝桥上人挥手，桥在他们的上空。与此同时，你不知道什么时间哪个人忽然翻过栏杆，头向上或者朝下，一记抛物线地结束生命。
在所有的画面中，旁白永不停止，逝者家人好友说着他们的故事。也许是解脱，也许是飞翔，明天的太阳照旧升起，桥在，人不在。
《金门大桥》观后感(四)：理解死亡，珍惜生活
我第一次知道《金门大桥》是在美剧《傲骨贤妻》里，当时有一个官司好像是有个女孩在金门大桥自杀，所以案子质疑的是，为什么你们那有闲工夫去拍纪录片而不是救人？纪录片会不会诱导想要自杀的人真的去实践？时间过了太久，具体的细节已经记不太清了，只记得当时我的确震撼——当我们驻足“死亡”这个话题时，总是会震撼，总是会沉重，总是会思考深邃多过于日常生活。
是拍摄还是救人？这个问题已经不止一次遇到过，《饥饿的苏丹》拍摄者凯文·卡特为此饱受诟病，坊间传言他甚至因此而自杀（又是自杀！）。
是拍摄一部关于死亡的电影，引导人们，金门大桥如此壮观美丽，在这里死去是再好不过的了，还是同样一部影片，告诉人们生之艰难，死是容易的，但是人们更应该“等一等”，也许最好的风景在后面。
被观看的死亡到底是警醒还是对死亡者的亵渎？
是just let him go还是 do something？（片中被采访者的疑虑也是我们的疑惑）
是保持自然的美，还是装上层层防护？
活着对于一个人而言，是好还是坏？不让那些想死的人死去，是对还是错？
其实，看过电影就会知道，从技术手法上来讲，《金门大桥》可是一点也不高明。也许是架设摄像机的位置，所以画面不能达到以往我们欣赏纪录片的观感。而且，就拍摄到自杀者到自杀者投水这段时间，就算有人二十四小时盯着监视器可能都已经来不及，不是不救而是这部纪录片的拍摄根本无法实现救人。
当然，从另一个角度来讲，如果没有人去金门大桥自杀，这部电影就无法存在。所以纪录片已经预设了一个场，就像张开的罗网，等待小鸡的落网。从这个角度上讲，的确有些残忍，不近人情，不人性化。对于死亡者本身而言，他自我选择的“死亡”被他人人为包装成一种表演。死亡已经让未亡人受尽煎熬，还要费尽心力去保护死者的事后尊严，所以，《金门大桥》从拍摄到公映，是非不断，这是意料之中的。
不过，Eric Steel是一个有勇气之人。有些事情，的确会招致非议，“是与非”并不明朗，但是不去做，就永远不会知道结果——《金门大桥》致三位想要自杀者选择金门大桥作为人生的终点站，但是也鼓舞了二百多人，给了他们活下去的勇气。
三比二百多，从数量上讲，《金门大桥》的意义不言而喻，但是，对于那三个人的家人而言，伤痛是百分百的，他们痛恨这部电影，可以理解——人们会不由自主地痛恨死亡，但是，其实这是所有人的归途，只不过很多人视而不见罢了。
死去的人获得了某种意义的平静，这一切不过都是活着的人的探索。自古以来，人类就对“死亡”感到好奇。生与死之间，就像有一扇开启就会关闭的门。门那边的人不会告诉门这边的人“死亡”到底是一种什么样的体验，正因为它的“神秘”、“霸道”、“不可知”，所以千百年来人类从来未曾放弃过对“死亡”的探索。
在所有死亡的形式中，“自杀”又是最为不可知的。按照常理，人们都恨不得“向天再借五百年”，可是为什么有人大好年华却忙不迭地结束生命呢？
或许你认为自杀是一种行为艺术，毕竟影视剧里给我们展现的自杀都是比较浪漫的。事实上，终结在金门大桥的24人（2004年）却各有各的死法。有人急急忙忙跑来，忙不迭地攀上栏杆，完全顾不得可能被撞伤和跌落之后的形象，像一只僵死肥胖的水鸟被重重地扔进水里。有人会在桥上逡巡、思考，甚至涉及落水的姿势；有人会找寻一个特殊的洛水点，有人会像一只华丽的鸟一样自由的翱翔……死亡与死亡如此的不同，虽然，终点站是相同的。
让一群你活着的时候都未必理解你的人在你死后解读你，很多人认为Eric Steel此举完全就是为了凑满九十分钟的时常。可是，剥离了影片，难道不是我们这些活着的人在思考“死亡”吗？他们理解不理解又如何？就像你能够理解与不理解，对于逝者已经不重要了，重要的是，在近距离的接触到“死亡”时，当你身边的人试图用这样的方式结束生命时，你在想什么？对于“死亡”你有什么看法？对于那些想要自行结束生命的人，你有什么遗憾，你想要对他们说什么？
Gene，你伤害了我！片中黑人小哥对着镜头说。多少自杀者的家人恨他们，但是忌死者讳，斯人已逝，他们只能把这样的愤怒和伤痛藏在心底，gene，也许你等一等，就会获得一个好的职位呢？多少的家人、朋友充满了遗憾，也许等一等，人生就不一样了呢。
可是，那些在栏杆处犹疑被救起的人，他们的生活得到实质性的改变了吗？埃文自杀了三次，他说他想要生活回到从前，但是完全不可能了。有些时候，一些人不理解另一些人，那些无法理解别人的人却自以为自己理解这个世界。人生不就是吃喝拉撒睡，别人都能过，为什么你不能？你明明已经拥有了很多，为什么还觉得不满足？而对于那些想要自杀的人，也许来自于那些“正常人”自以为是的了解，不被理解却别苛责的压力才是他们急于想要逃脱的。
那么，既然爱你，是让你选择你想要的“自由”，还是去做什么阻止你去实现这种潜在对所有人伤害的行为？所有人都摇摇摆摆，这个问题不会有答案，永远也不会有。Gene的一位朋友选择了尊重他的选择——既然他不属于这里，他活着只是因为被需要，那么，真的有那么一天，请好好说过“再见”再走。这是最动容的告别，也是最体面的离世。虽然有人为此深受伤害，但是活着时，有人理解，这样的行为被谅解，对于gene来说，不得不说是一种幸运。所以，他的离去是最美的，“他只是想飞翔”。人生一世，如果至此结束，也许也是一种圆满。
放弃苛责那些自杀者的父母、爱人吧。就像放弃苛责自杀者本身。
“别人会说，我们是多么糟糕的父母啊。”人不可以苛求理解这个世界上的一切，哪怕是至亲骨肉，也许你依旧无法读懂他。金门大桥的水波依旧平静，一个美丽地方，Sharon照了很多照片，他简直迷上了那个地方，“我是做的不够好，但是我并不认为自己是个糟糕的母亲。”
或许，他们会获得平静、自由与爱。
人真是复杂的动物，就算拥抱，也未必是温暖。
想起《时时刻刻》中，伍尔夫匆匆忙忙走出家门去自杀，为了达成所愿，她甚至在脚上榜上了石头。“我一个人在黑暗中独自挣扎了很久了，只有我才能了解我的状况，只有我才会知道。”
不要说他们未曾努力过，只不过，有人放弃了，有人被打败了。
当我们理解了那些人的生之痛楚，就会更能理解“tomorrow is another day”。死并不难，难的是在经历着痛苦，还要努力地看着明天太阳的升起，这才是最鼓舞人心的力量。理解死亡，善待活着。
《金门大桥》观后感(五)：金门大桥
晴空万里，两名男子正在海上驾驶帆板。美国旧金山金门大桥上，人来车往。然后一位老人越过桥栏杆，纵身一跃。向上的强风将他的帽子吹的飞了起来，老人则重重的跌入海中。日常的平静被打破了。
2004年，金门大桥上共有24人跳海自杀。导演埃瑞克·斯帝尔及其摄制组则在桥的两端拍摄了真实的画面。他们又采访了未遂者和死者的家人、朋友，成就了这部纪录片The Bridge。
这部片子是震撼人心的。这种震撼不仅仅来自近距离窥视死亡带来的冲击，更来自不幸发生时这世界的冷漠。对于死者身边的人来说，自杀的事件似乎是必然的、注定的。这当然是众人的无奈所造成的错觉。无论如何，事件被接受了，尽管人们带着感伤、愤怒，或者些许欣慰。
片子述说着两种痛苦。第一种痛苦是自杀者因精神疾病所承受的。第二种则更为普遍，是人生的孤立状况所决定的。孤立，死者生前与亲友之间深深的隔阂、对自杀的不理解。或者前一种痛苦亦是来自后者。
电影的严肃中有着荒诞气氛。自杀未遂的少年Kevin的父亲，在采访中说：“他们在电话中告诉我他（Kevin）从金门大桥上跳下来，但还活着。我想，也许只是他们在安慰我，让我不至于在去看儿子扭曲尸体的路上出车祸。”而Kevin跳海前在桥上放声哭泣，却有个德国女人找他帮忙拍照……加缪曾说：“荒谬是一种遭遇。”片中的荒谬，正是麻木的日常生活与激动的情绪、崩溃的精神之间的遭遇。或许这正是自杀者死前所准备的事情之一：将自己的生活同日常的世界及人群分开——从而避开荒谬。
至于金门大桥成为美国自杀圣地的原因，我想自然和其环境有莫大的关系：跳入蓝色海洋象征着某种回归，金门大桥的宏伟亦放大了生命的终结。
影片结尾处，长发、黑皮衣的男人站在桥栏杆上，双臂向两侧平举，向后倒去。感觉整个世界都倾斜了。那个画面竟充满了浪漫色彩，当然，除了那里的主角，谁都不知道这画面背后深藏着怎样的失落、疯狂与哀伤。
《金门大桥》观后感(六)：或许只是为了飞翔。
旧金山湾的海风吹拂着他的长发。晴空万里，蓝色汪洋波光粼粼。
一切都已决定。
那个一切都是黑色的男人站立在金门大桥的栏杆上，不足两秒钟的时间，便纵身一跃。
镜头跟进，男人从高处落下，最后在最低处，猛烈的撞击海面。
海水飞溅。人已消失不见。
一些海鸟若无其事的飞过，海面迅速恢复了往日的平静。
金门大桥上依旧会是一派车水马龙的繁荣景象，依旧会有快乐的游人想问能否帮他拍张照片，在夜晚，这里依旧会发出温暖的淡黄光芒。
那个高速运转的城市里还会有着尘世间永不可避免的爱恨情愁七情六欲生老病死。即便人们不停的诉苦，不停的想要逃避，可又有几人会如此而为？是的，我们都相信这是在劫难逃的事情，而且我们无处可逃。
正因如此，所以一直很尊重那些自寻不归路的人们，无论是The bridge里的24位自杀者还是颐和园里的李缇又或是现实当中每一个被常人觉得神经病的自杀者，他们像是开个玩笑却又如此真实。荒诞与壮烈并存在他们活着的最后一个动作缝隙中。
死亡的气息不断逼近，飞翔的感觉到处四溢。
每一个自杀者或许都只是飞翔。即便代价太大。
“人人死而平等，但愿死亡不是你的终点，憧憬光明，就不会惧怕黑暗。”
《金门大桥》观后感(七)：让想死的人去死
这部片看下来，觉得金门大桥是挺值得一跳的。无论想不想自杀，都挺想去考察一下。
片中的黑衣长发男是主线。死前也很有姿态。其他跳海者或仓促，或迟疑，至少都先翻过不高的栏杆，看一看身下的海。而黑男在桥上走了几个来回之后，反身坐在栏杆上。他身边的三五游客也未觉察什么。然后他手一撑，利落地在栏杆上站起，身体后倾，笔直地下落，十分干脆。如同一台黑色直升机，他的身体在空中展开双臂，随即落入海中。这个片断我回放了数遍，冷色的海面，在他坠落之后一群海鸟飞过，简直如同电影。雾气中的金门大桥，的确有天堂入口的味道。
至于对死者们的追述以及人文关怀，我无心多说。一旁观者说，“她在临跳前的迟疑，让我觉得她需要帮助。”站在死亡面前的人，是求生还是求死，旁观者一目了然。而那些死意坚强者，并不需要多余的声音。
《金门大桥》观后感(八)：死亡纪录片
这是一部关于死亡的记录片。我宁愿把它看做关于重生。
导演历时一年用摄影机记录下了来到金门大桥的各色人等。这里是全美国最著名的自杀圣地，也许是因为风景这边独好，也许是因为地理位置优越，总之，如织的过客间，总穿梭着那么几个远道而来自杀的。有的人翻过围栏直接往下跳，有点人犹豫不决，被路人救下；有的人往下跳的一刻，忽然不想死了，奋力自救。
通过这部影片，你会看到最接近死亡的一刻，看到金光闪闪的大桥下的芸芸众生。我也看到了芸芸众生的前世今生，感觉到生命不能不结束的千万个理由，和那些多么盼望延续的自杀者的眼神。
www.outzine.com
《金门大桥》观后感(九)：The Bridge
08年第一次去金门大桥时 大桥两边已经架起很高的围栏 为了防止人们从大桥上跳下去自杀
那时的我也在自以为的低潮期里 当我站在桥上往下看时 真的觉得这片海美的摄人心魂 而我居然也切实的在想象从桥上跳下去的画面 这种感觉让我惊愕 也让我至今仍对金门大桥保有一种莫名的敬畏感
所以我相信 金门大桥对于想要结束自己生命的人 像是一种召唤 也许在那一刻他们都相信着 渺小的自己跳入这宽广的海 就能解脱 得到新生吧
所有想要自杀的人 从产生自杀念头到实行自杀行为中 大都有一个反复纠结斗争的过程 有时他们只是需要知道自己是被在意的 或有人能帮助他们找到除了死亡外的其他出口 就像对于在大桥上哭泣的少年 那个在兴头上请他帮忙拍照的女人 也许就是压弯骆驼的最后一根稻草 让他觉得反正没有人在意他
而对于那些长期遭受抑郁或精神疾病折磨的人 也许周围的人只能尊重他们对于生命的选择 相信他们确是从痛苦中解脱了 他们离开的只是这个让他们不适的世界 Or...maybe he just wanted to fly one time
《金门大桥》观后感(十)：JUMPERS
The fatal grandeur of the Golden Gate Bridge.
y Tad Friend
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013fa_fact#ixzz1WNEnJd13
Copyright reserved to the New Yorker
hortly after ten-thirty in the morning on Wednesday, March 19th, a real-estate agent named Paul Alarab began hiking across the Golden Gate Bridge. Midway along the walkway, which carries pedestrians and cyclists between San Francisco and Marin County, he stopped and climbed the four-foot safety railing. Then he lowered himself carefully onto the bridge’s outermost reach, a thirty-two-inch-wide beam known as “the chord.” It is on the chord, two hundred and twenty feet above San Francisco Bay, that people intending to kill themselves often pause. On a sunny day, as this day was, the view is glorious: Angel Island to the left, Alcatraz straight ahead, Treasure Island farther off, bisecting the long gray tangent of the Bay Bridge, and, layered across the hills to the south, San Francisco.
Alarab turned and looped a thick rope over the railing, then wound it around his right wrist five times and grabbed it with his gloved right hand. His weekday attire usually consisted of a business suit with a “Peace” T-shirt underneath, but today he wore black gloves, black shoes, black pants, a black T-shirt, and black sunglasses. Through the palings of the bridge rail and the rush of traffic, he could see the mouth of the Bay to the west and the Pacific beyond. Clasping a typed statement to his chest with his left hand, he leaned backward, away from the railing, and waited for help to arrive.
Alarab, a forty-four-year-old Iraqi-American, was a large, balding, friendly man who kept a “No Hate” sign in his office at Century 21 Heritage Real Estate in Lafayette, across the Bay. The day before, he’d told a co-worker that the prospect of civilian deaths in Iraq made him sick to his stomach. Alarab had chosen this day, the first of America’s war against Saddam Hussein, to make a statement of opposition.
Responding to a “10-31,” bridge code for a jumper, four uniformed California Highway Patrol officers soon arrived at the rail, joined by three ironworkers who had been repairing the bridge. Alarab told them that he wanted to speak to the media. As it happened, a number of TV crews were at the south end of the bridge, filming standups about heightened terrorism precautions. A Telemundo crew came out, and Alarab began to read a declaration about Iraq’s defenseless women, children, and elderly. “Wake up, America!” he said. “This war will be known as ‘the war of cowards and oil’ across the world!”
As a Coast Guard cutter idled in the fifty-five-degree water below, the bridge’s guardians tried to talk Alarab into coming up. “When CNN gets here, I’m back over the other side of the railing,” he promised. One Highway Patrol officer said, “Hey, don’t I know you？” Alarab squinted, and said, “Oh, sure!” They had met during Alarab’s previous adventure on the bridge: in 1988, seeking to publicize the plight of the handicapped and the elderly, Alarab had climbed down a sixty-foot nylon cord into a large plastic garbage can he’d suspended beneath the bridge. His weight proved too much for the apparatus, and the can broke free with him inside. “It seemed like the fall lasted forever,” Alarab said afterward. “I was praying for God to give me another chance.” The fall broke both of Alarab’s ankles and three of his ribs and collapsed his lungs, but he lived—becoming one of only twenty-six people to survive the plunge from the Golden Gate. “I’ll never put my life on the line again,” he said at the time.
urvivors often regret their decision in midair, if not before. Ken Baldwin and Kevin Hines both say they hurdled over the railing, afraid that if they stood on the chord they might lose their courage. Baldwin was twenty-eight and severely depressed on the August day in 1985 when he told his wife not to expect him home till late. “I wanted to disappear,” he said. “So the Golden Gate was the spot. I’d heard that the water just sweeps you under.” On the bridge, Baldwin counted to ten and stayed frozen. He counted to ten again, then vaulted over. “I still see my hands coming off the railing,” he said. As he crossed the chord in flight, Baldwin recalls, “I instantly realized that everything in my life that I’d thought was unfixable was totally fixable—except for having just jumped.”
Kevin Hines was eighteen when he took a municipal bus to the bridge one day in September, 2000. After treating himself to a last meal of Starbursts and Skittles, he paced back and forth and sobbed on the bridge walkway for half an hour. No one asked him what was wrong. A beautiful German tourist approached, handed him her camera, and asked him to take her picture, which he did. “I was like, ‘Fuck this, nobody cares,’ ” he told me. “So I jumped.” But after he crossed the chord, he recalls, “My first thought was What the hell did I just do？ I don’t want to die.”
aul Alarab never told his colleagues about his first experience on the bridge. He didn’t even tell his wife, whom he married in 1990 and divorced in 1995. The only hint of his fascination was his business card, which he resisted changing despite his boss’s complaint that it looked unprofessional. The card featured a photo of Alarab on the shore of the Bay; behind him lurked the Golden Gate.
On that March morning, facing the camera, Alarab read an ambiguous handwritten addendum to his statement: “I would sacrifice myself as a symbol of children that will die. If you are antiwar, e-mail me at alarabpaul@hotmail.com.” After forty minutes, CNN had not arrived and it seemed that Alarab had done all he could. It was 11:33 a.m. He bent to put his statement on the bridge, then placed his cell phone on it. He then unwound his wrist from the securing rope and stepped off the chord. The officers on the walkway craned their necks in a horrified line, watching him fall.
At a 1977 rally on the Golden Gate supporting the building of an anti-suicide barrier above the railing, a minister, speaking to six hundred of his followers, tried to explain the bridge’s power. Matchless in its Art Deco splendor, the Golden Gate is also unrivalled as a symbol: it is a threshold that presides over the end of the continent and a gangway to the void beyond. Just being there, the minister said, his words growing increasingly incoherent, left him in a rather suicidal mood. The Golden Gate, he said, is “a symbol of human ingenuity, technological genius, but social failure.”
Eighteen months later, that minister, the Reverend Jim Jones, who had decamped with his People’s Temple to Jonestown, Guyana, ordered his adherents to kill themselves by drinking grape Kool-Aid mixed with potassium cyanide. Nine hundred and twelve of them did.
Every two weeks, on average, someone jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge. It is the world’s leading suicide location. In the eighties, workers at a local lumberyard formed “the Golden Gate Leapers Association”—a sports pool in which bets were placed on which day of the week someone would jump. At least twelve hundred people have been seen jumping or have been found in the water since the bridge opened, in 1937, including Roy Raymond, the founder of Victoria’s Secret, in 1993, and Duane Garrett, a Democratic fund-raiser and a friend of Al Gore’s, in 1995. The actual toll is probably considerably higher, swelled by legions of the stealthy, who sneak onto the bridge after the walkway closes at sundown and are carried to sea with the neap tide. Many jumpers wrap suicide notes in plastic and tuck them into their pockets. “Survival of the fittest. Adios—unfit,” one seventy-year-old man said in his valedictory; another wrote, “Absolutely no reason except I have a toothache.”
There is a fatal grandeur to the place. Like Paul Alarab, who lived and worked in the East Bay, several people have crossed the Bay Bridge to jump from the Golden Gate; there is no record of anyone traversing the Golden Gate to leap from its unlovely sister bridge. Dr. Richard Seiden, a professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Public Health and the leading researcher on suicide at the bridge, has written that studies reveal “a commonly held attitude that romanticizes suicide from the Golden Gate Bridge in such terms as aesthetically pleasing and beautiful, while regarding a Bay Bridge suicide as tacky.”
Unlike the Bay Bridge—or most bridges, for that matter—the Golden Gate has a footpath adjacent to a low exterior railing. “Jumping from the bridge is seen as sure, quick, clean, and available—which is the most potent factor,” Dr. Jerome Motto, a local psychiatrist and suicide expert, says. “It’s like having a loaded gun on your kitchen table.”
Almost everyone in the Bay Area knows someone who has jumped, and it is perhaps not surprising that the most common fear among San Franciscans is gephyrophobia, the fear of crossing bridges. Yet the locals take a peculiar pride in the bridge’s notoriety. “What makes the bridge so popular,” Gladys Hansen, the city’s unofficial historian, says, citing the ten million tourists who visit the bridge each year, “is that it’s a monument, a monument to death.” In 1993, a man named Steve Page threw his three-year-old daughter, Kellie, over the side of the bridge and followed her down; even after this widely publicized atrocity, an Examiner poll that year found that fifty-four per cent of the respondents opposed building a suicide barrier.
The idea of building a barrier was first proposed in the nineteen-fifties, and it has provoked controversy ever since. “The battle over a barrier is actually a battle of ideas,” Eve Meyer, the executive director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, told me. “And some of the ideas are very old, ideas about whether suicidal people are people to fear and hate.” In centuries past, suicides were buried at night at a crossroads, under piles of stones, or had stakes driven through their hearts to prevent their unquiet spirits from troubling the rest of us. In the United States today, someone takes his own life every eighteen minutes, and suicide is much more common than homicide. Still, the issue is rarely examined. In the Bay Area, the topic is virtually taboo. One Golden Gate official told me repeatedly, “I hate that you’re writing about this.”
In 1976, an engineer named Roger Grimes began agitating for a barrier on the Golden Gate. He walked up and down the bridge wearing a sandwich board that said “Please Care. Support a Suicide Barrier.” He gave up a few years ago, stunned that in an area as famously liberal as San Francisco, where you can always find a constituency for the view that pets should be citizens or that poison oak has a right to exist, there was so little empathy for the depressed. “People were very hostile,” Grimes told me. “They would throw soda cans at me, or yell, ‘Jump!’ ”
When Paul Alarab was pulled from the Bay at 11:34 a.m., he was unconscious and badly bruised. The impact had ripped off his left glove and his right shoe. The Coast Guard crew, wearing their standard jumper-retrieval garb to protect against leaking body fluids—Tyvex biohazard suits, masks, gloves, and safety goggles—began C.P.R. Half an hour later, Alarab was pronounced dead. Gary Tindel, the assistant coroner of Marin County, who examined the body on the dock at Fort Baker, at the north end of the bridge, observed that “massive bleeding had occurred in both ears, along with apparent grayish brain matter in and around the right ear.” Tindel brought Alarab’s antiwar statement and his cell phone back to the coroner’s office in San Rafael. Soon afterward, the cell phone rang. It was Alarab’s ex-wife, Rubina Coton: their nine-year-old son had been waiting more than two hours at school for his father to pick him up.
“May I speak with Paul？” Coton asked.
“I’m sorry,” Tindel said. “You can’t.” Tindel explained that he was with the coroner’s office and suggested that Coton call back on his office phone. When she did, he told her that her ex-husband had jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge.
“Please don’t joke,” Coton said.
Tindel described Alarab’s outfit, but Coton didn’t recognize the clothes. Then he told her that the corpse wore a yarn necklace. And she recalled, suddenly, that their daughter had made such a necklace for Paul.
Jumpers tend to idealize what will happen after they step off the bridge. “Suicidal people have transformation fantasies and are prone to magical thinking, like children and psychotics,” Dr. Lanny Berman, the executive director of the American Association of Suicidology, says. “Jumpers are drawn to the Golden Gate because they believe it’s a gateway to another place. They think that life will slow down in those final seconds, and then they’ll hit the water cleanly, like a high diver.”
In the four-second fall from the bridge, survivors say, time does seem to slow. On her way down in 1979, Ann McGuire said to herself, “I must be about to hit,” three times. But the impact is not clean: the coroner’s usual verdict, suicide caused by “multiple blunt-force injuries,” euphemizes the devastation. Many people don’t look down first, and so those who jump from the north end of the bridge hit the land instead of the water they saw farther out. Jumpers who hit the water do so at about seventy-five miles an hour and with a force of fifteen thousand pounds per square inch. Eighty-five per cent of them suffer broken ribs, which rip inward and tear through the spleen, the lungs, and the heart. Vertebrae snap, and the liver often ruptures. “It’s as if someone took an eggbeater to the organs of the body and ground everything up,” Ron Wilton, a Coast Guard officer, once observed.
Those who survive the impact usually die soon afterward. If they go straight in, they plunge so deeply into the water—which reaches a depth of three hundred and fifty feet—that they drown. (The rare survivors always hit feet first, and at a slight angle.) A number of bodies become trapped in the eddies stirred by the bridge’s massive stone piers, and sometimes wash up as far away as the Farallon Islands, about thirty miles off. These corpses suffer from “severe marine depredation”—shark attacks and, particularly, the attentions of crabs, which feed on the eyeballs first, then the loose flesh of the cheeks. Already this year, two bodies have vanished entirely.
On December 17, 2001, fourteen-year-old Marissa Imrie, a petite and attractive straight-A student who had planned to become a psychiatrist, left her second-period class at Santa Rosa High School, took a hundredand-fifty-dollar taxi ride to the Golden Gate, and jumped to her death. Though Marissa was always very hard on herself and had lately complained of severe headaches and insomnia, her mother, Renée Milligan, had no inkling of her plans. “She called us ‘the glue girls,’ we were so close,” Milligan told me. “She’d never spoken about the bridge, and we’d never even visited it.”
When Milligan examined her daughter’s computer afterward, she discovered that Marissa had been visiting a how-to Web site about suicide that featured grisly autopsy photos. The site notes that many suicide methods are ineffective (poison is fatal only fifteen per cent of the time, drug overdose twelve per cent, and wrist cutting a mere five per cent) and therefore recommends bridges, noting that “jumps from higher than . . . 250 feet over water are almost always fatal.” Milligan bought the proprietor of the site’s book, “Suicide and Attempted Suicide,” and read the following sentence: “The Golden Gate Bridge is to suicides what Niagara Falls is to honeymooners.” She returned the book and gave the computer away.
Every year, Marissa had written her mother a Christmas letter reflecting on the year’s events. On Christmas Day that year, Milligan, going through her daughter’s things, found her suicide note. It was tucked into “The Chronicles of Narnia,” which sat beside a copy of “Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teenagers.” The note ended with a plea: “Please forgive me. Don’t shut yourselves off from the world. Everyone is better off without this fat, disgusting, boring girl. Move on.”
Renée Milligan could not. “When I went to my optometrist, I realized he has big pictures of the Golden Gate in his office, and I had to walk out,” she said. “The image of the bridge is everywhere. San Francisco is the Golden Gate Bridge—I can’t escape it.” Milligan recently filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of her daughter’s estate against the Golden Gate Bridge District and the bridge’s board of directors, seeking to require them to put up a barrier. Her suit charges, “Through their acts and omissions Defendants have authorized, encouraged, and condoned government-assisted suicide.” Three previous lawsuits against the bridge by the parents of suicides have all been dismissed, and the bridge officials’ reply to Milligan’s suit lays out their standard defense: “Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were the result of Plaintiffs’ own actions (contributory negligence).” Furthermore, the reply says, “plaintiffs cannot show that Ms. Imrie used the property with due care for the purposes it was designed.”
As Joseph Strauss, the chief engineer of the Golden Gate, watched his beloved suspension bridge rise over San Francisco Bay in the nineteen-thirties, he could not imagine that anyone would use it without due care for its designated purpose. “Who would want to jump from the Golden Gate Bridge？” he told reporters. At the bridge’s opening ceremony, in May of 1937, Strauss read a statement in a low voice, his hands trembling. “What Nature rent asunder long ago man has joined today,” he said. The class poet at Ohio University, class of ’91, Strauss also wrote an ode to mark the occasion:
As harps for the winds of heaven,
My web-like cables are spun;
I offer my span for the traffic of man,
At the gate of the setting sun.
Three months later, a forty-seven-year-old First World War veteran named Harold Wobber turned to a stranger on the walkway, announced, “This is as far as I go,” and hopped over the rail. His body was never found. The original design called for the rail to be five and a half feet high, but this was lowered to four feet in the final blueprint, for reasons that are lost to history. The bridge’s chief engineer, Mervin Giacomini, who recently retired, told me half seriously that Strauss’s stature—he was only five feet tall—may have been a factor in the decision. Known as “the little man who built the big bridge,” Strauss may simply have wanted to be able to see over its side.
In May, 1938, Strauss died of a heart attack, likely brought on by the stress of seeing the bridge to completion. A plaque dedicated to him at the southern end of the bridge a few months later declared the span “a promise indeed that the race of man shall endure unto the ages”; at that point, six people had already jumped off. And at the dedication ceremony A. R. O’Brien, the bridge’s director, delivered a notably dark eulogy. Strauss “put everything he had” into the bridge’s construction, O’Brien said, “and out of its completion he got so little. . . . The Golden Gate Bridge, for my dead friend, turned out to be a mute monument of misery.”
In the years since the bridge’s dedication, Harold Wobber’s flight path has become well worn. I spent a day reading through clippings about Golden Gate Bridge suicides in the San Francisco Public Library, hundreds of two- or three-inch tales of woe from the Chronicle, the Examiner, the Call-Bulletin: “police said he was despondent over domestic affairs”; “medical discharge from the army”; “jobless butcher”; “the upholstery still retaining the warmth of the driver’s body”; “saying ‘goodbye’ four times and looking ‘very sad’ ”; “ ‘sick at heart’ over the treatment of Jewish relatives in Germany”; “the baby’s cries apparently irritated him past endurance”; “footprints on the fog-wet girders were found early today”; “using his last nickel to scratch a farewell on the guard railing.”
The coverage intensified in 1973, when the Chronicle and the Examiner initiated countdowns to the five-hundredth recorded jumper. Bridge officials turned back fourteen aspirants to the title, including one man who had “500” chalked on a cardboard sign pinned to his T-shirt. The eventual “winner,” who eluded both bridge personnel and local-television crews, was a commune-dweller tripping on LSD.
In 1995, as No. 1,000 approached, the frenzy was even greater. A local disk jockey went so far as to promise a case of Snapple to the family of the victim. That June, trying to stop the countdown fever, the California Highway Patrol halted its official count at 997. In early July, Eric Atkinson, age twenty-five, became the unofficial thousandth; he was seen jumping, but his body was never found.
Ken Holmes, the Marin County coroner, told me, “When the number got to around eight hundred and fifty, we went to the local papers and said, ‘You’ve got to stop reporting numbers.’ ” Within the last decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association of Suicidology have also issued guidelines urging the media to downplay the suicides. The Bay Area media now usually report bridge jumps only if they involve a celebrity or tie up traffic. “We weaned them,” Holmes said. But, he added, “the lack of publicity hasn’t reduced the number of suicides at all.”
The Empire State Building, the Duomo, St. Peter’s Basilica, and Sydney Harbor Bridge were all suicide magnets before barriers were erected on them. So were Mt. Mihara, a volcano in Japan (more than six hundred people jumped into it in 1936 alone); the Arroyo Seco Bridge, in Pasadena; and the Eiffel Tower. At Prince Edward Viaduct, in Toronto, the site of nearly five hundred fatal jumps, engineers just finished constructing a four-million-dollar “luminous veil” of stainless-steel rods above the railing. At all of these places, after the barriers were in place the number of jumpers declined to a handful, or to zero.
“In the seventies, we were really mobilized for a barrier at the Golden Gate,” Dr. Richard Seiden, the Berkeley suicide expert, told me. In 1970, the board of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District began studying eighteen suicide-barrier proposals, including a nine-foot wire fence, a nylon safety net, and even high-voltage laser beams. The board’s criteria were cost, aesthetics, and effectiveness. In 1973, the nineteen-member board, most of them political appointees, declared that none of the options were “acceptable to the public.” (The laser-beam proposal was vetoed because of the likelihood of “severe burns, possibly fatal, to pedestrians and personnel.”)
In 1998, a company called Z-Clip suggested that one of its livestock fences serve as a barrier. The seven-foot-tall mesh of wires had originally been used in Chile to keep cattle out of pine-seedling plantations, and would cost a mere $2.3 million to $3.5 million. The bridge board would not approve it, however. Barbara Kaufman, a board member, said that the fence resembled the “barbed wire at concentration camps.”
Tom Ammiano, a leading candidate for the mayoralty of San Francisco this fall, is among the bridge’s most liberal supervisors. He says that a barrier is no longer being actively considered, and that only he and three or four other board members favor one. “There’s a lot of white Republicans on the board who resist change,” Ammiano told me. He laughed darkly, and added, “The Golden Gate is an icon, my dear.”
The most plausible reason for the board’s resistance is aesthetics. For the past twenty-five years, however, three hundred and fifty feet of the southern end of the bridge have been festooned with an eight-foot-tall cyclone fence, directly above the Fort Point National Park site on the shore of the Bay. This “debris fence” was erected to keep tourists from dropping things—including, at one point, bowling balls—on other tourists below. “It’s a public-safety issue,” the bridge’s former chief engineer, Mervin Giacomini, told me.
Another factor is cost, which would seem particularly important now that the Bridge District has a projected five-year shortfall of more than two hundred million dollars. Yet, in October, construction will be completed on a fifty-four-inch-high steel barrier between the walkway and the adjacent traffic lanes which is meant to prevent bicyclists from veering into traffic. No cyclist has ever been killed; nonetheless, the bridge’s chief engineer, Denis Mulligan, says that the five-million-dollar barrier was necessary: “It’s a public-safety issue.” Engineers are also considering erecting a movable median to prevent head-on collisions, at a cost of at least twenty million dollars. “It’s a public-safety issue,” Al Boro, a member of the Bridge District’s board of directors, said to me.
A familiar argument against a barrier is that thwarted jumpers will simply go elsewhere. In 1953, a bridge supervisor named Mervin Lewis rejected an early proposal for a barrier by saying it was preferable that suicides jump into the Bay than dive off a building “and maybe kill somebody else.” (It’s a public-safety issue.) Although this belief makes intuitive sense, it is demonstrably untrue. Dr. Seiden’s study, “Where Are They Now？,” published in 1978, followed up on five hundred and fifteen people who were prevented from attempting suicide at the bridge between 1937 and 1971. After, on average, more than twenty-six years, ninety-four per cent of the would-be suicides were either still alive or had died of natural causes. “The findings confirm previous observations that suicidal behavior is crisis-oriented and acute in nature,” Seiden concluded; if you can get a suicidal person through his crisis—Seiden put the high-risk period at ninety days—chances are extremely good that he won’t kill himself later.
The current system for preventing suicide on the bridge is what officials call “the non-physical barrier.” Its components include numerous security cameras and thirteen telephones, which potential suicides or alarmed passersby can use to reach the bridge’s control tower. The most important element is randomly scheduled patrols by California Highway patrolmen and Golden Gate Bridge personnel in squad cars and on foot, bicycle, and motorcycle.
In two visits to the bridge, I spent an hour and a half on the walkway and never saw a patrolman. Perhaps, on camera, I didn’t exhibit troubling behavior. The monitors look for people standing alone near the railing, and pay particular attention if they’ve left a backpack, a briefcase, or a wallet on the ground beside them. Kevin Briggs, a friendly, sandy-haired motorcycle patrolman, has a knack for spotting jumpers and talking them back from the edge; he has coaxed in more than two hundred potential jumpers without losing one over the side. He won the Highway Patrol’s Marin County Uniformed Employee of the Year Award last year. Briggs told me that he starts talking to a potential jumper by asking, “How are you feeling today？” Then, “What’s your plan for tomorrow？” If the person doesn’t have a plan, Briggs says, “Well, let’s make one. If it doesn’t work out, you can always come back here later.”
The non-physical barrier catches between fifty and eighty people each year, and misses about thirty. Responding to these figures, Al Boro said, “I think that’s positive, I think that’s effective. Of course, you’d like to do everything you can to make it zero, within reason.”
Despite the coroner’s verdict, Paul Alarab’s loved ones insist that he didn’t jump off the Golden Gate. Having viewed the Telemundo tape, they believe that when Alarab was putting down his antiwar statement he slipped and fell. An accident is easier for friends and family to accept, whereas suicide leaves behind nothing but guilt. It’s impossible to know whether any one suicide might have been prevented, but many suicidal people do indeed wish to be saved. As the eminent suicidologist E. S. Shneidman has said, “The paradigm is the man who cuts his throat and cries for help in the same breath.”
Those who work on the bridge learn to cope with the suicides they can’t prevent by keeping an emotional distance. Glen Sievert, an ironworker who has often helped rescue potential jumpers, told the Wall Street Journal, “I don’t like these people. I have my own problems.” Even Kevin Briggs, the empathic patrolman, was surprised to learn, when he and some colleagues had a week’s training with a psychiatrist earlier this year, that suicidal people “are real people—not crazy people but real people suffering from depression.” Nonetheless, Briggs remains opposed to a barrier. “The bridge is about beauty,” he told me. “They’re going to jump anyway, and you can’t stop them.”
Mary Currie, the bridge’s spokeswoman, is an intense woman with short dark-blond hair. Last February, she went on a foot patrol with five Golden Gate patrolmen so that she would understand that detail better. Currie told me that her group stopped to assess a handsome middle-aged man who’d been at the south tower for two hours. “He said he was just taking a walk. But we all had a feeling,” Currie said. “Still, you can’t gang-tackle a guy for taking a walk. Five minutes after our last contact with him, he walked to the mid-span and looked back. We all took off after him; I was only twenty feet away when he went over. We saw him go in, feet first.
“The other guys felt they’d followed procedure, done what they had to do, didn’t get him, and they’ve moved on. But I had nightmares for a week. Should I have grabbed his ankles？ Should there be a barrier？ I finally decided it was this guy’s choice. I have depression in my family—I’ve had some myself—and you just have to fight it.” After a second, she reversed herself. “You know, if my mother had succeeded in killing herself—and she tried—I would be much more devastated, and my thinking would be . . .” She shook her head, banishing doubt. “That bridge is more than a bridge: it’s alive, it speaks to people. Some people come here, find themselves, and leave; some come here, find themselves, and jump.”
The bridge comes into the lives of all Bay Area residents sooner or later, and it often stays. Dr. Jerome Motto, who has been part of two failed suicidebarrier coalitions, is now retired and living in San Mateo. When I visited him there, we spent three hours talking about the bridge. Motto had a patient who committed suicide from the Golden Gate in 1963, but the jump that affected him most occurred in the seventies. “I went to this guy’s apartment afterward with the assistant medical examiner,” he told me. “The guy was in his thirties, lived alone, pretty bare apartment. He’d written a note and left it on his bureau. It said, ‘I’m going to walk to the bridge. If one person smiles at me on the way, I will not jump.’ ”
Motto sat back in his chair. “That was it,” he said. “It’s so needless, the number of people who are lost.”
As people who work on the bridge know, smiles and gentle words don’t always prevent suicides. A barrier would. But to build one would be to acknowledge that we do not understand each other; to acknowledge that much of life is lived on the chord, on the far side of the railing. Joseph Strauss believed that the Golden Gate would demonstrate man’s control over nature, and so it did. No engineer, however, has discovered a way to control the wildness within.
