An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge is a short story set during the American Civil War, written by author Ambrose Pierce. The story was later adapted into a short film by director Robert Enrico and became an episode of The Twilight Zone in 1963. Enrico used dialogue and voice-over sparingly, instead relying heavily on the rural landscape to convey his ideas about how war transforms both the physical environment and the psychological state of the protagonist Peyton Farquhar.
An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge is a short film that contains an enormous amount of semiotic analysis. The film starts with several signs, including the sign on the tree, the Owl Creek Bridge itself, and the driftwood. The first sign of semiotics in the film is a notice nailed to a tree that reads, ORDER ANY CIVILIAN caught interfering with the railroad, bridges, or trails will be SUMMARILY HANGED, The 4th of April 1862 (Enrico, 1968).” This notice provides us with information about the timeframe and setting of the story; it takes place during the Civil War in Northern Alabama. Additionally, it reveals that our protagonist is a war insurgent.
In this installment, they don’t reveal the actions that led to Farquhar’s predicament. However, Ambrose’s later stories shed light on this matter. The bridge scene is a crucial moment as it is where Farquhar faces his imminent hanging. He stands on a railroad bridge in northern Alabama, gazing at the swift water below, with his hands tied behind his back and a rope tightly wrapped around his neck. The rope is fastened to a sturdy cross-timber above him, and its slack falls down to his knees.
Two private soldiers of the Federal army, directed by a sergeant who may have been a deputy sheriff in civil life, used some loose boards laid upon the sleepers supporting the metals of the railway as a platform for executing their prisoner. The prisoner stood on this temporary platform with his executioners. A captain in uniform and armed stood on another short distance away. Two soldiers guarded each end of the bridge with rifles held in support position: vertical in front of their left shoulder, hammer resting on their forearm thrown straight across their chest – an unnatural position that enforced an erect carriage.
According to Pierce (2008), it was not the responsibility of the two men to be aware of what was happening at the center of the bridge. Their task was simply to barricade both ends of the foot planking that crossed it. The Owl Creek Bridge represents a connection and transition. It is believed that Confederate sympathizers destroyed the bridge in an attempt to prevent further advancement by Union forces into enemy territory. However, after its restoration, Northern troops were able to continue their campaign in northern Alabama, ultimately leading to victory over the Confederacy and ending the Civil War.
Ironically, the target of Farquhar’s sabotage attempt becomes the platform on which his execution is staged. Farquhar was attempting to destroy order and connection by sabotaging the bridge, just as he erodes order by fantasizing about disconnecting himself from his physical body in the final moments of his life. The bridge serves as an intermediary space, joining the opposite banks of creeks; it is neither one side nor the other but a connection between them. Similarly, for Farquhar, the bridge joins life and death.
Right as the rope snaps, Farquhar escapes into the water. The bridge suggests a foreshadowing between fantasy and reality. Before the rope snaps and he falls into the water, he notices a piece of driftwood floating in the water. As we see the driftwood making its way downriver, it represents both Farquhar’s unreachable freedom and his own escape in the water that he begins to imagine. At first, the driftwood distracts Farquhar from thoughts of his wife and children; eventually becoming an extension of himself as he imagines floating in the water as though he is driftwood.
The driftwood also indicates Farquhar’s distorted sense of time. Initially, he sees the water racing rapidly beneath him and then notices the dancing driftwood. He observes how slowly it moves in the calm creek water. This sudden change in perception marks Farquhar’s transition from reality to fantasy. From that point on, he takes liberties with his own story’s details and provides the desired ending: a courageous escape rather than execution for being a war criminal. Ironically, although he envisions himself as driftwood of sorts, it is driftwood that led to his capture in the first place.
The driftwood serves as the protagonist’s means of undoing, and ultimately represents unattainable freedom in An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.” The film contains significant amounts of semiotic analysis that dive deeper into its meaning and includes an element of foreshadowing (Bershen, 2010). Author Ambrose Pierce used these signs or symbols for readers and viewers to understand the protagonist’s life and struggles. Concerns about documentary ethics are not new, but they have intensified over the past several years in response to changes in the industry.
By the late 1990s, documentary filmmakers in the United States had gained widespread respect as independent voices during a time when public confidence in mainstream media and political integrity was declining. Simultaneously, documentary television production was rapidly increasing to meet the demand for quality programming and expanding screen time, resulting in popular formulaic programs. However, tensions arose due to commercial opportunities and politics becoming prominent subjects of documentaries.
Documentary filmmakers, whether producing histories for public television, nature programs for cable, or independent political documentaries, face economic pressure and close scrutiny of their ethical practices (Aufderheide, Jaszi & Chandra, 2009). One example of controversy is Fahrenheit 9/11 and its indictment of the Bush administration’s geopolitics (Aufderheide et al., 2009).
Critics of the movie claimed that it could demoralize the country during a time of war. Melanie Morgan, a radio talk show host at KSFO, stated that it’s a message that’s undermining the war on terrorism” (Schneider, 2004). In 2007, Canadian documentarians Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk set out to make a friendly film about Michael Moore but ended up creating the documentary Manufacturing Dissent. During their research, they discovered that Moore had told many big lies in all his movies which caused many people to question his claims. Despite being fans of Moore and far left themselves, their movie was taken seriously by the liberal press whereas if it were made by someone on the right side it would be dismissed as biased.
No one likes to be played for a fool, as Moore apparently did with the American public, even if they are on the same side politically as Moore (IMDb, 2007). The treatment of archival materials is widely recognized as a site of ethical challenges, and there is a wide range of responses. Filmmakers repeatedly reference problems with using historical materials that document specific people, places, and times as generic references or in service to a particular and perhaps unrelated point. During an industry professional conference in Washington DC, several groups discussed many important ethical perspectives on filmmaking.
The conference entitled Making Your Media Matter 2012″ discussed the honest truth and ethics in documentary filmmaking, and participants were given an ethical scenario to consider. The scenario involved a historical film about memories of the Vietnam Era, which included great footage that supported the film’s point. However, to create a plausible sequence, some close-ups from a demonstration in Philadelphia had to be interpolated into a story about Washington DC. Although these events occurred at the same time and only a few close-ups would be used, the question was whether it was ethical to substitute Philadelphia footage for DC footage that was not available (Aufderheide P. 2010).
In my opinion, I would say no to altering historical accuracy. My theory behind this is that future documentarians may use this film as archived footage, which could become part of the historical record and tell a false story of the past. Documentarians face profound ethical conflicts on a daily basis when creating visually compelling and accurate films. These conflicts arise largely because nonfiction filmmakers and writers believe that they carry significant responsibilities.
Nonfiction filmmakers and scriptwriters aim to portray themselves as storytellers who reveal important truths in a world where these truths are often ignored or hidden. They believe that they hold some power over their relatively powerless subjects and that their viewers depend on their ethical choices. Many even see themselves as executors of a higher truth, framed within a narrative (Bershen, 2010). However, nonfiction filmmakers and scriptwriters are also vulnerable within the wider media system.
Filmmakers constantly face resource constraints and often try to behave conscientiously within a ruthlessly bottom-line business environment. Sometimes, they deal with hostile CEOs or powerful celebrity subjects. Indeed, any subject’s withdrawal of affection may result in denial of access to material in which the filmmakers have invested heavily (Bershen, 2010). When filmmakers face ethical conflicts, they often resolve them in an ad-hoc way while keeping their deep face-to-face relationship with subjects and their more abstract relationship with viewers balanced with practical concerns about cost, time, and ease of production.
This ethical conflict is set in motion by certain features of a filmmaker’s identity as a truth-teller, which ironically, cannot be widely shared or publicly discussed within the truth-telling community. Filmmakers are often constrained not only by contractual obligations but also by the fear that openly discussing ethical issues may expose them to censure or jeopardize future job opportunities.
Works Cited
- Aufderheide, P. (2010, September). Making Your Media Matter 2010.
- Conference: Honest Truths – Documentary Ethics in Practice. Retrieved March 4, 2013, from Center for Social Media: http://www.enterforsocialmedia.org/making-your-media-matter/video/making-your-media-matter-2010-conference-honest-truths-documentary-et Aufderheide, P., Jaszi, P., & Chandra, M. (2009, September). Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work. Retrieved March 4, 2013 from Center for Social Media: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/making-your-media-matter/documents/best-practices/honest-truths-documentary-filmmakers-ethical-chall
- Bershen W. (2010, September1). A Question of Ethics: The Relationship between Filmmaker and Subject. Retrieved March 4th ,2013 from International Documentary Association: http://www.ocumentary.org/magazine/question-ethics-relationship-between-filmmaker-and-subject
- Enrico R.(Director).(1968) An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge [Motion Picture]. IMDb.(2007 October19) Manufacturing Dissent : Uncovering Michael Moore.Retrieved March4th ,2013from Internet Movie Database:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/ Pierce,A.(2008)An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.London : Forgotten Books.
- Schneider,B.(2004 June25).CNN.Retrieved March4th ,2013from Fahrenheit9/11′ sparks controversy and wins attention:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/moore.film/index.html
