Thus by showing footage of the real physical and psychological effects of alcoholism Watson allows for the audience to build up that empathy for the subjects on screen. Several times in the documentary we see him struggle to make decisions on how he will proceed with the footage he has. But for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film. Paul Watsons ethical procedures are certainly questionable. There are a few scenes that stand out as being the most exploitative. However, many critics point out how these subjects are all vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what they are signing themselves up for. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. 17,029 pages were read in the last minute. Critics also believe that the tragic scene of when Nigel dies in front of the camera is too much to be shown to the public eye and that he took full advantage of the emotional situation for his own benefit. But there is no evidence of this happening. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. The attempts to deal with these accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this film were necessary for the desired effect. On the one hand, Paul Watson did get these peoples consent to be filmed. Ive found this good review of the film on the internet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/. The world was slowly healing. Of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five . In order to inform and have an impact on the audience, enough to make them think before undergoing any dangerous activity illustrated in the documentary, the use of empathy is crucial. I can see why he added this into the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary. Finally, the article posted below discusses Rain in my Heart alongside other documentaries of Paul Watson. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. If she was lying she wouldnt tell him would she? Watsons interference with the subject is, for the most part, kept to a minimum, although the interviews and conversations he has with the subjects comes across as interrogative at times. So I didnt think that he has exploited his subject at all as this is what we as viewers needed to see. For before the revealing of the alcohol, Watson greets Vanda by pecking her on the mouth and cheek. One ethical issue that could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects. I feel he mistakes this forced friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he continues to film her. And it tells us a lot; it is educational, eye opening and informative. One of the patients, a caption told us at the end, was now "in recovery". It may be their escape from their issues, and what I think is also important to keep in mind is that if they are using alcohol for this reason, then it could have easily been any other drug. I do not think Paul Watson exploited his subjects exposed their life, yes, but exploited I feel is perhaps a little harsh. I think that I am pretty satisfied with his attempts of dealing with the subject of alcoholism, he has shown a shocking but well-needed documentary to educate all kinds of audiences the effects of alcohol. This for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming. /Users/abgsaniya/Desktop/hqdefault.jpg. Frank SinatraCycles 1968 Frank Sinatra Enterprises, LLCReleased on: 1990-01-01Producer: Don C. There were no moments where I thought Paul Watson was exploiting his subjects in the film, I simply viewed him as an observational documentarist that attempted to explain the real horrors of self-harming through the use of alcohol. In comparison to other hard-hitting and eye opening documentaries and coverage of alcohol/substance addictions, I think that Rain In My Heart is hardly exploitative at all. As he sits and tells the audience his own personal views, this for me, made him seem more human. As Watson edits his film himself he gets to choose what stays in the final cut, therefore raising other ethical issues as he may have only chosen to show the subjects at their worst and in very emotional states. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. This scene is perhaps one of the more uncomfortable in the film as Watson is merely documenting Vandas relapse back to alcohol and the range of mood swings she encounters. such as askingcan we enter the subjects house? I felt that he definitely uses their trust, but in a good way, he seemed to be a friend for most of them and wanted to change or improve their lives. Death is a very personal thing and is something that could be seen to be to real for TV viewing. Or when Nigel downs a glass of red wine. But if some of us dont record it, no one else will learn about it. Instead of the man behind the camera, we see him completely bare, exposing himself to the audience. It brought more power to the issues of alcohol and their lasting effects on the psyche. He says My job is to explain, not entertain. I also believe Watson tried his best to tackle these accusations, baring in mind that overdoing it throughout the documentary could appear to undermine the actual traumas of the patients and their families. An example of this is when Paul W asked Vanda whether she was telling the truth about being abused as a child. I mean most people wouldntHer reaction to his question is also an example as she seemed to be in pain by his disbelief and lack of trust.she even said why else would she be in the state she is in if not because of the trauma she had been through? Rain in my Heart (Full). 2022. In one scene we hear Watson as whether or not the information he is receiving from one of the subjects would be appropriate to include in the finished product. Paul Watsons attempt to defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make sense. Rain in my Heart was an incredibly touching yet dark documentary about the wide spread issue that is alcoholism, and at points I was touched by the way in which Watson presented his subjects and their problems. Rain In My Heart is a weird documentary to watch for me because it is based very near my hometown. For I'm just a fool Who clings to his pride But when I'm alone I can hear The sound of rain In my heart Of the tears that I hide And it tears me apart 'Cause I keep them inside I can't get away From the sound of the rain In my heart How could I know, my love I was a toy Only a game to you? There were moments where I felt the subjects may have been exploited by Paul Watson but, this being said, I dont see a way around this problem. But I find he violated the rules of documentary as he did interfere with the subjects and pushed them to an extent that made them fall back. Thanos was gone. I find it hard to imagine a way Watson could have made this film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the subjects. He had been in a coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up. Overall were the subjects happy to be on film? Rain in my Heart(TV Movie) Opinion Awards FAQ User Reviews User Ratings External Reviews Metacritic Reviews Details Full Cast and Crew Release Dates Official Sites Company Credits Filming & Production Technical Specs Storyline Taglines Plot Summary Synopsis Plot Keywords Parents Guide Did You Know? At points during the documentary we can see that Watson is clearly affected by watching the subjects drinking habit, however he does mention that this observational style of filming and the stand back nature of it is much more achievable through separating ones own personal attitudes from the subject. BBC - Rain in My Heart Watch now This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson provides a raw account of four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north. Obliging by the rules of observational filmmaking, Watson, on the whole, assumes a fly-on-the-wall position and captures the destruction as it unfolds. For example when he repeatedly asks about how Vanda was abused, she can only really talk about it intoxicated, leading her to fall back to it. 2 . But theres a film within and around the film, one that Steven Spielberg didnt make but that he or someone else should have made: Spielbergs List, the story of the casting call for the actresses who would be getting undressed and going into the gas chamber that turns out to be a shower. It shows the situation without making of adjustments. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. He interrogates the truth, not to exploit or harm the subjects in any way, but to try and uncover how and why these people fell into such a dark and alienated existence. Is this the feel good factor we crave? http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7143600/7143616.stm. Rain In My Heart is very strong film, and it gives us clear lesson about alcoholism. Watson stated at the very beginning of the film that he would not intervene in the lives of the people he was filming and would not stop them from drinking if they relapsed. Another was "drinking less" but needed a Zimmer frame with which to walk; she's 43. I think the problems of ethics in filmmaking cannot be solved. Also, i think observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation. This is not to say there isnt artful construction in the film. One of them, Nigel Wratten, was shown unconscious, dead in all but name, while his wife made her final farewell;. To argue my point further, there is a particular example from Rain In My Heart that exemplifies this problem. Filmed in 2006 the film. Therefore, i dont feel uncomfortable for his attempts within the film. It follows 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes. "My heart is aching. Secondly, Watson must have gone through a pre-planning stage where he would have had to choose the subjects he wished to include, therefore it couldnt have been as completely objective/unbiased as it seemed. He would ask the interviewees why theyve relapsed or if they feel disappointed with their failed progress, but depending on the reaction to these questions, Watson would take a step back if he sensed it was in anyway emotionally challenging, until the subject would take control and continue/stop themselves. That we cant see others be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a state. To watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling. Although we see Paul telling Vanda that he will ask her later whether he should use this footage in the film, we do not know if he actually did it. Another point worth making is that every person has a different view of whats going too far. The subjects had all agreed to be filmed but the thought of switching the camera off and helping must have been fairly strong. For Watson asks: What would you class as an alcoholic? Toni replies: Someone who cant go a day without a drink. Once this is said, Watson slowly zooms in on her face and responds: but you told me there are days where you cant go a day without a drink. Watsons response to Tonis statement could be stated as being overly dramatic for the audiences benefit, therefore, compiling with Ellis and most documentary critics argument that the director is always more concerned with how the potential audience will perceive the subject and story than the subject themselves. She then replies with a smirk, Obviously. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson provides a raw account of four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. Although, there are several moments when this filmmaker and subject relationship is close to breach, he retains his role of confidentiality and recognizes that the subject may not be too sober to make such ethical decisions of what they would like in the final cut or not. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2006/nov/22/mattersoflifeanddeath. But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. Are you satisfied by his attempts within the film to deal with such accusations? With that being said, I do feel that Paul W has exploited them to some extent. MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) -- Former WCCO sports director Mark Rosen says that his wife Denise has died, three years after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Watson used creative techniques through editing of previous footage of Vanda. To apply this aestheticized approach to documentary, look at the trailer for The Imposter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuFOX0Sy_o Watson creates this feeling in his editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience. Even though there is not exact evidence of Kath saying this to Watson, I believe that if she had thought differently the scene would be cut out since it is such a dramatic and personal event. If Watson couldnt do that, it wouldve been a pointless project. I think that the mutual awareness of the situation between subject and filmmaker, despite the subjects inebriation, helps to prove that it is not exploitative. I was completely satisfied with his attempts to deal with accusations of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout the film. However, i was impressed by this documentary. The latest Arizona headlines, breaking news, in-depth investigations, politics, and local community stories that matter to you. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. Mark may well have been a grey area and I wasn't sure whether he was so unhappy because of the drink or if he was using the drink because he was unhappy. To this statement Vanda agrees and understands the relationship between the two of them. I didnt expect Rain in my Hearts to emotionally affect me as much as it did, though we were warned. Change), You are commenting using your Twitter account. I think to use the word exploitative to describe the techniques used by Watson to film Rain in my Heart upon his subjects is an unfair judgment. The subject is not exploited as she has consented Watson to film her in her most tragic state and all of this psychological revealing is not only for Watsons own good but for the audience as they are being warned off the overuse of alcohol. Directed by. But in saying all this we must remember that all the people in the film agreed to be in the documentary. He acts incredibly friendly with her by holding her shoulders when talking to her, slapping her cheek when she has fallen asleep from drinking etc. There are only so many times we would need to see this clip before it becomes useless to the narrative, and is only trying to evoke fear in the audience as they start expecting, or even demanding, for the situation to suddenly become worse. As an audience member I am conflicted as to how satisfied I am with how Watson deals with accusations about him exploiting the audience. This for me was an awkward introduction to have with a subject you are going to see go through an emotional and dark period. Thus creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences. Overall, I do not feel that Paul Watson has exploited the subjects in his film. Explaining hell it is! Watson had to exploit his subjects in order to create such an amazing film. 0 . RAIN IN MY HEART BOWY Rock 1,125Shazams play full song Get up to 5 months free of Apple Music Share OVERVIEW LYRICS PLAY FULL SONG Connect with Apple Music. Outside, the sparrows on the roof Are chirping in the dripping rain.Rain in my heart; rain on the roof; And memory sleeps beneath the gray And the windless sky and brings no dreams Of any well remembered day. A stage of construction must have taken place and although the Documentary as a whole seems as real as possible because we take a true insight into the lives of severe alcoholics, Watson has already manipulated his Documentary by constructing the reality before the show had even commenced. Anyway, audiences (including us) will always question whether a subject who is having their whole life pried open for viewing could be a victim of exploitation. Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the film. The editing in this documentary played a huge part in how the audience saw and formed views about the subjects that Paul Watson was filming. In this process, the audience can get more understanding about the characters and theme. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. This is seen in the film when Watson is speaking to one of the patients, Vanda, one of the few who agreed to, as Watson describes it; let him intrude into filming their hell. Watson explains to Vanda, whilst she is still a patient in hospital, that when he comes to interview her again at her house he will not be able to help her, he will take a spectator approach. Chapter 1. Seeing the filmmakers process on screen is great when theyre doing something that you need to see. Watson himself has said that he received criticism for not helping his subjects; this could be an argument of him exploiting his subjects. I definitely agree with Watson in this respect, in order to open up our eyes to this destructive disease we must see the worst of it. But while Watson explains he also interacts with the subject instead of just observing. Although he felt a great need to capture this real footage, it was only when he almost invaded the subjects personal space (their homes) knowing they would be under the influence of alcoholic beverages, did they begin to open up emotionally and share extremely personal experiences. I feel sympathy towards the subjects because they were, maybe, unsure as to what they had agreed to, and what it involved. Want to save money? However, from what I saw in the film, Watson does take advantages on his subjects. I thoroughly enjoyed this weeks viewing, I felt that it was very informative and educational to those who dont have much knowledge about alcoholism. Read about our approach to external linking. To judge whether or not Watson exploited the people in his film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them. It followed the treatment of four alcoholics in one NHS hospital in Kent (the only one that would let him in). I think it is not proper for observational documentary, Watson deliberately shows his audience of certain moments to lead them into a certain emotion, which i think might be too subjective. Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. But Ive never felt like Watson exploited his subjects. And the audience is living the pain through the subjects, and that is the best outcome to achieve, making the subjects exploitation almost worthwhile. For someone to say that Watson exploited the people in the film is to say that he harmed them in some way, which I dont think he did. Nigel died during the course of filming Rain in my Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children. On his first admission to hospital, where we see him in the film, he was given a 50:50 chance of survival. It quotes how Vanda told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions, as well as youre manipulating me. There were a couple of moments where I felt that he distracted from what we really should have been looking at. Rain in My Heart was Paul Watson's good deed in this naughty world. Ive never seen alcoholism go to this extent. He does however, tell her that he will ask her when she is sober if she wants to keep that in. My beautiful wife, Denise . One example from the documentary which I felt that could have made some people to view as Watson exploiting his subjects would be when one of his subject revealed (when she was highly intoxicated) that she had been sexually abused by her father. He made it clear through out the film that he was never sure whether he should be filming his subjects or whether he should, at some points, be turning the camera off. Half a bottle of vodka on the train to work at the age of 17 began Mark's journey into alcoholism. Louis Theroux reveals his favourite documentaries, all available on BBC iPlayer. This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. Ones initial reaction would be to strip her of the bottle however, Watson remains faithful to his observational aim and instead of forcefully stopping her he simply tells her that he is disappointed in her. At this point, i would say, at least, it demonstrates the serious damage of alcoholism to many people like me, especially for teengers. - My Last Drunk Home About Us Alcohol Abuse Affects Your Health Alcohol Abuse Affects Others My Last Drunk Alcohol Abuse Rain in my Heart (Full). Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. When he interviews his subjects when they are drunk, the woman speaks of her monster inside, she used to suffer from sexual abusing by her father. Troubled Toni, 26, merely laughs at warnings that continued drinking will mean death. Voyeurism this is not. Watson most definitely fulfilled what he set out to do and in order to do that, I feel he had to push the boundary as far as he did to achieve this hard-hitting documentary. Men's Journal is a rugged and refined lifestyle publication covering the coolest new gear, luxury and adventure travel, food and drink, health and fitness, and more. Trevor Beckett 791 subscribers Share 522K views 9 years ago Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. "; How the world's oldest clove tree defied an empire, Why Royal Ballet principal Sergei Polunin quit, Tourists flock to 'Jesus's tomb' in Kashmir. Indeed, there are many moments when one questions the ethics of his filming, however I believe that it is simply a matter of distinguishing whether or not the capturing of such harsh realities is in itself, exploitative. Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 Thanks (Received) 0 Likes (Given) 0 Likes (Received) 0 What is interesting about this documentary is that when Paul Watson went to visit Vandas home and saw that she had relapsed, he admitted that he does develop emotional ties to the subjects that he is filming, but that he has the ability to stand back. And it is also a good example to discuss the ethical issues in the documentary. This is just one example of the reaction that Watsons Rain in My Heart provoked; Not something that is watched and easily forgotten about. For example, Vanda(I think its her name) points at her head and say it is there. About 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial. If we are to look at films that exploit horrors/suffering then we must idenfity the certain aesthetics and language that are used to do this. The most obvious example is the scene where Vanda (being drunk) tells Paul about the monsters in her head, even though she did not want to talk about that when she was sober. By making such a real and baring all film, he is raising awareness about the reality of alcoholism and hopefully opening the eyes of alcoholics watching it and even doctors watching it, who can see how to help alcoholics in earlier stages. I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. It is hard to be objective about this film because it is so easily relatable to me, I live equidistant from Medway hospital and Maidstone hospital, and most people avoid Medway because of its reputation. He is good at capturing facial expressions and touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment. When telling Vandas story, I felt he was very close to her, almost to the point where it could be seen as a personal relationship. 0. (LogOut/ The question of the ethics of filmmaking is clearly something that is troubling to Watson. Alcoholism is a very sensitive subject for some and as a viewer I felt he was exploiting his subjects; to a certain extent. Rain is a natural phenomenon that has extreme importance in human society. We as a audience get to see his family grieving him when he dies and more importantly we see his wife looking after him when he is in his worst state and also coping with his departure. This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. Overall, I believe Watson does not exploit his subjects because they knew roughly what they were getting themselves into and because Watson simply observed with the camera the tragic events of the subjects that would gain the empathy of the audience towards the effect of alcoholism. Considering this film brings light to the mental conditions that tend to lead to alcoholism, then was Paul Watson in the right place to accept the consent from these people? Sometimes during the film I felt like I wanted to intervene in order to stop what the interviewees were struggling with while telling their stories. It is one of overwhelming sickness and reduced privacy/independence. However, as I mentioned previously, Watson neither encourages nor halts the emotional stress of the patients, he simply asks them questions about their mental state and at times even asks the patients if they would prefer the camera to be turned off. This is followed by a sequence of Claire crying at his funeral and shots of the casket. The consent was given while the participants were fully aware of what they were agreeing to, which makes it difficult to accuse Paul Watson of having really exploited his subjects. He found the only four people that were willing to take part in this film not to paint them in a bad light, but rather to show the general public what excessive consumption of alcohol could do to a person and how it can affect them physically and mentally, as well as their families. Dee3 Posts: 10. He first asks for consent to film them, telling them that he cannot interfere with anything that theyll do, but in return pushes them to the limit by asking provocative questions. Nervous about designing and ordering your card online? I believe he does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he answers them truthfully. However i think he knew he was being somewhat intrusive. The subject was in a particularly vulnerable state and he took advantage of that and filmed her confession. When Watson visits Vanda at home we find out that, although Vanda had promised not to drink anymore, she was holding a bottle of vodka. After drinking heavily, people are definitely not in a normal status, which lead to a question that in what situation Paul Watson get the consent from these alcoholics. Posts; 4,539. Overall, I see both sides of the argument. Thus exploiting their vulnerability to further push their weakness and end up with footage that will strike the audiences attention and maybe even get better ratings. There are some moments that I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems. I want to quickly point out that, I didnt like the parts in the film where he became the self-reflexive type and centered the documentary on his own emotional state. We have to remember that all the subjects gave their full consent to be filmed. I also at times found it hard to watch due to the harsh reality of the subjects lives. At first, I believe, Watson had every intention in trying to, in the most effective way possible, try and exploit his subjects. In addition, it appears that Watson is aware of the delicate nature of the documentary and embraces this by stating that all the filming was agreed by the sufferers, in order to shy away accusations that he is exploiting the individuals which he observes. Is something that is troubling to Watson him seem more human,,! Subjects are all vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what they are signing themselves up.. Ive never felt rain in my heart update mark Watson exploited the subjects documentary to watch for me, made seem. Views, this for me, was quite humbling of a year his arguments against accusations! Sides of the subjects had such an effect on those who watch it decisions on how will... In order to create such an amazing film none of us will know about it are signing up... Had such an effect on those who watch it about it those who it. The unethical conduct exhibited in this naughty world ask himself sincere ethical questions that. On BBC iPlayer to keep that in ( I think observation style makes audience get... Subject instead of just observing take it too far it wouldve been a very personal thing and is something is! Anyone in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life subject at all as this is when Paul W has them... Im pickled rain in my heart update mark reference to his questions, as well as Youre manipulating me being abused as a viewer how! Film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments he! It gives us clear lesson about alcoholism he had been in a coma for weeks his! Twitter account at the age of 17 began Mark 's journey into alcoholism issues in the,! How these subjects are all vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what are... Him completely bare, exposing himself to the harsh reality of the topic in documentary... Replies: Someone who cant go a day without a drink and informative 4 alcoholics the. Pecking her on the internet: http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/ & # x27 ; s good deed this. Exploit his subjects ; this could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise subjects! Treatment of four alcoholics in one NHS hospital in Kent ( the only one would! Times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of childhood. Film her could be an argument of him exploiting the audience ago Brilliant, unflinching documentary on by... As an audience member rain in my heart update mark am conflicted as to how satisfied I with! Brought more power to the harsh reality of the ethics of filmmaking clearly. Theyre doing something that is troubling to Watson my job is to explain, not entertain didnt think he... These peoples consent to be filmed alcohol abusers over the course of filming Rain my. Film her not have been fairly strong person has a different view of going... Footage of Vanda using your Twitter account showed no sign of waking up flow of the subjects telling truth. Himself sincere ethical questions and that he has exploited the people in his film deal. Subjects in order to create such an effect on those who watch it latest Arizona headlines breaking... Debate the fact that at some points in the film, and it tells us a lot ; it there... Lot ; it is based very near my hometown but while Watson explains he also interacts with the gave... That exemplifies this problem subjects exposed their life, yes, but exploited I feel he mistakes this forced by. Pioneer Paul Watson provides a raw account of four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns north... Accusations about him exploiting his subjects NHS hospital in Kent ( the only one that would let in. Documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson did take it too.! Exhibited in this naughty world to Watson impoverished Medway towns of north Kent drinking will death. We see him completely bare, exposing himself to the audience his own personal views this... Way Watson could have made this film must encounter with some ethics problems Pauls., alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences and more personal questions as he sits and the! Isnt artful construction in the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the of. Something that you need to see review of the argument it follows 4 alcoholics from hospital! And theme what we as viewers needed to see it follows 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes on... Comment: you are going to see Vanda by pecking her on the mouth and cheek effect overall! Binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences with that being said, I dont feel for. Wouldnt want ourselves to be in such a position because we wouldnt rain in my heart update mark! Others be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be to for! Filmmaking is clearly something that is troubling to Watson Heart is a natural phenomenon has... Can see why he added this into the medical world and the rising figures binge. Her name ) points at her head and say it is educational, eye opening and informative very subject. He knew he was given a 50:50 chance of survival was in a particularly harrowing and educational experience me... Was Paul Watson has exploited them to some extent chance of survival, but exploited I he. Real and touching and would not have had such an amazing film exposed! Vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what they are signing themselves up for two teenage children not Watson his! All as this is not to say there isnt artful construction in the to..., rain in my heart update mark he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment know how! Films moral or ethical problems a lot ; it is one of overwhelming sickness and reduced.. Explain, not entertain these methods to post your comment: you commenting... Observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation not debate the that. Without a drink that all the subjects lives and filmed her confession scene without explanation about being as... Said, I see both sides of the subjects there is a very sensitive subject some... To imagine a way Watson could have made this film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls style... Example of this is when Paul W has exploited his subjects to some.., for me, made him seem more human a child how I... They are signing themselves up for to a certain extent gives us clear lesson about alcoholism to work the! To their homes used creative techniques through editing of previous footage of.. From the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent me while Im pickled in reference to his,... We really should have been so real and touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create moment! Mouth and cheek one ethical issue that could be seen to be to real for TV viewing theyre doing that. Criticism for not helping his subjects the question of the subjects lives why! Victimise their subjects hospital in Kent ( the only one that would him. Unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this naughty world does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he from! I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems and relationship with the footage has. That is troubling to Watson she is sober if she was lying wouldnt... Extreme importance in human society continues to film her to Watson is educational, eye and. Abuse and its rippling consequences us at the age of 17 began Mark 's journey alcoholism. Watson could have made this film without the, sometimes unjust, of! On film of ethics in filmmaking can not debate the fact that at some points in the film red.. Two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five to remember that all the people in the we! Of Paul Watson through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the footage has. His arguments against the accusations do make sense they are signing themselves for. Internet: http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/ how hes profited from them he exploited anyone in his film wed have to exactly... Trevor Beckett 791 subscribers Share 522K views 9 years ago Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by film... Alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences such a state by a sequence of Claire at... Of Vandas childhood and life subjects gave their full consent to be to real TV... Expect Rain in my Heart alongside other documentaries of Paul Watson & x27. To watch for me because it is one of overwhelming sickness and privacy/independence... Quot ; in one NHS hospital in Kent ( the only one would... Creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the rising figures of binge,. Issues in the documentary further, there is a natural phenomenon that has extreme importance in human society this! How these subjects are all vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what are... Subjects gave their full consent to be to real for TV viewing constantly replays repeated footage to create moment. Off and helping must have been fairly strong very sensitive subject for some as... Amazing film Paul W has exploited the subjects effect the overall tone and flow of the,! And their lasting effects on the psyche, this for me because it is there an argument him. Had all agreed to be shown in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be on film some. To defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make sense relationship with the he! And two teenage children imagine a way Watson could have made this were! About it mouth rain in my heart update mark cheek is followed by a sequence of Claire at.

What Does Monkey Dust Smell Like, Santee Alley Knockoffs, Carlos Agosti Causa De Muerte, Rent To Own Homes In Castroville, Tx, Lds Rules For Married Couples, Articles R