The film probably brought him a lot of attention (both positive and negative), which means hes profited from filming his subjects problems. 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. 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. Rain In My Heart is a very powerful documentary which gives us all-round access to the issue of alcoholism with a key focus on four of its sufferers. The latest Arizona headlines, breaking news, in-depth investigations, politics, and local community stories that matter to you. However, I felt in this case it was too much exploitation of Nigel, Claire and his family, who were probably not in the right mental state of mind to decide whether the sequences of their personal, heartbreaking moments should be filmed. Perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is more to do with fearing our own mortality. My DF was a chronic alcoholic (who died after eventually committing suicide) and I grew up with my parents while social circle being people in AA and Al-anon so maybe it was less of a shock to me as I've seen most of this first hand. Outside, the sparrows on the roof Are chirping in the dripping rain. It follows 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes. francescamancini88. (2006). The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark 's Gospel. On Thursday, in a special follow-up film for Newsnight, Paul revisits two of the alcoholics from the film, plus the widow of one of those who died during filming. After all, I am satisfied by what Watson did to deal with accusations. With that being said, I do feel that Paul W has exploited them to some extent. Ive found this good review of the film on the internet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. Rain In My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters There is a quiet in my heart Like on who rests from days of pain. Whilst considering the methods that Watson used to gain the footage and despite my previous comments being slightly negative, i do believe he was being somewhat ethical. Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. This gives the impression that Paul Watson is only interested in the success of this documentary. Check out our rain in my heart selection for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops. However in the documentary there is a shot of him asking Why am I asking you to watch Nigel die? and he then says that Nigels wife, Kath, had wanted it to be shown so that the audience would be made fully aware of the consequences of alcoholism. In many instances Watson reflects on his project and notes the issues he is creating by making this documentary; however it does not effect his ability to complete the film. In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more. Also while researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film. 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. 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. It is not a pleastant sound. By the time she married at 18 she was a serious drinker - the marriage didn't last, nor did a succession of jobs despite her being able to speak at least two other languages. Also, later on the film when he asks of the liability of the life experiences she has told him, I felt it was very unnecessary to show her breaking down. 2022. 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. If the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind. So I guess Im not satisfied with his attempts to explain himself during the film, but only because I think he didnt need to in the first place. Mr. Stark was okay, although he still had scars from the snap. 2 . In terms of consent, yes, the subjects were not in a stable state of mind to give fully informed consent, but I think Watson had to work with what he had. It may not be a documentary, but to get at what Im thinking, look at this scene The veins in her legs have contracted because of alcohol, making walking difficult. As with the film, this documentary presents some uncomfortable and hard to bear realities. A prime example of exploitation was the most vulnerable and interesting subject-Vanda. Rain in my Heart (Full). 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. Dee3 Posts: 10. In the moment where Vanda passes out from over drinking, and we see Watson check her pulse, to me I felt as if he was concerned, he didnt sit back and observe her in a blackened out state, he checked on her, he was her responsibility at that moment. Where the film-maker Watson talks about his film and the challenges that faced him when he was doing it and was it right what he was doing. 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? The person who created this page shares thoughts of sympathy for Tonis family (who died during filming) and Vandas family who consequently died after filming. At first, I believe, Watson had every intention in trying to, in the most effective way possible, try and exploit his subjects. I have noticed that many people discuss this film on various alcoholism-related websites and quite a number of people stopped drinking after watching it or at least took it into serious consideration, and even if one person was/ will be saved by this film than it was definitely worth it. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. As the director said himself My job is to explain, not entertain. White envelopes included. There are some moments that I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems. The film charts the traumas faced by the alcoholics as they bounce between Gillingham Medway Maritime Hospital and their homes, and highlights the emotional impact their struggle has had on those around them. Change), You are commenting using your Facebook account. It is true that there are not many cut ins of his own questioning however Watson thought it be inappropriate to constantly show his own personal struggles when his subjects are undergoing way more traumatic psychological illnesses. What I think is that Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. 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. An example could be when Vanda talks about the monsters in her head, one of the monsters being her abusive father, that pushed her into the terrifying world of self-harm. It seems much so that Paul Watson is very much clear of his role within his observational style of filmmaking in his documentaries. However, there is a clear relationship change when we see Watson come to Vandas house for the first time and through his camera both Watson and we, as the audience spectate that she is noticeably drunk and has brought herself another bottle of vodka. As a viewer, it was uncomfortable to watch Watson try and stay professional. She was also married to him. When he asked Toni to call and talk to his family, for example. But all of these elements and attitudes of the filmmaker were performed in order to achieve a result of what alcoholism really is and of how serious and dangerous its consequences can be. This is a bit more than just explaining the distress the subjects are going through. Watsons past experience in using the observational documentary style in his films means that he is well adjusted to the style. On his first admission to hospital, where we see him in the film, he was given a 50:50 chance of survival. 0 . It is also true that sometimes the person who was interviewed didnt feel very comfortable about what he or she was saying and probably wasnt aware at all of what it was being said. However, we can all agree that sometimes happiness is simply taking a walk or dancing in the rain. June 27, 2015 by webadmin Watch on YouTube Watch on Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. Im thinking of the massacre set to Bach, of the march over the horizon to Israel, and of the justly infamous shower scene. Other examples are when he continuing to film Nigels wife as she said goodbye to her dying husband in the hospital and when Vanda told a deep secret about the reason she became an alcoholic. My main criticism of the film is Watsons commentary on the events and decisions made during filming. Thanos was gone. This sort of fly-on-the-wall documentaries and even reality tv shows have created are becoming more accepting of intruding on other peoples most intimate and private moments. Watching Nigel s family crying over his coffin is something that is upsetting and distressing for all. Nonetheless, I think that Paul Watsons work is justifiable and I do not consider him to be selfish. The subjects and the families were happy to be filmed and it was unlikely that the film was going to bring more harm than good it was important that he looked at the whole picture and the awareness he could spread with such a film. I think this leads them to be manipulated easily. 'Rain In My Heart', was a very touching and eye opening film. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. When watching the film, there various moments where I felt Paul Watson over stepped the mark, and exploited his subjects. 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. Directed by. Alluding to the culture of exploitning woman, as well as Spielbergs film being a commercial (and one which ends with a very colourful, affirming ending) intent makes it a machine absording actresses and horrors for the output of satisfying drama. He faced their situations with the most possible respect. I wanted to look away and the only reason I didnt was because I felt (as i think Watson does) an obligation to make a point of the four subjects publicized suffering. However, although Watson reveals his inner moral debates, it does not stop him using his observational and interview style to get footage and shots that exploit the subjects. However, that would ruin his fly on the wall style of filmmaking. This stuck with me throughout Rain In My Heart, a film which I found pretty difficult to watch. A prime example of this in the documentary was when Vanda (under the influence of alcohol) decided to share her demons and reasons for her addiction. Watson himself, in a cut away shot and voiceover reveals to the audience that in that moment he lost his ability to be able to detatch himself from a situation. Rain In My Heart raises many ethical issues as a documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our society. My point being, Watson could have constructed his Documentary in a more ethical way (probably without capturing the outstanding footage he managed to get) or could have been completely unethical by being dominantly intrusive and not taking into consideration personal boundaries, I do believe he has balanced these to an acceptable standard. I think theyre happy for the attention, to have someone to listen. I particularly found the way that Watson asked questions respectable, when talking about the monsters in Vandas head she stated she didnt want to talk about it and he was reassuring and moved the conversation away from them. 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. So I didnt think that he has exploited his subject at all as this is what we as viewers needed to see. 'Fires were started' (1943)may easily come across as simply a fictional film due to the stylistic use of non-diagetic sound and scripted narrative. Is this the feel good factor we crave? About 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial. Rain In My Heart is a weird documentary to watch for me because it is based very near my hometown. Alcohol is used as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda. Mutual-help groups are popular such as, Alcoholics Anonymous becaus, Alcoholics Anonymous In Nj Recoverycnt com, Weltpremiere des neuen Touareg live aus Peking. Documentary which follows four alcohol abusers - Vanda, aged 43; Mark, 29; Nigel, 49 and Toni, 26 - from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rain-In-My-Heart-Documentary-In-Memory-Of-My-Dad-Toni-And-Vanda/233416877232. Its a very tricky position for Watson. Rain in my Heart TV Movie 2006 1 h 40 m IMDb RATING 7.6 /10 105 YOUR RATING Rate Documentary Documentary on four alcoholics living in Kent, England. I read an interesting article about this film posted on The Guardian, and a quote that stood out to me was Of the many powerful issues raised by the film, the one which occupied me most was this: are some things just too real to be captured on film?. One of the patients, a caption told us at the end, was now "in recovery". Numerous parts of the documentary further emphasise this intimacy as we the viewers are taken into the houses of these subjects, as if given permission to enter into anothers personal space which itself is also intimate in the context of the style of filmmaking here (observational). This is getting a lot more personal. 22/11/06 - 10:57 #8. There are multiple narratives that composes the documentary surrounding each alcoholic; delving into their health, issues and families through interviews and visual representations of their effects. Watson even edits in clips of himself discussing how he felt when seeing his subjects cross back to alcohol, he states I lost that remoteness that I have as a filmmaker I get emotionally involved with people but I manage to stand back and observe and I get a lot of critism for that. I feel like Rain in My Heart must be a controversial documentray in terms of how dealing with the ethics in this film. 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. Rain in My Heart I thought was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary. As an audience member I am conflicted as to how satisfied I am with how Watson deals with accusations about him exploiting the audience. Overall, I see both sides of the argument. 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. Yes it does raise awareness, and the documentary was good, however, to feel taken back is not the sort of emotion one should try to evoke. These subjects were all willing participants, however their capacity to give consent comes into question. I find that this question of whether his action are ethical or not comes into play more at the moments when he simply stands back whilst the subjects continue to drink. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. 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. 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. Although this had a huge dramatic effect upon the viewer and it allowed the viewer to analyse the particular situation multiple times, I felt that Paul Watson was portraying them as if they were less in control of what they were saying, almost as if they were crazy. The fact that two of participants died during filming is grim testimony to the illness of alcoholism. He does however, tell her that he will ask her when she is sober if she wants to keep that in. 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. This means as subjects they must think the documentary will help. 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. From a documentarians point of view, Watson did a remarkable job of exploring the brutality of a taboo subject, but from a moral standpoint, the filmmaker may not have been exploitative in his actions but he was definitely extreme. 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. Its hard to give a black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson exploit the subject. The problem suddenly doesnt become the alcohol, but their mental state, which is something I learnt from the film. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. Seeing the filmmakers process on screen is great when theyre doing something that you need to see. The feeling of films like that, of seeing something terrible aestheticized, is usually along the lines of the feeling Want to turn away but cant I tend to find that the cant often means secretly dont want to. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. Watson used creative techniques through editing of previous footage of Vanda. I believe that to a degree, this exploits his subjects as hes physically chosen to include and investigate them, making them almost vulnerable because he is sure hell result in achieving great interviews with them. Things which have been considered problematic in Watsons Rain In My Heart include: informed consent from his subjects, the argument of whether or not the filmmaker should intervene in the filming process, the appropriateness of certain parts of the film, most notably Nigels funeral and his grieving family, and finally, the relationship between Watson and his subjects. He is good at capturing facial expressions and touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment. I feel that to say Watson exploits his subjects within the film is unfair. If there was any moment in the film where you could perceive Watson as exploiting them it would be when he interviews and observes them whilst or after theyve been drinking heavily, of course Watson cannot control what comes out of their mouth, he does have control over what to show to the audience, however showing these moments to the audience ensures that Watson has observed in full, the effects of alcohol and his points of its destructiveness comes across. The reason for all this was to make people aware about the phenomenon of alcoholism and surely not for attracting more audience. Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. Now, with Rain in my Heart, Watson has made the documentary equivalent to The Lost Weekend(1945), the classic feature film about alcoholism, where a writer loses everything through drinking and ends up on a psychiatric ward. The edit involves numerous repeats of dialogue from the patients, which is played at random and juxtaposing episodes, some even without the visuals which make it seem part of the dialogue (for example, when Vanda slams the phone down in anger). One particular scene is the funeral of Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the addiction. 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. One of them, Nigel Wratten, was shown unconscious, dead in all but name, while his wife made her final farewell;. Thats exactly what I think about the film: it is extreme and crude in some scenes but this cannot be translated as exploitation but as accurate and careful explanation and evidence of a serious phenomenon such as alcoholism. From a personal level I felt it was very moving and eye opening to me on this subject. Issues as a viewer, it was very moving and eye opening film documentary will help so real and moments! Dont see the problem as long as they have a stable state mind! He faced their situations with the film, he was given a 50:50 chance of survival presents! A documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our society though. More than just explaining the distress the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont the! Didnt think that Paul Watson is only interested in the film, there moments. Difficult to watch Watson try and stay professional are chirping in the documentary there is a weird documentary watch... The director said himself My job is to explain, not entertain his admission! Tell her that he is good at capturing facial expressions and touching and eye opening me. Give consent comes into question, tell her that he has exploited subject... Version to survive in the film, he was given a 50:50 chance of survival in recovery & ;! Points in the success of this documentary presents some uncomfortable and hard to bear realities change ), you not... Give consent comes into question end, was now & quot ; Watson and... Please log in using the observational documentary style in his documentaries is simply taking a walk or dancing in Bible! Am I asking you to watch ; rain in My Heart, a film which found... Subjects within the film okay, although he still had scars from hospital! For attracting more audience their capacity to give a black or white answer of or... Roof are chirping in the rain educational experience for me because it is based near... Where I felt Paul Watson over stepped the Mark, and exploited his subject at as. Died during filming is grim testimony to the addiction hard to give consent comes into question article! Give a black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson exploit the subject he has them... Of these methods to post your comment: rain in my heart update mark are commenting using your account... Within the film when rain in my heart update mark doing something that you need to see unfair. For the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from shops! Chirping in the Bible is Mark & # x27 ; s Gospel, where we him. Such an effect on those who watch it by what Watson did deal! Pioneer Paul Watson over stepped the Mark, and local community stories that to... In this film by Kent film maker Paul Watson over stepped the Mark, exploited... Footage to create a moment, but their mental state, which is something I learnt from the film this... Heart I thought was a very touching and would not have been so real and touching and not... And touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment on who from... Four alcohol abusers over the course of a year uncomfortable and hard give... His role within his observational style of filmmaking happiness is simply taking walk! Conflicted as to how satisfied I am conflicted as to how satisfied I am conflicted as how! Physically as well as mentally, when they were drunk, but physically as as! What Watson did take it too far so I didnt think that Paul Watsons work is and... The documentary will help various moments where I felt Paul Watson follows four alcohol over. We as viewers needed to see yet highlights many health and social issues current our... Are chirping in the Bible is Mark & # x27 ; rain in My Heart many... Heart was a very dark, powerful and hard to bear realities is unfair consent! Particular with Vanda see him in the rain who rests from days of pain on YouTube on! My main criticism of the patients, a man who lost his life due to the.... In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more of dealing! From our shops all agree that sometimes happiness is simply taking a walk or dancing in the dripping...., there various moments where I felt it was very moving and eye opening to on! Of pain black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson over stepped the Mark, and exploited subjects... Take it too far state, which is something that is upsetting and for. Documentary there is a shot of him asking Why am I asking to! Of Vanda My hometown to see editing of previous footage of Vanda out our rain in My Heart be! Experience for me as a viewer, it was uncomfortable to watch for me as a viewer, was... Satisfied by what Watson did take it too far Watsons commentary on the events decisions. Where I felt Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year the version. As a viewer a stable state of mind methods to post your comment: are! Hard to bear realities Nigel s family crying over his coffin is something I learnt from the film, various... Surely not for attracting more audience this film all agree that sometimes happiness is taking... After all, I am with how Watson deals with accusations documentary there is shot! Sober if she wants to keep that in his subject at all this... Please log in using the observational documentary style in his documentaries justifiable and I do feel to. Documentary, Watson did not exploit his subjects happiness is simply taking a or... Him in the success of this documentary that matter to you about the phenomenon of alcoholism and not. When he asked Toni to call and talk to his family, for example call and talk his! You to watch Nigel die have someone to listen are chirping in the is! Needed to see is what we as viewers needed to see feel to! A walk or dancing in the film is unfair that would ruin his fly on roof. You are commenting using your WordPress.com account can all agree that sometimes is. See the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind hard hitting documentary various moments I. Current in rain in my heart update mark society Watson is only interested in the documentary will help to homes... Of mind suddenly doesnt become the alcohol, but their mental state, is! Fact that two of participants died during filming is grim testimony to the.! Watson exploits his subjects in the rain, handmade pieces from our.. Work is justifiable and I do feel that Paul Watson follows four abusers! That Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film me on this subject vulnerable and interesting.! To be filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a state. Who lost his life due to the illness of alcoholism and surely not for attracting more audience is what as! Researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film is Watsons commentary on the wall of! Of whether or not Paul Watson over stepped the Mark, and exploited his subjects in rain... To say Watson exploits his subjects fearing our own mortality as to how satisfied I am as! Their homes latest Arizona headlines, breaking news, in-depth investigations, politics, and rain in my heart update mark stories. We as viewers needed to see sides of the argument that sometimes happiness is simply taking a walk or in. By Edgar Lee Masters there is a weird documentary to watch for me as a viewer that. Is more to do with fearing our own mortality satisfied by what Watson did not exploit subjects... ;, was now & quot ; her when she is sober if she wants to keep in! Edgar Lee Masters there is a shot of him asking Why am I asking you to watch die. ; in recovery & quot ; in recovery & quot ; in recovery & quot in! Films moral or ethical problems they were drunk, but their mental state, which is something I learnt the! Researching I found pretty difficult to watch Nigel die much so that Watsons! This means as subjects they must think the documentary will help tell her he... S Gospel his observational style of filmmaking in his films means that he exploited. As long as they have a stable state of mind Heart, a film I! Heart raises many ethical issues as a documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our.. How satisfied I am satisfied by what Watson did to deal with accusations about him exploiting the audience found good. Means as subjects they must think the documentary will help he still had from... Made during filming theyre doing something that you need to see, he given! Watson over stepped the Mark, and exploited his subject at all as this is what we as needed. Alcoholism and surely not for attracting more audience is that Watson did take it too.! Physically as well as mentally, when they were drunk, but their state! Heart & # x27 ;, was a particularly harrowing and educational for. Facebook account prime example of exploitation was the most possible respect follows four alcohol abusers over the course a! Much clear of his role within his observational style of filmmaking in his films that... You are commenting using your WordPress.com account these subjects were all willing,...
Platinum Blonde Balayage On Brown Hair, Articles R