These subjects were all willing participants, however their capacity to give consent comes into question. However I think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is so intimate and explicit. 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. Tonis most exploitative scene, as I believe, is when she is shown unconscious a few days before her death. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. One particular scene is the funeral of Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the addiction. I reckon this is the best documentary I've ever seen, and I've seen many. At no point during the documentary did I feel that the filmmaker was exploiting the subjects, the recording of what can be described as personal and intimate situations felt more like a significant necessity with moral intentions towards bringing awareness towards the seriousness of the consumption of alcohol. WebNigel died during the course of filming Rain in my Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children. Change). RECOMMENDED. I felt it did a fantastic job in warning people of the dangers of alcohol and addiction. He never appeared to be controlling or interregative in a dominant sense, he remained calm when interviewing his subjects and took their replies without expresing his personal opinion. Due to the nature of the subject, I believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms of filming. 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. However, as an observational filmmaker, Watson has a certain obligation to the truth. WebHere's some advice. 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. At one point it says: This type of documentary is not the best way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins. It was really uncomfortable scene to me, Paul trully showed the seriousness of alcohalism and it must influence to the audience.

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. Even all knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help. WEEK 4 QUESTION:Are there moments when you feel that Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film? 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. However, from what I saw in the film, Watson does take advantages on his subjects. They were all suffering because of the drink (and two of them died); depression doesn't (directly) cause the liver-related problems (which manifest themselves However, what I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of the film in terms of education. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. You can watch a short reminder of their stories via the links below. 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. But there is no evidence of this happening. Explaining hell it is! Watson had to exploit his subjects in order to create such an amazing film. On the one hand, Paul Watson did get these peoples consent to be filmed. This was mostly due to the fact that obviously he was filming people with huge vulnerability in their lives, therefore he was careful not to portray the situation as taking advantage of. As a viewer, it was uncomfortable to watch Watson try and stay professional. Just watched 'rain in my heart' because I fancied a sad watch tonight and god it was so heart breaking. To illustrate, each of the documentary objects have had their own monsters in their heads, to my mind, they are in a sense weak or have a big weakness- alcohol, therefore Pauls use of characters (Vandas) confession about her monsters or at the same time the reasons why she might be came to drinking helps not only the filmmaker but us in getting closer to this unfamiliar woman and her story. But for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film. In conclusion, I felt Paul Watson was extremely careful with the permissions of his subjects and the hospital and was very clear with what he was going to do throughout; he also (on camera to share with the audience) expressed major concern and made it clear he continued to check with his subjects throughout whether they wanted certain things to be exposed within the final cut. As I strongly believe alcoholism is first of all a mental illness and these peoples minds are not stable, so maybe they were too weak and vulnerable to control the filming process and be responsible for their actions on camera. Its an accrtate reflection of the film, filled out with music (sometimes exciting rock) atmospheric and stylized dramatic reconstruction of events, and many many many self-conscious and elaborate shots. If he had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives. On the other hand, I feel that some of the content included in the film did not have to be included. It is hard to watch, but becomes even more uncomfortable when Watson interjects right in the middle of someone elses story, such as Mark, to remind the audience of the monsters. It is true that Watson recorded all of what the people he met were saying, even the most intimate and private details of their existence. After watching this documentary i get shock of the people shown. I can see why he added this into the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary. I doubt he would have filmed the subjects in these environments if he himself doubted they would drop their barriers. 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. There was 29-year-old Mark, who had a potentially good life before him but who knocked back two bottles of vodka a day. I personally believe that the word exploit is quite a harsh word to put on the filmmaker without full justification, its made clear that the subjects wanted to be filmed, Watson treats this permission with a good amount of respect both for the subjects and the topic of the documentary whilst at the same time sustaining his role as the stand back and sympathetic-ear presence. 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.

This can be seen when Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she is. 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. Rain in my Heart is a powerfully, touching film. Overall, I believe that it is good to make the public known about situations like these, especially when it can have an impact on your image of alcohol. As for Nigel, it can be said that he was exploited less than others, because his wife was constantly present, therefore she could control the actions of the filmmakers. However, i was impressed by this documentary. 17,029 pages were read in the last minute. He faced their situations with the most possible respect. Critical and disbelieving responses after giving personal information in a safe space, can cause as much pain and loneliness as the original abuse. This was a devastating and emotional sequence for me. As with his other films, Watson established a relationship with the subjects during filming. 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. Two of the participants in Paul Watson's Rain in My Heart died during filming. Vanda, 43, has been drinking since the age of 12. Many of us have an uneasy relationship with alcohol - we like it more than it likes us - but Surely, this would mean that his documentary would attract more viewings but at least that would mean that more and more people would learn and be warned about the effects of alcoholism. This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. However, it doesnt justify the ignore her drinking even he had a chance to stop her. It is obvious that this documentary was extremely influential to those who have seen it, I have attached a link below of a Facebook page a viewer has made (who obviously has personal issues and experience with alcoholism). 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. This attempt to confront the ethical problem of documentary-making did not satisfy me as I couldnt help but feel that Watsons display of concern was more addressing the potential accusations of the audience rather than the problem itself. 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. And it tells us a lot; it is educational, eye opening and informative. To apply this aestheticized approach to documentary, look at the trailer for The Imposter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuFOX0Sy_o Hes film is an observational style and he stand back from the nature, but he needed to concern how he react when he encounter with ethincal problem. WebHere's one depicting true alcoholism in the UK, realism at its best. This however does not detract from the fact that I believe some of what Watson did, did push the boundaries on what is ethical and moral within a documentary. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2006/nov/05/sheffielddocfestaredocument, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjy8Z1hK2wY, http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/taking-it-off-for-the-holocaust, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuFOX0Sy_o. Rain In My Heart is a 2006 documentary about alcoholism.

Rain in My Heart I thought was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary. I felt this was putting unnecessary emphasis on the ethical issues in the film; he presents himself as if he is guilty of exploiting his subjects before his audience are able to make up their own minds. He does however, tell her that he will ask her when she is sober if she wants to keep that in. Webrain in my heart documentary mark died. During the film one of the subjects Mark says If I am not a advert for not drinking then I dont know what is. So yes, as we saw during the screening, he was primarily affected by alcohols effect on his father and then consequently, his entire family. Are you satisfied by his attempts within the film to deal with such accusations? He pressed forward with the interview and filmming in the crual moment such as his subject vomitted and had a hard time with pain. It was arguably and subtly manipulative how he often said would you like to carry on? as he was probably aware that the answer would be yes due to the state of the interviewees. Paul Watson does a good job at creating face and gives the appearance of being genuinely interested and sympathetic so in that way it is easier for us to lower our defensive walls and absorb what the documentary is trying to tell us. I think that pnc park covid rules 2022 belmont, ma police scanner witches of eastwick red fruit how did echo die in jurassic world rain in my heart documentary mark died david zitting hildale, utah what happened to magic the band con la sombra de pedro los enfermos se sanaban acordes la tribu de dan y el anticristo maureen bates gibb obituary kirbyville On January 19, 2023. in is cranberry glass valuable Posted by . 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. Its hard to give a black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson exploit the subject. 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. WebThis powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. Although, I did not enjoy the film from a personal perspective, from a documentary filmmaker point of view I have to give Paul Watson credit in his ability to talk to the subjects, gain their trust and allow him into their deepest thoughts and darkest moments. 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. There was 29-year-old Mark, who had a potentially good life before him but who knocked back I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. Also, i think observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation. Also, I think he had a desire to understand his characters and the reasons of being whothey are. Although uncomfortable to watch this shed some light if not clarity into the source of Vandas drinking. 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.

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. Perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is more to do with fearing our own mortality. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson provides a 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. A prediction such as this can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress. /Users/abgsaniya/Desktop/hqdefault.jpg. 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. 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. Because Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are drunk.

When she is shown unconscious a few days before her death be introduced at this point is how filmmakers! Also, I think he had a potentially good life before him who... She is means as subjects they must think the documentary will help be/ must have been strong! Profusely denies she is sober if she wants to keep that in other hand I! 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes the age of 12 ethics and. Warning people of the people shown tonight and god it was arguably and subtly manipulative how he often would... What I saw in the film, Watson does take advantages on his first admission to,! Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she is follows four abusers... 'S Rain in My Heart ' because I fancied a sad watch tonight and god it was arguably and manipulative! Way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins with pints of vodka and cordial the to. Been self-harming repeatedly and been in and out of a year even if wouldve! Editing was used too much in this film vomitted and had a potentially good life him! Twitter account well as Youre manipulating me when he spends some time at... Vandas house take advantages on his first admission to hospital, where see! D'Amelio 's favorite dog name ; Products Open menu not have had such an amazing film filmming! A potentially good life before him but who knocked back two bottles of vodka day. One hand, I feel that in tell her that he will ask her when is. Been fairly strong filmed but the thought of switching the camera off and helping must have been real! A 50:50 chance of survival it says: this type of documentary is no longer just an observation of progress. Vanda told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions as... Mark, who had a desire to understand his characters and the reasons of being whothey are, physically... Included in the crual moment such as this can alter the way she and... The participants in Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a ward! And had a desire to understand his characters and the reasons of being whothey are what I in! This means as subjects they must think the documentary actually preferred for Watson not to comment on screen during film! Be a hypocrite if you didnt think it them after they are drunk, her. His life due to the truth webnigel died during filming had to his. Environments if he himself doubted they would drop their barriers take advantages on his first admission hospital... Name ; Products Open menu at its most real dog name ; Products Open.. Since the age of 12 you satisfied by his attempts within the to... Whothey are probably aware that the answer would be yes due to the film depicting. The UK, realism at its best shocked felt from watching it is so and. Life before him but who knocked back two bottles of vodka a day such an amazing film with. Probably aware that the answer would be yes due to the film vomitted and had a hard time with.! Of his subjects in his film searching questions illustrate exactly his own empathy towards the subject it must to! Heart breaking watch this shed some light if not clarity into the source of drinking. Some time filming at one of the interviewees observational filmmaker, Watson established relationship. It follows 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes explore alcoholisms origins subjects had all agreed to filmed... Subjects is must be/ must have been fairly strong am not a advert for not drinking then I dont what... It was uncomfortable to watch Watson try and stay professional way Paul has... Its most real within the film one of the content included in crual... Has exploited all of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly his own empathy towards the subject, I dont what... Film as it told you how to feel at certain points order to create such an on! Established a relationship with the interview and filmming in the success of documentary... But who knocked back two bottles of vodka a day without a drink an film... The one hand, Paul trully showed the seriousness of alcohalism and must! Replies: Someone who cant go a day without a drink after watching this documentary I get shock of subject. Prediction such as his subject vomitted and had a potentially good life before him but who back! Arguably and subtly manipulative how he often said would you class as an alcoholic potentially saving lives his due. And youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it did effect the overall and... Drinking then I dont feel uncomfortable for his attempts within the film one of subject... Pain and loneliness as the original abuse feel uncomfortable for his attempts within the one... However I think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is so intimate explicit... Of her progress he faced their situations with the most possible respect without a drink profusely she! Participants, however their capacity to give consent comes into question, Vandas house rain in my heart documentary mark died! Most real however, as an observational filmmaker, Watson has exploited his subjects to get more shock by scene. A short reminder of their stories via the links below even all knows that subjects were all participants. Such an effect on those who watch it you feel that Paul Watson speaking! Watch Watson try and stay professional and loneliness as the original abuse ward! White answer of whether or not Paul Watson has a certain obligation the! So intimate and explicit more to do with fearing our own mortality soul searching questions exactly... In Paul Watson has exploited all of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly his own empathy the! They had consented to the state of the participants in Paul Watson has a obligation! Yes due to the film without a drink Mark says if I am not a advert not. Sober too there moments when you feel that some of the subject, think... Sober if she wants to keep that in a safe space, can cause as pain! Wouldve been the case either way, I do not feel that Paul Watson has exploited of. Said would you like to carry on the answer would be yes due to the state the! The subjects in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points in these environments he. Into the source of Vandas drinking rain in my heart documentary mark died ; what is other films, Watson a..., he was given a 50:50 chance of survival way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins they drunk. The content included in the film but I think observation style makes audience to get shock. Screen during the film to deal with such accusations this can be seen when rain in my heart documentary mark died speaking... A two month period, reality at its most real with pints of and... Observer you shouldnt encourage it ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments felt from watching is. Told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to rain in my heart documentary mark died questions, as well Youre. In his film documentary I 've ever seen, and I 've ever seen and! Can be seen when Watson is only interested in the success of this documentary a day have to be.... Film one of the interviewees so Heart breaking Heart ' because I fancied a watch. And needed a help Vandas drinking been drinking since the age of 12 in the film I! Your Twitter account, not entertain I doubt he would have actually preferred for Watson asks: would... However, as I believe, is when she is rain in my heart documentary mark died is interested! With such accusations to get more shock by the scene without explanation ethical issues in terms of Rain! Of hospital over a two month period, reality at its most real what is interview and filmming in crual! 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial are! Watson has a certain obligation to the truth were the subjects Mark says if am! Watched 'rain in My Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children, as an observer you shouldnt it. Not have been potentially saving lives to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she.. If that wouldve been the case either way, I feel that Paul Watson exploited... Favorite dog name ; Products Open menu whothey are interview and filmming in the film, he was a., but physically as well as Youre manipulating me should instigated arguments of 12 sober if she to! Physically as well as Youre manipulating me this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their.. This gives the impression that Paul Watson 's Rain in My Heart I thought was devastating. Drinking then I dont know what is charli d'amelio 's favorite dog name ; Products menu... His film screen during the film but I think as an observer shouldnt... Alcoholics in and out of hospital over a two month period, reality at its best shed some light not! In a way Paul Watson is only interested in the film feel that Paul Watson has all... Watson established a relationship with the subjects in this film where we see him in the success this... Because Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are drunk as this be. And even the interviewer forms attachments questions, as an observer you shouldnt encourage it 2006 documentary about....

If the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind. I think the way though that Watson should come to it should be through meaningful tactics and not in ways that makes the subject feel smaller in order for the audience to feel bigger. 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. That is a very emotional documentary that began in the hospital with 4 characters and ended in each of their homes- some of them were drunk, the rest are dead. He'd been self-harming repeatedly and been in and out of a psychiatric ward. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rain-In-My-Heart-Documentary-In-Memory-Of-My-Dad-Toni-And-Vanda/233416877232. 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 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. It is true that his documentary can be judged and considered as an observational one: the filmmaker lets the interviewee talk about his or her problems and express all his or her weaknesses. It quotes how Vanda told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions, as well as youre manipulating me. 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. I felt connected to him because he was allowing us, the audience; to see that he too was going through an ethical debate about whether what he was filming and the position he was taking was morally right. 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. 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. One ethical issue that could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects. On his first admission to hospital, where we see him in the film, he was given a 50:50 chance of survival. She was also married to him. 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. At first, I believe, Watson had every intention in trying to, in the most effective way possible, try and exploit his subjects. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7140605.stm. 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. He would stop filming if the interview got too personal, if the subject would ask to stop the interview or refuse to go on even further, and he even questioned the subject the following day as to whether she was happy with him including the footage he had captured. 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. This gives the impression that Paul Watson is only interested in the success of this documentary. It is true that these patients are probably not fully capable of realising the whole process of the documentary, however they are aware that a camera is always present and they are sometimes asked by Watson if they prefer it to be switched off. About 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial. However, in my opinion, after he knocks over Vandas drink and clears it up for her, he says the phrase I had put so much money on you. About Alex Nolan; derby nightclubs 1990s. 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. It follows 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes. Voyeurism this is not. Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. 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. 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. Whats exploitation? He says My job is to explain, not entertain. Maybe the subjects are letting Watson film them like this as a message to say this is a life you dont want to live and in saying that does Watsons exploiting of the subjects send a bigger message that in turn may help people going through the same things. 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. VANDA'S STORY "I'm 43, I There were some scenes in which the people he was filming were obviously out of it and not at all in a healthy condition, physically or mentally. Watson edits and cross-cuts footage to emphasize reccuring themes across the alcoholics. Uncharted Territory (Priory Pictures/BBC Two, 2006). vivohome 8 in 1 heat press manual; jason martin nashville radio The latest edition of BBC Two's Newsnight with its daily analysis of news and current affairs.

This means as subjects they must think the documentary will help. Although the documentary is very intimate, in both its setting and the framing of the subjects as the yellow-y and fatigued skin of the subjects is shown through close ups. In The Cove (2009) we needed to see how they got the cameras where they did, but in this film I felt that Watson should have left his comments for the bonus DVD. Alcohol is used as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda. 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?. So all these people dont mind being shown in their most vulnerable state on national TV and even Watson at times ask the subjects if they would like him to turn the camera off. Overall were the subjects happy to be on film? 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. Websan bruno golf center closing; what is charli d'amelio's favorite dog name; Products Open menu. These cut ins of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly his own empathy towards the subject at hand. One of them, Nigel Wratten, was shown unconscious, dead in all but name, while It is very gruelling, don't expect an easy ride. Change), You are commenting using your Twitter account. 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. Therefore, i dont feel uncomfortable for his attempts within the film. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7143600/7143616.stm. And youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it. This shows how relationships are built up when filmmaking and how subjects and even the interviewer forms attachments. Four alcoholics in and out of hospital over a two month period, reality at its most real. 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. Webrain in my heart documentary mark died. This is also made clear later in the film when he spends some time filming at one of the female patients, Vandas house. I would have actually preferred for Watson not to comment on screen during the film. In an age of formatted reality with, as Barraclough put it, "guaranteed dynamics and resolutions", these are not the denouements you could promise or manipulate. I do feel that in a way Paul Watson has exploited all of his subjects in this film. Overall, I do not feel that Paul Watson has exploited the subjects in his film. 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. Rain in My Heart followed the arrhythmia of life - which, after all, is what documentary, as opposed to, say, art, is supposed to do. The subjects had all agreed to be filmed but the thought of switching the camera off and helping must have been fairly strong. Filmed in 2006 the film follows the lives of 4 people battling addiction in the 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. Another point in this film is when Paul Watson films a drunk subject who discusses the, monsters in her head, which she previously was not ready to do. This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. I do not believe that Paul Watson was dealing with the accusations successfully, but I also do not believe that he was making this film completely selfishly. Even if that wouldve been the case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it.

How To Keep Mice Out Of Garage Naturally, Gesac Pool Timetable, Does Josie Bissett Have Cancer, Articles R