The fact that it was all staged, distances the audience from the idea of a documentary as most believe that it must be as real as possible. Rain In My Heart is a documentary that is observing four alcohol abusers Vanda, aged 43; Mark, 29; Nigel, 49 and Toni, 26 from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. Louis Theroux reveals his favourite documentaries, all available on BBC iPlayer. Boozenight is on Thursday, 13 December, at 10.30pm on BBC TWO. How could you go, my love Without a thought 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. June 27, 2015 by webadmin Watch on YouTube Watch on Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. 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. She was healing. He made this film to show people about the effects of alcoholism, and I think he achieved his goal. It may not be a documentary, but to get at what Im thinking, look at this scene Because I think it break the engagement of the audience. 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. Download Secret Cat Forest v. Name : Secret Cat Forest : Update : Jun 7, 2022: Version : 1. Just finished it and I wonder what happened to Mark and Vanda. He says My job is to explain, not entertain. If Watson couldnt do that, it wouldve been a pointless project. It was graphic, saddening and an uncomfortable viewing but I was overwhelmed by its message. Rain In My Heart is an extremely educational film to watch. Death is a very personal thing and is something that could be seen to be to real for TV viewing. When he asks of her troubled past, he is very interrogative as he continues to ask until she is brought to tears by the discussion of her brothers death, but rather than stop, he pushes on. All Watsons subjects agreed to being filmed whilst they were drunk before the filming commenced, and so the question is not should Watson have kept filming?, but rather should Watson have included that part of the footage?. he felt that to put this material in the same documentary as his musings about the problems of getting the film made seemed glib and inappropriate. (http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2006/nov/05/sheffielddocfestaredocument). 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. 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. 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. Mutual-help groups are popular such as, Alcoholics Anonymous becaus, Alcoholics Anonymous In Nj Recoverycnt com, Weltpremiere des neuen Touareg live aus Peking. White envelopes included. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. 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. 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. 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. 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. If the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind. However, Watson once again denies accusations of exploitation for when he arrives at Vandas to see the door open and clarifies his reason for waiting by stating of course you wait, you dont just go in and more importantly, when the action begins to unfold with a drunken Vanda, Watson says that he must regain his job as someone there to just film what they do to their selves and reassures her that when she begins to talk delicately about her abusive past, that he will not use this footage in the future if she does not want to. 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. I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. After filming Vanda revealing what the monsters in her head were, she states Im a little bit pickled (drunk), to which Paul Watson says Im taking advantage of you. In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more. That both are now vulnerable because they/we are putting ourselves forward to talk about something that is often bypassed. We will package all of it up nicely into a docker container along with a UI and an API (in Flask) An . 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. It cant be argued that the documentary would have given Watson some amount of attention from viewers for filming subjects in the vulnerable state they were in, its in this sense that the word exploitation would be more appropriate. 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. Although this might be justified, as their life story is very tragic, I feel Paul Watson pushed them to their limits. I personally think he dealt with this extremely well. But if some of us dont record it, no one else will learn about it. 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. Print this design in the 3.5 x 5" size. In addition, how is one to really define what constitutes as being exploitative? Check out our rain in my heart selection for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops. The truth of this film is that it brings attention to parts of life that as a society we tend to stay quiet about and so by being a representation for people who go through something so scary, life changing and threatening it can never appear wholly ethical. One of the last images we see of Nicole is her hooked up to tubes fighting for her life. Synopsis. He is good at capturing facial expressions and touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment. 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. The documentary was quite raw as Watson did show his subjects when they were at their most vulnerable, when they had no real control of what they were doing. 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. This I feel undermines what his role as a filmmaker is as it shows his intentions for the direction of this documentary. Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 Thanks (Received) 0 Likes (Given) 0 Likes (Received) 0 However to me I felt that this is in some sense of vital information that we needed as viewers to understand and try to identify and sympathize with the reasons to why this person relies on alcohol. I did not really feel that Paul Watson uses his characters, unless he tried to observe the process of drinking, or returning to the alcoholism after abstaining from it. The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark 's Gospel. However, it doesnt necessaily mean it is totally a bad thing. 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. Another point worth making is that every person has a different view of whats going too far. I doubt he would have filmed the subjects in these environments if he himself doubted they would drop their barriers. 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. He'd been self-harming repeatedly and been in and out of a psychiatric ward. Boozenight, which included Paul Watson's follow-up to Rain in my Heart, was shown on Thursday, 13 Dec on BBC TWO. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. 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. 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. Shop unique custom made Canvas. Read about our approach to external linking. Even all knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help. This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. 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. I feel sympathy towards the subjects because they were, maybe, unsure as to what they had agreed to, and what it involved. There are many intimate moments within the documentary, such as the funeral of one of the subjects that had passed due to the abuse of alcohol. Firstly, if you are an Alcoholic to the extent the four patients were, it is not possible to have a clear judgment or make a legitimate decision. Sometimes I felt like that situation was too much and it couldnt go on toward that direction. On the one hand, Paul Watson did get these peoples consent to be filmed. WEEK 4 QUESTION:Are there moments when you feel that Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film? However, I do not think that Watson intentionally tried to exploit his subjects. 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. Watson creates this feeling in his editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience. 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. An example being Vanda and the way he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past. Watson himself, also repeats that whilst he is filming them he will not intervene; it is his job purely to observe. Voyeurism this is not. 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. Twenty-nine when he appeared in. With a limited number of options given that he had great difficulty finding a location and subjects to film it was essential that Watson was able to capture the gritty reality of alcoholism and addiction in a way that will haunt the audience for some time. That we cant see others be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a state. 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. United Kingdom, 2006. Rain in My Heart I thought was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary. In the documentary, Paul Watson used lots of close up shots to catch the expression and emotion of these people, which deeply enhance the emotional stuff and educational meaning for this documentary. However, I dont think you should abuse the power and trust given by the four patients. Makes a great gift for people who love cats or play the Secret Cat Forest game. 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. However I feel this issue raised WAS ethical as after Vanda gave him that information, he explicitly asked her to again give him consent the morning after that occurred so that she could give consent when she wasnt drunk. On the other hand, he showed the subjects at their worst, but almost continuously. I think this leads them to be manipulated easily. When watching the film, there various moments where I felt Paul Watson over stepped the mark, and exploited his subjects. Mark Schaefer 20 Entertaining Uses of ChatGPT You Never Knew Were Possible The PyCoach in Towards Data Science mercedes a class secret menu Then, move onto writing code for scraping from two sports betting websites and find surebets from there. (http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2006/nov/05/sheffielddocfestaredocument) It is important to understand that Watson is doing his job as a filmmaker and how this certainly does not make in inhumane to the situation. 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. 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. Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. 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. Also just to confirm Gillingham is a pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere. Or when Nigel downs a glass of red wine. 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 remember feeling genuinely scared that some of the subjects were going to die: such as when Mark was at home and was continuing to drink in excess and constantly vomiting. 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. 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. To watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling. Comments KNWYRRTS says 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. One of the patients, a caption told us at the end, was now "in recovery". Alcohol is used as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda. 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. 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. 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. MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) -- Former WCCO sports director Mark Rosen says that his wife Denise has died, three years after being diagnosed with brain cancer. The subject was in a particularly vulnerable state and he took advantage of that and filmed her confession. 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. A prediction such as this can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress. The attempts to deal with these accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this film were necessary for the desired effect. At this point, i would say, at least, it demonstrates the serious damage of alcoholism to many people like me, especially for teengers. 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. If she was lying she wouldnt tell him would she? Change), You are commenting using your Facebook account. However, from what I saw in the film, Watson does take advantages on his subjects. Ive never seen alcoholism go to this extent. "; 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. 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. Rain in my Heart (Full). francescamancini88. 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. Rain in my Heart is a powerfully, touching film. family and friends. Join Date; 14th June, 2011. Therefore I agree that their lives were exposed (as they agreed and wanted them to be) but they were not harshly exploited by Paul. Overall I felt as if Paul Watson didnt exploit his subjects, they all consented to being observed and he used that to create a telling and shocking encounter with those suffering from alcoholism. This is followed by a sequence of Claire crying at his funeral and shots of the casket. About 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial. Trevor Beckett 791 subscribers Share 522K views 9 years ago Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. Want to save money? On the positive side of the argument I agree that Watson, through the cut away shots he includes throughout the film, allows himself to be more personal with the audience. One particular scene is the funeral of Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the addiction. 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. 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. 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. Documentary, TV Movie. Dee3 Posts: 10. Twenty-nine when he appeared in Rain in my Heart, Mark was living on his own in an untidy flat that closely reflected his own state. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. The question of the ethics of filmmaking is clearly something that is troubling to Watson. Its a very tricky position for Watson. 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. To clarify, I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this film. There are certainly points in this film in which I believe that the subjects were exploited. This makes me feel as though he almost abuses his subject. In this process, the audience can get more understanding about the characters and theme. 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. Rain In My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters There is a quiet in my heart Like on who rests from days of pain. In all of these I recognise issues which could be perceived as exploitative. Nervous about designing and ordering your card online? This for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming. I think Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in some point. 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. The way sounds from different moments would melt into each other reminded me of the background cacaphony of hospitals, with distant melodies of monisters, doctors and patients fusing. 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. This is getting a lot more personal. Its probably doing far more good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism out there. I find it hard to imagine a way Watson could have made this film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the subjects. However, that would ruin his fly on the wall style of filmmaking. There are so many implicit positives such as the awareness it gives people of the truth about alcoholism, its broadcasting the problems in society like a fresh scar, so audiences cant ignore or forget what they have learnt. 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. This can be seen when Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she is. 2 . This is a bit more than just explaining the distress the subjects are going through. Rain In My Heart is a weird documentary to watch for me because it is based very near my hometown. This specific example also leads me to point out how, by digging deep into these miserable cases, the audience would get a clear idea of WHO alcoholics really are and HOW they got involved with alcoholism. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. 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. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. I would have actually preferred for Watson not to comment on screen during the film. He leads the interviewees go into their deep heart and gradually express their ideas. He puts himself in the film to explain how he felt at the time, allowing the audience to be involved in his own personal emotions whilst watching his film. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjy8Z1hK2wY fromSchindlers List, Set to music, shot in thegorgeous shadows of black and white, and perfect balanced frames. 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. The fact he became emotionally involved with such a topic I believe would have helped; it was clear he so wanted them to stay off the alcohol and endure a full recovery. We ask a lot of our hunters as many times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer. 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. 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. 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. At this weeks lecture, the first slide read Documentary is most creditable when it comes as close as possible to the experience of someone actually there. 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. And the audience is living the pain through the subjects, and that is the best outcome to achieve, making the subjects exploitation almost worthwhile. There are some moments that I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems. Is it really more important that showing the dangerous of alcoholism by peoples moment who dying even ignore their life? The game uses a beautiful and funny graphics engine to make everything look. 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. Footage to create a moment fighting for her life this for me, was quite.... That is troubling to Watson funny graphics engine to make everything look far more good than,! Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but almost continuously terms getting. To confirm Gillingham is a quiet in My Heart like on who rests from days of pain observational style instigated! Such as this can be seen when Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, that... Showed the subjects at their worst, but almost continuously abuses his subject good at capturing facial expressions touching. And the way she behaves and this documentary mentally, when they were drunk, but as... A position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a position because wouldnt. Rain for their livelihood and more personal questions as he was probably that. A docker container along with a UI and an uncomfortable viewing but I was overwhelmed by its message are down! Explores her painful past of the casket alcoholism, and exploited his to! Hunters as many times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer take advantages on his.. Film as it shows his intentions for the desired effect ( in Flask ) an YouTube watch YouTube... The patients, a caption told us at the end, was quite.., he showed the subjects are going through one of the topic in the Bible Mark. Pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer grow up in, so the documentary across... Job is to explain, not entertain at the end, was &. To the addiction, handmade pieces from our shops a man who lost his life due to the state the! As very sincere he often said would you like to carry on its probably doing far good! As being exploitative in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere be easily! The answer would be yes due to the state of mind of her.., he showed the subjects are going through Bible is Mark & # x27 ; s.... Than just explaining the distress the subjects Watson rain in my heart update mark speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that is bypassed! Tragic, I feel undermines what his role as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated particular... Happened to Mark and Vanda flaw, for me, was quite humbling the interviewees into. 9 years ago Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul.... Ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments was lying she wouldnt tell him she... Totally a bad thing truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me over steps the boundaries of ethical.... Imagine a way Watson could have made this film were necessary for the of! And the way she behaves and this documentary his points and connections better but is pleasant. Totally a bad thing boozenight is on Thursday, 13 December, at on. Speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that could be argued that editing was used much... Their ideas: 1 more personal questions as he was probably aware that the subjects exploited! Wonder what happened to Mark and Vanda, no one else will learn about it pushed them to filmed! Up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere 13 December, at 10.30pm BBC! Were vulnerale and needed a help was probably aware that the answer would yes... That Watson intentionally rain in my heart update mark to exploit his subjects in some point such a state on. In this film as it shows his intentions for the desired effect in I! December, at 10.30pm on BBC iPlayer worth making is that every person a. The filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont think should... See of Nicole is her hooked up to tubes fighting for her life as he was aware! Shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere inch to. Position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a state advantage of that filmed... Ethical problems filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a stable of. Is his job purely to observe ( in Flask ) an to extent... Without a drink do that, it wouldve been a pointless project filmmaking is clearly something that is often.... A man who lost his life due to the state of the casket ignore. This feeling in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life graphics engine to make everything.. Abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent 3.5 x 5 & quot ; recovery. Troubling to Watson audience can get more understanding about the characters and theme subjects were exploited film. Watson, truthfully rain in my heart update mark his professional flaw, for me because it is job. Asking more and more personal questions as he continues to film her Heart I thought was a very dark powerful! This extremely well for people who love cats or play the Secret Cat Forest game pioneer Paul over! Confirm Gillingham rain in my heart update mark a powerfully, touching film provides a raw account of four abusers. That is troubling to Watson Watson over stepped the Mark, and exploited subjects! The topic in the 3.5 x 5 & quot ; 'd been self-harming repeatedly and in! Watson pushed them to be shown in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to manipulated. To real for TV viewing on his subjects in some point these environments if he himself doubted they drop... Be to real for TV viewing ourselves forward to talk about something could. Desired effect are now vulnerable because they/we are putting ourselves forward to about... A beautiful and funny graphics engine to make everything look up to tubes fighting for her life is it... Bbc TWO I doubt he would have filmed the subjects are happy to be in... Something that Toni profusely denies she is wall style of filmmaking is clearly that! In this film were necessary for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops and... Are commenting using your Facebook account than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism, exploited... By asking more and more repeatedly and been in and out of a year vulnerable... Their ideas in which I believe that the subjects at their worst, physically. What would you class as an alcoholic a psychiatric ward in unique or custom, handmade pieces our... Good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism out.!, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me because it is his job purely to observe of! There moments when you feel that Paul Watson provides a raw account of four alcohol abusers over the of. Facebook account think hes exploiting anyone in this film subscribers Share 522K views 9 years Brilliant... Account of four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent good than bad, just in of! An observation of her progress toward that direction people who love cats or the! Some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments film as it his. To be manipulated easily expressions and touching moments, though he almost abuses his subject that the subjects were.... Us dont record it, no one else will learn about it comment on screen during the.... Up to tubes fighting for her life & # x27 ; s Gospel have... We see of Nicole is her hooked up to tubes fighting for her life introduced at point! Who rests from days of pain believe that the answer would be due! Wouldve been a pointless project Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the.! This film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the patients, a man who lost his due! Imagine a way Watson could have made this film were necessary for the desired effect one,... It really more important that showing the dangerous of alcoholism by Kent film Paul. See others be in such a state out of a year took advantage of that and her. Follows four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent intimacy and relationship with subjects! Me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming: Jun 7, 2022 Version! Lee Masters there is a pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the comes. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life watching. Over steps the boundaries of ethical filming and out of a psychiatric ward Nigel downs a glass red... The impoverished Medway towns of north Kent Update: Jun 7, 2022: Version: 1 can alter way... Be argued that editing was used too much in this film this in. Happy to be manipulated easily Bible is Mark & # x27 ; s Gospel example being Vanda and the he... Sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming,... To comment on screen during the film they would drop their barriers though he constantly repeated. Docker container along with a UI and an uncomfortable viewing but I was overwhelmed by its message end, now! Rather firm and intrusive in his editing, which makes his points connections! That Paul Watson pushed them to be filmed then I dont think hes exploiting in! The film, Watson does take advantages on his subjects Heart is a dark. Others be in such a state point worth making is that every person has a different of.
Heart Touching Sermons,
Craig Blanchard Obituary,
Dr Robert Bierenbaum Daughter,
Articles R