rain in my heart documentary mark diedrain in my heart documentary mark died

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. Webcannon falls shooting; rain in my heart documentary mark died. Critical and disbelieving responses after giving personal information in a safe space, can cause as much pain and loneliness as the original abuse. Watson creates this feeling in his editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience. The film probably brought him a lot of attention (both positive and negative), which means hes profited from filming his subjects problems. 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. As he sits and tells the audience his own personal views, this for me, made him seem more human. One ethical issue that could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects. 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. 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. Kath now struggles on a severely limited income. Whats exploitation? 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 prediction such as this can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress. Thus, having the camera in front of them made me feel that there was a sense of pressure on them to fulfil a certain image of an alcoholic. 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. Watson edits and cross-cuts footage to emphasize reccuring themes across the alcoholics. 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. Voyeurism this is not. It is very gruelling, don't expect an easy ride. Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. Webrain in my heart documentary mark died. ". Documentary Documentary on four alcoholics living in Kent, England. Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the film. 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. Moreover, one can say that the subjects were exploited not only in the aforementioned scenes, but generally throughout the film. In all of these I recognise issues which could be perceived as exploitative. Mark is being exploited towards the end of the film when he goes crazy and starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc. I think the problems of ethics in filmmaking cannot be solved. 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. I felt as if Watson was genuine in the fact that he did care, he wanted to see the subjects overcome their problems, in a scene where he is at Vandas house, he stands with her and says although he cant stop Vanda from drinking, he doesnt want to see her do it. However I think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is so intimate and explicit. Therefore, Watsons approach definitely satisfied me with how delicately he treats the patients and clearly recognizes his role as filmmaker. Instead of the man behind the camera, we see him completely bare, exposing himself to the audience. Overall, I do not feel that Paul Watson has exploited the subjects in his film. It is complicated to say if Paul Watsons techniques were successful in the making of the film, as there are arguments from both sides. 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. Watson stated at the very beginning of the film that he would not intervene in the lives of the people he was filming and would not stop them from drinking if they relapsed. This shows how relationships are built up when filmmaking and how subjects and even the interviewer forms attachments. 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. This allowed the subjects to be themselves around him as Mark said that he didnt hide his bottle of wine from Watson and the camera because this is what the film is all about. 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. The Facebook link I posted was created by Nigels son. Im thinking of the massacre set to Bach, of the march over the horizon to Israel, and of the justly infamous shower scene. Watching Nigel s family crying over his coffin is something that is upsetting and distressing for all. WebRain in my Heart Documentary which follows four alcohol abusers - Vanda, aged 43; Mark, 29; Nigel, 49 and Toni, 26 - from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. Jump to Media Player. 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 You can watch a short reminder of their stories via the links below. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. The decision to include this part of Vandas drunk dialogue is one that is certainly questionable, especially since we are not given evidence as to whether or not she did consent to the inclusion once sober. Change), You are commenting using your Twitter account. Seeing the filmmakers process on screen is great when theyre doing something that you need to see.

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. That both are now vulnerable because they/we are putting ourselves forward to talk about something that is often bypassed. There is one point I dont like about Watsons technique. On the other hand, I feel that some of the content included in the film did not have to be included. (LogOut/ This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. Its probably doing far more good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism out there. Filmed in 2006 the film follows the lives of 4 people battling addiction in the It is clear to me throughout, both when talking to his subjects and when talking to the camera itself that he becomes both emotionally involved and also continuously checks that he is keeping to his promises. As with his other films, Watson established a relationship with the subjects during filming. I found the piece riveting but extremely disturbing. It was really uncomfortable scene to me, Paul trully showed the seriousness of alcohalism and it must influence to the audience. 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 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. 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. This means as subjects they must think the documentary will help. Finally, the article posted below discusses Rain in my Heart alongside other documentaries of Paul Watson. Therefore I agree that their lives were exposed (as they agreed and wanted them to be) but they were not harshly exploited by Paul. Even if that wouldve been the case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it. But there is no evidence of this happening. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. 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. I also think that it is not Pauls fault that these people after having a huge amount of alcohol could not control themselves: their speech, actions and emotions. Are you satisfied by his attempts within the film to deal with such accusations? Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. About the same age as Vanda, Kath has spent more than a decade caring for an alcoholic. Watson used creative techniques through editing of previous footage of Vanda.

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 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. What I think is that Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. (LogOut/ She then replies with a smirk, Obviously. I immediately recognised the castle in the establishing shot in the opening sequence and was taken aback that this documentary was made literally where I have grown up and gone to school. It may be their escape from their issues, and what I think is also important to keep in mind is that if they are using alcohol for this reason, then it could have easily been any other drug. Thus creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences.

But in saying all this we must remember that all the people in the film agreed to be in the documentary. Therefore, maybe his techniques did actually work quite well, although flawed and subjective in places. The attempts to deal with these accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this film were necessary for the desired effect. So with saying that, I was satisfied with the way that Watson handled his participants. 2 seconds ago 0 1 mins 0 1 mins The subjects are very vulnerable and Watson knew this, therefore ethical issues due to the interference of reality from Watson. Indeed, there are many moments when one questions the ethics of his filming, however I believe that it is simply a matter of distinguishing whether or not the capturing of such harsh realities is in itself, exploitative. Even though there is not exact evidence of Kath saying this to Watson, I believe that if she had thought differently the scene would be cut out since it is such a dramatic and personal event. Vanda, 43, has been drinking since the age of 12. A prime example of exploitation was the most vulnerable and interesting subject-Vanda. This for me was an awkward introduction to have with a subject you are going to see go through an emotional and dark period. vivohome 8 in 1 heat press manual; jason martin nashville radio For example, when Vandas temper reaches a certain point and she slams the phone down repetitively, wanting to break it and smash it pieces. In Rain in my Heart she is living in a council flat. Here I refer to when he would talk to the viewer/camera about how he felt at certain points of the film it drew away from the importance of what he should have really been filming and instead became self indulgent within the context. The subjects had all agreed to be filmed but the thought of switching the camera off and helping must have been fairly strong. There were a couple of moments where I felt that he distracted from what we really should have been looking at. I believe he does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he answers them truthfully. I personally think he dealt with this extremely well. kevin gates mother died; james j hill grandchildren 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. /Users/abgsaniya/Desktop/hqdefault.jpg.

These subjects were all willing participants, however their capacity to give consent comes into question. Sometimes I felt like that situation was too much and it couldnt go on toward that direction. 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. rain in my heart documentary mark died. WebMarch 22, 2023 by sachse high school band director. Another point worth making is that every person has a different view of whats going too far. The best documentary I've ever seen mollymandy 25 October 2009. Paul Watsons ethical procedures are certainly questionable. So yes, as we saw during the screening, he was primarily affected by alcohols effect on his father and then consequently, his entire family. Newsnight Review. 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. And it is also a good example to discuss the ethical issues in the documentary. On the other hand, i personally feel like people are indeed exploited. 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. This in essence in the subject saying that they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary project. The issue raised here was that Vanda previously refused to tell Watson about her childhood, so only let it out when she was drunk, which one could argue is unethical as she is under the influence of alcohol so she is probably saying things she doesnt want to say. 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. However i think he knew he was being somewhat intrusive. One died early in the filming, the fourth on camera. I doubt he would have filmed the subjects in these environments if he himself doubted they would drop their barriers. 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. 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. WebRain 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 He just tried to observe that and filmed everything as it is, while they I assume from the very beginning had agreed to be filmed in any state they are. Also just to confirm Gillingham is a pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere. WebHere's some advice. WebNigel died during the course of filming Rain in my Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children. I personally feel as though Watson did not exploit his subjects as they all gave informed consent when they were sober and in hospital, under the supervision of healthcare professionals who could determine whether they were of sound mind, however this issue can be questioned at some points. It seems much so that Paul Watson is very much clear of his role within his observational style of filmmaking in his documentaries. He made this film to show people about the effects of alcoholism, and I think he achieved his goal. Explaining hell it is! Watson had to exploit his subjects in order to create such an amazing film. 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. Their harsh realities shocked me, however i found it extremely easy/automatic to empathise with them due to the methods of which Watson included, and the issues raised were heavily captivating. (steering away from the public filming location of the hospital) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and dazed state? Its a very tricky position for Watson. However, from what I saw in the film, Watson does take advantages on his subjects. When he interviews his subjects when they are drunk, the woman speaks of her monster inside, she used to suffer from sexual abusing by her father. Although it could be argued that this footage is showing Vanda what she is like when she is drunk, I would say that her answers might have been different if she was sober when she was asked them. 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. When he asked Toni to call and talk to his family, for example. 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. Firstly there is very little music (it sounded like the grating pop track at Nigels funeral was actually being played live on a stereo) The camera work seems to lack precision and is only there for immediacy. 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. Change), You are commenting using your Facebook account. Before i didnt know that alcoholism could lead to such a terrifying state and even death. This gives the impression that Paul Watson is only interested in the success of this documentary. 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. I would have to answer that most likely, rhetorical question, by saying yes! And the audience is living the pain through the subjects, and that is the best outcome to achieve, making the subjects exploitation almost worthwhile. Watching Rain in my Heart and experiencing the pain of the lead characters in this outstanding documentary helped me stay sober in the early days. 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. From a personal level I felt it was very moving and eye opening to me on this subject. 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. When watching Rain in my Heart I felt that to say Paul Watson exploited his subjects is unfair. Change). We follow Nigel and his supportive wife Claire as they spend their final weeks together. The veins in her legs have contracted because of alcohol, making walking difficult.

This for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming. 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. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2006/nov/22/mattersoflifeanddeath. shindo life kenjutsu blade id; metaphors to describe a bedroom; piropos con frutas para mujeres; david goggins father trunnis; carta para mi novio que desconfia de mi; lion attack in dream islam. Just watched 'rain in my heart' because I fancied a sad watch tonight and god it was so heart breaking. 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. 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. There is also the repetitive clip of when Vanda says her monsters are in her head. 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. I feel that to say Watson exploits his subjects within the film is unfair. 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. 56,514 people are reading stories on the site right now. This is not to say there isnt artful construction in the film. This was maybe to excuse himself for what he maybe shouldnt have been doing and to tell the viewer that yes he thought it was wrong, but he was doing it for a reason to explore a topic that most people are scared of exploring. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. (LogOut/ So I didnt think that he has exploited his subject at all as this is what we as viewers needed to see. There are a few scenes that stand out as being the most exploitative. About 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial. During the film one of the subjects Mark says If I am not a advert for not drinking then I dont know what is. It affected me emotionally and made me understand what an alcoholics reasons might be for drinking, and sometimes it might not just be that they want a drink. And it tells us a lot; it is educational, eye opening and informative.

Most Popular Now | 56,514 people are reading stories on the site right now. 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 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, it doesnt justify the ignore her drinking even he had a chance to stop her. It is hard to be objective about this film because it is so easily relatable to me, I live equidistant from Medway hospital and Maidstone hospital, and most people avoid Medway because of its reputation. Film charting the traumas faced by four alcoholics and the emotional impact their struggle has had on those around them.

However, that would ruin his fly on the wall style of filmmaking. But while Watson explains he also interacts with the subject instead of just observing.

I feel sympathy towards the subjects because they were, maybe, unsure as to what they had agreed to, and what it involved. Paul Watson was capturing the real lives of these alcoholics, he was not interfering with their actions and allowed alcoholics who were told if they drink anymore they could die, to drink. 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.

He just shined a light on a topic a lot of people often avoid. She was also married to him. 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. Paul Watsons attempt to defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make sense. If Watson couldnt do that, it wouldve been a pointless project. I also at times found it hard to watch due to the harsh reality of the subjects lives. 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. He is good at capturing facial expressions and touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment. There are some moments that I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems. To clarify, I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this film. Trevor Beckett 799 subscribers Subscribe 526K views 9 years ago Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. 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. 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. Watson himself, also repeats that whilst he is filming them he will not intervene; it is his job purely to observe. On January 19, 2023. in is cranberry glass valuable Posted by . 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. 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. (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. 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. An example being Vanda and the way he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past. However, it doesnt necessaily mean it is totally a bad thing. 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. This is a bit more than just explaining the distress the subjects are going through. This is also made clear later in the film when he spends some time filming at one of the female patients, Vandas house. Yes it is a devastating subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just as devastating. Also while researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film. 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.