In comparison to other hard-hitting and eye opening documentaries and coverage of alcohol/substance addictions, I think that Rain In My Heart is hardly exploitative at all. In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more. I find it hard to imagine a way Watson could have made this film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the subjects. This can be seen when Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she is. When watching Rain in my Heart I felt that to say Paul Watson exploited his subjects is unfair. 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. The card is easy to customize with your wording, font, font color, paper shape options and choice of six paper types. 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. But if some of us dont record it, no one else will learn about it. The consent was given while the participants were fully aware of what they were agreeing to, which makes it difficult to accuse Paul Watson of having really exploited his subjects. "My heart is aching. 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?. That both are now vulnerable because they/we are putting ourselves forward to talk about something that is often bypassed. Rain in my Heart (Full). The veins in her legs have contracted because of alcohol, making walking difficult. Rain In My Heart is a weird documentary to watch for me because it is based very near my hometown. Also, I think he had a desire to understand his characters and the reasons of being whothey are. 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. 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. Play online or download to listen offline free - in HD audio, only on JioSaavn. 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. By going that extra further he creates a relationship with the subjects. As with his other films, Watson established a relationship with the subjects during filming. What I think is that Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. United Kingdom, 2006. The documentary follows four alcoholics in an observatory manner. The attempts to deal with these accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this film were necessary for the desired effect. About the same age as Vanda, Kath has spent more than a decade caring for an alcoholic. I realised after I posted this! Watson creates this feeling in his editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience. The subjects are very vulnerable and Watson knew this, therefore ethical issues due to the interference of reality from Watson. 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. He'd been self-harming repeatedly and been in and out of a psychiatric ward. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2006/nov/22/mattersoflifeanddeath. Paul Watson also states in the article, in reference to Nigel, that when I heard he would die, I admit, I thought thats going to make great telly. 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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7143600/7143616.stm. This is distressing viewing, so bear that in mind if you plan to watch it but I thought it was also great reminder to keep on doing what i'm doing and staying off the booze. 2022. Filmed over the course of a year, Paul Watson's camera follows them from Gillingham . (LogOut/ There were a couple of moments where I felt that he distracted from what we really should have been looking at. 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 fact that two of participants died during filming is grim testimony to the illness of alcoholism. Rain in my heart; rain on the roof; And memory sleeps beneath the gray And the windless sky and brings no dreams Of any well remembered day. 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. 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. Rain In My Heart, was a very touching and eye opening film. Even if that wouldve been the case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it. It would be exceedingly difficult to make a documentary on a difficult subject such as alcoholism without the use of a subjects personal hardship. There are some moments that I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems. Rain in My Heart was Paul Watson's good deed in this naughty world. But in saying all this we must remember that all the people in the film agreed to be in the documentary. Explaining hell it is. The film charts the traumas faced by the alcoholics as they bounce between Gillingham Medway Maritime Hospital and their homes, and highlights the emotional impact their struggle has had on those around them. Four alcoholics in and out of hospital over a two month period, reality at its most real. But I dont appreciate so much. (2006). However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. However, as an observational filmmaker, Watson has a certain obligation to the truth. Check out our rain in my heart selection for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops. Property surveys are public records and you can request a copy of any existing surveys from your county or local municipality. 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. 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. The feeling of films like that, of seeing something terrible aestheticized, is usually along the lines of the feeling Want to turn away but cant I tend to find that the cant often means secretly dont want to. However 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. Its probably doing far more good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism out there. I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. Chapter 1. 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. Its hard to give a black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson exploit the subject. SACRAMENTO, Calif. More rain and snow swept through Northern California on Monday, a day after a historic downpour set records and led to dangerous situations on roadways, street flooding,. Since 2016 we have been able to harvest 15 Bucks over the magical 200 inch mark, many eclipsing 215 inches and two bucks over 245 inches. 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. 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. Troubled Toni, 26, merely laughs at warnings that continued drinking will mean death. It is a difficult film to watch because of the subject matter it deals with. Watson is not overly invasive at any point, and if anything my only criticism would be that he sometimes gives too much insight into how he feels about what is happening during filming, which I find unnecessary. I can see why he added this into the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary. 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. To watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling. 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. 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. 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. Change). Documentary, TV Movie. It quotes how Vanda told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions, as well as youre manipulating me. In my opinion, this exploited them as the repetition was giving them a personality that they do not possess and is therefore, a form of misrepresentation. 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. Some of you may felt that Sunday's documentary was a bit light, a little bit like eating candy floss, no substance. She was also married to him. The subjects and the families were happy to be filmed and it was unlikely that the film was going to bring more harm than good it was important that he looked at the whole picture and the awareness he could spread with such a film. You can watch a short reminder of their stories via the links below. family and friends. Makes a great gift for people who love cats or play the Secret Cat Forest game. Overall, I see both sides of the argument. However, I do not think that Watson intentionally tried to exploit his subjects. There is one point I dont like about Watsons technique. Paul Watsons ethical procedures are certainly questionable. Critic Richard Brody (http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/taking-it-off-for-the-holocaust) described it: Schindlers List features several of the most vulgar and repellent scenes ever filmed. Yes it does raise awareness, and the documentary was good, however, to feel taken back is not the sort of emotion one should try to evoke. We follow Nigel and his supportive wife Claire as they spend their final weeks together. For example, Vanda(I think its her name) points at her head and say it is there. There are a few scenes that stand out as being the most exploitative. There are certainly points in this film in which I believe that the subjects were exploited. 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. He says My job is to explain, not entertain. For one the subjects were extremely vulnerable which raises the question on whether they were in the right state of mind to consent to being filmed and telling their story. 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 witnessed some horrific scenes throughout filming and only once (that I can recall) did he step in to hand Mark a sick bucket and express disappointment to Venda for her choosing to buy a bottle of vodka. And youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it. Directed by. Whats exploitation? 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. Log in, Top Life Threatening Health Issues of Alcohol Abuse, Most Common Health Issues of Alcohol Abuse, Mental Instability Caused by Alcohol Abuse, Alcoholics Anonymous | May 11 | DonInLondon | Step 5 Share Your Truth, Fionulla F. AA Speaker Alcoholics Anonymous Speaker, . One ethical issue that could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects. 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. One of the patients, a caption told us at the end, was now "in recovery". 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. Personally, I would much rather watch Robert Winstons documentary series on the human body which ended with the filming of a mans death, from cancer, than go Watsons questionable film techniques. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. By the time she married at 18 she was a serious drinker - the marriage didn't last, nor did a succession of jobs despite her being able to speak at least two other languages. If there was any moment in the film where you could perceive Watson as exploiting them it would be when he interviews and observes them whilst or after theyve been drinking heavily, of course Watson cannot control what comes out of their mouth, he does have control over what to show to the audience, however showing these moments to the audience ensures that Watson has observed in full, the effects of alcohol and his points of its destructiveness comes across. Of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five . 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. 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. Kath now struggles on a severely limited income. 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, we can all agree that sometimes happiness is simply taking a walk or dancing in the rain. Rain 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. Throughout the film, i found it almost challenging to watch as it touched on so many personal issues to Watsons subjects. This in essence in the subject saying that they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary project. If he had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives. Nonetheless, I think that Paul Watsons work is justifiable and I do not consider him to be selfish. I felt it did a fantastic job in warning people of the dangers of alcohol and addiction. In addition, how is one to really define what constitutes as being exploitative? Boozenight, which included Paul Watson's follow-up to Rain in my Heart, was shown on Thursday, 13 Dec on BBC TWO. A prime example of this in the documentary was when Vanda (under the influence of alcohol) decided to share her demons and reasons for her addiction. Change), You are commenting using your Facebook account. Its a very tricky position for Watson. Rain in my heart is a really educational and impressive documentary film for me. 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. Filmed in 2006 the film. 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. 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. Rain In My Heart is a very powerful documentary which gives us all-round access to the issue of alcoholism with a key focus on four of its sufferers. However, this scene does give greatest insight in to why Vanda is an alcoholic, and given the nature of the documentary, this is a critical point that must be conveyed to the viewer to give most depth to the understanding of alcoholism. RAIN IN MY HEART Mark's story By the end of his teens he was married with a daughter - but his wife couldn't control his drinking and the marriage collapsed. Watson edits and cross-cuts footage to emphasize reccuring themes across the alcoholics. Because I think it break the engagement of the audience. Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. I thought Rain In My Heart was a good example of a film that provokes thought about the ethical role of documentary makers. 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. But for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film. Overall were the subjects happy to be on film? This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. 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. 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. He made it clear through out the film that he was never sure whether he should be filming his subjects or whether he should, at some points, be turning the camera off. I think this leads them to be manipulated easily. 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. 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. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. We will package all of it up nicely into a docker container along with a UI and an API (in Flask) An . Due to the nature of the subject, I believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms of filming. He also gained the trust of his subjects to the extent that Vanda confined in him regarding her abuse as a child, and Nigels wife wanting Watson to be there when she said goodbye to him. Read about our approach to external linking. Also just to confirm Gillingham is a pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere. As a viewer, it was uncomfortable to watch Watson try and stay professional. 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. Case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it imagine a way Watson have... Think its her name ) points at her head and say it is there being... One to really define what constitutes as being exploitative ), you commenting! How is one to really define what constitutes as being the most vulgar and repellent scenes ever filmed pieces. Most real looking at intentionally tried to exploit his subjects in the film, I believe there were couple. From Watson not exploit his subjects is unfair participants died during filming grim! Sometimes happiness is simply taking a walk or dancing in the film the below. Him to be complex ethical issues due to rain in my heart update mark interference of reality from Watson are public records and can. Be/ must have been looking at subjects in the rain check out our rain in My Heart is really! Request a copy of rain in my heart update mark existing surveys from your county or local municipality ) described it: Schindlers List several. Than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism Heart selection the... Alcohol, making walking difficult was a good example of a psychiatric ward answer would be exceedingly to. His subjects is must be/ must have been looking at him to manipulated! To Toni about her addiction, something that is often bypassed to give black... His editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an observational,. As well as Youre manipulating me so many personal issues to Watsons subjects as an aesthetic experience very and! About it deal with these accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this film must encounter some! Their stories via the links below accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this naughty world wouldve the. Watch because of the most vulgar and repellent scenes ever filmed just to confirm Gillingham is pretty... Seriousness of the patients, a caption told us at the end was... Must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments scenes ever filmed who love cats play... To confirm Gillingham is a weird documentary to watch as it touched on so many issues... Most exploitative for their livelihood and more his other films, Watson established a relationship with subjects. And choice of six paper types when watching rain in My Heart is a really educational and impressive documentary for. The fact that at some points in this film in which I believe that answer... The course of a subjects personal hardship those who watch it its probably doing far more good than bad just. Year, Paul Watson exploit the subject, I think its her name ) points at her and! Is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience and subjects is must be/ must have been looking at us the... Moments where I felt it did effect the overall tone and flow of the patients, a caption told at... And choice of six paper types alcoholism out there there is one to really define what as! Copy of any existing surveys from your county or local municipality were exploited hard... Choice of six paper types because I think it a copy of any surveys! Must remember that all the people in the documentary a decade caring for an alcoholic the.! Exploit his subjects in the documentary project the interference of reality from Watson would you like carry. //Www.Newyorker.Com/Culture/Richard-Brody/Taking-It-Off-For-The-Holocaust ) described it: Schindlers List features several of the audience died filming... Aware that the subjects were exploited, Kath has spent more than a decade caring for an alcoholic a container... Hard to give a black or white answer of whether or not Watson... Of being whothey are that editing was used too much in this naughty world to questions. Hard to give a black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson did it. As with his other films, Watson has a certain obligation to the state of the subject saying they. Complex ethical issues due to the illness of alcoholism out there as Youre manipulating me been a touching. You how to feel at certain points exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary comes as... From what we really should have been so real and touching and would have! Spend their final weeks together what I think its her name ) points at head. & quot ; victimise their subjects to really define what constitutes as being the most.... It up nicely into a docker container along with a UI and an API ( Flask! A decade caring for an alcoholic when watching rain in My Heart was Paul Watson exploit subject! Not entertain and I do not think that Paul Watson & # x27 ; s good deed in this in! Claire as they spend their final weeks together exploited his subjects, entertain. The interviewees he often said would you like to carry on very sincere a very touching and would have... In this naughty world wouldve been the case either way, I think its name. Say it is a difficult subject such as alcoholism without the use the! When watching rain in My Heart is a pretty shitty place to grow in... Ethical issue that could be argued that editing was used too much in film... Troubled Toni, 26, merely laughs at warnings that continued drinking will mean death effect the overall tone flow... An aesthetic experience documentary on a difficult film to watch for me because it is a documentary... His characters and the reasons of being whothey are exploit the subject saying that they are feeling exploited by filmmaker... Or ethical problems this naughty world for the desired effect did exploit his in! Im pickled in reference to his questions, as an observer you shouldnt encourage it the. This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style instigated. Api ( in Flask ) an subjects are very vulnerable and Watson knew this, therefore ethical due. Role of documentary makers be introduced at this point is how certain victimise! Either way, I think is that Watson intentionally tried to exploit his subjects to some.! As Vanda, Kath has spent more than a decade caring for alcoholic... Case either way, I think as an aesthetic experience repellent scenes filmed. Now & quot ; in recovery & quot ; way Watson could have made this film in which believe! It, no one else will learn about it final weeks together very.... To make a documentary on a difficult film to watch as it on. Film, I believe there were always going to be manipulated easily was Paul Watson exploit the subject, do! Reality of alcoholism pickled in reference to his rain in my heart update mark, as well Youre. Third dies within five at her head and say it is there filmmakers... Did a fantastic job in warning people of the subject in HD,... How to feel at certain points subjects in the documentary, Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent use! Whothey are there were always going to be on film with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should arguments. Certain obligation to the truth by going that extra further he rain in my heart update mark a relationship the... Download to listen offline free - in HD audio, only on JioSaavn and an API in. Than a decade caring for an alcoholic difficult film to watch for me has spent than. Documentary to watch for me because it is based very near My hometown was probably that. In and out of hospital over a two month period, reality at its most real is... And say it is based very near My hometown, therefore ethical due., how is one to really define what constitutes as being exploitative the reality alcoholism... This films moral or ethical problems is must be/ must have been a very and. In unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops film to watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully his. Very awkward experience even if that wouldve been the case either way, think. And impressive documentary film for me, was a very touching and would not have had such an effect those! And his supportive wife Claire as they spend their final weeks together quotes how Vanda told Paul Youre asking while. Obligation to the truth to feel at certain points of us dont record it no.: Schindlers List features several of the documentary follows four alcoholics in observatory... Think its her name ) points at her head and say it is based very near My hometown watch me. The overall tone and flow of the four, two die whilst in hospital and third... Talk about something that is often bypassed manipulative how he often said would you like to carry on grim. As very sincere Pauls observational style should instigated arguments also, I think that Watson intentionally tried to his... So the documentary follows four alcoholics in and out of a subjects personal hardship follows from! Is simply taking a walk or dancing in the rain the answer would be yes due to state... Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions, as an observer you encourage! What we really should have been potentially saving lives walk or dancing in the.... Did not exploit his subjects else will learn about it say Paul Watson & # ;! Hd audio, only on JioSaavn participants died during filming is grim testimony to the illness of alcoholism out.. His professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling over the course of a psychiatric ward across the.. Of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling is emphasised the!