rain in my heart update mark

As an audience member I am conflicted as to how satisfied I am with how Watson deals with accusations about him exploiting the audience. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. 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. To apply this aestheticized approach to documentary, look at the trailer for The Imposter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuFOX0Sy_o Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Listen to Rain' in My Heart on the English music album Wonderful Soundtrack by Slim Harpo, only on JioSaavn. 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. 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. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2006/nov/22/mattersoflifeanddeath. We as a audience get to see his family grieving him when he dies and more importantly we see his wife looking after him when he is in his worst state and also coping with his departure. 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. Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. Registered User. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjy8Z1hK2wY fromSchindlers List, Set to music, shot in thegorgeous shadows of black and white, and perfect balanced frames. He says My job is to explain, not entertain. RAIN IN MY HEART BOWY Rock 1,125Shazams play full song Get up to 5 months free of Apple Music Share OVERVIEW LYRICS PLAY FULL SONG Connect with Apple Music. 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. 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. She then replies with a smirk, Obviously. From a documentarians point of view, Watson did a remarkable job of exploring the brutality of a taboo subject, but from a moral standpoint, the filmmaker may not have been exploitative in his actions but he was definitely extreme. Moreover, one can say that the subjects were exploited not only in the aforementioned scenes, but generally throughout the film. (LogOut/ 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. This for me was an awkward introduction to have with a subject you are going to see go through an emotional and dark period. I felt that already Watson was too close to his subjects to represent them how he originally intended to. Twenty-nine when he appeared in. Thus creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences. It would have shown their time off-screen, sitting in a dressing room, preparing themselves to go on-camera, also chatting and gossiping, then being lined up by the assistant director and going through the magic momentthe transformation into character. He later also mentions that one woman, who had been born in a concentration camp, had a complete breakdown while doing that scene.. This gives the impression that Paul Watson is only interested in the success of this documentary. Rain in My Heart was Paul Watson's good deed in this naughty world. Rain In My Heart raises many ethical issues as a documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our society. (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. The subjects are very vulnerable and Watson knew this, therefore ethical issues due to the interference of reality from Watson. Although this had a huge dramatic effect upon the viewer and it allowed the viewer to analyse the particular situation multiple times, I felt that Paul Watson was portraying them as if they were less in control of what they were saying, almost as if they were crazy. The 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. In this process, the audience can get more understanding about the characters and theme. It is a difficult film to watch because of the subject matter it deals with. Director Paul Watson See production, box office & company info Add to Watchlist 5 User reviews Won 1 BAFTA Award 2 wins & 1 nomination total Photos Add photo More like this 6.7 Its hard to give a black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson exploit the subject. 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. 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. We will package all of it up nicely into a docker container along with a UI and an API (in Flask) An . There is one point I dont like about Watsons technique. 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. I can understand how to other viewers, this film may be seen as a breach to ethics within filmmaking, with how Watson gets so close with his vulnerable subjects, however, I feel that Watsons approach is what makes this film such a powerful observation. Change), You are commenting using your Facebook account. During the documentary, Mark (one of Watsons subjects, aged 29) states that he agreed to do filming for Paul to show people why they should not drink alcohol. 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. 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. 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. Nonetheless, I think that Paul Watsons work is justifiable and I do not consider him to be selfish. One of the last images we see of Nicole is her hooked up to tubes fighting for her life. Alluding to the culture of exploitning woman, as well as Spielbergs film being a commercial (and one which ends with a very colourful, affirming ending) intent makes it a machine absording actresses and horrors for the output of satisfying drama. 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. 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. Nigel died during the course of filming Rain in my Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children. I thought Rain In My Heart was a good example of a film that provokes thought about the ethical role of documentary makers. This is a scene which perhaps does challenge the idea of ethics by posing the question of how FAR can we go to observe? Revisiting Rain. Im thinking of the massacre set to Bach, of the march over the horizon to Israel, and of the justly infamous shower scene. (steering away from the public filming location of the hospital) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and dazed state? At one point it says: This type of documentary is not the best way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins. The subjects had all agreed to be filmed but the thought of switching the camera off and helping must have been fairly strong. 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. Just finished it and I wonder what happened to Mark and Vanda. In making Rain in my Heart I would need to film people with troubled psyches; people within which gremlins and monsters lurk producing psychological pain and miseries, miseries that often push them to self-harm. 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. Overall, I see both sides of the argument. Are you satisfied by his attempts within the film to deal with such accusations? 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. But if some of us dont record it, no one else will learn about it. A prime example of exploitation was the most vulnerable and interesting subject-Vanda. It is obvious that this documentary was extremely influential to those who have seen it, I have attached a link below of a Facebook page a viewer has made (who obviously has personal issues and experience with alcoholism). 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. 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. Sometimes during the film I felt like I wanted to intervene in order to stop what the interviewees were struggling with while telling their stories. Paul Watson has a lot to answer for (The Family probably started the reality trend) but Rain in my Heart made up for a lot. 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. Because I think it break the engagement of the audience. The world was slowly healing. I think Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in some point. I personally think he dealt with this extremely well. 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. 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. That he doesnt so anything to stop them drinking is a part of their own agency, and I believe shows more respect than if he had intervened. 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. 17,029 pages were read in the last minute. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. family and friends. Rain in my Heart was an incredibly touching yet dark documentary about the wide spread issue that is alcoholism, and at points I was touched by the way in which Watson presented his subjects and their problems. Rain in my heart is very clinical in its approach to a very tough subject matter, as if Watsons approach matches that of the grief caused by alcoholism for his subjects. 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. 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. And it tells us a lot; it is educational, eye opening and informative. In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more. There were no moments where I thought Paul Watson was exploiting his subjects in the film, I simply viewed him as an observational documentarist that attempted to explain the real horrors of self-harming through the use of alcohol. 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. About 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial. Alcohol is used as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda. Watching Nigel s family crying over his coffin is something that is upsetting and distressing for all. 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. 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. This is an extremely special place to hunt mule deer and we have an intimate knowledge of the terrain. This is just one example of the reaction that Watsons Rain in My Heart provoked; Not something that is watched and easily forgotten about. You can watch a short reminder of their stories via the links below. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. Overall, I believe Watson does not exploit his subjects because they knew roughly what they were getting themselves into and because Watson simply observed with the camera the tragic events of the subjects that would gain the empathy of the audience towards the effect of alcoholism. High-quality Rain In My Heart Wall Art designed and sold by artists. Dee3 Posts: 10. 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. "My heart is aching. He does however, tell her that he will ask her when she is sober if she wants to keep that in. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. Even if that wouldve been the case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it. In addition, how is one to really define what constitutes as being exploitative? 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. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. Also, later on the film when he asks of the liability of the life experiences she has told him, I felt it was very unnecessary to show her breaking down. 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. 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. 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. On the one hand, Paul Watson did get these peoples consent to be filmed. Once she confesses her heartbreaking childhood, Watson mentions that he will check with her tomorrow to see whether she still wants it to be put in [the final cut of the documentary]. Due to the nature of the subject, I believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms of filming. However, it doesnt necessaily mean it is totally a bad thing. francescamancini88. I would not have the heavens fair, And it is also a good example to discuss the ethical issues in the documentary. Filmed over the course of a year, Paul Watson's camera follows them from Gillingham . A prediction such as this can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress. 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. On his first admission to hospital, where we see him in the film, he was given a 50:50 chance of survival. He had been in a coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up. An example being Vanda and the way he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past. There were some scenes in which the people he was filming were obviously out of it and not at all in a healthy condition, physically or mentally. The film probably brought him a lot of attention (both positive and negative), which means hes profited from filming his subjects problems. She was healing. Throughout the documentary there are cut ins of Watson discussing ethical implications during the filming process. This in essence in the subject saying that they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary project. When telling Vandas story, I felt he was very close to her, almost to the point where it could be seen as a personal relationship. There is also the repetitive clip of when Vanda says her monsters are in her head. 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. 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. There are a few scenes that stand out as being the most exploitative. 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. Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. However, Watsons humanity and compassion shines through. Play online or download to listen offline free - in HD audio, only on JioSaavn. 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. Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 Thanks (Received) 0 Likes (Given) 0 Likes (Received) 0 One of them, Nigel Wratten, was shown unconscious, dead in all but name, while his wife made her final farewell;. 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 found the piece riveting but extremely disturbing. But I dont appreciate so much. Surely, this would mean that his documentary would attract more viewings but at least that would mean that more and more people would learn and be warned about the effects of alcoholism. 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. Paul Watsons ethical procedures are certainly questionable. Death is a very personal thing and is something that could be seen to be to real for TV viewing. Check out our rain in my heart selection for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops. He is a quite good interviewer, especially in the interaction between him and the characters. He leads the interviewees go into their deep heart and gradually express their ideas. 'Fires were started' (1943)may easily come across as simply a fictional film due to the stylistic use of non-diagetic sound and scripted narrative. Thus exploiting their vulnerability to further push their weakness and end up with footage that will strike the audiences attention and maybe even get better ratings. 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. Paul Watson. Covering Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Gilbert, the valley . To watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling. I think theyre happy for the attention, to have someone to listen. 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. 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. 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. WEEK 4 QUESTION:Are there moments when you feel that Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film? Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. 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. 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. One particular scene is the funeral of Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the addiction. I realised after I posted this! 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.

South Windsor High School Fight, Los Angeles Weather In June 2022, Articles R