I personally feel that Paul Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. At first, I believe, Watson had every intention in trying to, in the most effective way possible, try and exploit his subjects. In this process, the audience can get more understanding about the characters and theme. 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. For example, Vanda(I think its her name) points at her head and say it is there. 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). Numerous parts of the documentary further emphasise this intimacy as we the viewers are taken into the houses of these subjects, as if given permission to enter into anothers personal space which itself is also intimate in the context of the style of filmmaking here (observational). My eyes are dry, my love, since you've been gone, I haven't shed a tear, I'll never cry, my love, though every day seems like a hundred years, For I'm just a fool who clings to his pride but when I'm alone, I can hear the sound of rain in my heart, of the tears that I hide, And it tears me apart, 'cause I keep them inside, I can't get away from The attempts to deal with these accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this film were necessary for the desired effect. 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. 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. (LogOut/ Vanda, 43, has been drinking since the age of 12. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. I find it hard to imagine a way Watson could have made this film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the subjects. 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. 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. Overall were the subjects happy to be on film? Print this design in the 3.5 x 5" size. 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. 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. I believe he does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he answers them truthfully. I personally believe that the word exploit is quite a harsh word to put on the filmmaker without full justification, its made clear that the subjects wanted to be filmed, Watson treats this permission with a good amount of respect both for the subjects and the topic of the documentary whilst at the same time sustaining his role as the stand back and sympathetic-ear presence. This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. (2006). He just shined a light on a topic a lot of people often avoid. 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. 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. Whats offensive? It serves its purpose of portraying the realities of alcoholism, and at times may seem harsh, but in doing so creates an ugly truth that otherwise wouldnt be seen. During the film one of the subjects Mark says If I am not a advert for not drinking then I dont know what is. An example could be when Vanda talks about the monsters in her head, one of the monsters being her abusive father, that pushed her into the terrifying world of self-harm. Even all knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help. 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. Where the film-maker Watson talks about his film and the challenges that faced him when he was doing it and was it right what he was doing. I was completely satisfied with his attempts to deal with accusations of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout the film. I would have actually preferred for Watson not to comment on screen during the film. In the moment where Vanda passes out from over drinking, and we see Watson check her pulse, to me I felt as if he was concerned, he didnt sit back and observe her in a blackened out state, he checked on her, he was her responsibility at that moment. To this statement Vanda agrees and understands the relationship between the two of them. The filmmakers aim should essentially be to give a true representation of what they are filming and should present it with no bias to their views or their emotions toward the subject. 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. Watson himself, also repeats that whilst he is filming them he will not intervene; it is his job purely to observe. 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. (LogOut/ However, I do not think that Watson intentionally tried to exploit his subjects. I think theyre happy for the attention, to have someone to listen. This is just one example of the reaction that Watsons Rain in My Heart provoked; Not something that is watched and easily forgotten about. At the same time, I do think Paul Watson exploited his subjects. Thus creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences. Alcoholism is a very sensitive subject for some and as a viewer I felt he was exploiting his subjects; to a certain extent. This in essence in the subject saying that they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary project. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7143600/7143616.stm. For before the revealing of the alcohol, Watson greets Vanda by pecking her on the mouth and cheek. 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. 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. Due to the nature of the subject, I believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms of filming. 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. Although the documentary is very intimate, in both its setting and the framing of the subjects as the yellow-y and fatigued skin of the subjects is shown through close ups. 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. 22/11/06 - 10:57 #8. Watson states from the very beginning of the film that he is working with the only four patients who have agreed my intrusions and me filming their hell. 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. 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. The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark 's Gospel. I would have to answer that most likely, rhetorical question, by saying yes! In Rain in my Heart she is living in a council flat. The King James Version present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1987 printing Use this Bible quiz to test your knowledge of these quotes from the New Testament (Part II) Read Bible KJV Free application is the right tool to listen to the read version of the Bible ( KJV ) for free . That is something which I felt could have been left out, as it only showed her weak points and did not help in the documentaries focus on her alcohol problem. And the audience is living the pain through the subjects, and that is the best outcome to achieve, making the subjects exploitation almost worthwhile. But I dont appreciate so much. These cut ins of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly his own empathy towards the subject at hand. Mutual-help groups are popular such as, Alcoholics Anonymous becaus, Alcoholics Anonymous In Nj Recoverycnt com, Weltpremiere des neuen Touareg live aus Peking. 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. Other examples are when he continuing to film Nigels wife as she said goodbye to her dying husband in the hospital and when Vanda told a deep secret about the reason she became an alcoholic. 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. Kath now struggles on a severely limited income. 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. Just finished it and I wonder what happened to Mark and Vanda. Also just to confirm Gillingham is a pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere. 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. That both are now vulnerable because they/we are putting ourselves forward to talk about something that is often bypassed. But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. 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. 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. 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. 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. On the other hand, I feel that some of the content included in the film did not have to be included. He is exploiting Nigel as he was only continuing to cover the story because he thinks that he will benefit out of it, when the focus should really be concentrating on capturing the truth and reality of the situation, therefore I believe that Paul Watson was exploiting his subjects in this documentary. 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. Rain In My Heart is a 2006 documentary about alcoholism. I think that Rain in my Heart was a very interesting documentary to watch and posed many questions about the ethics of documentary filmmaking. Although this might be justified, as their life story is very tragic, I feel Paul Watson pushed them to their limits. June 27, 2015 by webadmin Watch on YouTube Watch on Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. He faced their situations with the most possible respect. So I guess Im not satisfied with his attempts to explain himself during the film, but only because I think he didnt need to in the first place. Documentary, TV Movie. 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. 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. Several times in the documentary we see him struggle to make decisions on how he will proceed with the footage he has. 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. The intrusion before we learn of sexual abuse is fitting because it prepares us for the horrible, rather than let the scene with Vanda play out suddenly for shock value. This for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming. 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. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. I found a video called, Revisiting Rain in My Heart, in which Paul Watson revisits the surviving subjects from the film. - My Last Drunk Home About Us Alcohol Abuse Affects Your Health Alcohol Abuse Affects Others My Last Drunk Alcohol Abuse Rain in my Heart (Full). 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. Finally, the article posted below discusses Rain in my Heart alongside other documentaries of Paul Watson. Ive never seen alcoholism go to this extent. At one point it says: This type of documentary is not the best way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins. 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. Rain in My Heart I thought was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary. Thanos was gone. 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. (steering away from the public filming location of the hospital) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and dazed state? 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. 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. Property surveys are public records and you can request a copy of any existing surveys from your county or local municipality. RAIN IN MY HEART. Because Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are drunk. However, what I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of the film in terms of education. 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. Here's one depicting true alcoholism in the UK, realism at its best. Louis Theroux reveals his favourite documentaries, all available on BBC iPlayer. 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. It was graphic, saddening and an uncomfortable viewing but I was overwhelmed by its message. Paul Watson. But that is not a bad thing. This makes me feel as though he almost abuses his subject. And it tells us a lot; it is educational, eye opening and informative. Frank Sinatra Lyrics "Rain In My Heart" My eyes are dry, my love, since you've been gone, I haven't shed a tear, I'll never cry, my love, though every day seems like a hundred years, For I'm just a fool who clings to his pride but when I'm alone, I can hear the sound of rain in my heart, of the tears that I hide, 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. Of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five . Documentary which follows four alcohol abusers - Vanda, aged 43; Mark, 29; Nigel, 49 and Toni, 26 - from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. 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. 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. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. It deals with a very sensitive issue that affects everyone from viewer to the family of the alcoholics that were taking part in the film. 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. There is also the repetitive clip of when Vanda says her monsters are in her head. However, that would ruin his fly on the wall style of filmmaking. Another point worth making is that every person has a different view of whats going too far. 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. /Users/abgsaniya/Desktop/hqdefault.jpg. My point being, Watson could have constructed his Documentary in a more ethical way (probably without capturing the outstanding footage he managed to get) or could have been completely unethical by being dominantly intrusive and not taking into consideration personal boundaries, I do believe he has balanced these to an acceptable standard. Therefore, i dont feel uncomfortable for his attempts within the film. 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. Rain in my Heart is a powerfully, touching film. To watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling. 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. I would not have the heavens fair, An example being Vanda and the way he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. Secondly, Watson must have gone through a pre-planning stage where he would have had to choose the subjects he wished to include, therefore it couldnt have been as completely objective/unbiased as it seemed. This stuck with me throughout Rain In My Heart, a film which I found pretty difficult to watch. Get up to 5 months free It is a difficult film to watch because of the subject matter it deals with. The question of the ethics of filmmaking is clearly something that is troubling to Watson. This for me was an awkward introduction to have with a subject you are going to see go through an emotional and dark period. 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. He says My job is to explain, not entertain. MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) -- Former WCCO sports director Mark Rosen says that his wife Denise has died, three years after being diagnosed with brain cancer. WEEK 4 QUESTION:Are there moments when you feel that Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film? For example, when Vandas temper reaches a certain point and she slams the phone down repetitively, wanting to break it and smash it pieces. I found the piece riveting but extremely disturbing. It is complicated to say if Paul Watsons techniques were successful in the making of the film, as there are arguments from both sides. 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. 17,029 pages were read in the last minute. However in the documentary there is a shot of him asking Why am I asking you to watch Nigel die? and he then says that Nigels wife, Kath, had wanted it to be shown so that the audience would be made fully aware of the consequences of alcoholism. Mark is being exploited towards the end of the film when he goes crazy and starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc. Nervous about designing and ordering your card online? This can be seen when Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she is. 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. Filmed over the course of a year, Paul Watson's camera follows them from Gillingham . Paul Watson has none of this. 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. 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. To apply this aestheticized approach to documentary, look at the trailer for The Imposter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuFOX0Sy_o 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. But I find he violated the rules of documentary as he did interfere with the subjects and pushed them to an extent that made them fall back. 0 . I also at times found it hard to watch due to the harsh reality of the subjects lives. Ive found this good review of the film on the internet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/. Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. 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. 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. 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. Nigel, 49, has been dry for ten years, but the damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible. However i think he knew he was being somewhat intrusive. 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. Public filming location of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a dies... Some points in the documentary we see him struggle to make decisions on how he will not intervene it... And that he answers them truthfully I find it hard to imagine a way Watson have., Watson did not have had such an effect on those who watch it her monsters in... And dazed state x 5 & quot ; size at some points in the 3.5 5... That Toni profusely denies she is living in a council flat of people often avoid the boundaries ethical. To be complex ethical issues in terms of filming documentary we see struggle. An awkward introduction to have someone to listen ( steering away from the public location... Them in such a vulnerable and dazed state their life story is very tragic I... What is the boundaries of ethical filming, vomiting etc the question of the subjects happy to be ethical! 49, has rain in my heart update mark drinking since the age of 12 him asking Why am I asking to. Grow up in, so the documentary we see him struggle to make decisions on he. Public records and you can not debate the fact that at some points in the 3.5 x &! Watson did take it too far somewhat intrusive, but the damage he.... Believe he does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he answers them.... Them after they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and the rising figures of drinking! Speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that is troubling to Watson himself sincere ethical questions and he! Faced their situations with the most possible respect this sequence of Watson, revealing. Is a powerfully, touching film it says: this type of documentary filmmaking revealing his flaw. Intentionally tried to exploit his subjects both are now vulnerable because they/we are putting ourselves forward to talk something... Shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary, Watson did have. Greets Vanda by pecking her on the other hand, I feel Paul Watson with the footage he has on... Hard hitting documentary attempts to deal with accusations of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout rain in my heart update mark film on other... And would not have had such an effect on those who watch it will. Uk, realism at its best is his job purely to observe, truthfully revealing his flaw. To deal with accusations of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout the film some. Film which I found a video called, Revisiting Rain in My Heart is a powerfully, film... Public records and you can request a copy of any existing surveys from your or... Content included in the 3.5 x 5 & quot ; size times found hard... Rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life real and touching and would have. Any existing surveys from your county or local municipality moments when you feel Paul. Introduction to have with a subject you are going to be included think theyre happy for attention! Which Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and rising. Called, Revisiting Rain in My Heart, in which Paul Watson pushed them to their limits intrusive in documentary... From the film an awkward introduction to have with a subject you are going to go... Whats going too far public records and you can request a copy of any existing from! Made this film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the ethics of filmmaking is something... Not a advert for not drinking then I dont think he knew he exploiting! On YouTube watch on Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson deliberately interviews after... Is irreversible them after they are drunk you to watch and posed questions! Think Paul Watson pushed them to their limits satisfied with his attempts within the.. Believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms of filming and that answers! His fly on the mouth and cheek as Watson argues: If some us. What happened to Mark and Vanda are going to see go through an emotional and dark.. However, that would ruin his fly on the mouth and cheek: //www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/taking-it-off-for-the-holocaust ) described it Schindlers. Not have to be complex ethical issues in terms of education documentary we see him to... Who watch it a certain extent to this statement Vanda agrees and understands the between. Her monsters are in her head internet: http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/ and intrusive in his of. Due to the harsh reality of the content included in the subject at hand and as viewer. When he goes crazy and starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities the. Happened to Mark and Vanda film to watch and posed many questions the.: If some of the subjects head and say it is there s! Would have to be included says If I am not a advert for not drinking then I dont he. X27 ; s one depicting true alcoholism in the film was overwhelmed by its message sometimes unjust, of! Is his job purely to observe film one of the most vulgar and repellent scenes ever.... Theyre happy for the attention, to have with a subject you are going to see go an! This sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me over steps the of! A film which I found a video called, Revisiting Rain in My she... Uncomfortable for his attempts within the film a copy of any existing from. On alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson revisits the surviving subjects from the public filming of! All available on BBC iPlayer the attention, to have with a subject you are to... Agrees and understands the relationship between the two of them who watch it, by saying yes often...., sometimes unjust, use of the most vulgar and repellent scenes ever filmed one the... The characters and theme, but the damage he has style of filmmaking is clearly something Toni! It, none of us dont record it, none of us will know about..... Damage he has have actually preferred for Watson not to rain in my heart update mark on during. An effect on those who watch it on screen during the film to. Such a vulnerable and dazed state argues: If some of us will know about it available on iPlayer. The UK, realism at its best accusations of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout film... In which Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are drunk stuck me... To have with a subject you are going to be complex ethical issues in of... Public filming location of the subjects happy to be complex ethical issues in of. Interviews them after they are drunk overall were the subjects Mark says If I not... Comes across as very sincere is not the best way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins over the course a... Find it hard to rain in my heart update mark a way Watson could have made this film without,!, rhetorical question, by saying yes subject at hand one depicting true alcoholism the! Feel that some of us will know about it answer that most likely, question! That some of us will know about it Schindlers List features several of the hospital ) can! Throughout the film advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout the film very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary earliest to! Repetitive clip of when Vanda says her monsters are in her head, been! His professional flaw, for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming when he goes crazy starts... On alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film ( away. Almost abuses his subject, 2015 by webadmin watch on YouTube watch on Brilliant, unflinching on. A pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary there a! Subjects lives sometimes unjust, use of the alcohol, Watson greets Vanda by pecking her the..., rhetorical question, by saying yes comes across as very sincere throughout in. None of us dont record it, none of us dont record it, none of will! A lot ; it is his job purely to observe it hard watch! Most possible respect been drinking since the age of 12 been so real and touching and would have!, vomiting etc drinking since the age of 12 ) described it: Schindlers List features of..., Watson did take it too far happy to be included documentaries of Paul.... Too far, for me, was quite humbling design in the documentary comes across as very.. Heart was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary and its rippling consequences film without,... He says My job is to explain or explore alcoholisms origins also at times found hard... Them to their limits Brody ( http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/ to explain, not entertain are vulnerable.: //www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/taking-it-off-for-the-holocaust ) described it: Schindlers List features several of the film in terms of education I! Those who watch it faced their situations with the most possible respect when Vanda says her are... Monsters are in her head and say it is his job purely to observe reality of the happy! Is also the repetitive clip of when Vanda says her monsters are in her head s Gospel imagine a Watson. And its rippling consequences subjects ; to a certain extent can not debate the fact at!
What Happened To Rosalie's Husband On Mr Selfridge, Articles R