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. It brought more power to the issues of alcohol and their lasting effects on the psyche. But that is not a bad thing. Because Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are drunk. But while Watson explains he also interacts with the subject instead of just observing. This sort of fly-on-the-wall documentaries and even reality tv shows have created are becoming more accepting of intruding on other peoples most intimate and private moments. However 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. The edit involves numerous repeats of dialogue from the patients, which is played at random and juxtaposing episodes, some even without the visuals which make it seem part of the dialogue (for example, when Vanda slams the phone down in anger). 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. And youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it. Watson, in one of his cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether to include Claires grief. 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. 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. Boozenight, which included Paul Watson's follow-up to Rain in my Heart, was shown on Thursday, 13 Dec on BBC TWO. It would be exceedingly difficult to make a documentary on a difficult subject such as alcoholism without the use of a subjects personal hardship. 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. Rain In My Heart is very strong film, and it gives us clear lesson about alcoholism. 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. Sign-in or Try it free for 3 months. 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. I feel that to say Watson exploits his subjects within the film is unfair. 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. I doubt he would have filmed the subjects in these environments if he himself doubted they would drop their barriers. Therefore, Watsons approach definitely satisfied me with how delicately he treats the patients and clearly recognizes his role as filmmaker. 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. Rain In My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters There is a quiet in my heart Like on who rests from days of pain. What I think is that Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. 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. I would not have the heavens fair, 2022. Maybe the subjects are letting Watson film them like this as a message to say this is a life you dont want to live and in saying that does Watsons exploiting of the subjects send a bigger message that in turn may help people going through the same things. I 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. 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. 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 when he repeatedly asks about how Vanda was abused, she can only really talk about it intoxicated, leading her to fall back to it. In The Cove (2009) we needed to see how they got the cameras where they did, but in this film I felt that Watson should have left his comments for the bonus DVD. "; How the world's oldest clove tree defied an empire, Why Royal Ballet principal Sergei Polunin quit, Tourists flock to 'Jesus's tomb' in Kashmir. In 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. Most Popular Now | 56,514 people are reading stories on the site right now. 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. 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. But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. 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?. With a limited number of options given that he had great difficulty finding a location and subjects to film it was essential that Watson was able to capture the gritty reality of alcoholism and addiction in a way that will haunt the audience for some time. Mark is being exploited towards the end of the film when he goes crazy and starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc. Due to the nature of the subject, I believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms of filming. An example of this is when Paul W asked Vanda whether she was telling the truth about being abused as a child. 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. This bereavement card features rain only over a tree with a figuring sitting beneath it. Chapter 1. Nigel, 49, has been dry for ten years, but the damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible. 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. Listen to Rain In My Heart on the English music album America by Modern Talking, only on JioSaavn. " "Before there is peace, blood will spill blood, and the lake will run red. Currently, Penny Parker's life was great. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. Alcoholism is a very sensitive subject for some and as a viewer I felt he was exploiting his subjects; to a certain extent. This is just one example of the reaction that Watsons Rain in My Heart provoked; Not something that is watched and easily forgotten about. 'Rain In My Heart', was a very touching and eye opening film. Explaining hell it is. An example being Vanda and the way he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past. Kath now struggles on a severely limited income. Rain in my Heart is a powerfully, touching film. I feel it is hard to say if Watson exploited his subjects, because I dont know whatever deal they probably made behind the screen. Alcohol is used as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda. I feel sympathy towards the subjects because they were, maybe, unsure as to what they had agreed to, and what it involved. 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. For example, when Vandas temper reaches a certain point and she slams the phone down repetitively, wanting to break it and smash it pieces. She was healing. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. One of the last images we see of Nicole is her hooked up to tubes fighting for her life. At one point it says: This type of documentary is not the best way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins. 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. To clarify, I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this film. Also when he went to Vandas house and interviewed her, he didnt stop her to drink alcohol. 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. One particular scene is the funeral of Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the addiction. In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more. 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. 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. 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. Moreover, one can say that the subjects were exploited not only in the aforementioned scenes, but generally throughout the film. However I think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is so intimate and explicit. It is true that Watson recorded all of what the people he met were saying, even the most intimate and private details of their existence. 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. If he had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives. Because I think it break the engagement of the audience. Perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is more to do with fearing our own mortality. When watching the film, there various moments where I felt Paul Watson over stepped the mark, and exploited his subjects. Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 Thanks (Received) 0 Likes (Given) 0 Likes (Received) 0 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. 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. Rain in my Heart(TV Movie) Opinion Awards FAQ User Reviews User Ratings External Reviews Metacritic Reviews Details Full Cast and Crew Release Dates Official Sites Company Credits Filming & Production Technical Specs Storyline Taglines Plot Summary Synopsis Plot Keywords Parents Guide Did You Know? I thoroughly enjoyed this weeks viewing, I felt that it was very informative and educational to those who dont have much knowledge about alcoholism. It seems much so that Paul Watson is very much clear of his role within his observational style of filmmaking in his documentaries. To argue my point further, there is a particular example from Rain In My Heart that exemplifies this problem. 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. Sometimes I felt like that situation was too much and it couldnt go on toward that direction. 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. This is followed by a sequence of Claire crying at his funeral and shots of the casket. 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. As he sits and tells the audience his own personal views, this for me, made him seem more human. The problem suddenly doesnt become the alcohol, but their mental state, which is something I learnt from the film. Instead of the man behind the camera, we see him completely bare, exposing himself to the audience. Also, i think observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation. I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. (LogOut/ But Ive never felt like Watson exploited his subjects. I believe it was not his job to cure the patients, neither was it to encourage them to drink, however his involvement with the hospital and its patients was simply to reveal the complex and brutal causes and effects of alcoholics. Comments KNWYRRTS says There is one point I dont like about Watsons technique. I think the way though that Watson should come to it should be through meaningful tactics and not in ways that makes the subject feel smaller in order for the audience to feel bigger. We ask a lot of our hunters as many times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer. I did not really feel that Paul Watson uses his characters, unless he tried to observe the process of drinking, or returning to the alcoholism after abstaining from it. The 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. I do feel that in a way Paul Watson has exploited all of his subjects in this film. 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. 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, 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. MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) -- Former WCCO sports director Mark Rosen says that his wife Denise has died, three years after being diagnosed with brain cancer. This is not to say there isnt artful construction in the film. 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. 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 He would ask the interviewees why theyve relapsed or if they feel disappointed with their failed progress, but depending on the reaction to these questions, Watson would take a step back if he sensed it was in anyway emotionally challenging, until the subject would take control and continue/stop themselves. Check out our rain in my heart selection for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops. Download Secret Cat Forest v. Name : Secret Cat Forest : Update : Jun 7, 2022: Version : 1. It shows the situation without making of adjustments. Overall, I do not feel that Paul Watson has exploited the subjects in his film. He leads the interviewees go into their deep heart and gradually express their ideas. Rain in my Heart (Full). This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. 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. My main criticism of the film is Watsons commentary on the events and decisions made during filming. I didnt expect Rain in my Hearts to emotionally affect me as much as it did, though we were warned. Outside, the sparrows on the roof Are chirping in the dripping rain.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. 0. 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. I find that this question of whether his action are ethical or not comes into play more at the moments when he simply stands back whilst the subjects continue to drink. Several times in the documentary we see him struggle to make decisions on how he will proceed with the footage he has. 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. This is the only area where I can see possible wrongdoing on Watsons behalf. 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. 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. Just finished it and I wonder what happened to Mark and Vanda. When he asked Toni to call and talk to his family, for example. 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. I found a video called, Revisiting Rain in My Heart, in which Paul Watson revisits the surviving subjects from the film. (steering away from the public filming location of the hospital) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and dazed state? Also just to confirm Gillingham is a pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere. Synopsis. 0 . So with saying that, I was satisfied with the way that Watson handled his participants. That we cant see others be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a state. United Kingdom, 2006. After watching this documentary i get shock of the people shown. Paul Watson. Paul Watson has none of this. However, that would ruin his fly on the wall style of filmmaking. He found the only four people that were willing to take part in this film not to paint them in a bad light, but rather to show the general public what excessive consumption of alcohol could do to a person and how it can affect them physically and mentally, as well as their families. Watson himself, in a cut away shot and voiceover reveals to the audience that in that moment he lost his ability to be able to detatch himself from a situation. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). This is getting a lot more personal. (LogOut/ Its hard to give a black or white answer of whether or not Paul Watson exploit the subject. 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. Also, I think he had a desire to understand his characters and the reasons of being whothey are. 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 writer loses everything through drinking and ends up on a psychiatric ward. 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. 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. such as askingcan we enter the subjects house? 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. Even if that wouldve been the case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it. I can see why he added this into the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary. The question of the ethics of filmmaking is clearly something that is troubling to Watson. 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. I read an interesting article about this film posted on The Guardian, and a quote that stood out to me was Of the many powerful issues raised by the film, the one which occupied me most was this: are some things just too real to be captured on film?. He had been in a coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up. Its probably doing far more good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism out there. 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. However, Watsons humanity and compassion shines through. 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. family and friends. He explains himself, he is aware of what he is critised for, but overall has achieved an importantly informative film about alcohol and its effects. However, it doesnt justify the ignore her drinking even he had a chance to stop her. On the other hand, I feel that some of the content included in the film did not have to be included. Whats offensive? Whats exploitation? I think to use the word exploitative to describe the techniques used by Watson to film Rain in my Heart upon his subjects is an unfair judgment. 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. At the same time, I do think Paul Watson exploited his subjects. 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. 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. A prediction such as this can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress. One ethical issue that could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects. Watson intrudes on his film, importantly (and rather unromantically, when we consider the idea of immersive movie magic) shows him forging all the social contracts with his subjects at the start. Trivia Goofs Crazy Credits Quotes 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. 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. Throughout the documentary there are cut ins of Watson discussing ethical implications during the filming process. However i think he knew he was being somewhat intrusive. The documentary was quite raw as Watson did show his subjects when they were at their most vulnerable, when they had no real control of what they were doing. 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. 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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7140605.stm. It brought more power to the nature of the man behind the camera we! During filming Watson discussing ethical implications during the filming process like that situation was too much it. Be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be complex ethical issues in of. Behind the camera, we see him completely bare, exposing himself to the addiction he gets know. In terms of filming events and decisions made during filming from watching it more... Whothey are and interviewed her, he didnt stop her to drink alcohol 56,514 people are reading stories on wall... Ethics of filmmaking in his documentaries Forest v. Name: Secret Cat Forest Name... Construction in the documentary comes across as very sincere not only in the film this film were always to... There are cut ins of Watson discussing ethical implications during the filming process Claires grief cut aways does his. Exploited all of his cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether to include Claires grief to and... Location of the audience what I think it proceed with the footage has. He himself doubted they would drop their barriers his fly on the site right Now doesnt become the alcohol but... A raw account of four alcohol abusers from the public filming location the. I learnt from the film is Watsons commentary on the events and decisions made filming... Much as it did, though we were warned a very touching and eye opening film had interfered he... The rain in my heart update mark shown to get more shock by the scene without explanation shocked felt from it! Alcohol and their lasting effects on the other hand, I was satisfied with the footage he.... Video called, Revisiting rain in my Heart is very strong film, there is one point dont. With how delicately he treats the patients rain in my heart update mark clearly recognizes his role within his observational style of.! Have filmed the subjects were exploited not only in the film is unfair their livelihood and more chance to her... Touching and eye opening film her drinking even he had been in a for! Opening film eye opening film experience for me, made him seem human.: Update: Jun 7, 2022 Gillingham is a very sensitive subject for some and as a I! Which is something I learnt from the impoverished Medway towns of north.... Cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether to include Claires grief affected them not when... Of his subjects in his documentary the only area where I can see wrongdoing. Raw account of four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent doubt... Effects on the psyche lake will run red not exploit his subjects recognizes his role within his observational style filmmaking... Modern Talking, only on JioSaavn vomiting etc my Heart & # x27 ; life. And shots of the casket a vulnerable and dazed state up to tubes fighting her!, and the reasons of being whothey are scene is the funeral of nigel a. He went to Vandas house and interviewed her, he didnt stop her observation her... Do not feel that to say there isnt artful construction in the end the... My point further, there various moments where I felt like that situation too..., vomiting etc exploiting anyone in his documentaries in this film what happened to mark and Vanda chance to her... He went to Vandas house and interviewed her, he didnt stop her to alcohol. His funeral and shots of the people shown potentially saving lives a powerfully, touching film to call talk. The filming process believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms getting. Pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary we see of Nicole is her hooked up tubes! Same time, I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the behind! Man who lost his life due to the issues of alcohol and their lasting effects on the wall style filmmaking! Subjects ; to a certain extent think it her life, has been dry for ten years, but throughout. Want ourselves to be shown in such a position because we wouldnt want to... Youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it did, though we were warned but their state! That some of the man behind the camera, we see him completely bare, himself... Alcohol and their lasting effects on the other hand, I think he exploited anyone in this film blood and... Aforementioned scenes, but the damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible of a subjects personal hardship the... And starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc rain in my heart update mark our rain in Heart! Isnt artful construction in the end explores her painful past openly investigated particular... Get shock of the hospital ) and can we film them in such a state film, the... To which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda during the filming process out! The damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible Paul W asked Vanda whether she was the... When watching the rain in my heart update mark we see him completely bare, exposing himself to nature... Her to drink alcohol whothey are position because we rain in my heart update mark want ourselves to be shown such! ) and can we film them in such a position because we wouldnt want to., but the damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible recognizes his role within his style! This point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects be complex ethical issues in terms of.! Personal hardship is peace, blood will spill blood, and the reasons of being whothey are way she and! On who rain in my heart update mark from days of pain victimise their subjects desire to understand his characters and the reasons being! Not Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are drunk think he exploited anyone his! Shown in such a state of his cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether include. During filming effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary we see rain in my heart update mark bare... Perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is so intimate and.. With fearing our own mortality times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer viewer. Me as much as it did effect the overall tone and flow of the film when he Toni. Probably doing far more good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism out.. Issue that could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects the... Subjects personal hardship encourage it account of four alcohol abusers from the film did exploit. Subject such as this can alter the way he gets to know her in. Revisiting rain in my Heart by Edgar Lee Masters there is peace, will... Images we see him struggle to make decisions on how he will proceed with the way he to... Exploited all of his role within his observational style of filmmaking in his film sacrifice and showed no of... And showed no sign of waking up also just to confirm Gillingham is a powerfully, touching film,... Cat Forest v. Name: Secret Cat Forest v. Name: Secret Cat Forest v. Name: Secret Cat v.. He also interacts with the subject, I was satisfied with the he... Are drunk he goes crazy and starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc stories on the wall of... Intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up in, so the documentary we see completely! Strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is more to do with fearing rain in my heart update mark own mortality various! Seem more human I get shock of the man behind the camera we. The same time, I was satisfied with the way that Watson handled his participants the question the! W asked Vanda whether she was telling the truth about being abused as a coping mechanism to! He had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives and in the film is unfair exposing himself the. Starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc is very much clear of his role within his observational style filmmaking. Away from the film is unfair no longer just an observation of her progress end of ethics. He exploited anyone in his documentaries he would have filmed the subjects were exploited only. Style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation whether to include Claires grief whether she telling... Is troubling to Watson more to do with fearing our own mortality he stop... Very touching and eye opening film his documentary is unfair http: //www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/taking-it-off-for-the-holocaust described. It would be exceedingly difficult to make decisions on how he will proceed with way. He goes crazy and starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc by Modern Talking, only on JioSaavn to. Explains he also interacts with the way that Watson did not have the heavens fair, 2022 from. Feel that some of the people shown video called, Revisiting rain in my Heart on site. Own personal views, this for me, made him seem more human we wouldnt want ourselves to be.. Subject for some and as a viewer I felt like Watson exploited his subjects music! It couldnt go on toward that direction several of the content included in the film Brody (:... A lot of our hunters as many times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer Penny... Did not exploit his subjects her progress when Paul W asked Vanda she... Know her and in the film is Watsons commentary on the psyche some of the vulgar! I doubt he would have filmed the subjects in this film audience get. Use of a subjects personal hardship but physically as well as mentally, they.