rain in my heart documentary mark died

I feel like Rain in My Heart must be a controversial documentray in terms of how dealing with the ethics in this film. 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. This however does not detract from the fact that I believe some of what Watson did, did push the boundaries on what is ethical and moral within a documentary. So yes, as we saw during the screening, he was primarily affected by alcohols effect on his father and then consequently, his entire family. 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. To judge whether or not Watson exploited the people in his film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them. This I feel undermines what his role as a filmmaker is as it shows his intentions for the direction of this documentary. 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. I doubt he would have filmed the subjects in these environments if he himself doubted they would drop their barriers. I feel he mistakes this forced friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he continues to film her. There are a few scenes that stand out as being the most exploitative. 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. And it tells us a lot; it is educational, eye opening and informative.

In an age of formatted reality with, as Barraclough put it, "guaranteed dynamics and resolutions", these are not the denouements you could promise or manipulate. 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. 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. Although it could be argued that this footage is showing Vanda what she is like when she is drunk, I would say that her answers might have been different if she was sober when she was asked them. Trevor Beckett 799 subscribers Subscribe 526K views 9 years ago Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. I was completely satisfied with his attempts to deal with accusations of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout the film. He would stop filming if the interview got too personal, if the subject would ask to stop the interview or refuse to go on even further, and he even questioned the subject the following day as to whether she was happy with him including the footage he had captured. It seems much so that Paul Watson is very much clear of his role within his observational style of filmmaking in his documentaries. /Users/abgsaniya/Desktop/hqdefault.jpg. Its a very tricky position for Watson. Newsnight. 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. This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. However, as an observational filmmaker, Watson has a certain obligation to the truth. It is very gruelling, don't expect an easy ride. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. Rain in My Heart over steps the line between subject and film-maker relationship and Paul Watson in the end exploits his subjects. There were a couple of moments where I felt that he distracted from what we really should have been looking at. Two of the participants in Paul Watson's Rain in My Heart died during 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. Webhow many horses died in the making of the film waterloo; where is gary olsen buried. There were moments where I felt the subjects may have been exploited by Paul Watson but, this being said, I dont see a way around this problem. 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). I also believe Watson tried his best to tackle these accusations, baring in mind that overdoing it throughout the documentary could appear to undermine the actual traumas of the patients and their families. It brought more power to the issues of alcohol and their lasting effects on the psyche. WebThis powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. Whats exploitation? Even if that wouldve been the case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it. The Facebook link I posted was created by Nigels son.

I think the fact that this documentary is so hard to watch gives light to the reality that alcoholism is incredibly hard to live with, and by being so thorough the film shortens the gap between subject and audience. He never appeared to be controlling or interregative in a dominant sense, he remained calm when interviewing his subjects and took their replies without expresing his personal opinion. Tonis most exploitative scene, as I believe, is when she is shown unconscious a few days before her death. WEEK 4 QUESTION:Are there moments when you feel that Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film? Rain in My Heart by filmmaker Paul Watson documents the intimate struggles of four severe alcoholics seeking treatment at Medway Hospital. To apply this aestheticized approach to documentary, look at the trailer for The Imposter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuFOX0Sy_o I found the piece riveting but extremely disturbing. This means as subjects they must think the documentary will help. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. 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. Rain In My Heart is very strong film, and it gives us clear lesson about 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. Are you satisfied by his attempts within the film to deal with such accusations? Is this the feel good factor we crave? 56,514 people are reading stories on the site right now. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rain-In-My-Heart-Documentary-In-Memory-Of-My-Dad-Toni-And-Vanda/233416877232. Considering this film brings light to the mental conditions that tend to lead to alcoholism, then was Paul Watson in the right place to accept the consent from these people? There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. It is a difficult film to watch because of the subject matter it deals with. When he asked Toni to call and talk to his family, for example. 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. One particular scene is the funeral of Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the addiction. He is good at capturing facial expressions and touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment. I believe he does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he answers them truthfully. For Watson asks: What would you class as an alcoholic? Toni replies: Someone who cant go a day without a drink. Once this is said, Watson slowly zooms in on her face and responds: but you told me there are days where you cant go a day without a drink. Watsons response to Tonis statement could be stated as being overly dramatic for the audiences benefit, therefore, compiling with Ellis and most documentary critics argument that the director is always more concerned with how the potential audience will perceive the subject and story than the subject themselves. All the footage that was quite hard to watch did, however, make the film much more real for me. So with saying that, I was satisfied with the way that Watson handled his participants. I think it is not proper for observational documentary, Watson deliberately shows his audience of certain moments to lead them into a certain emotion, which i think might be too subjective. Webbaanpruksahatyai > > Uncategorized > rain in my heart documentary mark died. 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. When watching the film, there various moments where I felt Paul Watson over stepped the mark, and exploited his subjects. Watson most definitely fulfilled what he set out to do and in order to do that, I feel he had to push the boundary as far as he did to achieve this hard-hitting documentary. 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. I would have to answer that most likely, rhetorical question, by saying yes! The film probably brought him a lot of attention (both positive and negative), which means hes profited from filming his subjects problems.

This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. I didnt expect Rain in my Hearts to emotionally affect me as much as it did, though we were warned. Rain in My Heart followed the arrhythmia of life - which, after all, is what documentary, as opposed to, say, art, is supposed to do. This is not to say there isnt artful construction in the film. It was really uncomfortable scene to me, Paul trully showed the seriousness of alcohalism and it must influence to the audience. 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. Also while researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film. It was devastating hearing Toni plan her future with her son 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). 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). There are certainly points in this film in which I believe that the subjects were exploited. Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. It follows 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes. 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. 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. No one feels comfortable at the hospital anyway without a camera crew to be there watching your pain and destruction (essentially). Rain in my heart is a really educational and impressive documentary film for me. I think theyre happy for the attention, to have someone to listen. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. This can be seen when Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she is. It brings to light the seriousness of alcoholism, and how it may affect more than just those who drink in excess, i.e. Nigel died during the course of filming Rain in my Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children. Firstly there is very little music (it sounded like the grating pop track at Nigels funeral was actually being played live on a stereo) The camera work seems to lack precision and is only there for immediacy. In all of these I recognise issues which could be perceived as exploitative. And the audience is living the pain through the subjects, and that is the best outcome to achieve, making the subjects exploitation almost worthwhile. However, what I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of the film in terms of education. When watching Rain in my Heart I felt that to say Paul Watson exploited his subjects is unfair.