rain in my heart update mark

Vanda, 43, has been drinking since the age of 12. Rain In My Heart is a 2006 documentary about alcoholism. It is not a pleastant sound. Rain In My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters There is a quiet in my heart Like on who rests from days of pain. I particularly found the way that Watson asked questions respectable, when talking about the monsters in Vandas head she stated she didnt want to talk about it and he was reassuring and moved the conversation away from them. Play over 265 million tracks for free on SoundCloud. On the other hand, I feel that some of the content included in the film did not have to be included. By the time she married at 18 she was a serious drinker - the marriage didn't last, nor did a succession of jobs despite her being able to speak at least two other languages. I mean most people wouldntHer reaction to his question is also an example as she seemed to be in pain by his disbelief and lack of trust.she even said why else would she be in the state she is in if not because of the trauma she had been through? Sometimes grief feels very isolating. To clarify, I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this film. SACRAMENTO, Calif. More rain and snow swept through Northern California on Monday, a day after a historic downpour set records and led to dangerous situations on roadways, street flooding,. We have to remember that all the subjects gave their full consent to be filmed. 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. This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. However, Watsons humanity and compassion shines through. Rain In My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters There is a quiet in my heart Like on who rests from days of pain. I felt it did a fantastic job in warning people of the dangers of alcohol and addiction. I didnt expect Rain in my Hearts to emotionally affect me as much as it did, though we were warned. This is an extremely special place to hunt mule deer and we have an intimate knowledge of the terrain. 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. On the one hand, Paul Watson did get these peoples consent to be filmed. There are certainly points in this film in which I believe that the subjects were exploited. Nigel, 49, has been dry for ten years, but the damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible. The fact that two of participants died during filming is grim testimony to the illness of alcoholism. 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. He does however, tell her that he will ask her when she is sober if she wants to keep that in. Dee3 Posts: 10. Im thinking of the massacre set to Bach, of the march over the horizon to Israel, and of the justly infamous shower scene. Thats exactly what I think about the film: it is extreme and crude in some scenes but this cannot be translated as exploitation but as accurate and careful explanation and evidence of a serious phenomenon such as alcoholism. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. 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. 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. It cant be argued that the documentary would have given Watson some amount of attention from viewers for filming subjects in the vulnerable state they were in, its in this sense that the word exploitation would be more appropriate. Probably. Seeing the filmmakers process on screen is great when theyre doing something that you need to see. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. About 20 different medications are washed down with pints of vodka and cordial. 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. Whats exploitation? But there is no evidence of this happening. At one point it says: This type of documentary is not the best way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins. That we cant see others be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a state. He just tried to observe that and filmed everything as it is, while they I assume from the very beginning had agreed to be filmed in any state they are. Even all knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help. As much as rain can cause happiness, there are times when this phenomenon can cause distress. What I think is that Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. After watching this documentary i get shock of the people shown. Directed by. WEEK 4 QUESTION:Are there moments when you feel that Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film? Since 2016 we have been able to harvest 15 Bucks over the magical 200 inch mark, many eclipsing 215 inches and two bucks over 245 inches. He just shined a light on a topic a lot of people often avoid. Sign-in or Try it free for 3 months. I do not think Paul Watson exploited his subjects exposed their life, yes, but exploited I feel is perhaps a little harsh. Registered User. Frank SinatraCycles 1968 Frank Sinatra Enterprises, LLCReleased on: 1990-01-01Producer: Don C. 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. This was mostly due to the fact that obviously he was filming people with huge vulnerability in their lives, therefore he was careful not to portray the situation as taking advantage of. These subjects were all willing participants, however their capacity to give consent comes into question. In order to inform and have an impact on the audience, enough to make them think before undergoing any dangerous activity illustrated in the documentary, the use of empathy is crucial. How could you go, my love Without a thought 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. 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 personally feel that Paul Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. Moreover, one can say that the subjects were exploited not only in the aforementioned scenes, but generally throughout the film. This is just one example of the reaction that Watsons Rain in My Heart provoked; Not something that is watched and easily forgotten about. From a personal level I felt it was very moving and eye opening to me on this subject. The reason for all this was to make people aware about the phenomenon of alcoholism and surely not for attracting more audience. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. 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. When watching Rain in my Heart I felt that to say Paul Watson exploited his subjects is unfair. It follows 4 alcoholics from the hospital to their homes. Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. 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. However I think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is so intimate and explicit. 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. One of them, Nigel Wratten, was shown unconscious, dead in all but name, while his wife made her final farewell;. A prediction such as this can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress. To judge whether or not Watson exploited the people in his film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them. Critics also believe that the tragic scene of when Nigel dies in front of the camera is too much to be shown to the public eye and that he took full advantage of the emotional situation for his own benefit. There is also the repetitive clip of when Vanda says her monsters are in her head. Watson himself has said that he received criticism for not helping his subjects; this could be an argument of him exploiting his subjects. 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. 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]. Although we see Paul telling Vanda that he will ask her later whether he should use this footage in the film, we do not know if he actually did it. As he sits and tells the audience his own personal views, this for me, made him seem more human. Four alcoholics in and out of hospital over a two month period, reality at its most real. 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. 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. As an audience member I am conflicted as to how satisfied I am with how Watson deals with accusations about him exploiting the audience. Comments KNWYRRTS says Rather, this extreme showing of suffering is an eduction, to open the spectators eyes to this disease and its effects. Watson, in one of his cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether to include Claires grief. Even if that wouldve been the case either way, I think as an observer you shouldnt encourage it. He made it clear through out the film that he was never sure whether he should be filming his subjects or whether he should, at some points, be turning the camera off. (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. 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. I believe he does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he answers them truthfully. Paul Watson was capturing the real lives of these alcoholics, he was not interfering with their actions and allowed alcoholics who were told if they drink anymore they could die, to drink. When researching the film I found a web page (which is a old BBC one). Listen to Rain In My Heart on the English music album America by Modern Talking, only on JioSaavn. Change). However, i was impressed by this documentary. 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. 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. She was also married to him. Watson stated at the very beginning of the film that he would not intervene in the lives of the people he was filming and would not stop them from drinking if they relapsed. This bereavement card features rain only over a tree with a figuring sitting beneath it. Is it really more important that showing the dangerous of alcoholism by peoples moment who dying even ignore their life? As for Nigel, it can be said that he was exploited less than others, because his wife was constantly present, therefore she could control the actions of the filmmakers. Want to save money? 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. (LogOut/ 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. He'd been self-harming repeatedly and been in and out of a psychiatric ward. This stuck with me throughout Rain In My Heart, a film which I found pretty difficult to watch. If he had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives. So yes, as we saw during the screening, he was primarily affected by alcohols effect on his father and then consequently, his entire family. 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. This was a devastating and emotional sequence for me. Paul Watson also states in the article, in reference to Nigel, that when I heard he would die, I admit, I thought thats going to make great telly. My main criticism of the film is Watsons commentary on the events and decisions made during filming. Documentary, TV Movie. 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 think that Watson when immersed with these subjects he formed a friendship with, learning to really like some of them and he himself tries to stop some of his subjects from drinking because he wants to see the best happen for them. 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. Rain in my Heart (Full). But that is not a bad thing. It becomes less objective, and much more personal between him and Vanda. I found a video called, Revisiting Rain in My Heart, in which Paul Watson revisits the surviving subjects from the film. 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 card is easy to customize with your wording, font, font color, paper shape options and choice of six paper types. I feel he mistakes this forced friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he continues to film her. Or when Nigel downs a glass of red wine. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. 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. Once Watson sees this he is distinctively appalled and shocked that Vanda, after promising in a previous shot that she would fight to stay sober in the future, has gone back on her words and is drunk again. If she was lying she wouldnt tell him would she? If the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind. Of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five . 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. In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more. During the film one of the subjects Mark says If I am not a advert for not drinking then I dont know what is. 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. Mutual-help groups are popular such as, Alcoholics Anonymous becaus, Alcoholics Anonymous In Nj Recoverycnt com, Weltpremiere des neuen Touareg live aus Peking. 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.. I thought Rain In My Heart was a good example of a film that provokes thought about the ethical role of documentary makers. I felt as if he cared for her wellbeing. The subjects had all agreed to be filmed but the thought of switching the camera off and helping must have been fairly strong. He is a quite good interviewer, especially in the interaction between him and the characters. Men's Journal is a rugged and refined lifestyle publication covering the coolest new gear, luxury and adventure travel, food and drink, health and fitness, and more. Although he felt a great need to capture this real footage, it was only when he almost invaded the subjects personal space (their homes) knowing they would be under the influence of alcoholic beverages, did they begin to open up emotionally and share extremely personal experiences. Therefore, Watsons approach definitely satisfied me with how delicately he treats the patients and clearly recognizes his role as filmmaker. 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. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. Rain In My Heart is very strong film, and it gives us clear lesson about alcoholism. But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. Boozenight, which included Paul Watson's follow-up to Rain in my Heart, was shown on Thursday, 13 Dec on BBC TWO. 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. To watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling. 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. 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 Are you satisfied by his attempts within the film to deal with such accusations? 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.

Andrew Whitworth Parents, Can You Transfer Money From Klarna To Bank Account, Hobart Lacrosse Roster 2022, Midway Carnival Schedule 2022, New Era Life Insurance Provider Portal For Claim Status, Articles R