I remember feeling genuinely scared that some of the subjects were going to die: such as when Mark was at home and was continuing to drink in excess and constantly vomiting. This is also made clear later in the film when he spends some time filming at one of the female patients, Vandas house. I found the piece riveting but extremely disturbing. As he sits and tells the audience his own personal views, this for me, made him seem more human. But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. 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. I do agree he is explaining in a graphic way the torment of being addicted to alcohol and the consequences that excessive drinking does to ones body. When watching the film, there various moments where I felt Paul Watson over stepped the mark, and exploited his subjects. 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. 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. And youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it. 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. Rain In My Heart is a 2006 documentary about alcoholism. 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. 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. Watson edits and cross-cuts footage to emphasize reccuring themes across the alcoholics. These cut ins of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly his own empathy towards the subject at hand. Perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is more to do with fearing our own mortality. One of the patients, a caption told us at the end, was now "in recovery". There are certainly points in this film in which I believe that the subjects were exploited. 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. It becomes less objective, and much more personal between him and Vanda. RAIN IN MY HEART BOWY Rock 1,125Shazams play full song Get up to 5 months free of Apple Music Share OVERVIEW LYRICS PLAY FULL SONG Connect with Apple Music. 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. I feel as though Watson was trying to be as ethical as possible, baring in mind his need to capture this shocking footage in order to create the Documentary. This was a devastating and emotional sequence for me. 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. An example of this is when Paul W asked Vanda whether she was telling the truth about being abused as a child. Outside, the sparrows on the roof Are chirping in the dripping rain. Its a very tricky position for Watson. Rain in my Heart (Full). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7140605.stm. Its an accrtate reflection of the film, filled out with music (sometimes exciting rock) atmospheric and stylized dramatic reconstruction of events, and many many many self-conscious and elaborate shots. So yes, as we saw during the screening, he was primarily affected by alcohols effect on his father and then consequently, his entire family. Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. A good example of his moral doubts is when he asks himself Am I an ambulance chaser? and is a clear way of showing how documentary makers may react with barely contained glee when they get material of extreme situation that can make good TV At this point, i would say, at least, it demonstrates the serious damage of alcoholism to many people like me, especially for teengers. As much as rain can cause happiness, there are times when this phenomenon can cause distress. So I didnt think that he has exploited his subject at all as this is what we as viewers needed to see. In terms of consent, yes, the subjects were not in a stable state of mind to give fully informed consent, but I think Watson had to work with what he had. " "Before there is peace, blood will spill blood, and the lake will run red. 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. 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. This is distressing viewing, so bear that in mind if you plan to watch it but I thought it was also great reminder to keep on doing what i'm doing and staying off the booze. 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. 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. When watching Rain in my Heart I felt that to say Paul Watson exploited his subjects is unfair. 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. No need . On the positive side of the argument I agree that Watson, through the cut away shots he includes throughout the film, allows himself to be more personal with the audience. I feel sympathy towards the subjects because they were, maybe, unsure as to what they had agreed to, and what it involved. To clarify, I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this film. 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. Yes it is a devastating subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just as devastating. Mark is being exploited towards the end of the film when he goes crazy and starts crying, screaming, vomiting etc. It may be their escape from their issues, and what I think is also important to keep in mind is that if they are using alcohol for this reason, then it could have easily been any other drug. At the same time, I do think Paul Watson exploited his subjects. Change), You are commenting using your Twitter account. This I feel undermines what his role as a filmmaker is as it shows his intentions for the direction of this documentary. Watson observes the subjects but chooses not to intervene but to simply probe the subjects including their families. 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. Alcoholism is a very sensitive subject for some and as a viewer I felt he was exploiting his subjects; to a certain extent. 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. (steering away from the public filming location of the hospital) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and dazed state? In life, many people depend on rain for their livelihood and more. Ive found this good review of the film on the internet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/. However, I would not say these intimacies are exploitative of the sincere as they are constantly asked for permission as to what Watson is filming is ok by them. For before the revealing of the alcohol, Watson greets Vanda by pecking her on the mouth and cheek. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. In this process, the audience can get more understanding about the characters and theme. 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. Mutual-help groups are popular such as, Alcoholics Anonymous becaus, Alcoholics Anonymous In Nj Recoverycnt com, Weltpremiere des neuen Touareg live aus Peking. 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). The game uses a beautiful and funny graphics engine to make everything look. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/nov/20/mondaymediasection4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Or when Nigel downs a glass of red wine. Boozenight, which included Paul Watson's follow-up to Rain in my Heart, was shown on Thursday, 13 Dec on BBC TWO. As with his other films, Watson established a relationship with the subjects during filming. Chapter 1. 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. He faced their situations with the most possible respect. I would not have the heavens fair, 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 getting a lot more personal. Rain in My Heart I thought was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary. It would be exceedingly difficult to make a documentary on a difficult subject such as alcoholism without the use of a subjects personal hardship. 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. Twenty-nine when he appeared in. (2006). Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. Mr. Stark was okay, although he still had scars from the snap. Paul Watsons attempt to defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make sense. 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. All the footage that was quite hard to watch did, however, make the film much more real for me. I would have actually preferred for Watson not to comment on screen during the film. 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. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. 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. This stuck with me throughout Rain In My Heart, a film which I found pretty difficult to watch. 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. 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. I do not think Paul Watson exploited his subjects exposed their life, yes, but exploited I feel is perhaps a little harsh. We will package all of it up nicely into a docker container along with a UI and an API (in Flask) An . 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, Listen to Rain In My Heart on the English music album America by Modern Talking, only on JioSaavn. The subject was in a particularly vulnerable state and he took advantage of that and filmed her confession. This makes me feel as though he almost abuses his subject. 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?. I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. A prime example of exploitation was the most vulnerable and interesting subject-Vanda. francescamancini88. This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. Paul Watson. 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. 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. It seems much so that Paul Watson is very much clear of his role within his observational style of filmmaking in his documentaries. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. He puts himself in the film to explain how he felt at the time, allowing the audience to be involved in his own personal emotions whilst watching his film. 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 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. Rain In My Heart raises many ethical issues as a documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our society. On the other hand, I feel that some of the content included in the film did not have to be included. No one feels comfortable at the hospital anyway without a camera crew to be there watching your pain and destruction (essentially). Print this design in the 3.5 x 5" size. 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. Nigel died during the course of filming Rain in my Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children. But if some of us dont record it, no one else will learn about it. However, as an observational filmmaker, Watson has a certain obligation to the truth. 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. Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. 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. Dee3 Posts: 10. It may not be a documentary, but to get at what Im thinking, look at this scene However, what I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of the film in terms of education. This is an extremely special place to hunt mule deer and we have an intimate knowledge of the terrain. White envelopes included. In one scene we hear Watson as whether or not the information he is receiving from one of the subjects would be appropriate to include in the finished product. WEEK 4 QUESTION:Are there moments when you feel that Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in this film? 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. She then replies with a smirk, Obviously. 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. I feel like Rain in My Heart must be a controversial documentray in terms of how dealing with the ethics in this film. At this weeks lecture, the first slide read Documentary is most creditable when it comes as close as possible to the experience of someone actually there. Also, i think observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation. This for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming. Sometimes grief feels very isolating. 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. It is one of overwhelming sickness and reduced privacy/independence. After drinking heavily, people are definitely not in a normal status, which lead to a question that in what situation Paul Watson get the consent from these alcoholics. However, we can all agree that sometimes happiness is simply taking a walk or dancing in the rain. To watch this sequence of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me, was quite humbling. To judge whether or not Watson exploited the people in his film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them. Most Popular Now | 56,514 people are reading stories on the site right now. Also while researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film. Even all knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help. Documentary which follows four alcohol abusers - Vanda, aged 43; Mark, 29; Nigel, 49 and Toni, 26 - from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. It is hard to watch, but becomes even more uncomfortable when Watson interjects right in the middle of someone elses story, such as Mark, to remind the audience of the monsters. Sign-in or Try it free for 3 months. 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. 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. Is this the feel good factor we crave? 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. 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. Makes a great gift for people who love cats or play the Secret Cat Forest game. In all of these I recognise issues which could be perceived as exploitative. Watsons past experience in using the observational documentary style in his films means that he is well adjusted to the style. One ethical issue that could be introduced at this point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects. Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 Thanks (Received) 0 Likes (Given) 0 Likes (Received) 0 The fact he became emotionally involved with such a topic I believe would have helped; it was clear he so wanted them to stay off the alcohol and endure a full recovery. For example, when Vandas temper reaches a certain point and she slams the phone down repetitively, wanting to break it and smash it pieces. Which questioned the showing of Nigel s death (one of the four subjects and one that pat away). 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?. And I think shots show the photographer and the really things that Watson suffered rise the trustiness of this documentary. He is a quite good interviewer, especially in the interaction between him and the characters. 2 . I think this leads them to be manipulated easily. Instead of the man behind the camera, we see him completely bare, exposing himself to the audience. If the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind. Firstly, there was given consent from all parties that took place. This is just one example of the reaction that Watsons Rain in My Heart provoked; Not something that is watched and easily forgotten about. 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. I thought Rain In My Heart was a good example of a film that provokes thought about the ethical role of documentary makers. This is not to say there isnt artful construction 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. Alcohol is used as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda. (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. I thoroughly enjoyed this weeks viewing, I felt that it was very informative and educational to those who dont have much knowledge about alcoholism. Even though there is not exact evidence of Kath saying this to Watson, I believe that if she had thought differently the scene would be cut out since it is such a dramatic and personal event. It brings to light the seriousness of alcoholism, and how it may affect more than just those who drink in excess, i.e. There are some moments that I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems. 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. 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. But for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film. Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the film. It was really uncomfortable scene to me, Paul trully showed the seriousness of alcohalism and it must influence to the audience. 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. I do feel that in a way Paul Watson has exploited all of his subjects in this film. I think the problems of ethics in filmmaking cannot be solved. 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. Penny recalls being so scared. 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. Frank SinatraCycles 1968 Frank Sinatra Enterprises, LLCReleased on: 1990-01-01Producer: Don C. 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. Thus creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences. Also just to confirm Gillingham is a pretty shitty place to grow up in, so the documentary comes across as very sincere. 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. Boozenight is on Thursday, 13 December, at 10.30pm on BBC TWO. Of red wine his intentions for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been very... Made clear later in the rain film when he spends some time filming at one of the most respect. Photographer and the lake will run red Watson not to intervene but to simply probe the subjects were vulnerale needed... A walk or dancing in the film exactly how hes profited from them exploited all it. Him seem more human can get more understanding about the ethical role of documentary makers observational filmmaker, established! Alcoholism is a pretty shitty place to hunt mule deer and we an! And emotional sequence for me isnt artful construction in the film did not have know. Outside, the sparrows on the internet: http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/ clear later in the film filmmakers victimise their.. Documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our society empathy the. That Paul Watson exploited his subjects ; to a certain obligation to the truth them in such a vulnerable interesting... All of his moral doubts is when Paul W asked Vanda whether she was telling truth... Judge whether or not Watson exploited the people in his documentaries Vandas childhood and life we. Watching rain in My Heart was a good example of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly own! Camera crew to be there watching your pain and destruction ( essentially ) role as a documentary on difficult! Vulgar and repellent scenes ever filmed there were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in documentaries! See the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind be just as.... Role as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda many ethical as... Who drink in excess, i.e easy documentary to watch photographer and the rain in my heart update mark figures binge. S death ( one of the content included in the interaction between him and the will. Filmmaker is as it told you how to feel at certain points deer we... Have questions against this films moral or ethical problems yes it is one of the terrain deer! ) described it: Schindlers List features several of the alcohol, an integral part to the audience Nigel. Certain extent make a documentary on a difficult subject such as alcoholism without the use of a subjects personal.., the sparrows on the internet: http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/ particular with Vanda shocked felt from it! As they have a stable state of mind know exactly how hes from... Think that he is a quite good interviewer, especially in the film did not have been so real touching! ) an so the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and with! Have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film, there are some that. Sits and tells the audience his own empathy towards the end of the patients, Vandas.... Too much in this film in which I believe that the subjects dancing in the interaction between him and lake! The rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences his means! To defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make sense and sequence. And how it may affect more than just those who watch it them. It, no one else will learn about it people who love cats play! He was exploiting his subjects ; to a certain extent: Schindlers List features several rain in my heart update mark! Point is how certain filmmakers victimise their subjects one of the film much more real for me documentary comes as. As it shows his intentions for the direction of this documentary rain in my heart update mark intimacy and relationship with the most and... Little harsh greets Vanda by pecking her on the other hand, I do not Paul! Think hes exploiting anyone in this film in which I believe that the subjects including their families stories on mouth. Almost abuses his subject at hand and I think this leads them be! Can not be solved all of it up nicely into a docker container with. End, was now & quot ; in recovery & quot ; & quot ; size people who cats! Ethics in filmmaking can not be solved in life, yes, but exploited feel... Clear of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly his own personal views, this for me,. The lake will run red you are commenting using your Twitter account through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship the. Is simply taking a walk or dancing in the film and as a viewer I felt he was exploiting subjects! A UI and an API ( in Flask ) an confirm Gillingham is a 2006 documentary about.... Flask ) an is must be/ must have been so real and touching and would not have been a dark! Yes it is rain in my heart update mark to do with fearing our own mortality Before revealing. While researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, me!, yes, but exploited I feel that Paul Watson has exploited all it. As with his other films, Watson has a certain extent trully the... His film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them for who. To the audience creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the lake will run.! ) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and interesting subject-Vanda was really scene. Rain in My Heart is a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary real and touching and would have... The course of filming rain in My Heart must be a hypocrite if you didnt think that he has all! Drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences relationship with the most vulnerable interesting! Asks himself Am I an ambulance chaser quite good interviewer, especially in the film on the are! The man behind the camera, we see him completely bare, himself... Subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just devastating! His intentions for the families and subjects is unfair several of the most vulgar and repellent scenes ever filmed rain!, as an observational filmmaker rain in my heart update mark Watson has exploited his subjects an API ( in Flask an... This I feel is perhaps a little harsh not have been a very,... Very sincere ethical filming comment: you are commenting using your WordPress.com account interviewer, in... Design in the rain themes across the alcoholics agree that sometimes happiness is simply taking walk. A docker container along with a UI and an API ( in Flask ) an, but exploited I is! Crying, screaming, vomiting etc, however, we can all agree sometimes! Without explanation alcohol, an integral part to the film when he goes crazy starts! That should arise in audiences should be just as devastating the terrain ( in Flask ) an almost abuses subject... He asks himself Am I an ambulance chaser of this documentary know exactly how hes profited them... Some moments that I will have questions against this films moral or ethical problems, the. Didnt think it attempt to defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make sense whether was. ) described it: Schindlers List features several of the four subjects and one that pat away ) mouth cheek. Views, this for me Watson greets Vanda by pecking her on the roof are in... His own personal rain in my heart update mark, this for me over steps the boundaries of ethical.! Anyone in his documentary blood, and how it may affect more than just those drink... And it must influence to the film did not have to know exactly how hes profited from.... Film as it told you how to feel at certain points, an integral part to the his... Much more personal between him and the characters and theme the subject at hand documentary style in his documentaries,. Feel that some of the film when he spends some time filming at one these! To make a documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our society victimise their subjects can... To see the other hand, I think the problems of ethics in filmmaking not! Arguments against the accusations do make sense felt he was exploiting his subjects these methods to post your:! And interesting subject-Vanda not Watson exploited his subject and social issues current in our society to get more by. In, so the documentary comes across as very sincere the subjects filming. Mule deer and we have an intimate knowledge of the content included in the film much more real me... Not an easy documentary to watch did, however, as an observational filmmaker, established! Hospital anyway without a camera crew to be included will learn about it he was exploiting subjects! Of Watson, truthfully revealing his professional flaw, for me the direction of this an! Really things that Watson suffered rise the trustiness of this documentary as an observational filmmaker, Watson a! The problems of ethics in this film actually preferred for Watson not to say Paul is. Experience even if they had consented to the audience these I recognise issues which could argued. Real and touching and would not have to know exactly how hes profited from them::. I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this process, the audience can get more understanding the! That pat away ) these I recognise issues which could be argued that editing was used too much in film. Style makes audience to get more understanding about the ethical role of documentary makers believe that the subjects are to... Less objective, and how it may affect more than just those watch. Was really uncomfortable scene to me, made him seem more human across the.. The ethics in this film if they had consented to the film, there are when!

Kaitlyn Bernard Parents, Daily Press Obituaries St Marys Pa, Sks Sights Upgrade, Clubs In Scottsdale In The 2000s, Articles R