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. I realised after I posted this! Alluding to the culture of exploitning woman, as well as Spielbergs film being a commercial (and one which ends with a very colourful, affirming ending) intent makes it a machine absording actresses and horrors for the output of satisfying drama. This is seen in the film when Watson is speaking to one of the patients, Vanda, one of the few who agreed to, as Watson describes it; let him intrude into filming their hell. Watson explains to Vanda, whilst she is still a patient in hospital, that when he comes to interview her again at her house he will not be able to help her, he will take a spectator approach. Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the film. 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. It may not be a documentary, but to get at what Im thinking, look at this scene Rain in My Heart I thought was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary. Ive found this good review of the film on the internet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/. 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. I felt as if he cared for her wellbeing. At no point during the documentary did I feel that the filmmaker was exploiting the subjects, the recording of what can be described as personal and intimate situations felt more like a significant necessity with moral intentions towards bringing awareness towards the seriousness of the consumption of alcohol. 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. He'd been self-harming repeatedly and been in and out of a psychiatric ward. When watching Rain in my Heart I felt that to say Paul Watson exploited his subjects is unfair. When researching the film I found a web page (which is a old BBC one). He acts incredibly friendly with her by holding her shoulders when talking to her, slapping her cheek when she has fallen asleep from drinking etc. (LogOut/ This film must encounter with some ethics problems and Pauls observational style should instigated arguments. Yes it is a devastating subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just as devastating. But for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film. Tonis most exploitative scene, as I believe, is when she is shown unconscious a few days before her death. 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. Stream "I've Got Rain In My Heart" by The Fresh Experience on desktop and mobile. Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. 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. 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, in one of his cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether to include Claires grief. Listen to Rain' in My Heart on the English music album Wonderful Soundtrack by Slim Harpo, only on JioSaavn. I personally think he dealt with this extremely well. The latest Arizona headlines, breaking news, in-depth investigations, politics, and local community stories that matter to you. The veins in her legs have contracted because of alcohol, making walking difficult. 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. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. 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. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rain-In-My-Heart-Documentary-In-Memory-Of-My-Dad-Toni-And-Vanda/233416877232. I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. 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. Because I think it break the engagement of the audience. 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. I found a video called, Revisiting Rain in My Heart, in which Paul Watson revisits the surviving subjects from the film. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. As with his other films, Watson established a relationship with the subjects during filming. And the audience is living the pain through the subjects, and that is the best outcome to achieve, making the subjects exploitation almost worthwhile. Sometimes grief feels very isolating. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. If she was lying she wouldnt tell him would she? 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. It is true that there are not many cut ins of his own questioning however Watson thought it be inappropriate to constantly show his own personal struggles when his subjects are undergoing way more traumatic psychological illnesses. He 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. However I think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is so intimate and explicit. Which questioned the showing of Nigel s death (one of the four subjects and one that pat away). Sign-in or Try it free for 3 months. 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. 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. This is the only area where I can see possible wrongdoing on Watsons behalf. Covering Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Gilbert, the valley . RAIN IN MY HEART. Get up to 5 months free This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson follows four alcohol abusers over the course of a year. Music Video BOWY Rain In My Heart Featured In Album Beat Emotion BOWY Listen to RAIN IN MY HEART on Apple Music. After all, I am satisfied by what Watson did to deal with accusations. He made this film to show people about the effects of alcoholism, and I think he achieved his goal. I do not think Paul Watson was exploitave in his filming. Rain in my Heart (Full). Seeing the filmmakers process on screen is great when theyre doing something that you need to see. In Rain in my Heart she is living in a council flat. However, what I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of the film in terms of education. 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 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. 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. She then replies with a smirk, Obviously. 22/11/06 - 10:57 #8. 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. You can watch a short reminder of their stories via the links below. Two of the participants in Paul Watson's Rain in My Heart died during filming. At one point it says: This type of documentary is not the best way to explain or explore alcoholisms origins. On the other hand, I feel that some of the content included in the film did not have to be included. 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. (steering away from the public filming location of the hospital) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and dazed state? On the one hand, Paul Watson did get these peoples consent to be filmed. I find it hard to imagine a way Watson could have made this film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the subjects. But Ive never felt like Watson exploited his subjects. These subjects were all willing participants, however their capacity to give consent comes into question. I do feel that in a way Paul Watson has exploited all of his subjects in this film. 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. I doubt he would have filmed the subjects in these environments if he himself doubted they would drop their barriers. He says My job is to explain, not entertain. This for me over steps the boundaries of ethical filming. But I dont appreciate so much. She was also married to him. Surely, this would mean that his documentary would attract more viewings but at least that would mean that more and more people would learn and be warned about the effects of alcoholism. 0 . I felt that already Watson was too close to his subjects to represent them how he originally intended to. We have to remember that all the subjects gave their full consent to be filmed. On the other hand, he showed the subjects at their worst, but almost continuously. I was completely satisfied with his attempts to deal with accusations of taking advantage of their vulnerabilities throughout the 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. United Kingdom, 2006. Yes it does raise awareness, and the documentary was good, however, to feel taken back is not the sort of emotion one should try to evoke. Explaining hell it is. 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. Forum Member. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2006/nov/05/sheffielddocfestaredocument, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1661761/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjy8Z1hK2wY, http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/taking-it-off-for-the-holocaust, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuFOX0Sy_o. 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. However, from what I saw in the film, Watson does take advantages on his subjects. I found the piece riveting but extremely disturbing. Due to the nature of the subject, I believe there were always going to be complex ethical issues in terms of filming. 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.