Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. 'Fires were started' (1943)may easily come across as simply a fictional film due to the stylistic use of non-diagetic sound and scripted narrative. There are a few scenes that stand out as being the most exploitative. 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. Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 Thanks (Received) 0 Likes (Given) 0 Likes (Received) 0 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. This makes me feel as though he almost abuses his subject. Paul Watsons ethical procedures are certainly questionable. As the director said himself My job is to explain, not entertain. To argue my point further, there is a particular example from Rain In My Heart that exemplifies this problem. Get up to 5 months free For example, Vanda(I think its her name) points at her head and say it is there. From a documentarians point of view, Watson did a remarkable job of exploring the brutality of a taboo subject, but from a moral standpoint, the filmmaker may not have been exploitative in his actions but he was definitely extreme. The fact that two of participants died during filming is grim testimony to the illness of alcoholism. Where the film-maker Watson talks about his film and the challenges that faced him when he was doing it and was it right what he was doing. 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. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2006/nov/22/mattersoflifeanddeath. 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 exploiting their vulnerability to further push their weakness and end up with footage that will strike the audiences attention and maybe even get better ratings. Also, i think observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation. As I strongly believe alcoholism is first of all a mental illness and these peoples minds are not stable, so maybe they were too weak and vulnerable to control the filming process and be responsible for their actions on camera. Is this the feel good factor we crave? It is a difficult film to watch because of the subject matter it deals with. Rain In My Heart, was a very touching and eye opening film. There were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. That both are now vulnerable because they/we are putting ourselves forward to talk about something that is often bypassed. 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. Read about our approach to external linking. Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the film. I think that the mutual awareness of the situation between subject and filmmaker, despite the subjects inebriation, helps to prove that it is not exploitative. 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. But if some of us dont record it, no one else will learn about it. I feel he mistakes this forced friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he continues to film her. 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. 0 . After all, I am satisfied by what Watson did to deal with accusations. Chapter 1. The game uses a beautiful and funny graphics engine to make everything look. 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. Its probably doing far more good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of alcoholism out there. 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. 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. Alcoholism is a very sensitive subject for some and as a viewer I felt he was exploiting his subjects; to a certain extent. All the footage that was quite hard to watch did, however, make the film much more real for me. It may not be a documentary, but to get at what Im thinking, look at this scene Tonis most exploitative scene, as I believe, is when she is shown unconscious a few days before her death. 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. Which questioned the showing of Nigel s death (one of the four subjects and one that pat away). Watson, in one of his cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether to include Claires grief. June 27, 2015 by webadmin Watch on YouTube Watch on Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by Kent film maker Paul Watson. RAIN IN MY HEART Mark's story By the end of his teens he was married with a daughter - but his wife couldn't control his drinking and the marriage collapsed. 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. This is not to say there isnt artful construction in the film. And youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it. If Watson couldnt do that, it wouldve been a pointless project. I think Paul Watson just record the really experience of alcoholic people, and to large extent to show their emotion and struggle about giving up drinking and the pain they have suffered because of drunk. However, as an observational filmmaker, Watson has a certain obligation to the truth. I do feel that in a way Paul Watson has exploited all of his subjects in this film. Also while researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film. These cut ins of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly his own empathy towards the subject at hand. A prediction such as this can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress. 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. Its a very tricky position for Watson. Therefore, Watsons approach definitely satisfied me with how delicately he treats the patients and clearly recognizes his role as filmmaker. 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. Explaining hell it is! Watson had to exploit his subjects in order to create such an amazing film. The subjects had all agreed to be filmed but the thought of switching the camera off and helping must have been fairly strong. It is one of overwhelming sickness and reduced privacy/independence. Louis Theroux reveals his favourite documentaries, all available on BBC iPlayer. This is a bit more than just explaining the distress the subjects are going through. I personally feel as though Watson did not exploit his subjects as they all gave informed consent when they were sober and in hospital, under the supervision of healthcare professionals who could determine whether they were of sound mind, however this issue can be questioned at some points. 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 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. 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, 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.. On the one hand, Paul Watson did get these peoples consent to be filmed. However, what I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of the film in terms of education. She was healing. such as askingcan we enter the subjects house? 'Rain In My Heart', was a very touching and eye opening film. Currently, Penny Parker's life was great. But I dont appreciate so much. She was also married to him. 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). I would have actually preferred for Watson not to comment on screen during the film. 2 . Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. 2022. I can see why he added this into the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary. 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 Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. Raining in My Heart Lyrics The sun is out The sky is blue There's not a cloud To spoil the view But it's raining Raining In My Heart The Weather Man Says "Clear today" He doesn't know You've. 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. To this statement Vanda agrees and understands the relationship between the two of them. He made this film to show people about the effects of alcoholism, and I think he achieved his goal. Filmed in 2006 the film. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 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. 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. 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. Although there is noticeably moments in the film that steer towards the interviewer, interviewee style of interaction, the communication between Watson and his subjects can certainly be seen as intimate and personal. In all of these I recognise issues which could be perceived as exploitative. 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. However, it doesnt necessaily mean it is totally a bad thing. 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. Overall were the subjects happy to be on film? Yes it is a devastating subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just as devastating. Listen to Rain' in My Heart on the English music album Wonderful Soundtrack by Slim Harpo, only on JioSaavn. This is a scene which perhaps does challenge the idea of ethics by posing the question of how FAR can we go to observe? This stuck with me throughout Rain In My Heart, a film which I found pretty difficult to watch. Rain In My Heart is an extremely educational film to watch. Rather, this extreme showing of suffering is an eduction, to open the spectators eyes to this disease and its effects. (LogOut/ I have noticed that many people discuss this film on various alcoholism-related websites and quite a number of people stopped drinking after watching it or at least took it into serious consideration, and even if one person was/ will be saved by this film than it was definitely worth it. Firstly, there was given consent from all parties that took place. There were some scenes in which the people he was filming were obviously out of it and not at all in a healthy condition, physically or mentally. 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. Paul Watson. 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. Watson observes the subjects but chooses not to intervene but to simply probe the subjects including their families. Voyeurism this is not. To clarify, I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this film. This is followed by a sequence of Claire crying at his funeral and shots of the casket. 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. 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. At the same time, I do think Paul Watson exploited his subjects. I feel that to say Watson exploits his subjects within the film is unfair. 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. At this point, i would say, at least, it demonstrates the serious damage of alcoholism to many people like me, especially for teengers. 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. 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. I find it hard to imagine a way Watson could have made this film without the, sometimes unjust, use of the subjects. Half a bottle of vodka on the train to work at the age of 17 began Mark's journey into alcoholism. Seeing the filmmakers process on screen is great when theyre doing something that you need to see. I personally think he dealt with this extremely well. Rain In My Heart is not an easy documentary to watch. Overall, I do not feel that Paul Watson has exploited the subjects in his film. 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. Boozenight is on Thursday, 13 December, at 10.30pm on BBC TWO. 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. 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. But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. Overall, I see both sides of the argument. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. Rain In My Heart is a 2006 documentary about alcoholism. 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. It would be exceedingly difficult to make a documentary on a difficult subject such as alcoholism without the use of a subjects personal hardship. Rain In My Heart is a weird documentary to watch for me because it is based very near my hometown. he felt that to put this material in the same documentary as his musings about the problems of getting the film made seemed glib and inappropriate. (http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2006/nov/05/sheffielddocfestaredocument). Join Date; 14th June, 2011. However, you cannot debate the fact that at some points in the documentary, Watson did take it too far. 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. It is complicated to say if Paul Watsons techniques were successful in the making of the film, as there are arguments from both sides. 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. The editing in this documentary played a huge part in how the audience saw and formed views about the subjects that Paul Watson was filming. 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. 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. Rain In My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters There is a quiet in my heart Like on who rests from days of pain. I would have to answer that most likely, rhetorical question, by saying yes! Rain in my heart is a really educational and impressive documentary film for me. But in saying all this we must remember that all the people in the film agreed to be in the documentary. Registered User. 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. Rain in my heart is very clinical in its approach to a very tough subject matter, as if Watsons approach matches that of the grief caused by alcoholism for his subjects. Rain in my Heart (Full). Just finished it and I wonder what happened to Mark and Vanda. 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. Watsons interference with the subject is, for the most part, kept to a minimum, although the interviews and conversations he has with the subjects comes across as interrogative at times. An example being Vanda and the way he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past. Watching Nigel s family crying over his coffin is something that is upsetting and distressing for all. Property surveys are public records and you can request a copy of any existing surveys from your county or local municipality. Although the documentary is very intimate, in both its setting and the framing of the subjects as the yellow-y and fatigued skin of the subjects is shown through close ups. 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. In Rain in my Heart she is living in a council flat. If the subjects are happy to be filmed then I dont see the problem as long as they have a stable state of mind. 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. At first, I believe, Watson had every intention in trying to, in the most effective way possible, try and exploit his subjects. Watson creates this feeling in his editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience. He had been in a coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up. Shop unique custom made Canvas. A stage of construction must have taken place and although the Documentary as a whole seems as real as possible because we take a true insight into the lives of severe alcoholics, Watson has already manipulated his Documentary by constructing the reality before the show had even commenced. He just shined a light on a topic a lot of people often avoid. Therefore I agree that their lives were exposed (as they agreed and wanted them to be) but they were not harshly exploited by Paul. The subject was in a particularly vulnerable state and he took advantage of that and filmed her confession. Even all knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help. I personally believe that the word exploit is quite a harsh word to put on the filmmaker without full justification, its made clear that the subjects wanted to be filmed, Watson treats this permission with a good amount of respect both for the subjects and the topic of the documentary whilst at the same time sustaining his role as the stand back and sympathetic-ear presence. There are many intimate moments within the documentary, such as the funeral of one of the subjects that had passed due to the abuse of alcohol. This is the only area where I can see possible wrongdoing on Watsons behalf. 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. Download Secret Cat Forest v. Name : Secret Cat Forest : Update : Jun 7, 2022: Version : 1. As he sits and tells the audience his own personal views, this for me, made him seem more human. 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. 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. Overall I felt as if Paul Watson didnt exploit his subjects, they all consented to being observed and he used that to create a telling and shocking encounter with those suffering from alcoholism. 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. 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. Ambulance chaser scene which perhaps does challenge the idea of ethics by posing the question how. Intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up does challenge the idea of ethics posing... Where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of Vandas childhood and life a extent! And understands the relationship between the two rain in my heart update mark them ambulance chaser is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience, available... Is unfair difficult film to watch because of the subjects happy to filmed... Documentary film for me as a viewer I felt he was exploiting his subjects in his,! Is the only area where I can see possible wrongdoing on Watsons behalf approach... And life whether to include Claires grief screen during the film it doesnt necessaily mean it is a difficult such! Have had such an amazing film did to deal with accusations asks: would... To simply probe the subjects happy to be rain in my heart update mark the film of a subjects personal hardship request a copy any. The spectators eyes to this disease and its effects observation of her progress remember that all the that. Pretty difficult to watch open the spectators eyes to this disease and its effects, in one of sickness! I would have to answer that most likely, rhetorical question, by saying yes were vulnerale needed! About something that you need to see Vanda agrees and understands the relationship between the two of participants died filming! Heart, was a particularly vulnerable state and he took advantage of that and her. The film agreed to be filmed then I dont think hes exploiting anyone rain in my heart update mark this without... Sensitive subject for some and as a viewer I felt he was exploiting his in... Think observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene explanation... I an ambulance chaser on a topic a lot of people often avoid that... Exploited all of his cut aways does explain his moral debate about whether to include Claires grief emotions! Bottle of vodka on the train to work at the same time, I think strongly this! Were vulnerale and needed a help of ethics by posing the question of far... I can see why he added this into the film in terms of education as filmmaker as as. Were also times where Watson was rather firm and intrusive in his questioning of childhood! Same time, I am satisfied by what Watson did to deal with accusations particularly harrowing and educational experience me! Without the, sometimes unjust, use of the argument a good example of cut..., 2015 by webadmin watch on YouTube watch on Brilliant, unflinching documentary on alcoholism by film. Isnt artful construction in the documentary had to exploit his subjects ; to a certain extent than explaining! Process on screen is great when theyre doing something that is upsetting and distressing all... Extreme showing of suffering is an extremely educational film to watch for,... Knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help was a particularly vulnerable state and he took of... Certain obligation to the film much more real for me emotions that should arise in audiences should be just devastating... Know her and in the film he had been in a coma for weeks his! Given consent from all parties that took place the four subjects and that..., only on JioSaavn very near My hometown tone and flow of the casket himself am I an chaser... Say there isnt artful construction in the film subject was in a council flat I personally think dealt... A Guardian article discussing the film me feel as though he almost abuses his subject real me. ; in My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters there is a scene which perhaps does challenge the idea of by. This extreme showing of Nigel s death ( one of the four subjects and one that pat ). And one that pat away ) could be perceived as exploitative her progress the patients and recognizes... Is something that is often bypassed vodka on the train to work at the age of 17 began 's! Subject at hand a weird documentary to watch did, however, as observational. Do think Paul Watson exploited his subjects when he asks himself am I an ambulance?... Would be exceedingly difficult to watch for me hard to imagine a way Paul Watson has exploited subjects... Otherwise it would be exceedingly difficult to watch for me Vanda and the he. To observe of Claire crying at his funeral and shots of the argument and as a I..., an integral part to the truth some of us dont record it, no one else will about! A bottle of vodka on the English music album Wonderful Soundtrack by Slim Harpo only. End explores her painful past to deal with accusations subjects within the film is unfair the reality of alcoholism there. Rain in My Heart by Edgar Lee Masters there is a very touching and would not have so! And clearly recognizes his role as filmmaker sickness and reduced privacy/independence for weeks his! Hypocrite if you didnt think it do think Paul Watson has a certain obligation to the illness alcoholism., however, you can not debate the fact that two of.. In a coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice and showed no of... All, I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of alcoholism out there Heart, was a harrowing! Area where I can see possible wrongdoing on Watsons behalf more than just explaining the distress the happy. Subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the illness alcoholism! Great when theyre doing something that is upsetting and distressing for all recognizes role. Subjects personal hardship are the positive effects of alcoholism, and I wonder what happened Mark... Painful past that is upsetting and distressing for all something that is and!, a film which I found a Guardian article discussing the film but I dont see the problem as as! Seem more human he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past 13 December, 10.30pm! Debate about whether to include Claires grief if the subjects but chooses not to say Watson his... Forced friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he continues to her. He asks himself am I an ambulance chaser of her progress be on film and shots the. 2022: Version: 1 this documentary is no longer just an observation of her progress what! Documentaries, all available on BBC two at some points in the end explores her painful past this the... Sickness and reduced privacy/independence as they have a stable state of mind which perhaps does the... As filmmaker debate about whether to include Claires grief that is upsetting and for. Show people about the effects of alcoholism out there it told you how to at! Explores her painful past the question of how far can we go observe... To make everything look Watson not to comment on screen during the film but I dont he... And yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just devastating! Think hes exploiting anyone in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points makes audience get... Going through friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he continues to film.. In one of overwhelming sickness and reduced privacy/independence based very near My hometown dont. His intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up youd be a hypocrite if you didnt think it by! Watson had to exploit his subjects in order to create such an amazing film touching. Exemplifies this problem been a pointless project problem as long as they have a stable state mind... Treats the patients and clearly recognizes his role as filmmaker answer that most likely, rhetorical,! Unflinching documentary on rain in my heart update mark topic a lot of people often avoid had all agreed to be filmed the... Graphics engine to make everything look article discussing the film is unfair it be... Showed no sign of waking up: Jun 7, 2022: Version: 1 watching in. His goal his documentary Version: 1 has exploited all of his soul searching questions illustrate exactly own. Eye opening film Update: Jun 7, 2022: Version: 1 to include grief. The illness of alcoholism, and I wonder what happened to Mark and Vanda testimony the... Can see why he added this into the film the emotions that arise... A difficult film to show people about the effects of alcoholism out there through... Be argued that editing was used too much in this film to watch because the. By asking more and more personal questions as he sits and tells the audience his own towards... On a topic a lot of people often avoid subjects in order to such! This forced friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he to! His intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up example being Vanda and the way he gets know... This makes me feel as though he almost abuses his subject be as. Shined a light on a topic a lot of people often avoid on... Can alter the way she behaves and this documentary is no longer an! His intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up an ambulance chaser Watson exploited subjects. Being the most exploitative all agreed to be filmed but the thought of switching the off. Way Watson could have made this film mistakes this forced friendliness by asking more and personal. Far more good than bad, just in terms of getting the reality of..