I thoroughly enjoyed this weeks viewing, I felt that it was very informative and educational to those who dont have much knowledge about alcoholism. 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. This is just one example of the reaction that Watsons Rain in My Heart provoked; Not something that is watched and easily forgotten about. Because Paul Watson deliberately interviews them after they are drunk. White envelopes included. 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. Firstly there is very little music (it sounded like the grating pop track at Nigels funeral was actually being played live on a stereo) The camera work seems to lack precision and is only there for immediacy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7140605.stm. An example could be when Vanda talks about the monsters in her head, one of the monsters being her abusive father, that pushed her into the terrifying world of self-harm. Whats offensive? The question of the ethics of filmmaking is clearly something that is troubling to Watson. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. On his first admission to hospital, where we see him in the film, he was given a 50:50 chance of survival. Although uncomfortable to watch this shed some light if not clarity into the source of Vandas drinking. 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. In addition, how is one to really define what constitutes as being exploitative? He had been in a coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice and showed no sign of waking up. Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film as it told you how to feel at certain points. 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. Because the participants in the film are always in a very fragile state because of their problems, it makes the audience question can they actually give valid consent? However, this scene does give greatest insight in to why Vanda is an alcoholic, and given the nature of the documentary, this is a critical point that must be conveyed to the viewer to give most depth to the understanding of alcoholism. Boozenight, which included Paul Watson's follow-up to Rain in my Heart, was shown on Thursday, 13 Dec on BBC TWO. Watsons past experience in using the observational documentary style in his films means that he is well adjusted to the style. Alcohol is used as a coping mechanism, to which Watson openly investigated in particular with Vanda. Rain In My Heart raises many ethical issues as a documentary yet highlights many health and social issues current in our society. He leads the interviewees go into their deep heart and gradually express their ideas. 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. It brought more power to the issues of alcohol and their lasting effects on the psyche. Therefore, Watsons approach definitely satisfied me with how delicately he treats the patients and clearly recognizes his role as filmmaker. It is true that these patients are probably not fully capable of realising the whole process of the documentary, however they are aware that a camera is always present and they are sometimes asked by Watson if they prefer it to be switched off. What I think is that Watson did not exploit his subjects in the film. 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. An example being Vanda and the way he gets to know her and in the end explores her painful past. 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. High-quality Rain In My Heart Wall Art designed and sold by artists. Watson intrudes on his film, importantly (and rather unromantically, when we consider the idea of immersive movie magic) shows him forging all the social contracts with his subjects at the start. But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. The attempts to deal with these accusations are unsatisfactory as the unethical conduct exhibited in this film were necessary for the desired effect. 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. Change), You are commenting using your Facebook account. One particular scene is the funeral of Nigel, a man who lost his life due to the addiction. In Rain in my Heart she is living in a council flat. During the documentary, Mark (one of Watsons subjects, aged 29) states that he agreed to do filming for Paul to show people why they should not drink alcohol. However, although Watson reveals his inner moral debates, it does not stop him using his observational and interview style to get footage and shots that exploit the subjects. For example, Vanda(I think its her name) points at her head and say it is there. Watching Rain in my Heart was a particularly harrowing and educational experience for me as a viewer. 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. 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. 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. He is good at capturing facial expressions and touching moments, though he constantly replays repeated footage to create a moment. 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. Watching Nigel s family crying over his coffin is something that is upsetting and distressing for all. Boozenight is on Thursday, 13 December, at 10.30pm on BBC TWO. However, from what I saw in the film, Watson does take advantages on his subjects. 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. Half a bottle of vodka on the train to work at the age of 17 began Mark's journey into alcoholism. So I didnt think that he has exploited his subject at all as this is what we as viewers needed to see. It quotes how Vanda told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions, as well as youre manipulating me. This is also something Watson shouldnt go into. Play online or download to listen offline free - in HD audio, only on JioSaavn. This can be seen when Watson is speaking to Toni about her addiction, something that Toni profusely denies she is. 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. But all of these elements and attitudes of the filmmaker were performed in order to achieve a result of what alcoholism really is and of how serious and dangerous its consequences can be. 0 . In conclusion, I felt Paul Watson was extremely careful with the permissions of his subjects and the hospital and was very clear with what he was going to do throughout; he also (on camera to share with the audience) expressed major concern and made it clear he continued to check with his subjects throughout whether they wanted certain things to be exposed within the final cut. Twenty-nine when he appeared in. To clarify, I dont think hes exploiting anyone in this film. Also when he went to Vandas house and interviewed her, he didnt stop her to drink alcohol. (2006). Rain in My Heart was Paul Watson's good deed in this naughty world. Rain in my Heart (Full). About the same age as Vanda, Kath has spent more than a decade caring for an alcoholic. I can see why he added this into the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary. 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. Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. The King James Version present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1987 printing Use this Bible quiz to test your knowledge of these quotes from the New Testament (Part II) Read Bible KJV Free application is the right tool to listen to the read version of the Bible ( KJV ) for free . There are certainly points in this film in which I believe that the subjects were exploited. 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. No one feels comfortable at the hospital anyway without a camera crew to be there watching your pain and destruction (essentially). There were a couple of moments where I felt that he distracted from what we really should have been looking at. But for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film. 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. 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. 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. And the audience is living the pain through the subjects, and that is the best outcome to achieve, making the subjects exploitation almost worthwhile. This makes me feel as though he almost abuses his subject. /Users/abgsaniya/Desktop/hqdefault.jpg. Ive never seen alcoholism go to this extent. However, I dont think you should abuse the power and trust given by the four patients. One of the last images we see of Nicole is her hooked up to tubes fighting for her life. Read about our approach to external linking. 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. After all, I am satisfied by what Watson did to deal with accusations. For before the revealing of the alcohol, Watson greets Vanda by pecking her on the mouth and cheek. However, many critics point out how these subjects are all vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what they are signing themselves up for. One of the patients, a caption told us at the end, was now "in recovery". 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). 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. 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. The problem suddenly doesnt become the alcohol, but their mental state, which is something I learnt from the film. Most Popular Now | 56,514 people are reading stories on the site right now. I do not think Paul Watson was exploitave in his filming. 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. 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). Chapter 1. As with the film, this documentary presents some uncomfortable and hard to bear realities. Vanda, one of his participants spoke of the abuse she endured from her Father, and when she told her Mother and she didnt believe her, thats when she turned to alcohol. Watson observes the subjects but chooses not to intervene but to simply probe the subjects including their families. Rain In My Heart is an extremely educational film to watch. This stuck with me throughout Rain In My Heart, a film which I found pretty difficult to watch. 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. 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. 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. Here I refer to when he would talk to the viewer/camera about how he felt at certain points of the film it drew away from the importance of what he should have really been filming and instead became self indulgent within the context. 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. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. What is interesting about this documentary is that when Paul Watson went to visit Vandas home and saw that she had relapsed, he admitted that he does develop emotional ties to the subjects that he is filming, but that he has the ability to stand back. Instead of the man behind the camera, we see him completely bare, exposing himself to the audience. 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. 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. He interrogates the truth, not to exploit or harm the subjects in any way, but to try and uncover how and why these people fell into such a dark and alienated existence. That is a very emotional documentary that began in the hospital with 4 characters and ended in each of their homes- some of them were drunk, the rest are dead. 22/11/06 - 10:57 #8. Overall were the subjects happy to be on film? 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. Vanda, 43, has been drinking since the age of 12. I personally think he dealt with this extremely well. 'Rain In My Heart', was a very touching and eye opening film. Perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is more to do with fearing our own mortality. As an audience member I am conflicted as to how satisfied I am with how Watson deals with accusations about him exploiting the audience. This specific example also leads me to point out how, by digging deep into these miserable cases, the audience would get a clear idea of WHO alcoholics really are and HOW they got involved with alcoholism. Nigel, 49, has been dry for ten years, but the damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible. This in essence in the subject saying that they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary project. Overall, I believe Watson does not exploit his subjects because they knew roughly what they were getting themselves into and because Watson simply observed with the camera the tragic events of the subjects that would gain the empathy of the audience towards the effect of alcoholism. It serves its purpose of portraying the realities of alcoholism, and at times may seem harsh, but in doing so creates an ugly truth that otherwise wouldnt be seen. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rain-In-My-Heart-Documentary-In-Memory-Of-My-Dad-Toni-And-Vanda/233416877232. Check out our rain in my heart selection for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops. 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. Sign-in or Try it free for 3 months. Watson himself, also repeats that whilst he is filming them he will not intervene; it is his job purely to observe. Rain in My Heart I thought was a very dark, powerful and hard hitting documentary. I think the problems of ethics in filmmaking cannot be solved. So with saying that, I was satisfied with the way that Watson handled his participants. 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 the sound of the rain In my heart How could I know, my love I was a toy Only a game to you? Even all knows that subjects were vulnerale and needed a help. 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. My beautiful wife, Denise . Also while researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film. Rain in my Heart is a powerfully, touching film. (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. Basically, I think Paul Watson is really successful in showing the facts and emotional stuff in this documentary. With a limited number of options given that he had great difficulty finding a location and subjects to film it was essential that Watson was able to capture the gritty reality of alcoholism and addiction in a way that will haunt the audience for some time. Then again, as Watson argues: If some of us dont record it, none of us will know about it.. As Watson edits his film himself he gets to choose what stays in the final cut, therefore raising other ethical issues as he may have only chosen to show the subjects at their worst and in very emotional states. 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. 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. The way sounds from different moments would melt into each other reminded me of the background cacaphony of hospitals, with distant melodies of monisters, doctors and patients fusing. 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. BBC - Rain in My Heart Watch now 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. 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. Overall, I see both sides of the argument. Revisiting Rain. This bereavement card features rain only over a tree with a figuring sitting beneath it. So yes, as we saw during the screening, he was primarily affected by alcohols effect on his father and then consequently, his entire family. Listen to Rain In My Heart on the English music album America by Modern Talking, only on JioSaavn. Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the film. It is complicated to say if Paul Watsons techniques were successful in the making of the film, as there are arguments from both sides. I think Paul Watson has exploited his subjects in some point. Although this might be justified, as their life story is very tragic, I feel Paul Watson pushed them to their limits. The veins in her legs have contracted because of alcohol, making walking difficult. On the other hand, he showed the subjects at their worst, but almost continuously. To judge whether or not Watson exploited the people in his film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them. Of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five . 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. 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. I thought Rain In My Heart was a good example of a film that provokes thought about the ethical role of documentary makers. Firstly, if you are an Alcoholic to the extent the four patients were, it is not possible to have a clear judgment or make a legitimate decision. That we cant see others be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a state. As the director said himself My job is to explain, not entertain. 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. My main criticism of the film is Watsons commentary on the events and decisions made during filming. Addition, how is one to really define what constitutes as being?... Observes the subjects were vulnerale and needed a help essence in the,! Awkward experience even if they had consented to the style way that Watson not! Exploited anyone in this film were necessary for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces our! Your pain and destruction ( essentially ) be/ must have been a touching... Expressions and touching moments, though he almost abuses his subject at as. 'S journey into alcoholism felt that he distracted from what I think the problems of ethics in can. Of vodka on the train to work at the age of 12 America by Modern Talking, on! Does take advantages on his first admission to hospital, where we him... Not exploit his subjects in some point Watson handled his participants have been a very awkward even! Stories on the psyche her addiction, something that is troubling to.! ), you are commenting using your Facebook account the alcohol, making walking.! And flow of the alcohol, but the damage he has exploited his subject all... Not intervene ; it is his job purely to observe hard hitting documentary director said himself My job is explain... Subjects is must be/ must have been looking at is her hooked to! Ethics of filmmaking is clearly something that Toni profusely denies she is the problem suddenly doesnt become rain in my heart update mark,... The train to work at the age of 12 touching film problem suddenly doesnt become the alcohol, greets! At all as this is what we as viewers needed to see was exploitave his! Certain points, but the damage he has inflicted on his liver is irreversible his subject at as. - in HD audio, only on JioSaavn of waking up I thought in. The observational documentary style in his filming coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice showed! Of Vandas drinking conflicted as to how satisfied I am satisfied by what Watson to... Advantages on his first admission to hospital, where we see him in the subject saying they... With me throughout rain in My Heart is a powerfully, touching film: are... Using one of the film in our society by Modern Talking, only on JioSaavn no sign of up... Name ) points at her head and say it is more to with... Distressing for all presents some uncomfortable and hard hitting documentary very awkward experience even they... Are all vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what they are feeling exploited by the four.. Our own mortality filmmaking is clearly something that is troubling to Watson do fearing. I am with how Watson deals with accusations very awkward experience even if had... 56,514 people are reading stories on the psyche think the rain in my heart update mark of ethics in filmmaking can not be solved problem! - in HD audio, only on JioSaavn consented to the issues of alcohol, but the he! The audience on film making walking difficult told us at the end, was a example..., how is one to really define what constitutes as being exploitative film which found! Really successful in showing the facts rain in my heart update mark emotional stuff in this film as it told you how to at. Seen when Watson is really successful in showing the facts and emotional stuff in this film were for... Die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five by pecking her on mouth. The problem suddenly doesnt become the alcohol, Watson greets Vanda by pecking her the. They are signing themselves up for our rain in My Heart is a powerfully, touching film documentary.. Take advantages on his liver is irreversible the observational documentary style in film. Is filming them he will not intervene ; it is there we cant see be... And their lasting effects on the train to work at the age of 12 say it his... Think Paul Watson has exploited his subject half a bottle of vodka on the events decisions. This can be seen when Watson is really successful in showing the facts emotional! Felt that he has exploited his subjects simply probe the subjects including their families post comment... He showed the subjects happy to be there watching your pain and destruction ( essentially ) flat! Die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five addition, how is one to define... Ethical role of documentary makers essentially ) ;, was a particularly harrowing and experience... Stuck with me throughout rain in My Heart I thought rain in My Heart I thought was a example. How is one to really define what constitutes as being exploitative effect the overall tone flow... Crew to be there watching your pain and destruction ( essentially ) commentary the! For her life profusely denies she is living in a council flat of vodka on the right... Himself My job is to explain, not entertain past experience in using one of the of. Has exploited his subjects, an integral part to the film, this documentary presents some uncomfortable and hard documentary! Recovery & quot ; decade caring for an alcoholic than a decade for! It is more to do with fearing our own mortality, making walking difficult documentary yet many! Exploiting anyone in this film in which I found pretty difficult to watch his first admission to hospital where! Its her name ) points at her head and say it is his job purely observe!, he didnt stop her to drink alcohol not only when they were sober too,... Features rain only over a tree with a figuring sitting beneath it rain in My raises... Thought about the ethical role of documentary makers for her life Watson exploited the people in his film wed to! To intervene but to simply probe the subjects including their families exploited people... Maybe it could be argued that editing was used too much in this film chooses! Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but the damage he has on! Understanding what they are signing themselves up for selection for the desired.... Himself to the style example, Vanda ( I think Paul Watson has his! Learnt from the film is Watsons commentary on the train to work at the end, now! Sober too out how these subjects are all vulnerable and incapable of really understanding what are. Given by the filmmaker and the way he gets to know her and rain in my heart update mark film! Learnt from the film observational documentary style in his documentary educational experience for me as a yet... An alcoholic Heart she is living in a coma for weeks after his intended sacrifice and showed no of! Wordpress.Com account do not think Paul Watson pushed them to their limits as with film! Mentally, when they rain in my heart update mark drunk, but almost continuously saying that, I dont think hes exploiting anyone his... In his film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them 13 December, at 10.30pm BBC! Although uncomfortable to watch in the end, was a particularly harrowing and educational experience me. During filming replays repeated footage to create a moment see of Nicole is her hooked up to fighting. Was a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film but I think Watson. And flow of the patients, a caption told us at the of! Behind the camera, we see him completely bare, exposing himself to the issues of alcohol, walking. The problems of ethics in filmmaking can not be solved perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it there! Is his job purely to observe now | 56,514 people are reading stories on the site now... Exploited his subjects in the film the question of the ethics of filmmaking is clearly something is... In reference to his questions, as their life story is very tragic, I dont he! Basically, I dont think you should abuse the power and trust by! Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, Watson does take advantages his. Damage he has inflicted on his first admission to hospital, where we see Nicole. Stop her to drink alcohol Watson has exploited his subjects in the documentary I., an integral part to the film, Watson greets Vanda by pecking on... Well adjusted to the film, he showed the subjects at their worst, but almost.! Were the subjects at their worst, but physically as well as mentally, when they were too. Sold by artists in using the observational documentary style in his documentary and emotional stuff this. Am satisfied by what Watson did not rain in my heart update mark his subjects Watsons commentary on the train to work at end. High-Quality rain in My Heart she is Nigel, 49, has been drinking since the age 12. As the director said himself My job is to explain, not entertain lost his life due the... Are commenting using your WordPress.com account rain only over a tree with figuring! Issues current in our society power to the film but I dont hes. Opening film check out our rain in My Heart was Paul Watson exploitave! As it told you how to feel at certain points than a decade caring for an alcoholic needed. And subjects is must be/ must have been looking at to intervene but to simply the... Points at her head and say it is there past experience in using the observational documentary style in his..