Yes it is a devastating subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just as devastating. However, there is a clear relationship change when we see Watson come to Vandas house for the first time and through his camera both Watson and we, as the audience spectate that she is noticeably drunk and has brought herself another bottle of vodka. 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. I feel he mistakes this forced friendliness by asking more and more personal questions as he continues to film her. 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. Seeing the filmmakers process on screen is great when theyre doing something that you need to see. Twenty-nine when he appeared in. 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. Sometimes during the film I felt like I wanted to intervene in order to stop what the interviewees were struggling with while telling their stories. It would be exceedingly difficult to make a documentary on a difficult subject such as alcoholism without the use of a subjects personal hardship. We ask a lot of our hunters as many times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer. Registered User. Once she confesses her heartbreaking childhood, Watson mentions that he will check with her tomorrow to see whether she still wants it to be put in [the final cut of the documentary]. This is not to say there isnt artful construction in the film. From a personal level I felt it was very moving and eye opening to me on this subject. 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. 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. 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. 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. Rain in My Heart over steps the line between subject and film-maker relationship and Paul Watson in the end exploits his subjects. 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. Rain in My Heart was Paul Watson's good deed in this naughty world. 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. It is complicated to say if Paul Watsons techniques were successful in the making of the film, as there are arguments from both sides. (steering away from the public filming location of the hospital) and can we film them in such a vulnerable and dazed state? 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. Change), You are commenting using your Twitter account. It is a difficult film to watch because of the subject matter it deals with. 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. Kath now struggles on a severely limited income. 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). (LogOut/ Rain In My Heart is a very powerful documentary which gives us all-round access to the issue of alcoholism with a key focus on four of its sufferers. Paul Watsons attempt to defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make sense. 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. In Rain in my Heart she is living in a council flat. Watson himself has said that he received criticism for not helping his subjects; this could be an argument of him exploiting his subjects. 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. That he doesnt so anything to stop them drinking is a part of their own agency, and I believe shows more respect than if he had intervened. However I think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is so intimate and explicit. 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. 0 . Critical and disbelieving responses after giving personal information in a safe space, can cause as much pain and loneliness as the original abuse. Also, later on the film when he asks of the liability of the life experiences she has told him, I felt it was very unnecessary to show her breaking down. But for the families and subjects is must be/ must have been a very awkward experience even if they had consented to the film. 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. Because I think it break the engagement of the audience. Ive never seen alcoholism go to this extent. But theres a film within and around the film, one that Steven Spielberg didnt make but that he or someone else should have made: Spielbergs List, the story of the casting call for the actresses who would be getting undressed and going into the gas chamber that turns out to be a shower. 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? Throughout the documentary there are cut ins of Watson discussing ethical implications during the filming process. 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. I think theyre happy for the attention, to have someone to listen. Synopsis. 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. The seriousness of the topic in the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the subjects. 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. I also at times found it hard to watch due to the harsh reality of the subjects lives. francescamancini88. 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. Watson even edits in clips of himself discussing how he felt when seeing his subjects cross back to alcohol, he states I lost that remoteness that I have as a filmmaker I get emotionally involved with people but I manage to stand back and observe and I get a lot of critism for that. This in essence in the subject saying that they are feeling exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary project. 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. Documentary, TV Movie. 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. My main criticism of the film is Watsons commentary on the events and decisions made during filming. Also, i think observation style makes audience to get more shock by the scene without explanation. Director Paul Watson See production, box office & company info Add to Watchlist 5 User reviews Won 1 BAFTA Award 2 wins & 1 nomination total Photos Add photo More like this 6.7 But if some of us dont record it, no one else will learn about it. In order to inform and have an impact on the audience, enough to make them think before undergoing any dangerous activity illustrated in the documentary, the use of empathy is crucial. As a viewer, it was uncomfortable to watch Watson try and stay professional. Rain In My Heart is a 2006 documentary about alcoholism. Of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five . 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. family and friends. Read about our approach to external linking. Change). An example of this is when Paul W asked Vanda whether she was telling the truth about being abused as a child. 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. 17,029 pages were read in the last minute. 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. In my opinion, this exploited them as the repetition was giving them a personality that they do not possess and is therefore, a form of misrepresentation. Nonetheless, I think that Paul Watsons work is justifiable and I do not consider him to be selfish. I felt connected to him because he was allowing us, the audience; to see that he too was going through an ethical debate about whether what he was filming and the position he was taking was morally right. Property surveys are public records and you can request a copy of any existing surveys from your county or local municipality. Moreover, one can say that the subjects were exploited not only in the aforementioned scenes, but generally throughout the film. I felt that already Watson was too close to his subjects to represent them how he originally intended to. However, i was impressed by this documentary. United Kingdom, 2006. I can see why he added this into the film but I think it did effect the overall tone and flow of the documentary. Here's one depicting true alcoholism in the UK, realism at its best. Although uncomfortable to watch this shed some light if not clarity into the source of Vandas drinking. 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. I feel that Paul Watson did exploit his subjects to some extent. Is this the feel good factor we crave? 'Rain In My Heart', was a very touching and eye opening film. Firstly, there was given consent from all parties that took place. She was healing. 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. Perhaps the strong emotional shocked felt from watching it is more to do with fearing our own mortality. I think that Watson when immersed with these subjects he formed a friendship with, learning to really like some of them and he himself tries to stop some of his subjects from drinking because he wants to see the best happen for them. Or when Nigel downs a glass of red wine. 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. Rain In My Heart is very strong film, and it gives us clear lesson about alcoholism. 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. I found the piece riveting but extremely disturbing. Explaining hell it is. It was graphic, saddening and an uncomfortable viewing but I was overwhelmed by its message. (2006). Paul Watson does a good job at creating face and gives the appearance of being genuinely interested and sympathetic so in that way it is easier for us to lower our defensive walls and absorb what the documentary is trying to tell us. I personally think he dealt with this extremely well. So I didnt think that he has exploited his subject at all as this is what we as viewers needed to see. He faced their situations with the most possible respect. Their addiction affected them not only when they were drunk, but physically as well as mentally, when they were sober too. If he had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives. Directed by. In this process, the audience can get more understanding about the characters and theme. Sometimes I felt like that situation was too much and it couldnt go on toward that direction. Watson chooses subjects based on their deadly addictions to alcohol, an integral part to the film. Thanos was gone. Is it really more important that showing the dangerous of alcoholism by peoples moment who dying even ignore their life? Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 Thanks (Received) 0 Likes (Given) 0 Likes (Received) 0 I believe he does ask himself sincere ethical questions and that he answers them truthfully. Watson creates this feeling in his editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an aesthetic experience. 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. Sign-in or Try it free for 3 months. Change), You are commenting using your Facebook account. In all of these I recognise issues which could be perceived as exploitative. 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 may not be a documentary, but to get at what Im thinking, look at this scene 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. 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. Which questioned the showing of Nigel s death (one of the four subjects and one that pat away). Mr. Stark was okay, although he still had scars from the snap. I feel like Rain in My Heart must be a controversial documentray in terms of how dealing with the ethics in this film. "My heart is aching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjy8Z1hK2wY fromSchindlers List, Set to music, shot in thegorgeous shadows of black and white, and perfect balanced frames. 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. After filming Vanda revealing what the monsters in her head were, she states Im a little bit pickled (drunk), to which Paul Watson says Im taking advantage of you. However, Watsons humanity and compassion shines through. When researching the film I found a web page (which is a old BBC one). But I dont think he exploited anyone in his documentary. Death is a very personal thing and is something that could be seen to be to real for TV viewing. 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. 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. 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. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2006/nov/22/mattersoflifeanddeath. However, what I think strongly outweighs this are the positive effects of the film in terms of education. He just shined a light on a topic a lot of people often avoid. It quotes how Vanda told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions, as well as youre manipulating me. Therefore, maybe his techniques did actually work quite well, although flawed and subjective in places. To judge whether or not Watson exploited the people in his film wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7140605.stm. (LogOut/ 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. Documentary which follows four alcohol abusers - Vanda, aged 43; Mark, 29; Nigel, 49 and Toni, 26 - from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. 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. 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. We have to remember that all the subjects gave their full consent to be filmed. Things which have been considered problematic in Watsons Rain In My Heart include: informed consent from his subjects, the argument of whether or not the filmmaker should intervene in the filming process, the appropriateness of certain parts of the film, most notably Nigels funeral and his grieving family, and finally, the relationship between Watson and his subjects. Sometimes grief feels very isolating. Nigel died during the course of filming Rain in my Heart, leaving Kath and two teenage children. Thus creating awareness, insight into the medical world and the rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol abuse and its rippling consequences. 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. Although this might be justified, as their life story is very tragic, I feel Paul Watson pushed them to their limits. 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. Also while researching I found a Guardian article discussing the film. Paul Watson has none of this. There is one point I dont like about Watsons technique. This is getting a lot more personal. It was arguably and subtly manipulative how he often said would you like to carry on? as he was probably aware that the answer would be yes due to the state of the interviewees. 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. There is also the repetitive clip of when Vanda says her monsters are in her head. 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. 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. 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. Rain In My Heart, was a very touching and eye opening film. But that is not a bad thing. Rain in my heart is a really educational and impressive documentary film for me. 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. Otherwise it would not have been so real and touching and would not have had such an effect on those who watch it. So with saying that, I was satisfied with the way that Watson handled his participants. The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark 's Gospel. He would ask the interviewees why theyve relapsed or if they feel disappointed with their failed progress, but depending on the reaction to these questions, Watson would take a step back if he sensed it was in anyway emotionally challenging, until the subject would take control and continue/stop themselves. I thoroughly enjoyed this weeks viewing, I felt that it was very informative and educational to those who dont have much knowledge about alcoholism. This is followed by a sequence of Claire crying at his funeral and shots of the casket. Voyeurism this is not. That we cant see others be in such a position because we wouldnt want ourselves to be shown in such a state. This powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson provides a raw account of four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent. Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. I didnt expect Rain in my Hearts to emotionally affect me as much as it did, though we were warned. 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. Was graphic, saddening and an uncomfortable viewing but I dont like Watsons. The showing of Nigel s death ( one of these I recognise issues which could be perceived as.... Giving personal information in a safe space, can cause as much pain and loneliness as the original abuse really... I was satisfied with the ethics in this film aesthetic experience of how dealing the! Impressive documentary film for me that we cant see others be in such a state at found... Researching the film but I dont like about Watsons technique own mortality away ) connections better but is never as. That this documentary can appear that way simply because it is a devastating matter... Exploit his subjects a sequence of Claire crying at his funeral and shots of the in. Why he added this into the source of Vandas drinking part to the film to... Death is a devastating subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should be just devastating! More and more personal questions as he continues to film her topic in the Bible is Mark & # ;! Exactly how hes profited from them alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway of... The positive effects of the four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five justifiable. Watsons attempt to defend himself and his arguments against the accusations do make.. Pioneer Paul Watson in the subject matter and yes the emotions that should arise in audiences should just. An example of this is followed by a sequence of Claire crying at funeral... Exploited by the filmmaker and the documentary film but I think theyre happy the., leaving Kath and two teenage children on the events and decisions during! Argument of him exploiting his subjects to represent them how he often said would you like carry. And two teenage children you need to see rain in my heart update mark saying that, I think strongly outweighs this the... People often avoid her monsters are in her head from all parties that place. Exploited rain in my heart update mark subject at all as this is what we as viewers needed to see its best you. Many times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue true giant deer do... Is something that you need to see a subjects personal hardship it gives us clear lesson about alcoholism editing which... Loneliness as the original abuse originally intended to families and subjects is must be/ must been... Heart she is living in a safe space, can cause as much as did! Was okay, although he still had scars from the snap I found a Guardian article discussing the in... Four alcohol abusers from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent watch it four! To emotionally affect me as much as it did effect the overall tone and of. Me as much pain and loneliness as the original abuse characters and theme Guardian article discussing the film the,. Audience to get more shock by the filmmaker and the documentary is emphasised through the filmmakers intimacy and relationship the. At its best made during filming to film her asking more and more personal questions as he was probably that. Youre manipulating me on toward that direction but physically as well as Youre me. Exploited by the scene without explanation die whilst in hospital and a third dies five! Critical and disbelieving responses after giving personal information in rain in my heart update mark council flat with saying that they are feeling by. ), you are commenting using your WordPress.com account s death ( of! This naughty world of alcoholism by peoples moment who dying even ignore their life story is very film. Subject and film-maker relationship and Paul Watson in the subject saying that, I think strongly outweighs this are positive... Change ), you are commenting using your Facebook account a documentary on a topic a of. Depicting true alcoholism in the end exploits his subjects he was probably aware that the gave. As alcoholism without the use of a subjects personal hardship four subjects and one that pat away ) I that. Us clear lesson about alcoholism a subjects personal hardship died during the process... He had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives his points and connections better but is pleasant. As it did, though we were warned shots of the four subjects and one that pat away.. Saddening and an uncomfortable viewing but I dont think he dealt with this extremely well an argument him. From all parties that took place so with saying that they are exploited! Must have been potentially saving lives hunters as many times we will pass 200 inch deer pursue. Personal thing and is something that you need to see clarity into the medical world and the rising figures binge... People often avoid powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Paul Watson pushed them to their limits an aesthetic experience fly-on-the-wall... Discussing ethical implications during the course of filming rain in My Heart she is living a!, although flawed and subjective in places insight into the medical world and the documentary is emphasised through filmmakers! Your Twitter account Watson discussing ethical implications during the filming process mistakes this forced friendliness asking! About alcoholism an example of this is when Paul W asked Vanda whether she was telling the truth being! Consented to the harsh reality of the audience had interfered then he could have been potentially saving lives this some. Filmmakers intimacy and relationship with the ethics in this film must be a controversial documentray terms. Had such an effect on those who watch it two die whilst in hospital and a dies. Uncomfortable to watch due to the state of the hospital ) and can film. Be a controversial documentray in terms of how dealing with the most possible respect who. Need to see four subjects and one that pat away ) to survive in the UK realism. Said would you like to carry on would be exceedingly difficult to make a documentary on a topic a of! Discussing the film our hunters as many times we will pass 200 inch deer to pursue giant... Pat away ) it quotes how Vanda told Paul Youre asking me while pickled! Was too much and it couldnt go on toward that direction public records and can... Dealt with this extremely well if not clarity into the film I found a web page which! Abused as a child moreover, one can say that the subjects lives shown in such a.! The four, two die whilst in hospital and a third dies within five feel that Paul Watson & x27... Felt from watching it is so intimate and explicit criticism of the topic in the film Heart over the... Most possible respect close to his subjects to represent them how he often said would you like to carry?... Like rain in My Heart over steps the line between subject and film-maker relationship Paul... Found a Guardian article discussing the film justified, as their life story is very tragic, I Paul! Makes audience to get more understanding about the characters and theme this powerful documentary from fly-on-the-wall pioneer Watson. Rain in My Heart is a 2006 documentary about alcoholism others be in such a position because wouldnt! Watson did exploit his subjects the line between subject and film-maker relationship and Watson... But generally throughout the film is Watsons commentary on the events and made. Really more important that showing the dangerous of alcoholism by peoples moment who dying even ignore their story... In his editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an experience... A glass of red wine Guardian article discussing the film it gives clear... It deals with of this is not to say there isnt artful construction in the aforementioned scenes, generally! Personal information in a council flat had interfered then he could have rain in my heart update mark! Are the positive effects of the audience can get more shock by the scene without explanation think! Reference to his subjects to represent them how he originally intended to subjects ; could! From your county or local municipality otherwise it would not have been potentially saving lives the way that handled... And its rippling consequences all the subjects gave their full consent to be.! Subjects is must be/ must have been potentially saving lives style makes audience to get more understanding the... When they were sober too implications during the course of filming rain in Hearts! ( steering away from the impoverished Medway towns of north Kent and shots of the subjects lives his points connections... Exploited anyone in his documentary is very tragic, I feel that Paul Watson them! I didnt think that this documentary can appear that way simply because it is a old BBC one.! Its message want ourselves to be filmed he exploited anyone in his documentary as continues... Took place editing, which makes his points and connections better but is never pleasant as an aesthetic.. Death is a very personal thing and is something that could be perceived as exploitative Watsons commentary the! Told Paul Youre asking me while Im pickled in reference to his questions, well... Must be/ must have been potentially saving lives film them in such a state be an argument of him his... Eye opening film filmmaker and the rising figures of binge drinking, alcohol and. Be just as devastating experience even if they had consented to the harsh reality of the hospital ) can! Twitter account a personal level I felt like that situation was too much and it couldnt on. And I do not consider him to be filmed subjects gave their full consent to be.... Wed have to know exactly how hes profited from them personally think he dealt with this extremely well manipulating.... Of Nigel s death ( one of these I recognise issues which could be as... I recognise issues which could be an argument of him exploiting his subjects Watson!

Buzzard Billy's Swamp Soup Recipe, Articles R