Blooded Review

An interesting mockumentary (though there is little mocking to be found) about the issues of extremism and the morality of hunting, this so called ‘horror/thriller’, is actually neither of these, leaving a film with a interesting style, but one that ultimately holds it back as entertainment.

Blooded is definitely an interesting film. Effectively a mockumentary, though shot in a documentary style void of any real ‘mockery’ in a way so realistic and so rigidly held to the conventions of a documentary that after a while it is for all intensive purposes, a documentary, though the events that it documents are far from real.

The plot, made up of a compilation of ‘real’ internet footage, interviews with the ‘real’ participants of the event as well as a ‘recreation’ of the actual event by actors, the film follows a group of friends who travel up to a remote island of Scotland to go deer hunting, Lucas Bell, his brother Charlie bell, Eva Jourdan and Ben Fitzpatrick. Lucas Bell being the central figure, a supposed central pro-hunting figure in the hunting debate after fox hunting was made illegal by the British government in 2005. After a slow build up, as we follow the ‘recreation’ of their initial events in the wilderness of Scotland, they soon find themselves kidnapped and left half naked in the freezing highlands by an animal rights group known as the “Real Animal League”, who soon begin to hunt the five and force them into reading statements renouncing hunting in all forms.

This is pretty much the meat of the film, and it does not do much to alter from this premise. Obviously the most interesting part of the film is the way it is filmed; in a documentary style. As mentioned, the film is pieced together using ‘real’ Internet footage taken by the animal rights group, interviews, and a recreation of the event.

The majority of the film follows this ‘recreated’ footage, where we see actors representing ‘real’ people. These recreations are intersected by interviews with the apparent real life participants of the event, although obviously also actors. Generally, is in most real documentaries, we see a scene play out in this recreated style, with interviews explaining how each of the participants felt at that moment as well as narrating over the footage itself. This is obviously interesting because both those playing the theatrical versions of the people in the recreation and those playing the actual people in the interviews, are all actors. Which is an interesting idea, and similar to that used in The Fourth Kind, a Sci-fi horror from 2009,which saw ‘recreations’ interplay with ‘real’ footage and interviews.

One problem that this creates is that it is difficult to tell who is who, especially at the beginning of the film because those playing the ‘real’ people and those who are actors portraying these ‘real’ people (obviously) look different, and it is difficult to keep up, although this is much easier deciphered once the group is separated (and maybe its because I was a bit slow!).

Another major problem with this technique, is that it takes much of the tension out of the film. Obviously you know who is going to survive, because those giving interviews obviously didn’t die during the events. That said, they do a good job of concealing the fate of Lucas Bell, who has no interviews during the film and his story during the incident is only told through the others in the group. Also, the film does a good job of quickly cutting between interviews and the ‘recreation’, especially at highly tense moments. This keeps the momentum going without sacrificing the documentary style of the film. That said, there are actually few moments of true tension, and the nature of its production, as a documentary, reduces much of what could have been done too build up tension or excitement. Hence much of the events seem stale, at least for me, mainly because you basically know what the outcome was going to be before it happens, and there are few twists and turns.

Obviously tied into this there is the real footage which was originally put on the internet prior to the film’s release on a scarily torroristesque website in a viral marketing campaign, which (though I had no knowledge of it) apparently sparked some controversy. Despite this, this footage is probably the least used in the film and also rather weak, mostly showing guys in balaclavas sneaking around or running after the hunted.

As this is such a character-based premise, obviously a huge part of the effectiveness of the film relies upon the actors themselves, especially those in the ‘real’ interviews, who have to relive these horrible events within their mind in front of the camera. On the whole I think the actors did well here, portraying emotion and putting forward extremely convincing accounts of their feelings at the time as well as what was happening to them without overstepping the mark and going beyond that of other, real, documentaries.

Obviously one problem I had with the film is that it was labelled as a horror film, which seems totally invalid. For me there were really no aspects of horror here, no suspense, jump scares, or any fear at all. This is so much a documentary, that there is no room for that, and it forgoes much of the tension of films like The Blair Witch project and paranormal activity because of the official nature of the interviews, and mainly because what happens to them isn’t really that bad. Sure they are ‘hunted’, but those chasing them don’t seem to want to inflict real damage; there is no horrible or grotesque imagery or anything truly blood curdling. If this was a real event, then it obviously would be disturbing, but there is little chance, unless you watch it without any prior knowledge that it was a film, that you would fall into believing for any real period of time that it was.

In the end then, this film is never, at any point, a horror, or a thriller, as has been purported, at least in my mind. That is not saying it is bad, and what it does is certainly interesting, but if you come to it looking for intense action, or to be scared, you fill find almost none of that here.

Overall, this film is more about stirring a debate, about the effectiveness of extremist actions upon a debate, as the opening monologue clearly demonstrates, as well as putting forward some interesting debates about the rights and wrongs of hunting, which clearly would have stirred up current affairs a number of years ago, but in 2011, with fox hunting banned for over 6 years, and little debate remaining in the popular media, this feels a little stale. That said, I think it does what it does well,and it at least made me think about the morality of hunting as well as the pointlessness of extremism, which seems more valid in today’s society, if only for a little while.

If you are looking for something a little bit different then, this is certainly a film to check out, but if you are looking for a horror or thriller, then this is not the place for you.

Ultimately the film’s rigid and firm grasp upon the conventions of the documentary is both its most interesting feature, but also its downfall, removing from its arsenal much of the tricks that make fiction so exciting. Hence, it is an excellent documentary, but is one that is based upon something totally fictional, which means it loses most, if not all, of its impact.