Blooded

Introduction

Hunting foxes on horseback has been an English pursuit for a long time and a regular show in both TV shows and films, mainly in the 'jolly hockeysticks' or 'tally ho' tradition whereby its really seen as a sport for the upper classes whereas in reality it's anything but based on the last campaign by the Countryside Alliance. There have always been animal rights groups against hunting but after 1997 when New Labour won a landslide election, there was a sudden groundswell amongst New Labour ranks to finally do something about what was seen as a 'class sport' and an aberration.

In 2004, the Hunting Act was finally passed, having received more debate time than any other major bill of its time, including the commitment of the UK to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and despite a huge march on the capital by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance. Supporters of the bill quickly became frustrated by the Police stance that policing the bill was not a high priority and so animal rights groups started to take matters into their own hands and take more direct action. The darling of the movement (in terms of this film only) was Lucas Bell, a young huntsman who vowed that he would never give up hunting while he drew breath and thus became a target for those who opposed him.

The following year, Bell invites a small group of friends for a week's retreat on the remote island of Mull for some deer hunting, something not illegal under the Hunting Bill. Alongside his best friend Ben Fitzpatrick and childhood friend/sweetheart Liv Scott, Bell's brother Charlie who hadn't spoken to his brother for some time also accompanies the party, bringing his current girlfriend Eve Jourdan, an American. Things quickly go wrong with the retreat after Eve is given the chance to shoot a deer, something she does but instantly regrets. That evening Bell tries to reignite his relationship with Liv only to be rebuffed as she is already seeing somebody, she also has another secret that will only come out later...

After Bell reacts badly at his rejection and storms off into the night, the rest of the party settle down to sleep for the night. It then comes as a great shock when each of them wakes the following morning in only their underwear in even remoter parts of the remote island and separated from each other. As each struggles to find their way back to the cottage whilst coping with the cold and wet conditions, they suddenly all find themselves by shot at. Now the would-be hunters have become the hunted...

Picture

Combination of three styles really. There's the talking head portions which are essentially after the fact interviews looking back on the experience, what happened and how they felt. The second is a reconstruction in film of the events, by far the longest bit overall. The final is brief and blurry camera footage that is meant to be part of the viral video filmed by the animal rights extremists. Overall it fits together well and doesn't feel in any way disjointed.

Extras

Commentary - not listened to this but almost willing to bet it follows the line of the press release in that the aim was not to make a political film and is neither pro nor anti hunting.

Making Of - standard fare that is only interesting to me in the description of the conditions and the fact that the cold meant that outside shots could only effectively last 30 seconds before the actors had to be covered up in blankets and/or coats.

More Interview footage - some of this could easily have sat in the film but suspect most of it cut due to pacing/editing considerations.

Home Video - rather snazzy short film in which a young female is awakened in the night to find a video camera attached to her television and that she's been filmed. Rewinding the film to the start to see what has happened may not be her best idea. I did like this. Short and to the point...

Overall

This film has already caused a lot of controversy before it was even released due to a trailer being placed on youTube and gaining notoriety through The Daily Mail (where else?) and The London Standard - although it's clear that one story was lifted directly from the other as very little is different in phraseology. I have to admit that whilst I'm not really pro hunting, I'm definately against the anti hunting lobby as I really detest the despicable direct action tactics of the more extreme animal right organisations. I'm pretty sure most of them could come with at least a semi-coherent rationalisation as to why these tactics are justified but I'm not interested as in my mind if you can't debate and persuade people with words, you've lost the arguement.

Anyway, this film is quite a good one and thought-provoking in a way. Sadly, despite the maker's best intentions it will be seen as being more pro hunting than against due to the fact that the pro faction characters are humanised by telling there experiences and the development of said characters (such as there is) whilst the extremists (and this is exactly what they are) are all camouflage and balaclavas whilst shouting and pointing or firing guns. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. If the makers wanted to be completely fair then some of the talking head time would be passed to those portrayed as the animal rights activists, but then part of the overall plot was that they vanished in the ether without a trace and therefore despite the experiences they went through, no one was held to account. And it fits in that the more direct action animal rights extremists never proudly proclaim who they are in public.

That's a shame in so many ways really, not least as there's no opposing view to justify the actions taken. They just are and then they disappear. Sadly the film doesn't even attempt to move the class boundaries within this film as the main characters all seem pretty posh (one of the actresses playing Liv Scott apparently actually went out with Prince William at one point) and the extremists all sound pretty working class when they actually utter a word. The nearest you get to opposing views is where one of the extremists looking around on the farm calls the hunters "f***ing sick bastards" whilst his group have actually kidnapped four people, stripped them naked, shot at them and quite happy to threaten the leader with both a pistol to the head and hanging one of the girls upside down and threaten to eviscerate her. Not quite the same thing.

Still, quibbles over bias aside, this is essentially a mock documentary about events that never happened and it works quite well. I quite enjoyed it, although I think it would probably work better on TV than as a film release as I don't think it would stimulate the debate as the makers wanted as a DVD release.