Blooded (film)

In promoting the film, its makers originally asserted that it was a re-creation of an actual event that occurred after the enactment of the 2005 hunting ban in England. This proved to be defamation, of the kind that led to the implementation of the All Persons Fictitious disclaimer that follows almost every film, notably absent from any version of Blooded.

This article has been edited by Anarchopedians, and to that extent represents Anarchopedia's philosophy. While it may at first seem less than subtle, what is printed elsewhere is the extreme You are welcomed to adjust your perception of Normality

AP ED

As part of the film promotion, Revolver Entertainment created a website for the fictional Real Animal League (RAL), which site now gives a message saying it is in use by multiple domains. There was no way of being absolutely sure that this was not a bona fide website just by looking at it. This is perfect if you are a criminal trying to defraud people, and less understandable if you are claiming to be a legitimate businessman. and a YouTube channel for the RAL, which both mentioned the film. According to director Edward Boase, the production company created the appearance of a "fully-fledged animal rights website", with links to real organizations in order to make the fake organization appear authentic, but "not to the point where you couldn't find out that it wasn't real." As reported in First Post, the hunting incident in the film was fictional, there was no kidnapping, and there is no organization called the "Real Animal League". But Boase here lets fall the onus upon the viewer; would-be purveyors of libel can rest assured that all of their audience will websurf sure and long, to find the truth behind their lies. There is no need for the liars to restrain themselves in any way-as all good neocons are aware, and is now on the way to becoming international law, refraining from criminal activity, or inconveniencing it in any way, stands in the way of profiting from it. Pro-hunting advocates, fully clad in the armor of ignorance, remain blissfully unaware that the film places them in something of a quandary: if they say the film is accurate, this is somewhat undermined by the fact it is fiction, and if they say they knew the film was a hoax, they are undermining their belief that it is accurate.

Revolver Entertainment's marketing department sent an email statement to the real animal rights group, Animal Liberation Front (ALF), supposedly from the Real Animal League, claiming that the film misrepresented the RAL. The email was reprinted in its entirety on the ALF website. When the event and RAL were revealed as fictional, and after thousands of complaints, YouTube deemed the videos as inappropriate and removed the footage that had been posted under the guise of the Real Animal League of the film's protagonists being chased and forced into confessions, and subsequently deactivated the YouTube channel of the fictional RAL. In promoting the film, its makers originally asserted that it was a re-creation of an actual event that occurred after the enactment of the 2005 hunting ban in England, They also maintain that the film, rather than trying to make any political points, only investigates "the nature of extremism" in any form, and "encourages debate".

The Evening Standard wrote that the film "caused outrage after graphic scenes showing activists attacking five deer-stalkers were posted on the internet, in a viral publicity campaign."

When the footage appeared on YouTube, there was no indication whatever that it was fictional, and therefore a basis in fact was given the benefit of the doubt, and only its fictionality was in question. A website called Film Pilgrim, for example, noted that the project first began as an online viral video, but was expanded into a feature film, writing that the expanded footage "has many people debating about the authenticity of the footage."

It is easy to claim, with hindsight, that there was no intent to mislead in the marketing campaign, but Matthew Bell, writing in The Independent showed how misleading the YouTube releases were. Although "the details remain unclear", he said, and "it all has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt", with the information available to him on the 6th of March 2011, he was under the impression that "The producers are claiming it is a re-creation of events that actually happened after the hunting ban of 2005. The very first instance of film defamation proved in court, the 1932 MGM movie, Rasputin and the Empress, did not find that the public not believing in the lies that the film told about Princess Irina was a defense. This court case lead to the now infamous All Persons Fictitious disclaimer that follows almost every film. It was nowhere to be found in any of the versions of Blooded. No APF = defamation.

It was not until weeks later that any reporting of both certainty and accuracy could be found that fully reflected the facts. Eventually, there was a rush to be in the know, and reviewers made as to have been in the know, the whole time. However, they could still only speculate in their review that there was in fact no such organization as the Real Animal League at all, and that the film was created as a hoax in the Blair Witch tradition. Later still, those who had been fooled felt both safe enough and therefore self-righteous enough to not only say outright that it was a hoax, but in fact it had been someone else who had been fooled. "I think we all realised that the film was fake" Reader comment in reply to the "Blooded’: Truth, lies and animal rights " story, which was updated on the 22nd of March. Probably to put the trailer video in the article? Or, well, it COULD have been to say , "Except, of course, the incident never really happened. There was no kidnapping; there is no Real Animal League. The film is fictional. Yet that hasn't stopped some animal rights protestors becoming seriously confused." Which makes perfect sense because of course all animal protestors are just aimlessly wandering around executing covert entry into high security installations and the like. Obviously they are pretty nearly confused already. Wouldn't take much just to set them off and then bam! Chronic confusion. Later still, the excitement of the "real thing"-believing that it was true-was compared with the downer of mundane reality, coupled with realization they had been fooled. One reviewer offered that the "idea of turning an internet viral video into a feature film/documentary is a pretty interesting concept", but that the film fell flat stylistically in that the "reconstructed footage feels like an actual film which detracts from the realism that the original virals created".

Victimless crime or defamation?

A hoax. And, arguably, a fraud and a defamation of the character of hundreds of activists. But since everyone is so determined that the Emperor has the very nicest clothes on that one can possibly imagine, a fraud that not only will never be prosecuted, but that no one admits is one.

The Princess Irina vs MGM suit shows, without a single equivocation, that had it been a hoax -about- Royals, rather than by Royals (well, very distant royals), its creators would have been sued unto the recurring lifetime earnings of their descendants and their descendants descendants. but the issue of whether it was real or not, before anyone knew for sure, and the even more pressing issue of pretending that one of course had known at the time that it was a hoax, after everyone knew, was uppermost on everyone's mind throughout the entire time that anyone cared at all about it. Before, since one could not be sure, one was careful not to say anything slanderous like 'fraud', and after, one was pretending it couldn't have been fraud because one could never have been taken in by something so obviously a ruse. Which doesn't make much sense if you think about it too much, so here's a leggy Royal in a miniskirt to think about instead.

And speaking of misdirection, The First Post, perhaps practicing to be Minitrue when the fascist revolution comes, literally changed their story which is now dated the 22nd of March 2011. And speaking of not thinking about things too much, they reported that YouTube had been "taken in" by the hoax. Which shows how much they know about YouTube's submission policy. Yeh, taken in, as in, more vids are taken in by YouTube than are taken out. If they removed a vid with that many hits, then they were keeping a close eye on how many "Dislike" votes it had, also.

When the event and RAL were revealed as fictional, and after thousands of complaints, YouTube deemed the videos as inappropriate and removed the footage that had been posted under the guise of the Real Animal League of the film's protagonists being chased and forced into confessions, and subsequently deactivated the YouTube channel of the fictional RAL.

As there is no RAL, is there no one defrauded? Well, no. Everyone was. But the reputation of other anti-hunting groups certainly was painted with a giant target for those who believe one thing like another is the same as another, and there are plenty of them, as we will see.

Extremism and debate

What sort of debate might one expect to encourage about extremism? If the center is right, then extreme opinions on either side? Again? And if it is wrong, then more complaints about extremism, I suppose.

maintaining that the film, rather than trying to make any political points, only investigates "the nature of extremism" in any form,

"We wanted to make a film that showcased the British landscape in a wilder context than usual, and with production values that showed it off on the big-screen." - translation: the landscape of the Isle of Mull, with 8mm, 16mm, and digital. and "encourages debate".

The Evening Standard wrote that the film "caused outrage after graphic scenes showing activists attacking five deer-stalkers were posted on the internet, in a viral publicity campaign."

I didn't say that

This is not really a new sort of fraud. If you hand someone forged bills and then say you never intended them to believe they were real, you can expect people to be incredulous. It is accompanied by a justification that is equally old, but which, in other cases, is increasingly understood to be false. It used to be that victims of cons were ridiculed as fools, but now the understanding is that con artists rely on people's expectations of societal norms. The inability to internalize these social norms, that is, to act on them instinctively and without hesitation, is something that characterizes psychopaths, who typically blame the victim.

"Boase appears genuinely amazed that some people believe Blooded is real. "You don't have to do a lot of research to discover that on the Isle of Mull in 2005 there wasn't a hunting incident like this," he said."

When the footage appeared on YouTube, there was, as one can read between Boase' lines, no indication whatever that it was fictional. But there was also no indication of where it was filmed.

Every film that is so, declares itself to be 'based on a true story'. Therefore, we should be skeptical of every film that does not say that? You think yes? Well, then, check your damned self. Because every film that isn't, also has to say, "Not based on real people or events". Blooded said neither, but the onus was on them to say one or the other.

Quite understandably, because they were working entirely without the norms on which most human behaviour depends, websites and media outlets were at something of a loss to describe the film. Its fictional nature was in question, but so was any factuality. Which was it? A website called Film Pilgrim. for example, noted that the project first began as an online viral video, but was expanded into a feature film, writing that the expanded footage "has many people debating about the authenticity of the footage."

Was the YouTube footage real? The film footage obviously wasn't. So does that mean that the footage obviously wasn't, either? And if you say yes, again, then don't bother taking any IQ tests, 'cause I can tell you right now that it will be double digits. That's called a logical fallacy pretty similar to Argument by analogy Formally: A is like B. A has property P. Therefore, B has property P. Less formally: "Proof by analogy is fraud." - BjarneStroustrup " In full, A=C and B=C (film and vid are both from the same source) and A=D (film is obviously fiction) therefore B=D? Insufficient premises on which to base that conclusion.

It is easy to claim, with hindsight, that there was no intent to mislead in the marketing campaign, but Matthew Bell, writing in The Independent showed how misleading the YouTube releases were. Although "the details remain unclear", he said, and "it all has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt", with the information available to him on the 6th of March 2011, he was under the impression that "The producers are claiming it is a re-creation of events that actually happened after the hunting ban of 2005.

The theft that keeps on taking

There was much reporting in the early weeks that reflected certainty, but by the time there could be reporting of accuracy, no one really cared any more. Some people, however, might care that, following the analogy presented at the beginning of the previous section, that not only those who were handed the forged cash, but the forgers themselves, are still trying to pass it off as real.

A website called Film Pilgrim for example, styled the film as a hoax in the Blair Witch tradition. Joblo still calls it "a movie allegedly based on a true story of humans hunting humans"

Wikipedia writes that : The List classed it as an example of a "fantastic piece of filmmaking that shows what is achievable if you get creative within your budget", but this is false. Actually, the site said that about 'Senseless', and gave it five stars, and then segued into its single-sentence, three star review of Blooded with, "The same goes for Blooded (Revolver) ***, as fox hunters are chased by the Real Animal League across Mull, told via a very convincing docudrama, complete with talking heads and ‘actual’ footage" The more convincing, one suspects, if one just KNEW that animal rights people did such things before one even SAW that.

"Director Ed Boase said he had not meant to cause offend anyone: "Allowing the fictional world of the film to spill out into the real world was intended to encourage debate, not to cause offence. I apologise if it has, but ultimately all art is a mirror of sorts. We have never claimed the story is true, it has simply been presumed.""

By complete coincidence, and in no way because of consulting with actors beforehand to use the same "debate" buzzword in interviews, the "debate" buzzword was used in actors' interviews. "I would not be able to take any animal's life, but then I do eat meat. It has opened my eyes to the whole debate and whether that is hypocritical...The film does not point fingers at either side but encourages healthy debate" said one, in the London Evening Standard. So we mustn't point fingers while calling people extremists, or inviting them to a debate, that would be rude. And they said it again in every other carbon copy of the self-same story that was issued as a sort of freebie "you don't actually have to print this, but here you go" press-release-as-news-story that Wikipedia, with uncharacteristic flair, calls Churnalism (the Mail Online, for one).

But of course one does not have a debate between a man off the street and one from an asylum, to show both sides of the story. Even Wikipedia knows this, which is why they have the rule to not include FRINGE viewpoints. But Boase remains convinced that the extremists from the animal liberation side of the 'debate', whose core and abiding value is the respect for life, can most accurately be portrayed as faceless stalking murderers, and hunters can be shown at their most extreme as the protagonists of a film, panting and grimacing in well-lit closeups as they bravely evade the villains.

As for offense, well, none taken, Ed. Not the kind of offense you meant, anyway. Hunters are killers, and animal rights people just aren't. I doubt even hunters would kill humans, but animal rights people sure wouldn't. And most hunters don't lie and aren't crooks, either, unlike you. Animal rights people don't lie and they aren't crooks, either. Breakers of laws that protect people guilty of greater crimes, but not sleazy twofaced morally vacuuous conmen. Like the sort that claimed that the Amityville Horror was a true story, and then ran a disclaimer in the credits that it was not, and then saying that it was a true story again, and back and forth as its authors preferred. Blooded appears to those who kneel at the foot of the idol of Mammon, the same as The Blair Witch Project- a triumphant forging ahead into the grand experiment of Merchandising. So it is likely we will see their like again.

Pro-hunting advocates, fully clad in the armor of ignorance, remain blissfully unaware that the film places them in something of a quandary: if they say the film is accurate, this is somewhat undermined by the fact it is fiction, and if they say they knew the film was a hoax, they are undermining their belief that it is accurate.

As our story continues, Bozo can't resist one little last dig: 'it was a very convincing RAL website; we made it crappy'. More of Bozo's blowin' in the wind: "They've created this fully-fledged animal rights website that looks quite crude and has lots of links to real organisations," the film's director, Ed Boase, told The First Post today. "The whole idea is to make it as authentic as possible, but not to the point where you couldn't find out that it wasn't real." Of course, you couldn't find out that it wasn't real. That is what kept everyone interested in it. And ultimately, that is what made the whole flim flam fail. As soon as they found out it was not real, it was a big letdown. Reviews slowed, and then stopped, and Bozo has not made any films lately.

Bozo likes to attribute the vids or anything else when convenient to Revolver, but they just showed them (supposedly)-he made them.

Finally, at the risk of wasting all these arguments with a personal rant, it may just be my opinion, but I find it no accident that all three of these faux films are horror films. No other genre spends as much time tricking and messing with its audience. Psychopaths are their subject, and it is my belief that they are their creators as well. I for one will not pay to watch them act out, and can only hope that those who do will be paying for their therapy or rehabilitation.

No, I am not telling you who the Royal was. Why do you even care?

External links

• Template:Official website
• Template:IMDb title