Bloodline Movie Review

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.

Proverbs 25:2 KJV

Albeit a little on the tardy side, which seems to be my lot these days, I’ve decided to come full circle with the Blooline issue. I finally got an advance copy of the film a few weeks back from a fellow Grail Seeker. The ripped copy came a full week before the release copy I preordered came in the mail. I guess anything in the shadowy Grail world is possible.

Since then I’ve watched the film at least three times. I searched the footage for minutia that would assist me in coming to a conclusion on the film’s veracity, but to quell questions within myself. Since going to New York for the initial press conference held at the Jewish Museum in May, I’ve had doubts about continuing on with my work here. The range of reasons stem from a spectrum of thoughts ranging from “If this is real, what is there really left to search for” to “If this is an elaborate hoax, why should I waste my time picking through the chaff of charlatans?”

Given this mindset, in watching Bloodlines, it was as if our Mulder and Scully from X-Files were having a running dialogue in my head. Given the theme of the recent X-Files movie, this didn’t seem too far a stretch. Their internal dialogue seemed a fitting, if not goofy, way to structure my review.

Scully: Are we done watching that self aggrandizing hoax yet? It’s the third time he’s made us sit through it. This Kannard fellow is nice enough, but a grown man displaying Dogs Playing Poker in his home is a greater mystery than that film.

Mulder: Come on Scully, he calls it his War Room; it’s obviously his version of the Fortress of Solitude. The whole thing isn’t a hoax; you saw the body this Hammott fellow found in the cave. Besides you could tell Nicholas Haywood believed what he was saying was true. There were none of the classic tells, no breaking eye contact when ask a question, no nervous ticks, no poker face tells. You’ve interviewed enough suspects to have seen that.

Scully: People with mental disorders believe they are Napoleon and are quite convincing at it, but that doesn’t make it true. There was no supporting documentation. No officials from the French government buying into the find, no time or date stamps showing a time line of events, blurred out faces and garbled non descript voices, boxes and bottles found throughout an area treasure hunters have combed for years, and associations with people who might well have faked or stolen documents. P.T. Barnum did a better job with the Fiji Mermaid.

Mulder: Scully, when was the last time the History Channel presented the documentation you were looking for? There is reputable scientific DNA, carbon dating tests, and archeological testing that has been done on various items they found and posted on their web sites. The History Channel doesn’t do that. One thing you have to remember about the folks involved in some of the interviews is they don’t want to be known. Maybe this Hammott guy is smarter than the average treasure hunter. Yes, I know his finds have been attacked as fakes based on the use of French grammar and the like. But maybe Sauniere’s housekeeper did all of this after he died and never divulged it to anyone. She supposedly was told his secret on his deathbed, maybe she was not that educated and parroted his writings for someone else to find.

Scully: Nothing of the sort, you just want to believe that all of this is true Mulder. For every argument I have you’ll have a “plausible” counter. So I’m wasting my breath.

Mulder: You’re right Scully; I do want to believe that it’s true. That will always be the difference between you and me.

That is the point of difference for everyone that watches the film. One falls into three camps: Those that believe, those that don’t believe, and those that think there’s something to this but not everything that has been presented is on the mark. View Bloodlines with an open mind and let your faith guide your decisions.