Some might assert that there isn’t much juice left in the slasher genre. Inherently simple, there’s only so many fresh takes or approaches to the concept of a masked killer chasing down a group of hapless victims. But Chris Nash (The ABC’s of Death 2) has, with In A Violent Nature, imposed an arthouse sensibility – thoughtful, minimalist, and considered – on the slasher format that increasingly revels in its own excess.
Johnny the Lumberjack (Ry Barrett) as a character is effectively a stand-in for Friday the 13th’s Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, or several other well-known killers in the slasher pantheon – but Jason especially. Masked, silent, relentless, and with a boatload of mother issues, it makes sense that even the horror fans I talked to about In A Violent Nature thought it actually took place in the Voorhees-verse (it doesn’t). Johnny rises from a shallow grave after a locket belonging to his mother is stolen. He stalks through the landscape, determinedly cutting his way through campers until he can reach his goal. As Johnny observes his victims, we get little bits of exposition about his origins and a massacre that he caused long ago.
The imagery in In A Violent Nature is right there in the title, and the film delivers exactly what’s on the tin, though perhaps not in the way you’d expect. What’s surprising is that the ‘nature’ part takes centre stage for the majority of the film’s runtime, allowing for the picturesque Northern Ontario scenery which is presented by cinematographer Pierce Derks without score and without the benefit of all but the most sparse dialogue, to speak for itself. This presentation further thrusts you into Johnny’s perspective as he silently moves through the woods. Leaves crunch underfoot and the stillness of the forest create a compelling contrast to the violence that it’s set against. And violence is absolutely on the menu. With comparatively little going on in the rest of the movie, the kills here feel like they should take centre stage. Certainly there are a couple that I have never seen in any other slasher movie, which is impressive given the number of them out there, and even the more ‘conventional’ ones are very well-rendered via Steven Kostanski’s masterful VFX instincts. But without the usual slasher beats of a steadily rising score to build the tension, and some oddly passive and almost disinterested reactions from Johnny’s victims, they don’t feel like big moments.
Admittedly, when the credits rolled on In A Violent Nature, I felt unsatisfied and more than a little confused. There is no big climax, not really a big set piece, and the kills don’t ‘ramp up’ in the way that most slashers do. Having read that Nash considers Gus Van Sant’s Elephant and Terence Malik’s overall body of work as influences, it draws the premise into a bit more focus for me. Perhaps the dissatisfaction and the distance we feel from the kills is by design. It’ll be small comfort to anyone watching In A Violent Nature looking for anything resembling a payoff, but the meditative tone that pervades the film may actually be the point. It’s why both story beats (such as they are) or kills feel almost rote and obligatory and why neither reveal much about Johnny’s interior language or his understanding of the world, if he even has one. What we’re doing is observing a wild animal whose needs and motivations can’t be known for sure.
At the same time, In A Violent Nature makes an odd choice that, in most movies, is a dealbreaker for me. By the end of the film, the premise of the killer’s point-of-view or at least documenting his actions has been abandoned for a more traditional sequence that feels more ‘narrative’ than what we’ve been exposed to by that point. And that would be okay if there was precedent for it earlier on. By that point we have been watching a fairly standard Friday the 13th installment play out from Johnny’s eyes, catching snippets of backstory here and there but not really caring about it. Just as Jason wouldn’t give too many shits about the camp counselors’ relationships or interests any more than a tornado cares about the farmhouse that it obliterates just because it’s there. But not sticking to the gimmick is a misstep even if it’s nominally in tribute of another classic slasher. To me, the last act or image of a film is the chance for a filmmaker to really make something their own, and to use it as an homage left me a little cold because it’s the last impression we get of Johnny or the film itself.
Ultimately, In A Violent Nature has a really solid concept that it doesn’t do enough with. As a meditative and fresh look at a slasher film, it’s got a ton of potential and Nash clearly knows the genre in and out. You can’t make a movie that both pays homage to so many other slashers while subverting their conventions so often without knowing and loving slasher films. While in execution In A Violent Nature feels like more of an exercise or a proof-of-concept than a fully fleshed-out idea, it’s Nash’s intent for the film to be a “matter-of-fact portrayal of violence within a particular setting,” according to his director’s statement. In that regard, In A Violent Nature succeeds. It’s cold and objective viewpoint makes Johnny into an unknowable monster, because while we can guess at what’s driving him forward (the locket, revenge, etc) we have no way of knowing the truth. That should be enough to scare just about anyone.
In A Violent Nature comes to limited theatre release on May 31, with a release on Shudder to come later in 2024.
