Much like the hulking, masked marauders that lurk within, the 80s slasher genre was something of a simplistic engine of destruction that moved inexorably toward its ultimate goal – the utter obliteration of any nubile life form in the local area for our entertainment. However, adter the post modern assault by six Scream movies, the time of the basic slasher movie is a thing of the past, with even the more straightforward examples, such as Damien Leone’s Terrifier and Adam Green’s Hatchet, exaggerating the gore to levels that couldn’t possibly exist back under 80s censorship. With entries like X and Bodies, Bodies, Bodies pushing the boundaries of what a slasher movie can possibly be, Chris Nash’s In A Violent Nature trudges in to flip the script in deceptively simple fashion.
Imagine a Friday The 13th movie that, instead of focusing on a clutch of gormless teens as a killer lurks in the woods, we stick solely with the hulking slasher for virtually the entirety of the running time.
Ballsy experiment, or plodding curio? It’s time to get under the mask.
Deep in the woods of Ontario, Canada, a gaggle of youths have decided to hang out at a cabin for a night of the kind of things that these type of kids get up to in these kinds of movies, but before they reach their destination, we meet them randomly stopping off at the remains an old fire tower where one of them finds a gold locket and promptly pockets it as a gift for his girl friend.
This proves to be something of an exceptionally bad move, the removal of the locket causes the resurrection of Johnny, an undead, partially rotted, tank of a being who drags himself out of his own grave and starts stomping aimlessly through the area in search of his lost bling. On his journey, he comes across the rotted corpse of a fox and the dilapidated house of a hunter, whom Johnny quickly despatches.
Continuing on his unrelenting trek, Johnny soon catches up with the group of pot smokers and booze swiggers that made off with his locket in the first place and starts stalking them, waiting for the opportune moment to strike and whittle down their numbers without the others suspecting until it’s too late.
But as we follow Johnny on his rather unhurried mission, we find out bits and pieces of the killer’s origins and how he ended up in his shallow grave being held inert by a simple, gold locket. But as the number of dopey teens dwindles to an all time low, can any of the survivors manage to put a halt to Johnny’s trudging onslaught, and if so, can they ever truly know they’re safe?
While the making of a slasher movie expressly from the point of view of the killer isn’t exactly a new thing (check out Behind The Mask: The Legend Of Leslie Vernon if you get a chance), but with In A Violent Nature, director Chris Nash takes it another step further by inverting the tropes of a Friday The 13th or The Burning, and tells the story entirely from the viewpoint of the towering, moldy and mute killer. Ever watched, say, Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, and wondered what the film would be like if the only interaction we have with the killer’s unsuspecting victims is either their gruesome death or any exposition he manages to overhear? Well, whether you have or you haven’t, that’s exactly what the movie is – a quiet, slow, deconstruction of the slasher movie down to the very essence of its core and the results will no doubt vary considering on how much slow your tolerance levels for slow burns can be.
First, the plus points and as a long time watcher of slashers of all shapes and sizes, the exploits of Johnny and his big, fucking hooks, scratches quite an itch for anyone who has ever wondered what the hell the killer was ever up to any time the focus was on anyone else – and the answer proves to be: not very much. However, as a deep dive into the elements that make up a slasher movie, In A Violent Nature proves to be something of an intriguing, experimentally arty take on that much maligned of sub-genres; and while I’d argue that there’s some pretty big flaws floating around the thing, you have to give the filmmakers credit for even attempting such an audacious project.
Yes, watching a ponderous killer spend the lion’s share of the action literally clomping through the foliage for literally minutes at a time does tend to make you reassess your movie watching choices at least once, but that is literally what this film is supposed to invoke. The life of a revived Jason Voorhees time would be a pretty quiet and solitary existence, filled with aimless wandering and the occasional mutilation, and the lack of a score and the ambient sounds of the forrest create a genuinely atmospheric echo chamber as this big lug wanders from A to B (B here obviously standing for “Beheading). However, when Johnny finally manages to sneak up on a victim – usually because they’re so engrossed in their own shit until it’s too late – In A Violent Nature certainly lives up to its name with a string of unbelievably gory, yet strangely impassive kills that starkly stand out against the sedate, serene nature of the rest of the movie. In fact, rising above a grisly, extended face mulching and a rather irresponsible use of a wood splitter, a murder that sees Johnny using a hook a chain to show a yoga practicing girl exactly how flexible she can be has got to go down as one of the kills of the motherfucking decade. Even stuff you wouldn’t usually think of is subtly sneaked in; for example the 4:3 ratio of the screen invokes memories of watching slasher flicks in pan and scan VHS and there’s even a sweet little cameo by former F13 Part 2 victim, Lauren-Marie Taylor.
However, if you’re the sort of person who found The Blair Witch Project more engaging than terrifying, then In A Violent Nature will no doubt piss you off plenty with its static pace, cheesy acting and long, drawn out moments where you’re literally watching a zombified guy get his steps in without any hint of a plot happening any time soon. Things is, as much as I understand and apreciate what Nash is trying to achieve, I also strongly feel that a lot of the complaints leveled at this film are incredibly valid and the filmmakers aren’t always successful when trying to get their point across.
However, I will defend the movie’s artistic ambitions purely for a neat trick the film pulls in its dying moments where, after a full film of lurking over Johnny’s shoulder like you’re playing the Friday The 13th online video game, he suddenly is nowhere to be seen. Suddenly, a film that’s been quite bereft of legitimate scares becomes unbearably tense as this killer who has had about as much privacy as your average Kardashian, suddenly becomes a potential off-screen menace and the atmosphere suddenly becomes chokingky thick as if Nash is holding up the differences of the two styles of film for all to see.
Original genius? Overhyped trash? In A Violent Nature is frustratingly both and neither, and often at the same time – but whether you find Johnny’s exploits lackadaisical or homicidal, you have to admire the filmmaker’s dedication to spending quality time with an unstoppable murder machine.
🌟🌟🌟
We Have Issues 