In A Violent Nature (2024)
This pliability is one of the reasons the sub genre has lasted and has seen only a slight waning in popularity. I'm writing a slasher novel right now, and one of the joys is in that elasticity. With a formula as simple as the slasher, I'm finding new ideas I can slot into the story as I continue developing it, that don't directly contradict that formula.
In A Violent Nature is doing away with the bells and whistles we've seen embraced by so many other films of late, the genre mixing, the self referential meta commentary in dialog are gone, instead pulling up the template that solidified the conventions of the slasher. That template comes from the Friday the 13th franchise, and writer/director Chris Nash knows it quite well. Friday may not have been the first, but it was the franchise most heavily imitated in that "Golden Age" of the slasher, a period roughly from the late seventies through the early nineties.
The self referential meta commentary within the dialog is gone, and even as In A Violent Nature is in many ways a return to form, it's also still in conversation with the sub genre as a whole and more importantly, with the audience for the sub genre. I did enjoy In A Violent Nature, but I have my doubts about whether the horror fan who can regularly be found posting about their desire for more horror in the vein of low budget eighties slashers is going to find much joy in it. It isn't meta in the direct sense, like the Scream franchise, but it is so much in conversation with the rest of the sub genre, a deep and familiar connection with it is necessary to get the most out of the experience. This isn't a knock on the movie, as much as a comment on it's purpose. It is a meta film, without declaring it.
The big creative leap Nash takes is to put almost all of the film in the narrative perspective of the killer. It's not directly from their POV, in the manner of something like a first person video game, but it is what's considered "close third person." What story there is unfolds by following Johnny, our slasher, from the first few minutes until the last ten or fifteen. Where the standard slasher follows the victims POV, and the tension and thrills are built from an occasional jump to the slashers POV, usually right when one of the victims is being stalked or is cornered and about to meet their bloody end, this builds tension from the other direction. It's not, "When is the axe going to swing into frame?" or "When is he going to jump out?" The tension is built by watching the victims being stalked, and then watching as Johnny is approaching. Nash does a fairly good job with building that tension in most scenes too. There are a few which are less about tension and more about the fun of practical visual effects and editing, which is a pretty standard slasher trope too. The practical effects are admirably achieved on what's clearly a limited budget.
What is more interesting is Nash using Johnny's stalking of this crew of unwitting campers to convey the story. We get a backstory, which in combination with the setting and the fact that the victims are all campers, is part of what makes In A Violent Nature so reminiscent of the Friday the 13th franchise and Jason Voorhees. It's all being overheard, as Johnny is stalking them, and even as it's reminiscent of Friday, Nash finds a few interesting ways to create a mythology for Johnny which feels like loving homage instead of cheap imitation.
Few of the films Nash is in conversation with are known for their cinematography, but this is one place In A Violent Nature shines, literally. The daylight scenes are vibrant, bright and full of deep, rich color, The night scenes have deep blacks, stark whites, and warm yellows depending on the source of the lighting. A good many of the Golden Era slashers suffer from being washed out. The colors are muted even in daylight, and they're overexposed to make up for a lack of good lighting due to budget constraints in their night scenes. Some of this is changing as they get digital remasters and 4k upgrades, but for most of us, our original encounters with them didn't have such visual delights. The amount of time spent in the wilderness gives the cinematography the opportunity to make itself felt, as the beauty of the natural environment is conveyed so well. The juxtaposition of ugly, graphic violence in the midst of this beautiful setting isn't a new tactic, but it's one that works any time it's executed as well as it is here.
Being someone who enjoys exploring perspective as a part of narrative fiction, I respect what Chris Nash has done with In A Violent Nature. He's taken a well worn formula, and given audiences something new, simply by changing the perspective through which they experience the story and events. I was left thinking, "I'm surprised no one has really done this before," but it's really Nash's dedication to the experiment that makes In A Violent Nature something a little different, and if like me, you can enjoy and respect some experimentation with narrative perspective within the confines of a simple but strict formula, it's worth a watch. I don't see this as a "general audience" film, and as such, it's good that it got picked up by a distributor who understands the dire hard horror audience, if for no other reason than it so firmly rooted in what's come before. It may be something that could inspire the interest and curiosity to start journeying through the history of the slasher film, but general audiences are likely to find it dull and pointless, because they're not going to be interested in the experiment.
You can catch In A Violent Nature on VOD right now, but as Shudder is one of the distributors for it, it's likely it will be heading to streaming there before too long.