MIAMI.- For many filmmakers and theoretical, the terror It is one of the most difficult genres to bring to fruition. Moving like a tightrope walker between the thin line of scaring or making a fool of himself, the contempt with which he has been viewed by the academy and the overexploitation of it on billboards has led him to suffer from a kind of narrative and aesthetic exhaustion.
In fact, despite having a huge number of sub-genres that emerge from it (such as horror, gore, slasher, home invasion, zombies, etc.), it is difficult to find fresh proposals that do not get lost in clichés and jump scares. Although there is nothing new under the sun and we live in times of sequels and prequels, can you really tell something ‘new’ with the same old pieces? The automatic answer is usually no, but suddenly one or another appears. film that subverts our expectations and revitalizes the genre by giving it a fresh look. This is the case of In a Violent Naturethe latest from IFC Films and Shudder.
The film puts us in the shoes of Johnny (Ry Barrett), a kind of supernatural entity halfway between Jason and Michael Myers who is awakened from his slumber by a group of irresponsible young people who are on vacation. Thirsty for blood and obsessed by a kind of childhood memory that was stolen from him, Johnny will gradually begin to hunt down each of the members of the group to kill them in the most terrible ways possible.
the movie
Directed and written by Chris Nash (who has extensive experience as a short filmmaker and working in the special effects department), In a Violent Nature It is the classic example that one usually gets in screenwriting books. The important thing is not what is told but how it is told. Structurally speaking, the film has all the tropes of a slasher: an evil, invincible and mysterious entity (with an origin story where reality and fantasy are confused), a completely generic group of young people with whom we empathize little, a setting ‘paradise’ (a little house in the middle of the forest) that becomes terrifying, deaths escalating in horror (with all kinds of objects), tons of blood and gore.
The novelty that the film brings to the genre is changing the point of view from the victim to the victimizer, deconstructing certain conventions by showing us how they work from the inside. This is how we understand that the murderer does not ‘magically appear’ behind his prey, on the contrary, he takes his time hunting them (and they fall due to his own carelessness). This switch of perspectives changes the surprise factor of the murders to the tension of approaching the inevitable with parsimony. At the same time, the whole halo of mystery that surrounds Johnny makes us immerse ourselves in the story to cut through fragments of conversations in search of the big answers that drive the plot (who is Johnny? Why does he kill people? Is he someone real? or a monster? What are you looking for? And, continuing with the conventions of the genre, although we are always in the monster’s shoes, we never empathize with him and feel anguish when he finally reaches his victims.
Although In a Violent Nature It is a debut opera, the direction is its main attraction for achieving a visual proposal that is in line with its premise. Nash’s staging makes the camera assume a third-person perspective that follows Johnny with its back turned (as if it were a video game), using open shot values to be able to observe the relationship he has with his environment (avoiding showing his face in order to increase the feeling of depersonalization and the mystery of what the typical ‘monster’ of the genre looks like). This is enhanced by the frame format that limits our range of vision from the typical 16:9 rectangle to the 4:3 square, transmitting a feeling of confinement that serves as a metaphor for Johnny’s psyche. He feeling It ends up being almost like a kind of documentary where we follow a wild animal that is hunting in the middle of the forest without any kind of consideration. Of course, once Johnny gets to them, all the gore sequences are worth the wait (and surprisingly creative and explicit).
Direccin
The cinematography by Pierce Derks (V/HS/94, Teddy Bomb, Allie & Lara Make a Horror Movie, ABCs of Death 2) gives the film an 80s B movie look to the point of blurring the era in which it was created. which story takes place (and in which we find ourselves only because of the cars or one or another technological artifact). In addition, he composes each frame (especially the general and entire shots) playing with the depth of field and the location of different elements in the frame.oreground, middle ground y background, inviting the viewer to scrutinize every inch of the frame in search of information about Johnny’s next action. At the same time, it plays with the space outside the frame with the few closed shots that the story has, letting our imagination fly. In parallel, it makes each time (morning, afternoon, night) aesthetically attractive and dark enough to not lose suspense.
The montage by Alex Jacobs (V/H/S/85, V/H/S/99), emulates the cadence of Johnny, using a montage that relies on open and long frames to make us feel that we are doomed like Johnny. to wander perennially through the open countryside without any type of reference. Without using any jump scare or too many values of contrasting shots, Jacobs manages to create tension by playing with the expectations we have as an audience regarding a story that is familiar to us. This is how In a Violent Nature It is sewn over a slow fire, playing with the audience’s impatience more than with the surprise factor, creating an atypical rhythm for the genre, but always keeping us in tension. Of course, special mention must be made of Michael W. Hamilton’s special effects and makeup by Sumer Mellon, who give Johnny terrifying physical features and make each of his murders more disturbing than the next. .
pelcula “In a Violent Nature”.
Courtesy/IFC Films and Shudder
In a Violent Nature It achieves something that seems impossible in a highly exploited genre: surprising us using the conventions and setting that we know almost by heart. Her success, far from being a highly elaborate narrative device, lies entirely in the perspective she assumes and how she dictates the entire development of the story. Just when we thought we had seen it all, Chris Nash turns the typical slasher story around 180 degrees (literally) and gives us a film that, although identical to thousands, at the same time, is unlike anything we’ve seen before. We enjoyed at the cinema. Something that is greatly appreciated in these times of narrative cacophony where filmmakers refuse to take risks. Yes, it is an uncomfortable film that challenges the viewer to leave their comfort zone, but at the same time it is one of the few feature films that we will never forget once the screening is over (a characteristic that few authors can boast of). ).
The best: its visual and narrative proposal that deconstructs the genre slasher using the same conventions and staging that we have seen hundreds of times. The management of tension and the game of perspectives. The construction of the Johnny myth and the gore deaths.
The bad: it is a film for a very specific niche and although the premise that the trailer sells is quite clear, it will disorient more than one person in the room. Its slow pace, absence of jump scares and the perspective that the film assumes can bore those who just want scares and that’s it.
About the Author
Luis Bond is a director, screenwriter, editor and teacher. Since 2010 he has dedicated himself to film criticism on the web, radio and in print publications. He is a Tomatometer-approved critic on Rotten Tomatoes (). His training in film has been complemented with studies in deep analytical psychology and symbology.
Twitter (X), Instagram, Threads, TikTok: @luisbond009
Web: www.luisbond.com
