The following contains possible spoilers In a violent nature.
Chris Nash To tell His new movie, In a violent nature“recites the definition” of the slasher film. Its claim to subvert the subgenre by showing everything from the killer’s point of view might lead one to expect a film-length POV gimmick or a masked killer live-streaming his sadistic pastime. Even if that were true, it wouldn’t be the next step in the “evolution of the slasher film.”
Being “trapped” inside a killer’s head is hardly groundbreaking cinema today. Psycho, Peeping Tom, Black Christmasand Halloween Everyone can make effective use of the technology, Michael Haneke’s later works Interesting games It not only interrogates its viewers but also thoroughly indicts their bloodlust.
Contrary to popular rumours, In a violent nature is neither a “deconstruction” of the slasher nor a “meta” slasher. scream To Cabin in the Woodsthe subgenre has already been the subject of graduate seminars numerous times; the phrase “final girl” long ago jumped from academia into pop culture lexicon. The latest results are: Ti West Xmovie The film subverts this trope by featuring the last woman who doesn’t fit the virginal standards once expected of this type of woman. West’s film might make a good footnote for queer enthusiasts translating her enthusiasm into academic papers, but it’s not a scary one.
Contrary to popular rumours, In a violent nature It’s not a “deconstruction” of the slasher film, and it’s not a “meta” slasher.
In a violent nature The story begins with a group of teenagers stumbling upon a cabin in the woods. We hear them chattering but don’t see them. The focal point of the scene is a gold locket hanging in the ruins. Predictably, one of the nasties snatches it, causing the ensuing mayhem. The camera doesn’t follow the young intruders as they leave; instead, it offers a lingering shot of a decaying humanoid figure erupting from the earth. There’s no music, no dramatic flash of lightning to indicate that this event is more significant than the gradual emergence of an earthworm. This resurrection scene feels more like a film of straightforward realism. Carl Theodore Dreyer order Rather than the opening of Friday the 13th Part 6: Jason Lives.
There’s a perfunctory plot in which a disabled boy falls to his death from a water tower after an ill-conceived prank. The result? The “White Pine Massacre” by the boy’s vengeful spirit. Two important takeaways from this story are: (1) the monster’s name is Johnny, and (2) the rocket stolen at the beginning of the film belonged to Johnny’s mother, keeping his soul in peace.
This rotten creature stumbles out the fourth time in search of the stolen rocket, and then he starts wandering around a lot. He walks through the jungle. He walks through people’s houses. He walks through campsites. Friday the 13th From series to cult classics Sleep Away Camp and burnThe pastoral settings usually serve as little more than a convenient backdrop for an elaborately choreographed massacre. In a violent nature The film transforms the killer into a full-fledged character as he stalks mist-shrouded grasslands, wades into a sparkling lake, and catches his victims doing yoga by a cliff. We’re not trapped inside the killer’s head, but we see him as any other wild animal roaming the wilderness — after all, lions, tigers, and even bears often roam between attacks. The lack of a score creates an eerie effect, especially when we enter a room resonating with the rustling of the forest.
The glacial pace also serves to turn our minds towards the enemy: is this some kind of insane nature documentary? Happenings? do There must be something else! Slasher movies are SlashIn other words, shedding innocent blood breaks the monotony. To be fair, the slasher genre long ago morphed into a cliché excuse for increasingly exotic “murder.” In a violent nature The film is hardly the first to examine this trope, but its pacing allows for more introspection than most of its kind.
However, when the actual murder scene appears, some viewers may think: Is this really what I wanted? Before approving of the carnage seen in this film, it’s worth taking a moment to consider what we mean by the word “kill.” Horror films in general, and slasher films in particular, are notorious for, understandably, gratuitous violence. Thrillers and action films also feature a lot of bloodshed, but there’s a big difference between the mayhem that occurs when a murder takes place and the mayhem that occurs when a murder takes place. John Wick What you see in movies and, say, Scott Spiegel’s grocery store splatterfest; invaderIn action movies, the violence serves the story. In slasher movies, the story serves the murder. In slasher movies, the gore is at the forefront, and the audience is treated to expertly staged murder scenes. The murder scenes are not only unpleasant and cruel, but also spectacular displays of live-action effects. Although the gory dismemberment scenes are far from noble, it is true that many audiences view the gory spectacle with the eyes of a technician, not a spectator.
Chris Nash is a director and a special effects expert with a particular interest in prosthetics, and no CGI was used in these kill scenes. In a violent natureA partial list of alternative tools used in the film might answer that question: iron hooks, axes, hacksaws, log splitters. In particular, the murder scene involving some hapless yoga enthusiasts has been topical. Without going into too much detail, Johnny gives new meaning to the expression “tying yourself up.” Needless to say, the murder scene undoubtedly speaks to the definition of a brutal slasher. Nash also sprinkles in familiar elements, such as campy dialogue. As a group of hapless campers gather around a bonfire with beer and cell phones, jokes about both toxic masculinity and cancel culture are made.
Nash is Gus Van Sant’s Jerry and elephantThis is not the usual source material for this kind of movie. In a violent nature Perhaps it’s the atmosphere that’s the problem. While many supernatural horror films are celebrated as cinematic achievements, the slasher subgenre has yet to garner this same respect. Don’t look nowfor example, is widely regarded as one of the greatest films ever made out of the UK, so will another slasher film with such acclaim ever be made?
in my opinion, In a violent nature The film would have been much more successful if it had stuck entirely to its tone. If Nash wanted to follow through on this experiment, he needed a slasher filled with sophisticated characters, complex psychology, and realistic kills. Despite the technical execution (pun definitely intended), the violence in this film is clearly cartoonish, which inevitably detracts from the film’s otherwise oppressive atmosphere. As a result, In a violent nature It continues to veer between laid-back arthouse cinema and run-of-the-mill slasher flick.
The film’s most polarizing feature is also its most formally inventive. The little girl is introduced at the end, following the traditional slasher movie formula; her escape from Johnny severs her connection to the killer. For the first time in the film, we are with the fleeing character, not the monster they are pursuing. The sounds of the forest swell to a loud din as the girl runs away in panic, eyes wide like a frightened animal. The good Samaritan who rescues the final girl from Johnny’s clutches is played by Lauren Marie Taylor, who veteran horror fans will recognize from her role as Vicki in Avengers: Endgame. Friday the 13th Part 2.
This scene In a violent nature The scariest scene. Everything in slasher movie history points to this point being a terrifying turn of events. Friday the 13th You might be tempted to think that this seemingly kindly older woman is Johnny’s long-suffering mother, bent on revenge. Will Johnny emerge from the bushes at the last minute to mince the two women? We almost jump when the woman stops her car to inspect the girl’s injured leg. But surprisingly, there is no final twist. There is no murderous mother with an axe, no Freddy Krueger dragging Miss Thompson over the front door, and no Carrie White’s hand emerging from the dirt of a freshly dug grave.
Instead, what we see is a long, quasi-philosophical monologue about the cruel habits of forest bears, clearly intended to equate Johnny with wild animals, natural disasters, or other deadly forces of nature. In this sense, perhaps the most offensive feature is In a violent nature It’s about appearing to see evil as something perfectly natural, rather than something abnormal.
