The slasher genre is one that has had many ups and downs, but one thing that has stayed consistent is the lack of respect for the slasher. Many scholars have dismissed slashers simply as a compilation of cookie-cutter characters, bad dialogue, and the same tropes we’ve seen time and time again. Because of these repeated tropes though, the slasher genre was able to take an introspective turn on itself and move towards a future of alternative slashers. A major example of this introspection is Scream (1996). This particular film takes a look at past slashers and does something different: they acknowledge them within the narrative. In this film, the characters are completely aware of popular horror media and its tropes. A more recent example of a kind of soft-parody slasher is Chris Nash’s In a Violent Nature (2024). Once again, there is an acknowledgement of the slashers that have come before, and although some tropes are represented, this film does something exceptional as it flips the script and gives the role of protagonist to the killer himself, Johnny. The film follows Johnny, a supernatural killer back from the dead, as he trudges through the wilderness in search of his father’s necklace, slaughtering locals as they get in his way. While the film centers around the story of the slashing, there are constant undertones that suggest a conversation about nature versus nurture, and the title of the film even offers its stance: nature is violent. What Nash does differently for the nature and nurture argument is offer a new stance. So, although on the outside In a Violent Nature seems to function simply as a parody on the slasher villain, I argue it suggests an inherent violence within nature through narrative structure, shot makeup, and sound design to offer a fresh take on the slasher killer. This in turn changes the narrative of a subgenre of horror oftentimes considered as “low”, and forces the viewer to reflect on the one-sided story they’ve been spoonfed many times before.
From the beginning of our viewing experience, we meet a killer unlike any we have seen in the slasher genre before. The film starts, as most slashers do, with the negligence of teens. However, while in most other cases we begin with exposition of the teens before their ignorant decision-making, in this film, we meet the teens right as our protagonist Johnny does. In one of the first scenes, the teens take Johnny’s necklace from his resting place in the woods, where he emerges from the forest ground. From the start of the film, one thing can be noted: the killer comes directly from nature. While many killers before him were psychos or physical monsters, Johnny stands in as a representation for nature, and what the film goes on to do is suggest that it has an innate violence within itself, oftentimes represented through things like the circle of life or predators and prey, but this time, through Johnny and his victims. Oftentimes, slashers come with justification for the killer; a reason why they committed the acts they did. Since In a Violent Nature functions as a commentary of what’s come before, it does mention and/or mock tropes of the slasher, including this idea of justification. However, this is where this film differs. The justification of Johnny’s actions is simply presented as nature taking its course; the “why” behind his murderous acts does not function in the same way we’ve seen many times before.
While some may argue Johnny’s slashing lies in his own decisions, it is clear he shares a primal desire found in nature. His only goal is to find his father’s necklace; it is those that interrupt his “living” that feel his wrath. His actions are all fueled by his instinct, as he works towards one goal, emulating a natural desire to survive. Towards the end of the film, a sheriff is introduced, who has dealt with Johnny before. When in conversation with the teens, he even goes as far as to say Johnny is not human, opting to describe him as an “it” rather than a “he”, suggesting that Johnny is closer to something animalistic rather than human. Simply put, Johnny functions as an anthropomorphic image of nature and the idea of a predator, and one major thing that contributes to this characterization is the cinematography of the film. Based on the way the film is shot, we almost constantly are following Johnny on his journey as he limps past scenic treescapes and beautiful orange skies; with the framing of Johnny and the scenic views around him, the movie almost feels like a nature documentary, aligning him even further with a kind of animalistic representation. The sound design only adds to this, since the only sound that comes from the film is diegetic. Instead of music to fill slow parts of the film, Nash opted for the sounds of birds chirping and grass swaying. So, from the beginning of the narrative to the bulk of the film, we are told that Johnny is nature, but there’s one specific scene that really drives this idea home, and offers a reason for why it was done.
One of the last sequences of the film is really where we get an explanation as to what this constant theme of nature suggests: violence. After Final Girl Kris stumbles through the woods confused for a beat too long, she finally finds her way to a car passing through and waves for help. The woman pulls over and lets her hitch a ride to the hospital. This sequence feels much longer than it really is for one main reason: Nash used this as an opportunity for a genius subversion of the “one final scare” trope used in so many slashers before. Because of this, the actual dialogue might be hard to miss, as the scene acts as one last anxiety-ridden sequence before… nothing. But, this sequence is where the main argument of the movie lies. The woman tells a story to make Kris think about something other than the pain of her afflictions, and this monologue serves as a discussion of the vicious nature of the wild. The monologue begins with Kris saying the threat they are leaving behind was “an animal”. The woman in the car tells the story of her brother who was mauled by a bear and left for dead. She describes the vicious acts of the bear, and how he killed dozens of other animals before attacking her brother, and he didn’t eat any of them; he simply wanted to kill. This anecdote directly from nature, displaying the vicious things that can happen, functions as the story of a killer in its own right. And just like in slashers that have come before, the woman tries to write off the actions of the killer; she blames the bloodshed on something called Henhouse Disease. So, if this vicious point of break can happen in nature, what’s so different about Johnny, and his slasher predecessors? I think that this is the question Chris Nash tackles by the end of the film.
The protagonist of Johnny was chosen in order to repaint the idea of nature versus nurture and what really is stronger. While most often in previous slashers, the directors suggest that nurture is the stronger force through their explanations of the killers’ actions, Nash does something unique by developing the idea of a slasher killer that was always going to kill and associating it with the natural. I think that this offers up a broader discussion about the killers that have come before: are monsters born or made? I think Nash would offer up a much different take than many directors and scholars who have come before, opting with the idea that monsters are born, and furthermore, I think that these explanations that usually come in slashers might not actually be as important as the slasher genre has made them out to be. Although a bleak notion, Nash puts forth the idea that violence is a natural thing, and it exists everywhere, from the wild to our own neighborhoods. Sometimes, an explanation doesn’t fix anything, and instead, you have to face the harsh realities of nature head on.
Chris Nash had an opportunity to attempt to offer a fresh take on the slasher genre, and it seems to be a popular opinion that he failed; critics discussed his experience as the root of his failure. I could not disagree more. I think that with the little directorial experience Nash had combined with the low budget of three million dollars the movie had acquired, he did an astounding job at taking the slasher genre and flipping it on its head. Furthermore, Nash created a killer so unique that he offered a new way of looking at the slashers In a Violent Nature was based on. The almost non-existent amount of characterization of the teens the movie would normally focus on and their bare bones slasher dialogue was also an additional driving force in making this film so poignant, since you were able to focus on one thing only: Johnny. At the very end of the film, as Final Girl Kris stares out into the wilderness before her, nothing stares back except the swaying trees. Nash forces you to feel Johnny staring back at her, even if it is only nature. And with additional establishing shots, we end the movie, admiring the vast nature we’ve seen throughout the film and we know that Johnny is all around us.
