When a locket is removed from a collapsed fire tower in the woods that entombs the rotting corpse of Johnny, a vengeful spirit spurred on by a horrific 60-year-old crime, his body is resurrected and becomes hellbent on retrieving it.
Following its premiere at Sundance Film Festival as part of the festivals celebrated ‘Midnight’ program, In A Violent Nature is being praised as a one of your kind horror experience that must be enjoyed on the big screen and it has been generating buzz for presenting the killings through the murderer’s perspective. It serves up a deliciously disgusting feast for horror and gore fans, and currently boasts a very positive 81% fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes. US audience members reported scenes so gory and gruesome they started to feel unwell.
As In A Violent Nature slashes it’s way into Australian cinemas on August 1 for a limited theatrical run, Nick L’Barrow spoke with the film’s writer and director, Chris Nash, about leaning into the tropes of the horror genre, the inspirations behind the films visual aesthetic, and what goes into a great horror kill.
Nick: I’ve spoken with a few directors who have mentioned that a movie is made in three different parts – the writing, the filming, then the editing. I’m curious to know how this film evolved during all those different aspects of the filmmaking process?
Chris Nash: There were definitely changes, but this is an instance where I feel the finished product is very similar to what was conceived in our heads when we first approached the material.
A lot of things you see in the end product were very—like, in the script there were actual set pieces that had to be changed for technical reasons. But, writing it, the overall tone, the mood, the aesthetic, right up to the end scene was burned right into the bones of what the movie was like.
For instance, right away in our pitch package, we knew we wanted to shoot it in 4:3. We knew we didn’t want a score. We knew that the majority of the film is going to be watching somebody walk. But it’s a matter of how much do we see of that when it came to the edit. What do we cut out? When do we cut into it? Working all of that out pacing wise. But, overall, it was very similar.
Nick: I was curious about how you went about deciding when you knew a scene was the length it needed to be. There are these long, one take shots of many things throughout the film, whether it’s walking or conversations, so what goes into deciding how long a single shot take needs to be? Is it technical or is it sort of based on feeling?
Chris Nash: It comes across as feeling to begin with, and then you start to recognise actual technical things that you’re observing that caused that feeling to happen. This is something we noticed a lot when we were just even editing the walking, you know, following our character. When do we cut out of this following shot and into another following shot?
We realised that the mechanics of that. The first thing we noticed is the actual locomotion in the scene. When the character is moving, our brain has to go, “What are we seeing?” We’re seeing a character walking. Then the secondary information that comes in, like, where is he walking to and what environment is he in?
As soon as our brain recognises that secondary information, then we should cut, because at that point in time, we get the whole impression of what we’re seeing anyway. And depending on what the environment was like; it was about three to five seconds that we would cut out.
Nick: The film is a unique perspective on the slasher film, for sure, but I love that it still relishes in the tropes of the horror genre, whether its teenagers getting stalked in the woods, or the lore of Johnny being told throughout this small town. I’m curious to know how you went about deciding which tropes were going to work for your story, and then how you integrating them into what become this fresh perspective on the genre?
Chris Nash: We really, really leaned into them whenever we could. This being a movie that sticks mainly with the antagonist, who is mute, and we never see their face, there’s only so many ways we can convey information. So, relying on these topes was crucial for any information to come across.
We knew that we had to have our asshole boyfriend, the pothead friend, the sex pot, the final girl. All we knew we had to do was nail those for what they were so there was no confusion as to who these characters were.
And the ranger being somebody that implies a past between them and Johnny, and even the poacher character at the start of the film. Whether it’s something that hasn’t exactly been seen before, it’s the impression of who the character is and what their function is going to be in the film is the tropes we were relying on.
Nick: Something I noticed with how you do convey that information is using sound design and dialogue for things happening outside of the frame. I think sound design is so crucial to horror. How important was sound design for you in order to tell this story that’s happening outside of what the audience is actually seeing on screen?
Chris Nash: Yeah, it was of the utmost importance. We knew it was going to be important from our initial conceit of not having any score.So much was going to rely on the sound design through the purview of Johnny, knowing we weren’t going to be able to see everything.
How do we get all this necessary expository information brought to the audience? Well, he’s [Johnny] just creeping in on conversations. So, how is that sounds going to be layered, and how is it going to unfold with the volumes of whispers or yelling? It was all so crucial.
But, you know, one of those things that we did know too is that it’s not going to necessarily be a tense film just in the approach. So, we didn’t feel like we had to uphold certain genre conventions, we just wanted to enjoy the scenery with the sound design rather than create this terrifying environment.
Nick: I love the aesthetic and cinematography of this film. One shot that really stood out to me was the decaying carcass on the bright green moss, or the shot of Johnny walking into the sunset. It’s quite a beautiful looking film. Where did the inspiration for the film’s aesthetic come from?
Chris Nash: I was trying to create something that could only exist as a film, right? Part of the thesis, you know, is that this is something that would be a completely different thing if it was a novelization or a graphic novel. Trying to create these, like, pleasant images was something that we held with more importance than even conveying information sometimes.
After the “yoga scene”, where the body is kicked off the sandbank, where we are framed, you can barely see anything because we’re so far away. So, we had to make the decision of whether we wanted to see more, or can we just have a shot looks nice? The audience will understand what’s going on, and that’s another scene where the sound design just lifts that image so much because all the information we’re getting, as far as the story goes, is through that sound design. Hearing that body roll down the cliff, hearing that rock tumble down after the body and hit the water.
It’s all things that we’re not necessarily seeing with the utmost clarity in the image, but the image itself is so peaceful and serene. And watching that body just turn into another piece of debris on the landscape and live as that. It’s creating a whole different function within the story telling when we’re relying on the actual strength of the image.
Nick: One of my favourite shots in the film is the one that follows Johnny’s hand as he goes to murder someone, then it cuts to his bloodied hand grabbing a necklace. It was so striking to me! I’d love to know what some of your favourite match cuts in cinema are, or maybe one that influenced that shot in particular?
Chris Nash: Oh, Scott Reynolds’ Heaven is the movie that really made me go, “Oh, match cuts are amazing.” It’s like in the third act of Heaven, where we’re seeing Martin Donovan’s character, the main character, all beat up, and he’s in the backseat of a car being driven to his apartment from the hospital. And we’re just focused on him in the back seat, and the driver is asking questions about what happened the night before.
Then the frame of him all beaten up and battered, and his eyes are just distracted, match cuts to him in the driver’s seat on the way to the violence that is going to happen. And it was so striking. It was one of those things where I feel in love with cinematography and editing working together before a frame is even shot. That’s the main on for me.
Nick: That’s incredible. I’ll wrap up on this – it’s almost odd to say, but horror fans understand this, I love a great kill. As a filmmaker, what is the difference between a great kill or something that is just excessively gory for the sake of it?
Chris Nash: There’s this quote that I heard, and I forgot who said it, but it was about pornography. “What is the difference between art and pornography? I know what porn is when I see it!” [laughs]
Nick: That’s a great comparison!
Chris Nash: It’s kind of the same thing where I know what you’re talking about. When things are just excessive for the sake of being excessive, or when there’s a very graphic, gory kill that you feel does have an impact on the story and your actual state of being.
I don’t know what it is. It’s this intangible thing. But it’s the same as when you’re watching a movie, and you know within the first five seconds whether you’re in good hands. It’s really hard to describe and hard to articulate. If it was something that could be answered, man, we’d have so many better movies out there!
Thank you so much to Chris for his time, and to Umbrella Entertainment and NixCo PR for organising the chat. In A Violent Nature is exclusively in cinemas from August 1-4, with advanced screenings available at certain locations.
