Warning: SPOILERS for In A Violent Nature are in those woods. If you haven’t followed Johnny on his killer rampage just yet, you’ve been warned.
An MPAA rating, much like a film’s run time, can determine how a movie lives or dies in theatrical release. The last time I remember a picture even being given a wide release with an Unrated label was 2005’s The Aristocrats; which was purely on the basis of the obscene language used in telling the most off-color joke in history.
Almost 20 years later, the 2024 movie schedule has its own claim to that sort of fame thanks to writer/director Chris Nash’s In A Violent Nature. That very same label means something extremely different in this context, as the exploits of this story’s central killer are bloody, gory and quite nasty to behold.
The funny thing is, Nash doesn’t have a definitive answer as to which scene was the one that pushed the picture into this rarely charted territory. This led to some fun, as we discussed the matter and traded notes on what could have been the kicker for this upcoming horror movie.
Why In A Violent Nature Was Released To Theaters Unrated
I had the privilege of speaking with the prosthetic effects guru-turned-creative, on behalf of the press day for the IFC Films/Shudder production. As we dug into everything from a darkly comic scene that was landed in one take, to the choice to use only diegetic sound, Chris Nash and I had a lot of fun dissecting this horror hit. So of course we were going to talk about the Unrated label given to In A Violent Nature.
Starting with just how and why the movie was sent into wide release with this distinction, Chris Nash told CinemaBlend that the final form this story took had a good reason for landing where it did:
I don't know specifically what it is. And from what I hear, you don't really get that kind of feedback on why it is specific. I did hear terms like ‘unrelenting violence,’ which I feel like can apply to a few different scenes. But yeah, the way the whole movie is made, especially with some of these scenes, I feel like cutting out of them, and cutting it away from them, is just gonna like, zap all the energy out of it too. So yeah, the violence needs to be … unrelenting.
On the one hand, allowing In A Violent Nature to go into wide release Unrated is badass. It’s clever marketing, as it seems forbidden to normal viewers and perfectly enticing to horror fans. But on the other side of the ax, the ratings descriptors on this movie would have been wild, as “unrelenting violence,” “flexible means of murder,” and “a severed head landing in a perfectly upright position” would have been some crazy descriptors for any sort of MPAA rating.
However, it wasn’t really Chris Nash’s decision when it came down to sticking with Unrated status. As he continued to elaborate on the subject, the director, whose previous short film “Z for Zygote” was an entry in the well-reviewed ABCs of Death 2, gave a well earned shout out to his indie horror partners:
I have to give all of the props to IFC and Shutter. They had picked it up for distribution already, and they're the ones that had to deal with ‘Either we're going for a really nasty rating, or we're releasing it unrated.’ And they decided, ‘Let's just roll the dice and go unrated.’ So yeah, I gotta give it all up to them. They were the ones that realized that cutting it in any way would just take away from the effect of the film.
If you’re still with us and don’t want to be spoiled for In A Violent Nature, you’ll want to skip the next section. Mr. Nash and I debate two absolutely gnarly scenes that could easily have pushed this movie into the realm of no rating, and if you’re anywhere nearly interested in seeing this film, you don’t want to have them spoiled.
Which Gruesome Scene Gave In A Violent Nature Its Unrated Status?
Ready for the blood to fly? Good, because while In A Violent Nature isn’t quite the wall-to-wall vomit inducing experience like Terrifier 2, its instances of murder don’t skimp on the Karo syrup. Politely, Chris Nash and myself disagreed on the scenes we felt could have given this picture its potential reputation that horror movie parents don’t want their teen seeing.
In his estimation, Nash told CinemaBlend that the following scene was the one he thinks crossed the boundaries of all rated material: .
I feel like it's the log splitter myself. I feel like the log splitter is dirtier, and more of a video nasty. … Could be either or, who knows? That's a great thing. There's so many to choose from as far as what could have got us the Unrated.
Like I said, this was a very polite disagreement which saw Ontario native Nash positively reinforces the stereotype of Canadian polity. Comparing his personal sweetness to the professional pain he’s shown through work on other horror films like The Void makes for some exciting conversation. Which leads me back to the scene I think would have gotten In A Violent Nature in trouble with the censors.
There’s a moment where killer Johnny (Ry Barrett) stalks poor yoga enthusiast Aurora (Charlotte Creaghan) after she strikes out into the woods, in hopes her girlfriend will join her for a little exercise. No sooner do we cut to her stretching near the edge of a cliff does Johnny stalk into the scene, punching a hole through her stomach, and eventually ripping her head through the newly crafted opening.
Now I will say that the log splitter is a slower, more deliberate instance of bloodletting. In A Violent Nature takes its time with that scene, as Johnny slowly dismembers and beheads another victim with that industrial implement. No matter which side you the reader land on though, the Unrated label that this movie bares was absolutely earned.
Should you still be curious to catch what In A Violent Nature is hiding in its pastoral setting, it’s currently showing in theaters. And based on the viral reaction to the production that’s leaked online, you’re definitely going to want to see this one with a crowd.
