Opening with a flashforward - good choice?

I think you mostly answered your own question.  It's often a cheap method used to hook an audience and distract them from the fact that they have to sit through that there... pesky first act.  Hehehe.  Basically a trailer for the movie you're already watching.  "Hey, don't be bored!  You have THIS to look forward to!"

The MI:3 example... I think I've heard commentaries or interviews where they say that the choice to put that snazzy scene at the opening of the film was made in post-production. 

"Oh shit!  We have an Mission Impossible movie that opens with an engagement party!  What're we gonna do!?"

Start off with a bang!

My favorite more modern example of this is SWORDFISH. No doubt, you saw the ads, and Travolta seemed like the bad guy. But then the movie opens out of context, and you get Travolta in a (pretty accurate) monologue about shitty Hollywood movies, before you find out that he really is an awful human being. And then that woman goes EXPLODO! And we cut back, and you spend the entire movie thinking, how do things get so crazy that we end up THERE?

It doesn't serve a story or thematic purpose, but why not have a thrilling beginning that sucks them in? Particularly one that you could NOT envision during the first half hour of the film?

TV shows use this even more liberally, since we're used to something happening before a smash-cut to the credits. 

Personally, I think it's a very cheap way to hook the audience. It's also unnecessary, at least when it comes to features, because I doubt too many people will walk out of a film if things don't go bang in the first five minutes... It's not even that they don't have thematic or story purpose, it's that they disrupt the natural pace of the story (Chris's Jaws example was a good one) and generally even fail to create any real intrigue... People don't watch those bits and think "OMG, it's 24-hours-earlier, I wonder how we end up at that ACTION SCENE!"

Speaking of MI3 and Abrams, ALIAS did it nearly every week. Creating a cliffhanger before we even got to the cliff. How is Sydney Bristow in this off-the-wall disguise going to get out of this mess at this exotic locale??? Why is she wearing that? Why are they in Timbuktu? The guy loves marketing tease, even within the actual show/flick.

It's akin to the "What unsuspecting germ-filled object in your very home is killing your kids??? News at 11". And then they make you watch all the fluff BS before revealing that answer. I think it works best when the tease is so absurd you can't possibly imagine the route it took to get there. Or if the storytelling technique warrants it or reveals information in an interesting enough way. Or if they can then twist audience expectations. "From your POV, this is what you thought was going on. Tricked ya!"

Should not be abused though. It's all in the intent/execution.

Bond hooked you from the start with a (usually) unrelated mission. Is this just a cheap way to hook you with footage they'll use later?

INCEPTION opens with a pretty good flashforward. I guess it works because the audience doesn't have a clue what the hell it is about for a while.

INCEPTION's flash-forward struck me as a little awkward, if only because the film never develops the Saito/Cobb relationship enough to justify the emphasis it puts on that exchange.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 

INCEPTION's flash-forward struck me as a little awkward, if only because the film never develops the Saito/Cobb relationship enough to justify the emphasis it puts on that exchange.

Loved the film, but I definitely agree with this.

The best use of this technique is "Damages".   You are shown snippets of something that will happen in the future and then while more things from the past are revealed you get more snippets from the flash forward that totally changes your perspective on what's really going on.   It's actually quite well done.   For the most part, starting media-rez is a lazy way to get the audience interested right away but every now and then, it can really add to the story.

OLDBOY had perhaps the best use of this, especially since its flashforward was very early on in the movie. 

Its a gimmick for dumb audience members on the whole. Much like narration. Which Limitless would be better without as well.

I haven't been able to take flashforwards seriously since Fight Club:

Tyler Durden: Would you like to say a few words to mark the occasion?
Narrator: mumbles...
Tyler Durden: I'm sorry...
Narrator: I still can't think of anything.
Tyler Durden: Ah... flashback humor.

I thought Inception's opening was pointless.  It had no narrative reason to be there.  It added nothing to the viewing experience.

While I agree that it had no narrative reason to be there, I do think it serves to throw the audience off-balance and warn them that the film won't be a completely passive experience.

I admit Inception's flashforward is illogical, for example how come Saito recognises Cobb's top even though he doesn't see it in any other scene of the film? Plus their dialogue is weird since their relationship doesn't develop much. However, it's a cool opening that sets up the mood and the world. It also shows a glimpse of Cobb's kids. Much more effective than starting with Cobb talking about intestinal worms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen 

I admit Inception's flashforward is illogical, for example how come Saito recognises Cobb's top even though he doesn't see it in any other scene of the film?

Only illogical if you actually believe these characters exist in that moment.

Care to elaborate? Are you coming from "the entire film is Cobb's dream" -angle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen 

Are you coming from "the entire film is Cobb's dream" -angle?

If you wish. I don't have a horse in the race, but it is a theory.
 

Fair enough. Back to topic: SUNSET BOULEVARD has a nice flashforward-opening. And a friend of mine argued that MULHOLLAND DRIVE's opening is one too. I just don't have enough brain cells to get that...

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE have a "present day" bookend structure that could be seen as a "bait and switch", depending on what info you gather from them. Both used to varied effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE have a "present day" bookend structure that could be seen as a "bait and switch", depending on what info you gather from them. Both used to varied effect.

I hated the bookends on Saving Private Ryan.  Nearly ruined an otherwise great film.  And no, it doesn't make any sense after the big reveal at the end.

I've said it before, and it bears repeating: if you thought that was Hanks at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan, you're dumb. At the basest of levels, because Old Man Memory is shown in extreme close up to have bright blue eyes, and Hanks' eyes are green. Then there's the actual narrative that...y'know, screw it, I've gone over this before.

There's plenty of narrative reason for Cobb and Saito's meeting, first and foremost because Saito holds the key to Cobb's freedom, and Cobb has to bring him back in order to secure it. On a structural level, it shows us the introduction of Cobb's children whose faces he cannot see, teases us with a narrative puzzle (Who is this old man and what is his connection with Cobb?), and sets the story in motion: Saito recalls Cobb and his totem from a "half-remembered dream", and we then go to Saito's first encounter with Cobb. We return to the scene later with the knowledge of the context it's occurring in--Saito's not really an old man, but has been trapped in limbo for so long that he has dreamed he has (and not even realized he's dreaming). That gives us stakes, that Cobb could easily fall into the same haze, and even at first appears to be struggling to remember why he's there.

The use of it at the opening is crucial to the structure, because a hook is a hook for a reason, and if used well shouldn't be dismissed as lazy just because other films employ it for less well thought out reasons.

It's being overdone, but I think flash forwards work better when they're utilized in television shows. Someone above mentioned Damages using flash forwards to great effect, and I agree.  As the season progresses, the story zigs when I thought it would zag. 

I'd also throw the second season of Breaking Bad as an example. Even though I love BB dearly, the catastrophe that the flash forwards hinted towards was a lot to swallow. Thankfully, the thematic purpose of what happened didn't render the flash forward narrative as some parlor trick despite the execution feeling kind of iffy.

What surprises me about this thread is that Lost hasn't been mentioned. Hell, isn't it the show that kind of made people coin the term "flash forward"? 

The rest of what I have to say is going to be invis-o-text'd below as to not violate my personal 10 year statue of limitations for spoilers:

Now, the reason why no one mentioning Lost is weird to be is because it's the show where I thought the term "flash forward" was coined. Before the third season finale, the show became pretty formulaic by having each episode concentrating on an individual character with their flashbacks being intregal to the overall theme of their episode. By this time, it was getting pretty tiresome, and the show started to develop a bit of backlash due to it's formula(and to be fair, some misguided attempts to introduce new characters).

Hell, I'll admit that I watched the third season finale just to have ammunition to talk shit about it. Because of that I started picking minute details up with Jack's backstory. Noting that he was listening to Nirvana's "Scentless Apprentice"(a song that was released around '93, '94) in his jeep, and talking on a Razr cell phone that I was most certainly sure was introduced after the crash on the island.

That last detail made me just squeal with hater joy, and I couldn't wait to obnoxiously tell people that the show was capital letters DUMB. 

So soon as I saw Kate meet up with Jack under that bridge, saying "We have to go back!!!", I was FLOORED because I never thought the show would pull a trick like that. It made me a look like a fool while answering a big question as to what's going to happen later on for the characters then asks a bunch more questions in it's place; the most notable being what horrific act did the survivors do to get back in the states? You better believe I couldn't wait to find out.

Shit. It just dawned on me that this is about opening, not ending, with a flash forward. My bad.

But my point still stands!

If it was Ryan flashing back at the start of the film, he couldn't have known the whole story that then unfolds.  The first shot in the flashback goes straight to Hanks, implying it's the same person; it would have to be (even though it isn't).  There's nothing dumb about disliking it.  It's yet another example of Spielberg not trusting his audience to feel their own emotions, so he has to try and poke some heart strings.  Except this time was a logical fallacy due to how it was set up.

As far the opening flashforward in Inception being "crucial", I suggest re-evaluating your definition of the term.  All the benefits you attribute to that scene are earned along the narrative way.  It looks good, has a little wow factor, but again doesn't lend the proceedings any weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirk Mansleeve 

If it was Ryan flashing back at the start of the film, he couldn't have known the whole story that then unfolds.  The first shot in the flashback goes straight to Hanks, implying it's the same person; it would have to be (even though it isn't).  There's nothing dumb about disliking it.  It's yet another example of Spielberg not trusting his audience to feel their own emotions, so he has to try and poke some heart strings.  Except this time was a logical fallacy due to how it was set up.

 

As far the opening flashforward in Inception being "crucial", I suggest re-evaluating your definition of the term.  All the benefits you attribute to that scene are earned along the narrative way.  It looks good, has a little wow factor, but again doesn't lend the proceedings any weight.

For Ryan, no, it doesn't go straight to Hanks. It goes to the beaches of Normandy, then the landing boats, then to some frightened soldiers, then to Hanks' shaking hand. He's not flashing back to his story, he's flashing back to Millar's. He's at Millar's grave and is remembering the man who saved his life, and that story begins at Normandy. That's the whole point of the film, to remember the sacrifice given in that war, and Millar's last words to "earn this." The last shot of the faded and tattered flag asks us if we have.

As far as Inception, I suggest paying attention to how a film is structured before attempting to give me the ol' dictionary defense. The proceedings gives that scene context, not rob it of meaning, which was your original argument. And yes, it does set things up in its own way that just opening with Cobb and Alexander trying to steal Saito's information wouldn't have. Opening with the scene it does gives the audience vital visual and audio clues that get used throughout the film, and sets the tone--intrigue rather than action. That's more than a justified way to use a flashforward (and even if you don't think the whole movie is Cobb's dream, it could just be another level of dream and memory before we move to another one, since in limbo there's little distinction between the two).

I'm surprised to see the consensus being so negative on this.  Opening with a flashforward is just a device, and although it's less common than, say, flashback or voice-over, subject to the same "it's good when it's good, it sucks when it sucks" non-rules.  It's not really anything in and of itself.  Just because Limitless uses it lazily doesn't mean Infinite Jest sucks for doing it too.

As for TV, the flash-forward in "The Walking Dead" was fantastic and served a great purpose. It set the tone of the series right off the bat. Something the show would have failed to do if it had gone straight the the talk in the car and the shootout. It also helped to alleviate some of the 28 Days Later rip-off concerns.

With movies it's more hit and miss. Let Me In's opening flash forward only seemed to be there to differentiate it from the the original. It's not as good, just different for the sake of being different.

One thing interesting about flash forwards to the end of a film, is how it can totally stop "downbeat ending syndrome" in it's tracks right out of the gate. Especially where the lead dies at the end but you already know from the get-go. Again, sometimes this works, and it's the joy of the journey that keeps you watching, but other times it can backfire if you don't give a damn about the characters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus-7 

One thing interesting about flash forwards to the end of a film, is how it can totally stop "downbeat ending syndrome" in it's tracks right out of the gate. Especially where the lead dies at the end but you already know from the get-go. Again, sometimes this works, and it's the joy of the journey that keeps you watching, but other times it can backfire if you don't give a damn about the characters.

MONSTERS comes to mind. Very well used. So well, I didn't realize it was a flashforward till we had circled back and the APOCALYPSE NOW nod.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

For Ryan, no, it doesn't go straight to Hanks. It goes to the beaches of Normandy, then the landing boats, then to some frightened soldiers, then to Hanks' shaking hand. He's not flashing back to his story, he's flashing back to Millar's. He's at Millar's grave and is remembering the man who saved his life, and that story begins at Normandy. That's the whole point of the film, to remember the sacrifice given in that war, and Millar's last words to "earn this." The last shot of the faded and tattered flag asks us if we have.

You're right, but because we don't cut directly from one face to another, eye color may be forgotten (or not noticed at all) by the crowd by the time you see Hanks. And that they never show the name on the grave marker in the beginning, I'd argue that it was a director's choice to keep the old man's and buried's identites ambiguous at first. So you wouldn't indeed know, until you knew what the film's outcome was. Course, you could also argue that the title of the film is the clue (unless the success of the mission was in question). At the end following Miller's death, the bookend progresses from old Ryan's face to confirming who the buried soldier is (his wife speaks Miller's name and then you finally see the front of the marker). That info is specifically kept till the end, making the ambiguity (that some people feel is there) acceptable to me. How and when the identity was revealed was a conscious choice by Spielberg IMO. The bookends don't make me frustratingly (I can see how they're admonished for being too treacly) confused as others are. But I do think there is a bit of "bait and switch".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Speaking of MI3 and Abrams, ALIAS did it nearly every week. Creating a cliffhanger before we even got to the cliff. How is Sydney Bristow in this off-the-wall disguise going to get out of this mess at this exotic locale??? Why is she wearing that? Why are they in Timbuktu? The guy loves marketing tease, even within the actual show/flick.

This bothered the hell out of me, and I'm an Abrams apologist.  I like MI:3 quite a bit but that stupid flash forward opening kills the suspense in the first half of the movie.  You know Hoffman is getting Monaghan eventually, its just a matter of time.  It was ALIAS where this technique made me actively angry.  It just came across as so lazy, especially using it again and again and again.  It also didn't help that ALIAS's big action set pieces were typically lame and underwhelming, so opening with a sneak peak them was never a good way to start an episode.  

Also, thank you for mentioning Monsters as an example of this technique being used effectively.  Best positive example in recent memory.

Not to turn this into an Inception thread, but I can't believe people are so blithely dismissive of the opening scene. For one thing, it's more of a bookend than an arbitrary flash forward, and in a film so meticulous, one thing that sticks out is the slight difference in the dialogue (like the kids' clothing, a recurring image, with differences almost so slight you don't even notice it). You ever had a dream that you think you've had before? It may not actually be a recurring dream, but there's something familiar about it nevertheless; it gives you pause. I've had a couple of those lately. That's what I think about when it comes to that scene, and Nolan's direct comment about the narrative structure: "it really tries to draw the audience into the logic of the world and lets the audience in on the joke, if you like".

It could support one theory, or not, it could be dream logic, or just a movie moment. Either way, I refuse to dismiss it as "pointless".

Edit: Also, everything Greg Clark said, and Schwartz. If it works it works, if it doesn't, then it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

Not to turn this into an Inception thread, but I can't believe people are so blithely dismissive of the opening scene. For one thing, it's more of a bookend than an arbitrary flash forward, and in a film so meticulous, one thing that sticks out is the slight difference in the dialogue (like the kids' clothing, a recurring image, with differences almost so slight you don't even notice it). You ever had a dream that you think you've had before? It may not actually be a recurring dream, but there's something familiar about it nevertheless; it gives you pause. I've had a couple of those lately. That's what I think about when it comes to that scene, and Nolan's direct comment about the narrative structure: "it really tries to draw the audience into the logic of the world and lets the audience in on the joke, if you like".

 

It could support one theory, or not, it could be dream logic, or just a movie moment. Either way, I refuse to dismiss it as "pointless".

 

 

Edit: Also, everything Greg Clark said, and Schwartz. If it works it works, if it doesn't, then it doesn't.

It's interesting because Nolan has done this with many of his films.  The ending is flashed at the beginnings of Momento and The Prestige.  But this really makes sense when you consider the puzzle like structure he adopts in his films.  But I definitely agree, it's far more than a simple narrative trick in Inception.  As much as it's a commentary on his narrative structure, and a statement on the fractured nature of dreams, it also works as clue upon the nature of reality.

Inception's flash forward is a bit problematic in terms of plot, but thematically and metaphorically it makes sense.

I'm actually gratified to see people are ragging on this technique. It CAN be done well, but it's so, so often not.

That said, someone mentioned Breaking Bad, which uses flash-forwards brilliantly. In fact it's probably the main exception to my general dislike of this technique. That cold open in the pilot is one of the greatest introductions to a show EVER. Conversely, yes Alias's sucked for this, and frankly Supernatural often leans on this wayyy too often as well.

Lost can't be counted with the others, I think, since the whole point of the show was to mess around with chronology. Whatever else you thought of the flash forwards, they clearly weren't a lazy way of baiting the audience like this technique so often is.

By the way, the reason so many films struggle to open with a bang isn't to keep the audience from running out of the theater, it's to keep the script reader  from chucking it aside and moving on to the next one in the pile.

I don't believe anyone has been blithely dismissive of Inception's opening, I just don't agree it accomplishes and sets up what you argue it does.  It feels very unnecessary to me, narratively speaking.  granted, Nolan loves to use tricks that have nothing to do with driving the narrative forward, so it's not a surprise.  it doesn't ruin the film for me, either.  I just could live without it. 

As far as Private Ryan goes, I think DARKMITES stated it well.  And again, the film leads you to believe you are looking at the memories of the man kneeled at the grave, who later it is revealed is not the man whose story you just followed.  As such, the old man couldn't have known everything that you just saw transpire.  Spielberg did that on purpose.  Heartstrings, all that.  I think it cheapened the film, and I always skip those parts while enjoying the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

That said, someone mentioned Breaking Bad, which uses flash-forwards brilliantly. In fact it's probably the main exception to my general dislike of this technique. That cold open in the pilot is one of the greatest introductions to a show EVER. Conversely, yes Alias's sucked for this, and frankly Supernatural often leans on this wayyy too often as well.

 

Lost can't be counted with the others, I think, since the whole point of the show was to mess around with chronology. Whatever else you thought of the flash forwards, they clearly weren't a lazy way of baiting the audience like this technique so often is.

 

By the way, the reason so many films struggle to open with a bang isn't to keep the audience from running out of the theater, it's to keep the script reader  from chucking it aside and moving on to the next one in the pile.

I can dig Lost maybe not qualifying for this thread, but let it be known that I never thought the show was lazy when it played with it's timeline. I think the direct opposite of that, actually.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's flash-forward "meet-cute" pre-title sequence is very effective. It not only sets up a mystery (why is Joel's journal empty for two years?), but establishes the disjointed timeline we'll be experiencing once the movie delves into Joel's memories. Also the later scenes with Clementine and Elijah Wood recontextualize the opening: she's not just coming onto Joel strongly because they have a connection, but because she's blowing off Wood's character (who was using Joel's modus operandi on her, showing that it only works when Joel does it).

Kudos to Kaufman.

I don't think either Lost or Memento really fit.  Lost utilized flashforwards as part of an established parallel storytelling structure, while Memento employs an entirely inverted timeline.  Neither simply opens with a flashforward, then tells a linear story leading back to it.

GoodFellas and Casino both open with a flash-forward. Casino is actually the more structurally ballsy film, I've always thought, in part because a character gets killed in mid-narration! The GoodFellas one, I have problems with only because I've seen the movie too many times and, in brief, find it contrived that later on in the film, Joe Pesci borrows the knife to account for why he has it in the flash-forward to stab Billy Batts with — only at that point, they all think he's dead in the trunk, so why would Pesci think he would need the knife? To cut up the body? Hacksaws would work better.

First film that came to mind, oddly enough, was The Hudsucker Proxy.

Then there's the glimpse of future carnage that starts Heavenly Creatures off with a bang.

It's like anything else, it can be done well or badly.

This thread raises an interesting question -- where do you draw the line between what is acceptable in non-linear storytelling and what pushes the boundaries into contrivance?

Personally, I think anybody who thinks this method is cheap is kind of missing the point, and should probably go tell Tarantino, Nolan, the director of Citizen Kane, etc. that they're being all manipulative with their storytelling. Somehow I doubt they would care, though, since watching the puzzle pieces of a non-linearly-told movie fall into place undoubtedly gives audiences a visceral thrill, and taking advantage of that is just good filmmaking.

Look at Iron Man for a less well-regarded example -- that introductory scene of Tony Stark in the humvee sets up that character perfectly, and also opens a movie that is ostensibly an entertainer with a suitable bang. Should the filmmakers have ignored a perfect opening just because they had to deal with 15 minutes of establishing stuff that should technically have preceded it? I agree with everyone who has said the flash-forward is basically just a way to say "bear with us while we wait for the good stuff, we promise it's coming," but I would also argue... what's wrong with that? Just because it's fairly easy to see why they did it doesn't mean it's inherently bad. We can all pretty much surmise that the decision to open with the Rosebud scene in Citizen Kane was made in order to give us an intriguing mystery that drives our interest in the rest of the film, but was that any more contrived than the Iron Man example? Both films manipulate audience expectations, cause emotional reactions, cause the audience to speculate, etc. through their narrative structure -- why is it okay for one movie but not the other? Obviously Iron Man only does it once rather than repeatedly throughout the extent of the film, but the principle behind WHY it's done is essentially the same.

I'm not holding anyone to these examples by the way, they were just the first ones that occurred to me.

Of course it can be done well, but it far and away remains a very lazy storytelling technique. You can almost always tell which ones were there in the script stage and which were done by editors desperate not to lose an audience.