Anchorman 2 had probably my favorite use of this setup. It opens with a narrator commenting on how there are so many places where one could start the second chapter of the story of Ron Burgundy… and says “Perhaps here?” before jump-cutting to our title character, in his signature suit, thrashing around underwater while being attacked by a shark. The narrator then decides that’s not a good place to start and takes us back several months, with us ultimately getting to the shark attack by the end of the film.
Note that the “2 weeks earlier” thing that the OP is talking about is a more specific way of structuring a story than just starting it in medias res, and I don’t think that even those who enjoy it would suggest that all movies should be structured that way.
An interesting thought, though.
You could imagine almost any well-structured film “improved” by the TWO WEEKS EARLIER method.
“North by Northwest” begins with Cary Grant dangling from Mount Rushmore and Martin Landau crushing his fingers and then we switch to TWO WEEKS EARLIER, and open onto Grant entering his Ad Agency office.
What an idiot Hitchcock was, not to have thought of this improvement!
Which is sort of what you get if you watch the trailer first.
I kind of did this to myself with the TV show Angel. I caught the last two minutes or so of an episode while switching channels to watch the show that came on after, and it was this scene.
I was like, “Damn, isn’t he supposed to be the hero? How did he get to that point?”, so I ended up going back to watch the show in re-runs.
So, I guess it works?
In the Dark season two started with a scene from one of final episodes, when they were cleaning up the blood.
It was a great narrative hook, especially since you didn’t know when it would happen.
But then the critics would have accused him of ripping off The Big Clock.
After DOUBLE INDEMNITY.
For streaming shows, it’s easy to accommodate everyone’s preferences. The show could just indicate where the opening sequence ends, and people can jump to “two weeks earlier” and start watching there.
Heck, the movie Gandhi did this. I knew about his whole life but I bet it really sucked in people who were ignorant of his life.
So do I if the opening scene is one where I ask myself, “How the hell did they get to this point?!”
To me, it has always read as the writers essentially holding up a big sign that says “WE COULDN’T THINK OF AN INTERESTING WAY TO START OUR STORY.”
Yeah, to me, it’s an admission “This narrative has a very slow but necessary expository buildup, so we decided to hook you in by giving you a tease of the eventual exciting outcome first.”
…which, in turn, neatly explains why SUNSET BOULEVARD begins with a Hollywood screenwriter narrating his own Hey-I-Bet-You’re-Wondering-How-The-Body-In-The-Swimming-Pool-Got-There story…
I like it when it’s well done and I dislike it when it’s poorly done.
How about when it’s over-done?
Yes, I just finished reading a 1939 murder mystery, Composition for Four Hands (one of two stories in a Penguin pb called Duet of Death). A little bit different in that the primary character has a form of paralysis that’s primarily psychosomatic and can’t speak. You see inside her mind as she’s gradually piecing together what happened before. I really enjoyed the story.
One of the episodes of Perry Mason this season opened with Perry and Pete walking out of the ocean. I thought I had either missed an episode or completely forgotten how the previous episode had ended. Finally it flashed ‘one week earlier’ or something like that.
I hate this in TV shows. It’s supposed to “build suspense”. Bah.
I have to say I don’t remember it clearly but I think the first season of Dirk Gently did this to fantastic effect.
It can be bad, or it can be “shark eating a grand piano in a hotel room” good.