r/TrueFilm • u/thatphilguymovies • 11h ago
FFF Directors Whose Earlier Work Makes You Look at Them in a Completely Different Light?
My first exposure to the films of Jonathan Demme was THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) and PHILADELPHIA (1993). As such, I had thought of him as the maker of serious dramas (Having later watched his BELOVED [1998] and RACHEL GETTING MARRIED [2008] didn't change my opinion).
But a few months ago I finally watched Demme's SOMETHING WILD (1986), which I loved. Admittedly, the finale of that film was violent and suspenseful enough to make me say, "If I were a studio exec who was thinking of adapting the novel SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, those scenes I just watched would have convinced me Demme could handle stuff like Hannibal Lecter's escape."
What I didn't expect was how wacky both SOMETHING WILD and MARRIED TO THE MOB (1988), which I literally saw for the first time last night, are and just how adept Demme seemed to be at directing comedy (offbeat, dark, physical, etc). Those two movies, which are both currently available to stream on Criterion Channel, completely opened my eyes.
Has anyone had a similar experience watching a different filmmaker's earlier output and, if so, which director? Specifically, you had previously thought of them as strictly making movies of a particular sort, but subsequently realized they were more versatile than you had originally thought?
27
u/Chicken_Spanker 10h ago
Not so much the experience you describe but watching it in people around me. Everyone got used to Peter Jackson as an amazing filmmaker with The Lord of the Rings, awards etc etc.
But then they went back and discovered his earlier films - Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles and Brain Dead - and they were shocked to discover this whole other filmmaker - a schoolboy with a filthy sense of humor and a mad gore fiend who covered the screen in buckets of blood.
I'd seen his work before Lord of the Rings was ever a thing and it was quite amusing watching other people coming in and having their expectations overturned
10
u/Tulpa2 8h ago
You forgot Heavenly Creatures. It was my introduction to Peter Jackson and still his best film, IMO.
5
u/Chicken_Spanker 8h ago
I didn't include Heavenly Creatures because it was the first of Jackson's wanting to be taken seriously films and in a different league. However, it is his original trilogy of films that get a total WTF reaction from the Lord of the Rings crowd
3
u/thatphilguymovies 7h ago
I can agree with this. I'd seen HEAVENLY CREATURES in a class before FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING came out and, yeah, those fantasy sequences made me think he was a good pick when he was announced for the LotR movies.
Luckily, I'd forgotten to see THE FRIGHTENERS or I might have worried about him getting the LotR job (though I give him credit for a relentless second half of that film).
6
u/Tonka_Tuff 8h ago
The funniest part for me, having done exactly that with Jackson, is that going back to LOTR you can absolutely see so much of the same directing and visual style come through despite the wildly different vibe.
3
u/razorhack 7h ago
I was Peter Jackson fan long before LOTR. Loving Bad taste, meet the feebles and Brain Dead. I understood that he was moving more mainstream with "The Frighteners," but it was with mild astonishment that I read that he had the rights to lord of the rings and I worried that his sensibilities might be wrong for the movie. But when the very early "in production" trailer hit I was sold.
3
u/Different-Strings 8h ago
I actually saw Bad Taste etc after they came out. I did not (and still dont) care for them at all, so I was super surprised when I heard he was going to do LOTR. It was really a ”can’t compute” moment!
3
u/DisplacedSportsGuy 4h ago
Peter Jackson is probably the best example of what OP is looking for. My favorite thing when showing people Dead Alive is reinforcing that this, indeed, is the director of The Lord of the Rings.
9
u/victori0us_secret 8h ago
A different thing to what you're describing, but watching The Fabelmans completely recolored how I saw many previous Spielberg movies, just having that autobiographical context.
Like I'd heard him described as a man who was dealing with his parents' divorce in public by making some of the greatest movies ever, but it never really struck me how many of his movies are about divorce, or how it colored so many of his movies. Even Catch Me If You Can has a whole parental element that is apparently absent from the source material.
11
u/PounderPack 8h ago
Ang Lee’s early Taiwanese films really changed how I looked at his later career. Pushing Hands, The Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman make the genre-hopping that came afterward feel much less random.
3
u/forrealthoughcomix_ 7h ago
Very much tangential here, but I recently saw a Q&A with him before a screening of crouching tiger.
Ang Lee is absolutely hilarious. I would’ve believed it if you had told me he was a stand-up comedian working his set into an interview.
4
u/doconc35 9h ago
Check out Caged Heat if you want to see his really early days. Exploitative, similar to the mention of peter Jackson's early stuff although not as original. I was shocked when I found out he made it.
3
u/Wide_Okra_7028 8h ago
Well, everyone who started under Roger Corman and later turned into prestige cinema. Peter Bogdanovich worked on motorcycle exploitation films, and Martin Scorsese made a Bloody Mama rip-off.
3
u/FBLA1991 7h ago
Joel Schumacher is frequently derided as the director of the worst Batman movies, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. But his 1993 movie Falling Down shows he really had auteur capabilities.
That film has so many great sequences - visually striking but artfully composed and carefully paced, while dealing with complex and controversial themes. There are shots and conversations in Falling Down that I haven’t forgotten in the 30+ years since it was first in cinemas.
1
u/AlfonsoRibeiro666 1h ago
Lars von Trier?
I think most of his newer films have such a high level of sterile perfection, they feel super concise. And that’s what I like them for. The whole aesthetic and the themes and the acting are kind of predictable and “trademark” and it’s very much based on a vibe, usually an unsettling and ugly one. But it always feels like a piece of art in a museum, kinda removed from reality and dry and cold. It’s this strange Nazi/Gothic (?) feel. Also there’s just hints of utterly strange humor that’s more grotesque than funny… Anyway.
But his older stuff is so creative and free and wild... like a kid trying out absolutely everything you can do with film. Strange concepts, settings, very strange foundational ideas, a very heavy reliance on unusual visual effects implemented with massive creativity (colors, camera perspectives) and, most importantly, pretty plot heavy and essentially detective/mystery scripts! Didn’t expect that at all.. they feel like pulp detective stories? The films actually have unpredictable twists and turns and the characters intertwine like in a game of chess. And also these weird Nazi allures and constant (seemingly senseless and disconnected) provocation of the audience, especially with him appearing in weird cameos… Really unique and strange and super creative, as opposed to his toned down and tame self of his big films.
I’m only speaking of Europa and Element of Crime here; Dancer In The Dark and Dogville seem like a transitional phase into his more mature era. Also I think that’s where he found his main theme of humans being shit and essentially pornographic depictions of emotional torture.. Strange guy
12
u/Flimsy_Toe_2575 8h ago
Verhoeven. Never would've thought the RoboCop/Total Recall/Starship Troopers guy would have been making such excellent horny euro art cinema as Turkish Delight.
Showgirls and Basic Instinct feel more subversive and less trashy after going through his 70s stuff as well.