Filmmaking / Directing : Paul Schrader on film critics and filmmakers by Geoff Hall

I'm like Schrader sometimes, Geoff Hall. I don't want to know everything/I'd rather have the mystery behind a character’s motivations, mainly when it's the antagonist.

Maurice Vaughan is that as a writer or a viewer, Maurice?

As a viewer, Geoff Hall. I write the antagonist's motivations in a script, but I've been thinking about writing a script where the audience doesn't know what the antagonist's motivations are (or where the antagonist came from).

Maurice Vaughan Ak, okay. I've done the same thing with Seeing Rachel. We have no real idea why the antagonists abuse young girls. There are hints and allegations, but nothing that is directly declared to the audience.

Sometimes mystery is better, Geoff Hall. It lets the audience come up with things for themselves and opens up conversation about the movies and topics in the movies.

Maurice Vaughan yeah, Maurice. It plays a story in their imagination, which is were some of the most frightening stories occur.

As a viewer I'd find this genre dependent Geoff Hall. I'm perfectly happy, and expect to know the action hero is set to save his family/the world from some nefarious force. I think films that want to be perceived as elevated or prestigious go the ambiguity route, but to be honest I'm beginning to think sometimes it's used as a crutch to cover for writing that's uninspired. Having clear motivations does not make a film less sophisticated and lacking them doesn't necessarily mean the character is more complex.

I don’t have a set viewing preference, all upfront or mystery everything depends on each individual story. Dig noir especially vintage with well crafted asyndetons, for me to fill in. Equally I’ll watch a laid out scenario to play catch up with protagonist not knowing what I know. There’s good & bad films all categories. Knowing too much can lead to boredom, too little to frustration. Obvious is not necessarily simple. Depends on concept, character & plot.