Many thrillers follow such reliable formulas that you can look at what's happening and guess how much longer a film has to run.
I always put myself in the audience's seat, whether it is a film like 'Judwaa 2' or 'Badlapur.' There has to be a message; the core story needs to have a hook, which should be out of the ordinary.
There are all these great TV series; you can watch all these hours and hours of shows and ideas, but there's still something great about a movie that unfolds in a couple of hours, and you have the complete experience.
A good movie makes the audience feel like they've journeyed with the characters.
Indian audiences these days aren't really interested in watching a character on screen evolve. They don't want to see a young girl evolve into being a partner and enter motherhood - they are only really concerned about the story. As long as the story is getting interesting with every passing episode, they want more.
I'm looking for a charismatic character - somebody who you just want to look at and listen to and whom the camera likes. I'm also looking for a narrative arc: Something is going to happen, and there will be a question that will make you wonder what happens at the end.
The danger of writing a so-called thriller is that in your last 100 pages, all of these really interesting characters you've created are just running away from something or toward something, but they're no longer capable of innovation or discovery.
So long as you tell a story that falls within the fairly generous boundaries of the suspense novel, you're free to make the novel as good as you can. You're allowed to challenge the reader. You can experiment with voice and style.
I want a movie to be satisfying for an audience. That sense of having to get it done, no matter what cost, is what I like.
Gertrude's Secret' is highly entertaining. Some of the monologues are very funny, some very surprising and some painful.
One reason we love fiction is because stories have a comforting shape. They provide a resolution that's lacking in our regular lives.
If you don't have a story that will hold the audience, you won't have a successful show.
I like a show to unfold and keep presenting itself, surprising you.
You know what I liked about 'The Condemned?' It's Stone Cold being Stone Cold, and that's what was awesome to me.
All good, clean stories are melodrama; it's just the set of devices that determines how you show or hide it.
I like finishing a movie and having this living, breathing thing.
The promise of an action movie to a certain audience is not a bad thing.
You can write something that has continuity, but it makes happy endings all the more ridiculous.
Sometimes I'll turn the channel and there's the movie and I can honestly say that those last few minutes always fascinate me. It's one of the rare instances when image, music, and drama work effectively.
The great thing for me is how Hitchcock uses guilt so well. He implicates the spectator in the character's field, and you really feel it, and there's incredible relief when it comes out right - if it does come out right.
I'd say there are two kinds of theater: one you end with an answer, one you end with a question.
It is a political thriller. It's very action packed and it's very exciting, but at the same time it's a very big soulful love story about longing and loss. They're not separate, they're completely dependent on one another.
Some movies I see today have the most dramatic plot points but the actors are not playing them dramatically.
I usually dislike second books in series. The only second installment I ever loved was 'The Empire Strikes Back,' and I think that was wonderful because it evolved the characters while not seeming like a bridge.
For the finale, I thought the audience deserved to get a close point of view on the monster, and to recognize him the way you recognize the heroes of 'True Detective.'
