Mystery : Not much info. is given , unanswered questions. We have idea that something is happening but we have not much idea about what is happening. Suspense : Info. is given, most of the questions are answered. WE are almost sure that this will but something different happens. Plz make video on direction style of Zack Snyder. Your videos are amazing man.
This is a great analysis, and very enlightening. But I think it would be a mistake to come away thinking that it means mystery is inherently less valuable than suspense. Hitchcock himself used mystery as well, to incredible effect. In the case of Psycho, the central mystery is maintained all the way through the film, only to reveal its twist in the final climax. I think the misleading idea in his comment about it is that it suggests that a story must be one or the other, when in fact, elements of both must be present for each to be effective. Until we realize there is no Capline, the adventures of Cary Grant's Thornhill are made up of his quest to find the elusive agent and clear up the mistake. We as the audience are emotionally invested by the suspense created by his danger, but we're also intellectually intrigued by the question, who is this Capline person? But an example of the failure of this combination is the film The Glass Onion, where we're so at sea as to the truth behind what we're watching, so disconnected from everyone's true motivations, that we can't invest in anyone until the film is almost over. In this case, the intellectual mystery of what the protagonist wants, or even who the protagonist is, undercuts the suspense of whether they'll get it, how much danger they're in, or what's truly at stake. We always understand at least what Thornhill understands, and so throughout the first act, we can maintain empathy with his confusion. But we're locked out of what Benoit Blanc understands as he gathers information through the first half of Glass Onion. So his actions and reactions have no context, as we don't have an anchorpoint of what we know he knows. Of course, Blanc isn't the true protagonist of the story. But we're meant to take him as such, because the true protagonist is even more of a mystery. We don't even know who we're looking at though the entire first half of the story, and by the time we find out, we think the character is dead. It's almost a master class in how not to construct a mystery. By contrast, Knives out presents the opposite. Once the body is discovered, it's a murder mystery for about 10 minutes. And Benoit serves as the POV, assessing everyone and trying to work out the most likely culprit. But before we have a chance to grow bored with a detached detective trying to work out an intellectual problem, the film seemingly transforms into a thriller, where it remains for the majority of the run time, as we root for the heroine to escape the consequences of the horrible but understandable accident, and her employer's ridiculous scheme to hide the truth. But it's important to remember, this sequence remains a mystery, as new twists and turns emerge to complicate her situation. Yet, we remain emotionally invested in her, because we know what she knows, and we feel her pain. As with Psycho, the final twist that resolves the mystery doesn't render the rest of the film wasted footage, as Hitchcock put it, because we can experience it as a suspense film as well as a mystery. I think a lot of internet discourse has a tendency to separate concepts into distinct categories, examine each by itself, but often fail to observe how those two categories work together. What makes great stories last, what makes the conversation about them go on forever, is that they're almost always two contradictory stories happening at the same time. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the doctor is the hero and the monster is the villain, and yet simultaneously, the opposite is true. To read the story only one way or the other ignores the contradictory yet essential opposing narrative. And so, to discuss the story is to debate its meaning, against opposite readings, made by others or oneself, or just simply contained there in the text. In my opinion, suspense without mystery is no better than mystery without suspense. Both require the other. The other side of keeping too much a mystery, as with the ironically named Glass Onion, is keeping too little a mystery. You always need a final twist. If the story plays out just as you expect it to, there's no delight in the final act.
Mystery : Not much info. is given , unanswered questions. We have idea that something is happening but we have not much idea about what is happening.
Suspense : Info. is given, most of the questions are answered. WE are almost sure that this will but something different happens.
Plz make video on direction style of Zack Snyder.
Your videos are amazing man.
I'll make video about it stay tuned and thanks for your comment :)
This was beautiful and well put together. you just earned a new subscriber.
Thank you so much!
This is a great analysis, and very enlightening. But I think it would be a mistake to come away thinking that it means mystery is inherently less valuable than suspense. Hitchcock himself used mystery as well, to incredible effect. In the case of Psycho, the central mystery is maintained all the way through the film, only to reveal its twist in the final climax. I think the misleading idea in his comment about it is that it suggests that a story must be one or the other, when in fact, elements of both must be present for each to be effective. Until we realize there is no Capline, the adventures of Cary Grant's Thornhill are made up of his quest to find the elusive agent and clear up the mistake. We as the audience are emotionally invested by the suspense created by his danger, but we're also intellectually intrigued by the question, who is this Capline person?
But an example of the failure of this combination is the film The Glass Onion, where we're so at sea as to the truth behind what we're watching, so disconnected from everyone's true motivations, that we can't invest in anyone until the film is almost over. In this case, the intellectual mystery of what the protagonist wants, or even who the protagonist is, undercuts the suspense of whether they'll get it, how much danger they're in, or what's truly at stake. We always understand at least what Thornhill understands, and so throughout the first act, we can maintain empathy with his confusion. But we're locked out of what Benoit Blanc understands as he gathers information through the first half of Glass Onion. So his actions and reactions have no context, as we don't have an anchorpoint of what we know he knows. Of course, Blanc isn't the true protagonist of the story. But we're meant to take him as such, because the true protagonist is even more of a mystery. We don't even know who we're looking at though the entire first half of the story, and by the time we find out, we think the character is dead. It's almost a master class in how not to construct a mystery.
By contrast, Knives out presents the opposite. Once the body is discovered, it's a murder mystery for about 10 minutes. And Benoit serves as the POV, assessing everyone and trying to work out the most likely culprit. But before we have a chance to grow bored with a detached detective trying to work out an intellectual problem, the film seemingly transforms into a thriller, where it remains for the majority of the run time, as we root for the heroine to escape the consequences of the horrible but understandable accident, and her employer's ridiculous scheme to hide the truth. But it's important to remember, this sequence remains a mystery, as new twists and turns emerge to complicate her situation. Yet, we remain emotionally invested in her, because we know what she knows, and we feel her pain. As with Psycho, the final twist that resolves the mystery doesn't render the rest of the film wasted footage, as Hitchcock put it, because we can experience it as a suspense film as well as a mystery.
I think a lot of internet discourse has a tendency to separate concepts into distinct categories, examine each by itself, but often fail to observe how those two categories work together. What makes great stories last, what makes the conversation about them go on forever, is that they're almost always two contradictory stories happening at the same time. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the doctor is the hero and the monster is the villain, and yet simultaneously, the opposite is true. To read the story only one way or the other ignores the contradictory yet essential opposing narrative. And so, to discuss the story is to debate its meaning, against opposite readings, made by others or oneself, or just simply contained there in the text.
In my opinion, suspense without mystery is no better than mystery without suspense. Both require the other. The other side of keeping too much a mystery, as with the ironically named Glass Onion, is keeping too little a mystery. You always need a final twist. If the story plays out just as you expect it to, there's no delight in the final act.
Ahh, thanks for your view sir, and also for this little video essay :)
nice video , really detiled , keep up rhe work ,
Glad you liked it :)
Great work, great channel!
Thanks for the visit🙌
Have you created any films of your own?
Yess, but just to practice, not properly.
srsly?