For my screenplay, basically it's a thriller and one of the main characters, who the reader or audience, is thought to have been innocent the entire time, all of a sudden pulls out a gun, takes the protagonist hostage, and starts a sinister plan in the works. However, the audience has no idea that she is bad up to this point, and they are going to be wondering WTF is going on, why is doing this all of a sudden? So I am wondering how I can explain it to the audience without it coming off as a corny James Bond way. By that I mean, where the villain will hold Bond hostage and explain the entire plan to him, like Red Grant did in From Russia with Love, as well as others. I could also not have the villain explain anything at all, and just show flashbacks. But there may be two disadvantages to doing this. 1. The main character doesn't know the reason, only the audience... If the MC hypothesizes as to why she was bad the whole time, it will just be a theory, and he will not be totally sure, if that's okay. 2. The flashbacks sort of break away from the suspense, cause the rest of the story has to be put on hold in favor of a visual recap, if that's okay. Before in the script, I described a hand with a glove on, breaking a window and unlocking the door to a house, while sneaking in. So if I show the flashback, the audience will then see that that hand, is that of the newly revealed villain, which they did not know. But could doing it that way come off as cheesy? What do you think? The hostage taker has a reason to keep the MC alive as part of her plan to set him up and all, but I don't know if she has a reason to bother to explain WHY to him, even if out of ego. So therefore, maybe it doesn't count as the talking killer cliche if the villain does not want to kill the MC but just use him as a hostage for the time being? Or I can do the flashback recap method. What do you think?