The Sentence
CraigDGriffithsUberwriter
in the near future a Government sponsored torturer is using his position to steal information and money from death row inmates. He is unaware that his next prisoner is an undercover agent sent to trap him.
Share
Still not making sense. Who is the main character? What is he trying to do? Who or what stands in his way?
Think corrupt cop being trapped by internal affairs. Cop = Torturer. Internal Affairs = police raids, the thing used to trap corrupt cop, like a bag of cocaine = info undercover agent has.
The confusion is why the logline is difficult.
The more you try to explain the story and the characters’ motivations the less I understand any of it…
Fair enough. I am working off my phone. So my explanation was a bit crappy. The Farm is working with criminal to undermine the government torture program. The reason they are keen to get info from this new prisoner is his possible connection to The Farm.
But in reality it is a trap for the torturer who is really part of The Farm. As viewers we can see The Farm being dismantled. We know it is because of what we are hearing.
Craig the details in your explanation are as confusing as the original logline and with the knowledge of these details all previous comments still apply.
Here is the story in more detail.
The torture will be explained. There is a group known as “the farm” which somehow one step ahead of the government’s information gathers. The torturer is told his next prisoner was part of a terror group that has access to millions of dollars. He is tasked with finding the money and his connections. The director of operations is getting bits of info and acting. He keeps referring to his man getting info out of the suspect.
During the interview we see the police beginning to find targets.
Suddenly we see that the torturer is hinting that he will for a fee help the prisoner. It becomes apparent that he is the farm. He starts getting more in depth info.
About this time it becomes apparent that the prisoner is the person on the inside the director is referring to. The entire torture has been to extract info from the torturer.
There are a few metaphors at play. The torturer represents a corrupt government process, it has all the power of the people. The people are represented by the prisoner and the cops. The prisoner are the oppressed, while the police are those willing to stand up for what is right.
So there you go. A quick view into where I am heading.
Unless this is a short, built on a quick twist and that’s all.
Hello, maybe instead of focusing about “a conversation” between two mens, try to write the “larger story (that we are seeing)” as you said- this is what is important, the action that you track in the script.
There is another element which is unclear: if the torture is legal and sponsored by the gouvernment, what an undercover agent should investigate? If it’s only the fact that the torturer try to take personal advantages from the prisoners but the torture itself is not an issue this would be a very tricky movie.
Unfortunately this sounds like a situation in which the logline doesn’t work because the whole story doesn’t work. Maybe it makes more sense when reading the whole thing, but if so, the logline has to reflect that.
Verbs which end in -ing should be replaced with action verbs.
in the near future a Government sponsored torturer ‘is using’ his position to steal
in the near future a Government sponsored torturer ‘uses’ his position to steal
Joe is running=Joe runs
Jill is writing=Jill writes
Two men are fighting=Two men fight
Not the end of the world, but will improve your logline or story.
I find the original post and subsequent discussion confusing.
Why would the law torture a death row inmate? What could the law possibly stand to gain from this? In light of the potential social backlash, and investment in developing the necessary infrastructure.
Secondly if the inmate is about to be killed anyhow why should they talk?
Secondly as previously mentioned if the MC is a person that tortures other people with greed as a motivation why would the audience care about him? He would make for a good antagonist if anything.
Lastly the logline doesn’t elaborate on a goal, what is it the MC actually wants?
Hope this helps.
Maybe ou can start with “in a future where the gouvernement openly sponsors torture” – but in reading the logline I can’t undestand why the fact that the torture is largely and openly practiced makes the story different form a real guantanamo where torture was spread and ordinary enough. I don’t think you need a world where torture is officially admitted, you just need a ‘special world’, a place where it is ordinary. The concept is interesting but it needs a rewrite. Focus about a precise goal for the torturer too: finding a terrorist leader treasure? what about ‘preventing a huge terrorist attack’, or even ‘find the responsable of an attack where his familie died’? If we have to root for the torturer this can be a way to guide us.
Imagine a larger story (that we are seeing) being reflected in the conversation of two men. One with all the power (a government rep) and one with no power (the people) holding out in the face of obvious defeat. Yet in a twist, we find that the corrupt government is brought to its knees.
The undercover agent is a metaphor for the rare and honest people that occasionally win.
Story I have been thinking about for a year or two. Logline I only started working on yesterday.
But the undercover aspect works better in my current thinking if it is common practice, the torture of death row inmates. I am not going to underline the date. It is just going to be a fact of the world.
I think it can be set IN THE PRESENT. There are many more or less secret prisons where ANYTHING happens right today.
Even if the prisoner is a bad guy I can’t root for a torturer who tortures him for money. And who is the opponent in act 2? A ‘bad’ prisoner in chains wo get tortured? I don’t think he can be a valid opponent.
Try to focus on your main character, what happens in his life that put the story in motion, and how the main character deals with it; what is his goal and who is the opponent. You don’t even need to mention a 3rd act revelation, in my opinion.
Thanks.
The near future because I want people to see it as a possibility, not some abstract fantasy. It is more of a battle of wills. We think the agent is actually a bad guy until the reveal going into the third act.
We then have to save him before the torturer carries out the sentence.
Hello, it can be interesting but
I see 2 problems:
1- it is written from the point of view of the torturer who can hardly be a good main character. I personally spontaneoulsy root for the undercover agent.
2- this is only a situation, the beginning, and it doesn’t give enough details about the second act which is the biggest part of the movie.
Why in a near future?