Red Light Madonna
stumptownPenpusher
Los Angeles, 1956. An ambitious prosecutor wants to know why the police were so eager to close the file on the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman. When his off the books investigation uncovers a link between that case and the murder of a young prostitute twenty years earlier, both his career and his life are endangered.
Share
Again, I think you need to consider where the prosecutor stands in the assembly line of the sausage factory that is the law enforcement/judicial process.
Normally, the case would only come to the attention of the prosecutor if the police file charges accusing someone of the crime. The paperwork will land on his desk and he is supposed to prosecute a specific defendant.
If the “files are closed” on the case, doesn’t that mean there is no defendant to prosecute? Ergo, no paperwork to generate to land on the prosecutor’s desk, no reason for the case to come to his attention, no reason for him to get involved?
So wouldn’t it more likely be the case that the police frame someone, that the prosecutor is under pressure to prosecute the case with all deliberate speed, rush it to trial and a guilty verdict? But he comes to realize the case leaks like a sieve, that the defendant is being set up to take the fall?
Is there any particular reason why the main character has to be a prosecutor? If you cast him as a detective, the procedural problems are solved.
Even better might be to cast him as an L.A. County sheriff detective rather an L.A. city police detective. Why? Because the chief of police is appointed while the numero uno Sheriff of the county is elected. The father could be grooming his ambitious son to run for the job, succeed him when he (shortly) retires. That could be the specific personal stakes for the son.
And historically, given the nature of the local politics, it has been easy for the Sheriff to handpick his successor, hard of the city chief of police to pick his. (No B.S.: check out the history.)
Another issue with your premise is that in 1956, the chief of police was William Parker. Are you aware that he made his reputation a reformer who cleaned up and professionalized a corrupt department? Well, movies take liberties with the facts, but implicitly, if not explicitly, you are sullying a legendary figure. However, if a Hollywood studio is willing to put serious money behind your ‘revisionist’ history, why sweat over small details like that?
But consider that in “L.A. Confidential”, set in the same time frame as your story [coincidence?], the “Parker” character does not have his hands tainted by corruption. James Ellroy, who wrote the book from which the movie was adapted, thoroughly researched the period, knew better. Which is why the book — and movie — work so well.
fwiw
Again, I think you need to consider where the prosecutor stands in the assembly line of the sausage factory that is the law enforcement/judicial process.
Normally, the case would only come to the attention of the prosecutor if the police file charges accusing someone of the crime. The paperwork will land on his desk and he is supposed to prosecute a specific defendant.
If the “files are closed” on the case, doesn’t that mean there is no defendant to prosecute? Ergo, no paperwork to generate to land on the prosecutor’s desk, no reason for the case to come to his attention, no reason for him to get involved?
So wouldn’t it more likely be the case that the police frame someone, that the prosecutor is under pressure to prosecute the case with all deliberate speed, rush it to trial and a guilty verdict? But he comes to realize the case leaks like a sieve, that the defendant is being set up to take the fall?
Is there any particular reason why the main character has to be a prosecutor? If you cast him as a detective, the procedural problems are solved.
Even better might be to cast him as an L.A. County sheriff detective rather an L.A. city police detective. Why? Because the chief of police is appointed while the numero uno Sheriff of the county is elected. The father could be grooming his ambitious son to run for the job, succeed him when he (shortly) retires. That could be the specific personal stakes for the son.
And historically, given the nature of the local politics, it has been easy for the Sheriff to handpick his successor, hard of the city chief of police to pick his. (No B.S.: check out the history.)
Another issue with your premise is that in 1956, the chief of police was William Parker. Are you aware that he made his reputation a reformer who cleaned up and professionalized a corrupt department? Well, movies take liberties with the facts, but implicitly, if not explicitly, you are sullying a legendary figure. However, if a Hollywood studio is willing to put serious money behind your ‘revisionist’ history, why sweat over small details like that?
But consider that in “L.A. Confidential”, set in the same time frame as your story [coincidence?], the “Parker” character does not have his hands tainted by corruption. James Ellroy, who wrote the book from which the movie was adapted, thoroughly researched the period, knew better. Which is why the book — and movie — work so well.
fwiw
Thanks for taking the time to review my logline.
All of the issues you talked about are addressed in the screenplay, but, unfortunately, there was no space to mention them in the logline.
The prosecutor is involved because he was about to try the dead businessman for bribing public officials when the guy turned up dead. This case was going to be a big deal; a career maker.
The businessman called the prosecutor a few hours before his death (an apparent suicide) offering information on a murder (that of the prostitute, but he doesn’t give that information at the time. The prosecutor finds this out later in his investigation) in exchange for leniency at sentencing. He also implies that this information involves the prosecutor’s father, the LAPD Chief (who, it turns out, killed the girl back in the day when he was a detective). The prosecutor is suspicious of the suicide, since the businessman sounded like he had a lock on a lighter sentence.
The case is closed quickly, too quickly, thinks the prosecutor. This arouses his suspicions and he smells a case that could be even bigger than the first one so he begins his own, unsanctioned investigation.
Given your expertise with the LAPD, I’d like to ask a question. I noticed in “LA Confidential” that the detectives were referred to either as “officer” or by their rank. Is that accurate or were they addressed as “detective”? Thanks.
Thanks for taking the time to review my logline.
All of the issues you talked about are addressed in the screenplay, but, unfortunately, there was no space to mention them in the logline.
The prosecutor is involved because he was about to try the dead businessman for bribing public officials when the guy turned up dead. This case was going to be a big deal; a career maker.
The businessman called the prosecutor a few hours before his death (an apparent suicide) offering information on a murder (that of the prostitute, but he doesn’t give that information at the time. The prosecutor finds this out later in his investigation) in exchange for leniency at sentencing. He also implies that this information involves the prosecutor’s father, the LAPD Chief (who, it turns out, killed the girl back in the day when he was a detective). The prosecutor is suspicious of the suicide, since the businessman sounded like he had a lock on a lighter sentence.
The case is closed quickly, too quickly, thinks the prosecutor. This arouses his suspicions and he smells a case that could be even bigger than the first one so he begins his own, unsanctioned investigation.
Given your expertise with the LAPD, I’d like to ask a question. I noticed in “LA Confidential” that the detectives were referred to either as “officer” or by their rank. Is that accurate or were they addressed as “detective”? Thanks.
Thanks for taking the time to crit my logline.
All of the issues you mention are addressed in the script, but, unfortunately, I didn’t have room to include them in my logline.
The prosecutor, Dev Stone, is about to try the businessman for bribing public officials when the guy turns up dead, an apparent suicide. The thing is, the businessman had called Dev a few hours before his death to offer information on a twenty year old murder in exchange for leniency at sentencing. He doesn’t give any details about the murder at that point, but he does imply that Dev’s father, the Chief of the LAPD, is involved (turns out, the Chief killed a teenage prostitute back in the day when he was a detective).
The cops close the case quickly; Dev thinks too quickly. Dev smells a rat because the businessman sounded like he had a get out of jail card, so why would he off himself? He also senses an opportunity for a case even bigger than the first one. He begins his own, unsanctioned investigation, getting resistance from the cops, including his father, all the way.
Given your expertise with the LAPD, may I impose and ask you a question? I noticed in “LA Confidential” that the detectives were referred to either as “officer” or by their rank. Is that accurate or should they be addressed as “detective”? Thanks.
Thanks for taking the time to crit my logline.
All of the issues you mention are addressed in the script, but, unfortunately, I didn’t have room to include them in my logline.
The prosecutor, Dev Stone, is about to try the businessman for bribing public officials when the guy turns up dead, an apparent suicide. The thing is, the businessman had called Dev a few hours before his death to offer information on a twenty year old murder in exchange for leniency at sentencing. He doesn’t give any details about the murder at that point, but he does imply that Dev’s father, the Chief of the LAPD, is involved (turns out, the Chief killed a teenage prostitute back in the day when he was a detective).
The cops close the case quickly; Dev thinks too quickly. Dev smells a rat because the businessman sounded like he had a get out of jail card, so why would he off himself? He also senses an opportunity for a case even bigger than the first one. He begins his own, unsanctioned investigation, getting resistance from the cops, including his father, all the way.
Given your expertise with the LAPD, may I impose and ask you a question? I noticed in “LA Confidential” that the detectives were referred to either as “officer” or by their rank. Is that accurate or should they be addressed as “detective”? Thanks.
>>>the detectives were referred to either as officer? or by their rank. Is that accurate or were they addressed as detective?
Either is accurate depending: civilians may call cops “officers”. Within the department, as in the military, cops address other cops by the title of their rank as matter of hierarchy, chain of command, respect for authority; after all, law enforcement agencies are quasi-military organizations.
Thanks for the clarification. The set up for the plot — let alone the plot itself — seems quite convoluted. Certainly quite a challenge to boil down to 30 words. Or even 40.
BTW: given that your story is about the LAPD in the same time period as “L.A. Confidential”, script readers, directors and producers are inevitably going to compare it with that movie. The question your story will be interrogated with is: what makes this different from, as good as — better — than “L.A. Confidential”?
Ain’t fair — but that’s show business. (Can you select another time period? What’s so special about your version of the mid-50’s that sets it apart from the 50’s of “L.A. Confidential”?)
>>>the detectives were referred to either as officer? or by their rank. Is that accurate or were they addressed as detective?
Either is accurate depending: civilians may call cops “officers”. Within the department, as in the military, cops address other cops by the title of their rank as matter of hierarchy, chain of command, respect for authority; after all, law enforcement agencies are quasi-military organizations.
Thanks for the clarification. The set up for the plot — let alone the plot itself — seems quite convoluted. Certainly quite a challenge to boil down to 30 words. Or even 40.
BTW: given that your story is about the LAPD in the same time period as “L.A. Confidential”, script readers, directors and producers are inevitably going to compare it with that movie. The question your story will be interrogated with is: what makes this different from, as good as — better — than “L.A. Confidential”?
Ain’t fair — but that’s show business. (Can you select another time period? What’s so special about your version of the mid-50’s that sets it apart from the 50’s of “L.A. Confidential”?)
I might be able to move it back to the late 1940’s. I think I’d lose the flavor of what I want in the story if I went backward or forward too much. Thanks for the info about the LAPD.
I might be able to move it back to the late 1940’s. I think I’d lose the flavor of what I want in the story if I went backward or forward too much. Thanks for the info about the LAPD.
Post WW2, late 40’s, would work better. Pre-Parker and the department reeked with corruption.
And that could be a story pay off: the scandal not only topples the bad cop, it triggers the appointment of a good cop like Parker to clean house.
Post WW2, late 40’s, would work better. Pre-Parker and the department reeked with corruption.
And that could be a story pay off: the scandal not only topples the bad cop, it triggers the appointment of a good cop like Parker to clean house.