I am still “dot pointing†this story. I know the look and feel. I know that the undercover guy wants to go back to UC. But he can’t. He is PTSD on legs. I also know that when they start to find the connection to his old case, he has a hard time believing it. He even, engages in corrupt behaviour thinking he is protect UC. This is how it ends. He has to throw himself on his sword. He realises that his old ways broke him. That he wasn’t valuable to them. He was something to be used and discarded.
The story also shows that the system that broke him will also punish him to protect itself. He has an underlying fear of having to pay for things he did when he was young.
Pile on. All comments and questions will not only help the logline, but may trigger ideas. Thanks Craig
This is all just the inciting incident as it currently stands. What are they going to do about it? What’s their objective goal?
I feel like the first sentence is unnecessary. We don’t need to know they are transferred as that’s simply a bit of back story and not the inciting incident. Without knowing why they’re transferred and how that could play into the story, it’s just a bit of colour really.
I’m not sure we need the rookie detective in the logline either. It seems to be much more personal to the undercover cop so, whilst he can have a partner, logline-wise it doesn’t add a lot.
The word “broken” is a bit ambiguous. What, specifically, is wrong with him? You mention PTSD in your comment, PTSD from what?
I think the cover up is possibly an MPR. Surely first of all he makes the connection to an old case then as he investigates that he discovers the cover up that changes his goal. Classic MPR.
I wonder if it’s worth adding that the old case is unsolved. Then the goal is more obvious – solve both cases. It also answers the “why this guy?” question. It’s his old case that he never solved.
I think it would be reasonably straightforward to make this logline work as one sentence, have a suitable goal, and an MPR. What’s the hook though? There’s nothing (yet) that makes this stand out from other similar crime noir films. Flip genders? Homme fatale instead of femme fatale?
Hope this helps in some way.
Thanks. Having them transferred in, I hope, indicates that they are not long term partners. They don’t have each other’s backs (yet). The rookie would be more keen to not ruin his career for a person he hardly knows, especially since he just got that chance.
Working undercover takes years sometimes. He has been traumatised. He thinks he can handle the pressure but he can’t. He came out of UC with a drug problem, which is he going to NA to get under control. He is impulsive and doesn’t think to far ahead.
When he begins to see links back to his old cases he wants to look into it himself. He is loyal to undercover and knows he did some shady stuff. His partner doesn’t want to be involved. First conflict between them. If UC could have his way he would go back. He can’t see the value of normal police work. About half way through when he sees that his old handler may be involved he is emotionally unsure what to do. He can’t bring himself to betray the person that held his life in his hands for years.
There is no resolution in the logline. Because I am not 100% sure how it ends. I have the UC throw himself on his sword, and take the wrap for stuff they did. He doesn’t want to rookie to be tarred with his brush.
I’ll think about it and post an updated.
CraigDGriffiths:
As someone who has worked for the police, I have issues about the terminology and the characterization of police work in your logline and remarks. Maybe the terminology is a matter of different cultures (Australia versus USA).
Two examples: rather than “traumatized” or “broken” I suggest exploring the idea that he is simply burned out from the accumulation of stress and frustration over the years. That’s a more common and credible problem. And rather than “handler”, the proper term is supervisor. Cops, even when working undercover, don’t have handlers. They have supervisors in the chain of command they report to. So if he’s a detective, he would report to a lieutenant or captain in his unit.
[Expletive deleted]!! Can’t edit reviews after they are posted.
And a third example of terminology:
If he was an undercover cop, whatever his psychological problems, he has a lot of experience, a lot of street savvy which the department would want to put to good use by having him work **cold cases** (murders, mysterious deaths, missing persons).
Torn between loyalty to his undercover past and doing the right thing a broken ex-uncover cop joins missing persons. During his investigation he discovers a link to an undercover operation he was involved in and a cover up by his old supervisor.
>>>Torn between loyalty to his undercover past and doing the right thing a broken ex-uncover cop joins missing persons.
Law enforcement is a top-down, quasi-military institution. Cops can’t join a particular unit or task force simply because they want to. They have to request to work in a unit or task force. Where they work is up to people who outrank them.
And the dilemma he faces would be between loyalty to his undercover *partners* or loyalty to his oath. Which is a very real, not uncommon dilemma cops face because of the strong bonds that form among officers, bonds formed by life-or-death situations. You depend on your partner to cover your back .
And it’s still unclear what the dramatic problem is, what is at stake. The cover up could be about a 101 different crimes. Which one is it?
Thanks.
“Joins” for me is the outcome not the trigger. Regardless of him being sent there, requesting a transfer or as a promotion, he joined them. Word choice. I’ll try to find something better.
The stakes are his struggles. He is perhaps suicidal (the writing will tell me. But I could believe it). He wants to get back to undercover, but that ship has sailed, which he can’t accept. It is a struggle with identity, purpose and self worth (betrayal). As the investigation unfolds, he sees that his ex-supervisor (which is involved) is willing to sell him out, betray him.
At some level it is his life at stake. Not a binary “win/lose” goal. I know that makes it more difficult to visualise.