Son of an Indian couple – who deeply believes in Gandhian ideals of nonviolence, accidentally kills a powerful man to protect his father. While the family on run, the son and father fiercely stands against each other?s way to fight out the enemy.

It’s no mystery to me why in that culture the whole family must flee because of the mistake of one member.

But the logline is confusing to me?on several points:

Is it the son (only) who believes in Gandhi’s??non-violence teaching.? Or the father?? Or both?

And does the whole family flee? Or do the father and son remain behind to fight?

And who is the enemy?? I presume it’s someone who belongs to the?the dead man’s clan.

And what becomes the son’s objective goal and strategy?? Is it merely a maintenance goal — to stay alive by killing those seeking to kill him?? Or must he save his life by ultimately?proving his killing was justified?

So… the son has broken the father’s Inviolate Rule about not resorting to violence.? That can be a source of ongoing conflict in the plot,?a moral debate between the father and son on how to deal with oppression and threats.? And I like stories with a strong moral argument, with equally legitimate claims or positions in headlong conflict.? But that’s a secondary story line, not the primary one.

The primary story line?is what the son must do?about the more urgent problem of? the dead?man’s kin (and/or henchmen)?coming for?revenge.?? The logline doesn’t say.? It should.?

As Nir Shelter said, the logline should focus on the primary story line which is?about?how ?the son intends to prevail against those who are out to? take revenge, to kill him..??The logline need not focus on the secondary story line, the?moral argument and discord?between father and son.

So, how, specifically, does the son plan to fight for his life against those who seek to kill him?