When a low life trickster loses his partner, he must perform the great con with a once legendary con artist to escape the dangerous ganster he stole money from.
moviefreak81Samurai
When a low life trickster loses his partner, he must perform the great con with a once legendary con artist to escape the dangerous ganster he stole money from.
Share
“The Sting’? (1973), I presume.? So:
After a mobster has his mentor executed, a small time grifter teams up with a seasoned pro to get revenge with the ultimate con.
(24 words)
It’s true that the mobster is seeking to kill the small time grifter? a complication to amp up the suspense.? But the protagonist’s stated objective goal is to get revenge with a? big score, a “long con”.? ? How the money con is played out also cons the mobster into thinking the two grifters have killed each other.? ?Which, within the time frame of the film, solves the dramatic problem of the mobster seeking to have the protagonist killed.
hmmm good points.? Your logline makes absolute sense. One thing that crosses my mind tho, is that usually in filmes, when a character is seeking revenge, he is not (usually) in position of danger.
In Unforgiven, does Munny feels in danger like Hooker is?
In Death Wish,? Kersey like Hooker is?
In Kill Bill, is Bride like Hooker is?
My feeling here is that Hooker have a double goal, but since his henchmen is constantly on his track, it doesn’t feel his most urgent need is to actually revenge, but survive. What do you think?
moviefreak81:
Your raise several good points.
I am of the opinion that in a logline,? it’s always better to frame the protagonist’s goal as positive (from the pov of the protagonist, anyway) and proactive.? ? Not negative or reactive.? Because how one defines the goal says a lot about the character. To say he’s trying not to be killed by the mobster’s button men is negative and reactive — it defines the protagonist in terms of what he’s avoiding, not what he’s seeking.
Worse, it implicitly yields the driver’s seat and steering wheel of the plot to the antagonist, the mobster Lonnegan, because it has the protagonist reacting to Hooker’s agenda and purpose rather than acting on his own.
But, of course,??the protagonist should be in the driver’s seat. A logline should tell a reader where he wants to steer the plot at the end of Act 1.
The protagonist, Johnny Hooker, takes the driver’s seat, does put his hands on the steering wheel when he decides to seek revenge.? He could have steered the plot in another direction by not seeking revenge.? It’s his choice — nobody forces him to drive the plot in the direction of revenge.? ?(Whereas? Hooker has no choice but to take evasive actions and weave and operate under an alias to avoid being killed by the mobster, Lonnegan.)?
That road he intentionally takes of his own free will forces him to deal with his worst enemy face to face — adding more tension and suspense.
>>Hooker have a double goal…
The standard convention for composing a logline adheres to Aristotle’s dictum in “The Poetics”? that the plot have a singular, unity of action — one story spine, not two (or more).? Of course, there can be other story lines, subplots. But just as with a skeleton they are subordinate to and must hang on the spine of the main plot.? The main plot is the organizing principle of the drama.
And that is what a logline should convey– the organizing principle that drives the plot and around which all other elements? ?(characters, subplots) will be arrayed.
The subplot of the mobster trying to kill Hooker is a complication that serves the purpose of amplifying –juicing up — the main plot with additional complications, tensions, suspense.
Indeed, a protagonist that isn’t driving the plot forward (reactive) is not worth being the protagonist. That reminded me of Harrison Ford in the Fugitive. There is a constant ‘survival’ pressure on him, but still he is making all the calls.
I guess it all makes a better sense…? if I was going to rewrite it to a more proactive.. “When a low life trickster loses his partner, he must perform the great con with a once legendary con artist to avenge his friend.”
In this more proactive approach, the logline makes Hooker looks more badass than the really is heheh
The Fugitive is an excellent example of a protagonist who while fleeing is nonetheless in the driver’s seat of the plot.? The protagonist, Dr, Richard Kimble, doesn’t have to return to Chicago.? He would only put himself in greater jeopardy by doing so.
But he returns anyway — it’s his call, his choice — in order to pursue his objective goal, to find out who really murdered his wife and why.
I call this a “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” moment. (After?David Glasgow Farragut who gave that order in the Battle of Mobile Bay during the U.S. Civil War.)? IMHO, it’s one of the strongest choices a writer can give to a protagonist.
>>> looks more badass than the really is heheh
People in the The Biz have an inordinate affection for con artist characters because, I speculate, it’s a business where successful artists are also con artists.? They have to be:? manipulation is a? standard operating procedure.