When an out of work teacher is given a deadline by a loan shark, he contracts a hit-man on himself so his family can collect on his life insurance. However after he befriends the hit-man they decide to fake his death instead.

Nir,

Thanks for the clarification.

What hooked my interest, my enthusiasm, what I think will sell the story is the central premise: a woman in deep debt to a loan shark hires a man to kill her so her family can collect the life insurance only to have him fall in love with her and refuse to do it.

I think it’s a winner.

The corporate subplot — whatever. It doesn’t hook my interest, doesn’t make me enthusiastic. (Others’ mileage may vary.) It seems to me you’ve got enough raw material for a solid story without it. But if it complements and works well with the “A” story, go for it.

But I would not advise cluttering up the logline with the corporate complications. Save it for the pitch. Ideally, a logline should KISS (Keep It Simple…Shelter)

What has the board member done that he needs to be ” brought to justice”? Frame the CEO? But the evidence that would bring that to light would also bring to light the CEO’s own crime of embezzlement, wouldn’t it? Doesn’t that bring the CEO back to square one of the problem she’s trying to solve?

>> A black comedy about a fish out of water that has to learn the rules of a world unknown to her.

Oh. Okay. Maybe something like:

Facing the deadline for an unpayable debt to a ruthless mobster, a woman hires an ex-con to fake her death so her family can collect the insurance only to have him fall in love with her and vow to kill the mobster instead.

And furtherless, the latest version of the logline has two major plot triggers. (Some might even say 2 inciting incidents.) 1] The blackmail that triggers the attempt to fake her death. 2] The love affair that triggers her to reverse course and fight back.

Of course, a good script would have plenty of reversals, twists and turns in the story line. But a logline usually only includes one major trigger: the original inciting incident. The trigger of the love story doesn’t seem to complicate her situation so much as offer the solution to her predicament. Indeed, it seems to raise an entirely new dramatic question than the one that follows from the first trigger.

[I apologize for not offering something constructive. It’s just that the premise invokes a different story line and characterization in my mind. I’m having a hard time synching up with where you seem to want to go with the story and character. But it’s your story and character.]

Hmm. That seems to be a different story than the impression I got from earlier versions of the logline. For one thing, the latest version seems to clutters up the concept with 2 villains, the loan shark and the board member.

Also, if her flaw is pride and the remedy is humility, then doesn’t the remedy entail confession, disclosure of her offense? In the dramatic sense of nemesis, isn’t the threat of blackmail exactly what she has coming to her?

Nir,

Let me put it this way. Initially, I responded to your concept from the outside, the external predicament of the MC created by the loan shark. Then I got to thinking about the premise from the inside, the mind of the character as revealed by her response to the loan shark’s threat. Her initial response is to stage her own suicide in a way that will look like murder so her family can collect the life insurance. And to deceive the loan shark.

Which takes considerable time, effort and expense. Expense raises a side bar plot question: she doesn’t have enough to pay back the loan shark, but she does have enough to hire a professional killer? If he’s any good at his job, he wouldn’t come cheap now would he? Hmm.

Anyway, the situation undergoes a classic peripety , a reversal. When the two fall in love (or does he fall in love with her and she manipulates him?), she goes from wanting to die, to wanting to live. In addition, her role reverses from being the victim of the persecutor (the loan shark) to the persecutor of the loan shark, intent on making him her victim.

It seems to me that her peripety in roles must needs be motivated by a commensurate reversal in motivation and intent. She ought to swing from feeling she must kill herself to feeling she must kill the loan shark. Rather than punishing herself with death, she’s going punish him with death. IOW: revenge.

Why? Because the desire for revenge is a normal reaction to being victimized and MUST be part of her motivation. She can’t be doing some half-measure, to kill his business but not his life, only out of the goodness of her heart, to rescue others from being victimized by the loan shark. Acting out of altruism with no taint of the desire for revenge is not a believable human response. And it’s not a sufficient dramatic response, imho.

Whatever the motivation for her actions are, first and foremost it must be personal. Altruism isn’t personal. Revenge is.

Also, the external situation demands more than a half-measure. It seems to me that killing the loan shark doesn’t really solve the blackmail threat. Even after she’s “dead”, the loan shark can shame her memory by revealing to her family the debt she incurred. And since she would still be alive, she’d have to live with that.

So when I analyze it from the inside, it seems to me, her objective goal ought to be to kill the loan shark. (Or cleverly arrange for some 3rd party to do the dirty work.) It’s the only way to solve the problems created by her resorting to a loan shark. It’s the only way she can be sure of getting out in every possible way from the terms of the debt (monetary and emotional) she has incurred.

But then I tend to over-think scenarios (Number #5 on my list of character flaws). Anyway, fwiw.

Okay, but how do they plan to “eliminate further damages”? What’s the visual on that?

What are the ultimate stakes for both sides if not their very lives? Your story is like a high stakes poker game; what’s the last stack of chips that pushed into the pot by all the players?

What is the end goal, the final objective they want to “fight” for?

I don’t think it is enough to kill the henchmen. The henchmen are not the antagonists — the loan shark is. In every drama, there’s an implicit, if not explicit, Obligatory Scene, a “High Noon” showdown between the protagonist and the antagonist — not between the protagonist and the proxies of the antagonist. The protagonist couple have to ‘retire’ the loan shark, and in doing so, permanently ‘retire’ the loan. It’s the only way they can be sure. (And then, faking the death isn’t necessary.)

Why not a love story instead of a buddy story? A pro assassin (man or woman) falls in love with the (woman or man) who hires him/her to kill her/him so the family can collect the insurance.

And after they fall in love, why don’t they decide to kill the loan shark instead? Isn’t that an ultimate solution to the financial problem?