Infatuation
When down-to-earth Nadya parts ways with her frivolous sister, following their mother's death, she resigns herself to a life of toil and loneliness. So when love comes to her unexpectedly, even amidst the chaos of the Russian revolution, she takes hold of it with both hands. But can her newfound romance survive his lingering infatuation with a long-lost beauty destined to resurface?
Share
Love is a luxury few can afford during the Russian Revolution. A luxury that Nadya must decide whether or not to fight for when the object of her fianc?’s lingering infatuation returns. Her identity may shatter more than just their budding relationship.
Love is a luxury few can afford during the Russian Revolution. A luxury that Nadya must decide whether or not to fight for when the object of her fianc?’s lingering infatuation returns. Her identity may shatter more than just their budding relationship.
One of my favorite miniseries is North and South (BBC). The story is similar to something Jane Austen might have written. What sets it apart? The strike at the cotton mills. These events add depth and urgency to the story, which is what inspired me to rethink my screenplay. The plot of the book is such that it could be set anywhere during that period. Changing the setting to place experiencing political turmoil added dimension, changed it from a meandering, soapy, drama, to an epic journey of finding real love even in the face imminent danger. Just that.
One of my favorite miniseries is North and South (BBC). The story is similar to something Jane Austen might have written. What sets it apart? The strike at the cotton mills. These events add depth and urgency to the story, which is what inspired me to rethink my screenplay. The plot of the book is such that it could be set anywhere during that period. Changing the setting to place experiencing political turmoil added dimension, changed it from a meandering, soapy, drama, to an epic journey of finding real love even in the face imminent danger. Just that.
Well done on finding the book DPG!
A point well raised about the setting change as it is significant and harks back to the comments I made earlier about the stakes and obstacles. A story happens to a specific character in a specific place at a specific time to create a specific set of circumstances that enable an interesting story.
Therefore when specifying such a setting as Russia and a time as the revolution you strait away call the readers attention to the details of the environment, the reader then thinks that it must have been done for a reason. If this is the case what is that reason? Does it help tell the story or detract from it? Does it give the characters a more interesting way to do what they do?
However, since the above has been left out of the most recent draft of the logline this is more of a question to be tackled in view of the treatment/script as appose to the logline.
With a clearer context of the logline at work here, as a pitching tool, it could benefit from a few changes. The latest draft of the logline is “leaner”, easier to read and therefore understand but a bit of restructuring is needed to aid in its goal (pun intended…).
For your reader to make sense of who the story is about and what she does perhaps first describe the MC then the introduction of the other woman. I think best to avoid such descriptions as “A new found love is put to the test,” because they are too vague to depict in what way the love is put to the test. Better to specify an action done by a character or event that happens to them than a broad description such as this.
My problem with the concept is that if another woman comes along Nadya would care and be greatly bothered by him having an affair.
The husband (according to your descriptions) doesn’t really want to be with Nadya, regardless, due to circumstances (society, culture, socioeconomic backgrounds) he proposes and she accepts. If Nadya is a strong and capable woman as you described her then she would be well aware of this and if anything be prepared for it. Presumably she wold fight for her man?
Since you keep iterating the importance of the story focusing on Nadya’s emotions, wouldn’t her pain be her motivation to do something to fix the pain?
Otherwise I’m just not sure what it is that the story will be about. What does Nadya actually do once she discovers the other woman is back?
Well done on finding the book DPG!
A point well raised about the setting change as it is significant and harks back to the comments I made earlier about the stakes and obstacles. A story happens to a specific character in a specific place at a specific time to create a specific set of circumstances that enable an interesting story.
Therefore when specifying such a setting as Russia and a time as the revolution you strait away call the readers attention to the details of the environment, the reader then thinks that it must have been done for a reason. If this is the case what is that reason? Does it help tell the story or detract from it? Does it give the characters a more interesting way to do what they do?
However, since the above has been left out of the most recent draft of the logline this is more of a question to be tackled in view of the treatment/script as appose to the logline.
With a clearer context of the logline at work here, as a pitching tool, it could benefit from a few changes. The latest draft of the logline is “leaner”, easier to read and therefore understand but a bit of restructuring is needed to aid in its goal (pun intended…).
For your reader to make sense of who the story is about and what she does perhaps first describe the MC then the introduction of the other woman. I think best to avoid such descriptions as “A new found love is put to the test,” because they are too vague to depict in what way the love is put to the test. Better to specify an action done by a character or event that happens to them than a broad description such as this.
My problem with the concept is that if another woman comes along Nadya would care and be greatly bothered by him having an affair.
The husband (according to your descriptions) doesn’t really want to be with Nadya, regardless, due to circumstances (society, culture, socioeconomic backgrounds) he proposes and she accepts. If Nadya is a strong and capable woman as you described her then she would be well aware of this and if anything be prepared for it. Presumably she wold fight for her man?
Since you keep iterating the importance of the story focusing on Nadya’s emotions, wouldn’t her pain be her motivation to do something to fix the pain?
Otherwise I’m just not sure what it is that the story will be about. What does Nadya actually do once she discovers the other woman is back?
>> The only major change I made was to the setting
Not an insignificant change, methinks, and I have to wonder why. Does the upheaval in Russia directly impact the plot, create seemingly insuperable complications or obstacles? What unique, dramatic purpose does Russia serve in the working out of the plot that can’t just as well be served by England?
>> The only major change I made was to the setting
Not an insignificant change, methinks, and I have to wonder why. Does the upheaval in Russia directly impact the plot, create seemingly insuperable complications or obstacles? What unique, dramatic purpose does Russia serve in the working out of the plot that can’t just as well be served by England?
That is the correct book. The only major change I made was to the setting. It was not difficult to work some of the historical circumstances into the exsisting storyline. You have the beginning of the story right, but what happens once they part ways is the meat of the story.
The “love is desirable, but not always practical” situation is exactly what makes her marrying a man who has mixed feelings about her believable.
The other sister doesn’t have to survive, she sells out and goes to live with their rich aunt whom the MC blames for their mother’s death. Nadya is left alone with her ideals. Through a series of events she falls for a man who is intrigued by her, but doesn’t really love her. He comes to see, however that she is strong woman and good match for him. He has given up on finding the woman he spent only one night with and never even learned her name, so he proposes to Nadya. Knowing his history, she accepts anyway.
The complication arises when he sees the woman he’s convinced is his one true love. When reading the book it’s not difficult to guess who this mysterious woman is, but for the screenplay I tried to make it a little less obvious.
Nadya’s objective need throughout the story is to survive. First the death of her mother, then the falling out with her sister, after that being blindsided by her love for a man who’s indifferent towards her, and finally the heartbreak of a love lost. Or is it?
That is the correct book. The only major change I made was to the setting. It was not difficult to work some of the historical circumstances into the exsisting storyline. You have the beginning of the story right, but what happens once they part ways is the meat of the story.
The “love is desirable, but not always practical” situation is exactly what makes her marrying a man who has mixed feelings about her believable.
The other sister doesn’t have to survive, she sells out and goes to live with their rich aunt whom the MC blames for their mother’s death. Nadya is left alone with her ideals. Through a series of events she falls for a man who is intrigued by her, but doesn’t really love her. He comes to see, however that she is strong woman and good match for him. He has given up on finding the woman he spent only one night with and never even learned her name, so he proposes to Nadya. Knowing his history, she accepts anyway.
The complication arises when he sees the woman he’s convinced is his one true love. When reading the book it’s not difficult to guess who this mysterious woman is, but for the screenplay I tried to make it a little less obvious.
Nadya’s objective need throughout the story is to survive. First the death of her mother, then the falling out with her sister, after that being blindsided by her love for a man who’s indifferent towards her, and finally the heartbreak of a love lost. Or is it?
Thanks to Google I was able to find an extract of what appears to be the start of the book. The inciting incident (which is usually where a logline kicks off), seems to be the death of their mother which plunges the 2 girls into dire economic straits ( ala “Sense & Sensibility” where the death of the father plunges Eleanor and Marianne and their mother and younger daughter into hard times.) And the setting for the story seems to be England.
Are we talking about the same book?
All of Austen’s major books are about women confined in a narrow world of limited opportunity; they can’t inherit property, they can’t even earn their own way in the world. Their only hope of improving their situation is to get a good match. Finding true love is desirable but not always ‘practical’ — see Charlotte Lucas in P&P.
Then there’s Edith Wharton’s grim “House of Mirth” set in a similar period as “Heart of Gold” (albeit in the USA) about the descent woman from the upper class into poverty.
So, what is Meade’s story about in terms of their objective needs? (Love wasn’t an objective need in that era. It’s was a collateral benefit, a bonus.) Aren’t the girls trying to survive in a tough world after their mother’s death, hoping for love, but… ?
Thanks to Google I was able to find an extract of what appears to be the start of the book. The inciting incident (which is usually where a logline kicks off), seems to be the death of their mother which plunges the 2 girls into dire economic straits ( ala “Sense & Sensibility” where the death of the father plunges Eleanor and Marianne and their mother and younger daughter into hard times.) And the setting for the story seems to be England.
Are we talking about the same book?
All of Austen’s major books are about women confined in a narrow world of limited opportunity; they can’t inherit property, they can’t even earn their own way in the world. Their only hope of improving their situation is to get a good match. Finding true love is desirable but not always ‘practical’ — see Charlotte Lucas in P&P.
Then there’s Edith Wharton’s grim “House of Mirth” set in a similar period as “Heart of Gold” (albeit in the USA) about the descent woman from the upper class into poverty.
So, what is Meade’s story about in terms of their objective needs? (Love wasn’t an objective need in that era. It’s was a collateral benefit, a bonus.) Aren’t the girls trying to survive in a tough world after their mother’s death, hoping for love, but… ?
A newfound love is put to the test, when the object of his lingering infatuation comes back into their lives. Her identity may shatter more than just their budding relationship.
A newfound love is put to the test, when the object of his lingering infatuation comes back into their lives. Her identity may shatter more than just their budding relationship.
I can come to terms with the need to reign in some of the wordiness. However, the story itself does need to be modified. The focus in most romantic dramas is the emotional journey. Of course, this is reflected in their actions, no argument there.
In my question concerning the antagonists of Pride and Prejudice, I simply meant that bigger isn’t always better, whether it be a novel or a movie. Elizabeth Bennet’s struggles are relatable. Not everyone has fought ih a revolution, but we’ve all dealt with people that make life difficult.
I enjoy a big budget action flick as much as the next person, but I still think there is a place for the classics. Afterall, at the heart of every good movie there’s an emotional journey, even a big budget action flick.
I can come to terms with the need to reign in some of the wordiness. However, the story itself does need to be modified. The focus in most romantic dramas is the emotional journey. Of course, this is reflected in their actions, no argument there.
In my question concerning the antagonists of Pride and Prejudice, I simply meant that bigger isn’t always better, whether it be a novel or a movie. Elizabeth Bennet’s struggles are relatable. Not everyone has fought ih a revolution, but we’ve all dealt with people that make life difficult.
I enjoy a big budget action flick as much as the next person, but I still think there is a place for the classics. Afterall, at the heart of every good movie there’s an emotional journey, even a big budget action flick.
Yes, alas, the length of the logline needs trimming. As Karel Segers points out in the guidelines, a logline should be one sentence. That is not an arbitrary stipulation. It reflects the nature of show business. Producers and directors are very busy, multitasking people. Realistically, you have only a few seconds to hook their attention for a story idea.
Ideally, a logline should not exceed 30 words. Again, that is not exactly an arbitrary number. I proved it to my own satisfaction by collecting loglines, analyzing them for methodology — and word length. I’ve got a sample size of almost 600 loglines for recent and classic films. The average length is 23 words. Almost 87% come in 30 words or less.
Not one logline exceeds 40 words. So there it is, there’s the constraint — and the challenge.
fwiw.
Yes, alas, the length of the logline needs trimming. As Karel Segers points out in the guidelines, a logline should be one sentence. That is not an arbitrary stipulation. It reflects the nature of show business. Producers and directors are very busy, multitasking people. Realistically, you have only a few seconds to hook their attention for a story idea.
Ideally, a logline should not exceed 30 words. Again, that is not exactly an arbitrary number. I proved it to my own satisfaction by collecting loglines, analyzing them for methodology — and word length. I’ve got a sample size of almost 600 loglines for recent and classic films. The average length is 23 words. Almost 87% come in 30 words or less.
Not one logline exceeds 40 words. So there it is, there’s the constraint — and the challenge.
fwiw.
I agree with you completely concerning Jane Austen. The author of the original novel from which I have adapted my screenplay is certainly less known, but by no means a nobody. Her pen name was L.T. Meade and she was a highly prolific writer producing around 300 books in her lifetime. The book which I have adapted is The Heart of Gold. She was feminist and al;most all of her works feature a strong female lead.
In a way the dilema does compare to that of Gatsby. I think the story endures because it’s so much more relatable than the traditional “happily ever after”. Who hasn’t had a crush on someone only to find out in the long run that they weren’t worth the time of day?
I know the story isn’t edgy, but I know it has the potential for success in it’s genre. Is this genre extinct? Pride and Predjudice, Gatsby, Anna Karenina, Atonement, Jane Eyre. I think not.
I’m not looking to modify the plot of the screenplay, only to create a logline that best piques one’s interest in it. Other comments state that it’s too wordy, would you agree?
I agree with you completely concerning Jane Austen. The author of the original novel from which I have adapted my screenplay is certainly less known, but by no means a nobody. Her pen name was L.T. Meade and she was a highly prolific writer producing around 300 books in her lifetime. The book which I have adapted is The Heart of Gold. She was feminist and al;most all of her works feature a strong female lead.
In a way the dilema does compare to that of Gatsby. I think the story endures because it’s so much more relatable than the traditional “happily ever after”. Who hasn’t had a crush on someone only to find out in the long run that they weren’t worth the time of day?
I know the story isn’t edgy, but I know it has the potential for success in it’s genre. Is this genre extinct? Pride and Predjudice, Gatsby, Anna Karenina, Atonement, Jane Eyre. I think not.
I’m not looking to modify the plot of the screenplay, only to create a logline that best piques one’s interest in it. Other comments state that it’s too wordy, would you agree?
Adapting a novel presents different challenges and opportunities when it comes time for loglines and pitches.
Jane Austen’s reputation is so well-established and illustrious that her name pre-sells any story and any character based upon her writing. (And her books have not just interesting characters, but strong ones who know what they want, more precisely, WHO they want.)
It may not be the case with the author of the book you are writing. I don’t know, since you’ve not disclosed the source, and I haven’t been able to ascertain it from the bread crumbs you have dropped.
>>it is more the notion of love at first sight (infatuation),
Reminds me of the character problem in “The Great Gatsby”. Daisy Buchanan is an empty vessel, a canvass on which Gatsby projects his dream girl. She’s a zero in whom Gatsby overinvests. And that’s the way Fitzgerald wrote her! And that’s the way she comes across in the movie. She’s a silly, shallow character. I have always thought the love story was insipid.
So why do they keep re-making the movie? I dunno. Maybe what attracts Hollyweird to the story, like flies to honey, is not the love story, but the razzle-dazzle of Jay’s opulent lifestyle, the decadence of the roaring 20’s.
Adapting a novel presents different challenges and opportunities when it comes time for loglines and pitches.
Jane Austen’s reputation is so well-established and illustrious that her name pre-sells any story and any character based upon her writing. (And her books have not just interesting characters, but strong ones who know what they want, more precisely, WHO they want.)
It may not be the case with the author of the book you are writing. I don’t know, since you’ve not disclosed the source, and I haven’t been able to ascertain it from the bread crumbs you have dropped.
>>it is more the notion of love at first sight (infatuation),
Reminds me of the character problem in “The Great Gatsby”. Daisy Buchanan is an empty vessel, a canvass on which Gatsby projects his dream girl. She’s a zero in whom Gatsby overinvests. And that’s the way Fitzgerald wrote her! And that’s the way she comes across in the movie. She’s a silly, shallow character. I have always thought the love story was insipid.
So why do they keep re-making the movie? I dunno. Maybe what attracts Hollyweird to the story, like flies to honey, is not the love story, but the razzle-dazzle of Jay’s opulent lifestyle, the decadence of the roaring 20’s.
“…your approach would create a perfectly generic logline.”
Don’t confuse words for actions which words you use can be “generic” or simpler as I would call it. The actions and beats they describe and the combination of actions and beats are what make the story unique not the words used to describe them.
“…with the focus being the character?s emotional journey…”
Giving your MC an antagonist and a clear obstacle will do just that because they force your character to make choices and take actions.
Good story telling is based on metaphors of reality not didactic literals referencing reality. If your character only goes on an emotional journey you won’t necessarily be able to show this visually in the film. However if you accompany the emotional journey with an external one that acts as a metaphor for the inner one then the emotional journey will come across at the end of the film through visuals and subtext.
“Would you suggest to Jane Austen that she replace Wickham with the entire British militia? Or Mr. Collins with the Church of England? Or Lady Katherine De Bourgh with the Queen of England?”
No I wouldn’t seeing as she wrote Pride and Prejudice as a novel. In books a writer can directly reference a character’s emotions without the need to rely on visuals.
Further more her writings are great works of the time and were written in the context of the culture and social conventions of 18th century England. Now days for most of the audiences these stories would not necessarily gain as much an interest as they did when first published.
Yes these are timeless classics and you and I will always enjoy them. However, will he majority of movie going audiences now days prefer to pay $20.00 to see these stories over other options when going to the cinema for a night out?
“…your approach would create a perfectly generic logline.”
Don’t confuse words for actions which words you use can be “generic” or simpler as I would call it. The actions and beats they describe and the combination of actions and beats are what make the story unique not the words used to describe them.
“…with the focus being the character?s emotional journey…”
Giving your MC an antagonist and a clear obstacle will do just that because they force your character to make choices and take actions.
Good story telling is based on metaphors of reality not didactic literals referencing reality. If your character only goes on an emotional journey you won’t necessarily be able to show this visually in the film. However if you accompany the emotional journey with an external one that acts as a metaphor for the inner one then the emotional journey will come across at the end of the film through visuals and subtext.
“Would you suggest to Jane Austen that she replace Wickham with the entire British militia? Or Mr. Collins with the Church of England? Or Lady Katherine De Bourgh with the Queen of England?”
No I wouldn’t seeing as she wrote Pride and Prejudice as a novel. In books a writer can directly reference a character’s emotions without the need to rely on visuals.
Further more her writings are great works of the time and were written in the context of the culture and social conventions of 18th century England. Now days for most of the audiences these stories would not necessarily gain as much an interest as they did when first published.
Yes these are timeless classics and you and I will always enjoy them. However, will he majority of movie going audiences now days prefer to pay $20.00 to see these stories over other options when going to the cinema for a night out?
I read this book in high school and thought that it had every bit as much potential as Jane Austen’s works to be made into a moving period drama. This was the first story I ever really wanted to write a screenplay for. Every time I read the book I still feel anxious for the outcome.
The characters are key. Although it is difficult to solidify in a logline, the female lead is a strong woman who makes difficult decisions based on her convictions. And I don’t consider the rival to be the antagonist, it is more the notion of love at first sight (infatuation), which is her greatest adversary. Her romantic interest is almost an anti-hero in that he is deeply flawed and, at first, almost repulsive, but his evolution throughout the story wins you over so that in the end you are rooting for them to end up together. What more can you ask for in a romantic drama?
I read this book in high school and thought that it had every bit as much potential as Jane Austen’s works to be made into a moving period drama. This was the first story I ever really wanted to write a screenplay for. Every time I read the book I still feel anxious for the outcome.
The characters are key. Although it is difficult to solidify in a logline, the female lead is a strong woman who makes difficult decisions based on her convictions. And I don’t consider the rival to be the antagonist, it is more the notion of love at first sight (infatuation), which is her greatest adversary. Her romantic interest is almost an anti-hero in that he is deeply flawed and, at first, almost repulsive, but his evolution throughout the story wins you over so that in the end you are rooting for them to end up together. What more can you ask for in a romantic drama?
While I can appreciate your view, I think your approach would create a perfectly generic logline. The more flowery language is a reflection of the period drama genre. I will take this under advisement though and try to reign it in.
As to generating a more powerful and frightening antagonist, I can only wonder, is there no longer a place in film for the period romance, with the focus being the character’s emotional journey, rather than some epic struggle between good and evil?
Would you suggest to Jane Austen that she replace Wickham with the entire British militia? Or Mr. Collins with the Church of England? Or Lady Katherine De Bourgh with the Queen of England?
The heart of the story is the MC and the heartbreak cause by the frivolousness of meaningless infatuation. The Revolution, much as in Anna Karinena, is only a backdrop.
What kind of logline could you expect for a story say like Sense and Sensibility? Such a complex story involving many characters, and no real antagonist does not easily condense into just a few sentences.
Lastly, I am perfecting this logline for a finished screenplay which made second round at Austin Film Festival, with the intention of including it in a query letter. Thank you again for taking the time to help me with this.
While I can appreciate your view, I think your approach would create a perfectly generic logline. The more flowery language is a reflection of the period drama genre. I will take this under advisement though and try to reign it in.
As to generating a more powerful and frightening antagonist, I can only wonder, is there no longer a place in film for the period romance, with the focus being the character’s emotional journey, rather than some epic struggle between good and evil?
Would you suggest to Jane Austen that she replace Wickham with the entire British militia? Or Mr. Collins with the Church of England? Or Lady Katherine De Bourgh with the Queen of England?
The heart of the story is the MC and the heartbreak cause by the frivolousness of meaningless infatuation. The Revolution, much as in Anna Karinena, is only a backdrop.
What kind of logline could you expect for a story say like Sense and Sensibility? Such a complex story involving many characters, and no real antagonist does not easily condense into just a few sentences.
Lastly, I am perfecting this logline for a finished screenplay which made second round at Austin Film Festival, with the intention of including it in a query letter. Thank you again for taking the time to help me with this.
>>What is your intention with this logline?
What is your intention with the story? What is so unique, what is so compelling about it? What is there about the story that has hooked your interest, made you want to tell it?
>>What is your intention with this logline?
What is your intention with the story? What is so unique, what is so compelling about it? What is there about the story that has hooked your interest, made you want to tell it?
There are still too many words in this logline that confuse the issue at hand. For example:
“In the throes…” = during.
“…tries to ignore her loneliness in a struggle to survive.” = redundant description. This is because it doesn’t describe a specific way in which she behaves or actions she takes whilst adding little to the story at hand.
“…Niko…” = a redundant name, it is enough to describe the character’s role in the story no need for a name.
“…fledgling affection…” = love.
“…lingering…” = redundant description.
“However, fed up with loneliness…” = desperate or lonely.
“…she throws caution to the wind…” = carelessly or recklessly.
“…into Niko?s life…” = redundant description as it is implied by her returning all together.
“…threatens to shatter more than just their budding relationship.” = destroy their love or destroy their relationship.
As previously mentioned most people use loglines as marketing tools to pitch their stories but some also use them to help structure the core elements of an idea.
What is your intention with this logline?
I ask because the logline appears to try and describe tone and back-story more than the progressive actions and motivations for them. The tone and back-story are important but normally best to save them for a treatment and let the logline tell the very basic chain of events that lead the MC through the story.
So if your pitching with this I would use this to expand it into a treatment and write a separate logline.
However if your structuring with this then I would boil the idea down to the most interesting bare components of the story and re draft the logline.
The MC – a lonely woman, the inciting incident – falling in love, the antagonist – rival woman, the obstacle – The Russian revolution, time and place – Russia early 20th century.
Though I would recommend using the revolution to generate a more powerful and frighting antagonist.
There are still too many words in this logline that confuse the issue at hand. For example:
“In the throes…” = during.
“…tries to ignore her loneliness in a struggle to survive.” = redundant description. This is because it doesn’t describe a specific way in which she behaves or actions she takes whilst adding little to the story at hand.
“…Niko…” = a redundant name, it is enough to describe the character’s role in the story no need for a name.
“…fledgling affection…” = love.
“…lingering…” = redundant description.
“However, fed up with loneliness…” = desperate or lonely.
“…she throws caution to the wind…” = carelessly or recklessly.
“…into Niko?s life…” = redundant description as it is implied by her returning all together.
“…threatens to shatter more than just their budding relationship.” = destroy their love or destroy their relationship.
As previously mentioned most people use loglines as marketing tools to pitch their stories but some also use them to help structure the core elements of an idea.
What is your intention with this logline?
I ask because the logline appears to try and describe tone and back-story more than the progressive actions and motivations for them. The tone and back-story are important but normally best to save them for a treatment and let the logline tell the very basic chain of events that lead the MC through the story.
So if your pitching with this I would use this to expand it into a treatment and write a separate logline.
However if your structuring with this then I would boil the idea down to the most interesting bare components of the story and re draft the logline.
The MC – a lonely woman, the inciting incident – falling in love, the antagonist – rival woman, the obstacle – The Russian revolution, time and place – Russia early 20th century.
Though I would recommend using the revolution to generate a more powerful and frighting antagonist.
You may be right about modifying the logline solidify Nadya as the MC. I’ll work on that.
Just to clarify, they’re not married only recently engaged. She is a cautious woman who under normal circumstance would never agree to marry a man knowing he still has feelings for another woman. She throws caution to the wind when she agrees to marry him.
BTW: I’m not trying to be obtuse about the details of the story. I just really want to see how the logline holds up to those who know nothing about it. Your comments are very enlightening.
You may be right about modifying the logline solidify Nadya as the MC. I’ll work on that.
Just to clarify, they’re not married only recently engaged. She is a cautious woman who under normal circumstance would never agree to marry a man knowing he still has feelings for another woman. She throws caution to the wind when she agrees to marry him.
BTW: I’m not trying to be obtuse about the details of the story. I just really want to see how the logline holds up to those who know nothing about it. Your comments are very enlightening.
In the throes of the Russian Revolution, down-to-earth Nadya tries to ignore her loneliness in a struggle to survive. When she meets Niko, her fledgling affections are tainted by his lingering infatuation with a mysterious beauty. However, fed up with loneliness, she throws caution to the wind and agrees to marry him. But when Nadya’s rival comes back into Niko’s life her identity threatens to shatter more than just their budding relationship.
In the throes of the Russian Revolution, down-to-earth Nadya tries to ignore her loneliness in a struggle to survive. When she meets Niko, her fledgling affections are tainted by his lingering infatuation with a mysterious beauty. However, fed up with loneliness, she throws caution to the wind and agrees to marry him. But when Nadya’s rival comes back into Niko’s life her identity threatens to shatter more than just their budding relationship.
Well, he comes off looking like the MC. He seems to drive the story, make the major decisions.
And perhaps that perception reflects the cultural times of the story, a time when women had fewer rights, less control over their lives. If so, the logline still needs to distill the essence of the plot from the woman’s point of view.
In your 2nd iteration, you say she “throws caution to the wind”. What does that mean specifically? Take a lover of her own? Leave him?
Given her circumstances, what specifically is her objective goal? What specifically does she intend to do about?
(I’m posting in this thread to maintain the continuity of discussion.)
Well, he comes off looking like the MC. He seems to drive the story, make the major decisions.
And perhaps that perception reflects the cultural times of the story, a time when women had fewer rights, less control over their lives. If so, the logline still needs to distill the essence of the plot from the woman’s point of view.
In your 2nd iteration, you say she “throws caution to the wind”. What does that mean specifically? Take a lover of her own? Leave him?
Given her circumstances, what specifically is her objective goal? What specifically does she intend to do about?
(I’m posting in this thread to maintain the continuity of discussion.)
He is open with her about his feeling for another woman who’s identity even he doesn’t know. They decide to move forward with the relationship, certain that this person will never come back intro his life. When she does, only he knows about their history and decides to keep it that way, but he doesn’t know of he can continue his relationship with Nadya.
He is open with her about his feeling for another woman who’s identity even he doesn’t know. They decide to move forward with the relationship, certain that this person will never come back intro his life. When she does, only he knows about their history and decides to keep it that way, but he doesn’t know of he can continue his relationship with Nadya.
A logline should never give away the ending. It should state the problem, but not reveal the answer, the resolution. The logline is not a summary; it’s a sales tool, a teaser to get producer or director to want to read the script and find out how it turns out.
>>The identity of the husband?s infatuation is unknown to the MC and is key.
Please clarify: does the MC know — or strongly suspect — he’s infatuated with another woman but not her ID? Or does she not know that he’s infatuated with another woman, has no idea why their marriage is a disappointment?
A logline should never give away the ending. It should state the problem, but not reveal the answer, the resolution. The logline is not a summary; it’s a sales tool, a teaser to get producer or director to want to read the script and find out how it turns out.
>>The identity of the husband?s infatuation is unknown to the MC and is key.
Please clarify: does the MC know — or strongly suspect — he’s infatuated with another woman but not her ID? Or does she not know that he’s infatuated with another woman, has no idea why their marriage is a disappointment?
In the throes of the Russian Revolution, down-to-earth Nadya gives little importance to thoughts of romance. When love does come to her, it is tainted by his lingering infatuation with a mysterious beauty. Fed up with loneliness, she throws caution to the wind. But when her rival comes back into his life her identity threatens to shatter more than just their budding relationship.
In the throes of the Russian Revolution, down-to-earth Nadya gives little importance to thoughts of romance. When love does come to her, it is tainted by his lingering infatuation with a mysterious beauty. Fed up with loneliness, she throws caution to the wind. But when her rival comes back into his life her identity threatens to shatter more than just their budding relationship.
These comments are very helpful. I can see why others may be frustrated by this process. To try to cram so much information into just a few sentences is very challenging. However, your comments have made it clear that this particular logline does not effectively convey the crux of her dilemma. This screenplay is an adaptation of a YA fiction from the late 1800’s. I added the historical backdrop to give it depth. The identity of the husband’s infatuation is unknown to the MC and is key. How does one write a logline for a story with a surprise ending without giving too much away? Thanks for your comments stand by for a revised version.
These comments are very helpful. I can see why others may be frustrated by this process. To try to cram so much information into just a few sentences is very challenging. However, your comments have made it clear that this particular logline does not effectively convey the crux of her dilemma. This screenplay is an adaptation of a YA fiction from the late 1800’s. I added the historical backdrop to give it depth. The identity of the husband’s infatuation is unknown to the MC and is key. How does one write a logline for a story with a surprise ending without giving too much away? Thanks for your comments stand by for a revised version.
The Russian Revolution has played a good back drop for many stories I personally find this very interesting. It adds a secondary layer to the love story as tension can vary as a result of the imminent chaos or the lovers relationship.
Tolstoy would be proud…
The logline however could benefit from more clarity. Looking at the opening:
“When down-to-earth Nadya parts ways with her frivolous sister, following their mother’s death, she resigns herself to a life of toil and loneliness.”
Not sure this needs to be in the logline. It seams like there is a potential for the mother’s death to be the inciting incident but then her falling in love takes that roll.
If the A plot is a love story then falling in love becomes the inciting incident and as love stories go they need something to keep the lovers apart and make the MC fight to keep them together. In the logline at the moment she has another woman keeping them apart but as DPG mentioned this kind of makes her the husbands puppet.
Why not exploit the great backdrop of social unrest and wide spread violence make the Russian Revolution keep them apart. This way she has to fight an entire nation to stay with her lover. She becomes a strong active protagonist with a powerfully compelling need that the audience will want to see her achieve.
You can even draw on this for an antagonist a crazed general that’s fallen for her or is after the husband/lover.
Then the logline ending can be cleaned up to reflect her action. I normally find logline benefit from ending in a statement rather than a question. Simply because they need to provide information that provokes questions in the readers mind making them want to know more. This is instead of ask the reader questions and expect them to think of an answer.
Hope this helps.
The Russian Revolution has played a good back drop for many stories I personally find this very interesting. It adds a secondary layer to the love story as tension can vary as a result of the imminent chaos or the lovers relationship.
Tolstoy would be proud…
The logline however could benefit from more clarity. Looking at the opening:
“When down-to-earth Nadya parts ways with her frivolous sister, following their mother’s death, she resigns herself to a life of toil and loneliness.”
Not sure this needs to be in the logline. It seams like there is a potential for the mother’s death to be the inciting incident but then her falling in love takes that roll.
If the A plot is a love story then falling in love becomes the inciting incident and as love stories go they need something to keep the lovers apart and make the MC fight to keep them together. In the logline at the moment she has another woman keeping them apart but as DPG mentioned this kind of makes her the husbands puppet.
Why not exploit the great backdrop of social unrest and wide spread violence make the Russian Revolution keep them apart. This way she has to fight an entire nation to stay with her lover. She becomes a strong active protagonist with a powerfully compelling need that the audience will want to see her achieve.
You can even draw on this for an antagonist a crazed general that’s fallen for her or is after the husband/lover.
Then the logline ending can be cleaned up to reflect her action. I normally find logline benefit from ending in a statement rather than a question. Simply because they need to provide information that provokes questions in the readers mind making them want to know more. This is instead of ask the reader questions and expect them to think of an answer.
Hope this helps.
First of all, the historical setting is of keen interest (I have another 700+ page on the Bolshevik revolution on my night stand) and a great source of human drama.
However, the love triangle sounds similar to the love triangle in Doctor Zhivago. Only it seems that in this instance, Nadya is cast in the role of Tonya, not Laura.
And not only is she the victim, she’s a passive one rather than an proactive one. As the logline is written, the story pivots on how her husband acts and chooses — not on what she does. She seems to be totally at the mercy of her husband’s capricious heart.
The plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist. But the plot is also supposed to be a function of character. How to square the circle on that one? The answer, it seems to me, is that while the initial circumstances of the plot may be beyond the main character’s control, how the character responds to those circumstances, choices she makes, determines the direction of the plot going forward and the eventual outcome.
Consider Katniss Everdeen in “The Hunger Games”. The plot could have been constructed so that Katniss was chosen in the lottery on reaping day — she had no choice, she was a helpless victim. The initial reaction of the audience, of course, would be pity. Poor Katniss.
Or she could have said nothing, let her sister be taken in the reaping, plotted revenge. But that would have been a totally different plot. And the audience might have consider her a weak character.
Katniss makes the strongest choice a human being can make under the circumstances, the conspiracy the plot has inflicted on her. She volunteers in her sister’s place. If she is a victim of circumstances, she is a proactive one, not a passive one. The second she volunteers, she’s a hero, a strong character, and everyone in the audience is not just pitying her (a weak emotional response), they are rooting for her to win (a strong emotional response).
[And Katniss continues to make strong choices that determine the course of the plot and increase the cathexis, the audience’s emotional investment in the character.]
So Nadya is the victim of her husband’s infatuation with another woman. What is she going to do about it? A logline is about a main character’s objective goal. What is Nadya objective goal? To win him back? To find someone who can truly love her?
What is her game plan for achieving her objective goal? What is her proactive choice? What is her strongest choice going to be? How will she be proactive, rather than passive?
Oh, and concurrently survive the chaos, suffering and repression of the revolution and its aftermath. Love is always a great subjective need, but doesn’t she have bigger existential needs to deal with — like merely staying alive?
I apologize for being prolix. Hope this helps.
First of all, the historical setting is of keen interest (I have another 700+ page on the Bolshevik revolution on my night stand) and a great source of human drama.
However, the love triangle sounds similar to the love triangle in Doctor Zhivago. Only it seems that in this instance, Nadya is cast in the role of Tonya, not Laura.
And not only is she the victim, she’s a passive one rather than an proactive one. As the logline is written, the story pivots on how her husband acts and chooses — not on what she does. She seems to be totally at the mercy of her husband’s capricious heart.
The plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist. But the plot is also supposed to be a function of character. How to square the circle on that one? The answer, it seems to me, is that while the initial circumstances of the plot may be beyond the main character’s control, how the character responds to those circumstances, choices she makes, determines the direction of the plot going forward and the eventual outcome.
Consider Katniss Everdeen in “The Hunger Games”. The plot could have been constructed so that Katniss was chosen in the lottery on reaping day — she had no choice, she was a helpless victim. The initial reaction of the audience, of course, would be pity. Poor Katniss.
Or she could have said nothing, let her sister be taken in the reaping, plotted revenge. But that would have been a totally different plot. And the audience might have consider her a weak character.
Katniss makes the strongest choice a human being can make under the circumstances, the conspiracy the plot has inflicted on her. She volunteers in her sister’s place. If she is a victim of circumstances, she is a proactive one, not a passive one. The second she volunteers, she’s a hero, a strong character, and everyone in the audience is not just pitying her (a weak emotional response), they are rooting for her to win (a strong emotional response).
[And Katniss continues to make strong choices that determine the course of the plot and increase the cathexis, the audience’s emotional investment in the character.]
So Nadya is the victim of her husband’s infatuation with another woman. What is she going to do about it? A logline is about a main character’s objective goal. What is Nadya objective goal? To win him back? To find someone who can truly love her?
What is her game plan for achieving her objective goal? What is her proactive choice? What is her strongest choice going to be? How will she be proactive, rather than passive?
Oh, and concurrently survive the chaos, suffering and repression of the revolution and its aftermath. Love is always a great subjective need, but doesn’t she have bigger existential needs to deal with — like merely staying alive?
I apologize for being prolix. Hope this helps.