When his wife is murdered in Africa, his diplomat widow has to get to the bottom of an international conspiracy to find the truth. – Constant Gardener

First of all, thanks to moviefreak81 for posting the logline.? It was the inciting incident that spurred me to give the film a second look.? I am a great admirer of the fiction of?John le Carr?’,? and film adaptations, but this adaptation initially underwhelmed me.? Here’s my take:

After his fearless, socially-conscious wife is murdered in Kenya, a timid diplomat must get to the bottom of an international conspiracy to discover why.
(24 words)

My version builds on moviefreak81’s by inserting a few? words, defining the husband and wife.

His wife is “fearless” in a country racked with violence.? Which enables the local authorities and the British government to write her death off as lamentable. but her own damn fault:? she? recklessly put her life in danger for the sake of her social work.

The diplomat’s timidity offers a contrast between husband and wife that generates both love and conflict in their relationship.? And central to the plot, it? stipulates the character flaw he must overcome in order to achieve his objective goal.

Too often in loglines, a character flaw seems tossed in that is not germane to the objective goal.? And by not germane, I mean it doesn’t represent a subjective problem the? protagonist must overcome to? succeed, a problem that dooms him to failure if he doesn’t.??The way I determine how germane a flaw is to recast the flaw explicitly:? “After X, the protagonist must overcome Y in order to accomplish Z.”

For this film that would be:? “After his fearless, socially-conscious wife is murdered in Kenya, a diplomat must overcome his timidity to get to the bottom of an international conspiracy to find why.”? At 27 words, it makes explicit what is only implicit in the standard logline formula.? And clearly the flaw is germane.??

fwiw