Categories: Public
A Stranger World
If there is one note we often see being given for a logline in the industry at large and in this forum alike; it is CLARITY.
The key to writing a good logline is clarity over all.
You may have the best structured plot with the most interesting timely story about riveting character journeys in your script but unless the reader can understand them all these are pointless.
Of all the meetings I've had with producers and commissioning editors the one element that caught their attention causing their eyes to widen and make them want to know more was the clarity in which a concept was pitched.
"...generally educated but without a specific focused vocation. A bit of a poet, a bit of a scientist, etc." -
Is just not good enough, you need to answer every question a producer would have about your characters and main character in particular in order to write a good script.
In a logline best to specifically define a vocation or if he has none a main pass time to help the reader know who he is and inform the reader that you know who he is. More so if you are yet to start writing the script you will need to do so. Read Lajos Egri he explains the importance of having all the information about a character or as he calls it "the bone structure" of a character.
If he is an observer what vocation could you give him that would necessitate him to be so inclinde? Could he for example work for the very first bureau of statistics established in England? This could be the emergence of the big brother like government observing population agencies and you could use this as an interesting backdrop for the plot. Point is define his position in society and use it to exemplify what type of character he is also best to tie this in to the plot or backdrop some how as appose to it being an add on bit of information.
"You suggest adding a lot of detail here. Isn't that level of detail a little too much for a logline?" -
It's not the level of detail rather the type of detail that should concern you. Tell the reader what they need to know in order for the specific character whom the story is about in the specific place it is set to be put at maximum danger from the specific antagonistic force before achieving the specific goal.
"The bad-guy is a kingpin, because he controls a diverse criminal empire, just like those other Mafia bosses, drugs, racketeering, prostitution. He is all of the things you said. " -
Be specific and concise, what exactly about his nature will make it especially hard for the MC to achieve his goal, then use that as the antagonist's description.
"Am I wrong? do I really need to spell it out in the logline?" -
Yes and yes. Tell the reader what the MC will do (not blow for blow) so the reader can tell what kind of act 2 to expect. More to the point if you are still writing the script you need to know what type of action to invent for act 2.
Will he use the rise of bureaucracy in 19th century England to have the bad guy arrested? Will he manipulate operatives from with in the criminal organisation to conspire against the bad guy? Will he take up arms and physically fight the bad guys him self?
She could also be a minor mcguffin. Think of her as the head piece in the first Indiana Jones movie. The first event or obstacle that leads to a bigger more complex challenge. While rescuing her he discovers all this stuff. Then you have only one question, why would he care.
The 'hint' of a twist is why I used 'Royal family' as opposed to revealing the actual twist. I will think about your suggestion anyway.
I think I am coming rather close to my logline. and I've already written a very detailed synopsis with all the major set-pieces and a detailed and fairly complete sequence of events. In fact, I'm sure I have too much material at this point. I'm hoping the log-line will help me weed out unnecessary sections and tighten the plot.
thanks!
Hi DPG,
You may be onto something here. Maybe she choses to stay behind after his first rescue attempt, in order to provide support from within the organisation. That way, her true rescue doesn't occur until the end, and thus bolsters his impetus to 're-enter the fray' in act 3.
Good call. Thanks :)
Nir,
The reason I'm using 'gentleman, still struggling to find his place in the world', is he is literally a 'gentleman', relatively well off, generally educated but without a specific focused vocation. A bit of a poet, a bit of a scientist, etc. Is your suggestion that I give him a specific vocation? I suppose I could make him a poet. His actual work is fairly irrelevant apart from the fact that he is generally an observer from the sidelines, rather than an active participant.
You suggest adding a lot of detail here. Isn't that level of detail a little too much for a logline?
The bad-guy is a kingpin, because he controls a diverse criminal empire, just like those other Mafia bosses, drugs, racketeering, prostitution. He is all of the things you said. A notorious killer, a violent psychopath, and many other things. I thought that having him as a criminal 'kingpin' suggests all these things, without getting overly detailed. I could add in 'mysterious' or similar, as the identity of the villain is unknown until halfway through.
"face off" is used, because, again, he does a number of things to undermine and bring down the organisation. It isn't a single duel, or a 'set-up' or an infiltration. It is a combination of them all, and that is part of the mystery for watching the movie. How he does it - is the reason for watching the film. (Am I wrong? do I really need to spell it out in the logline?)
the "may lead all the way" was just for dramatic effect and suspense (I guess it didn't work!)... I take the note on that one!
thanks for the feedback!
The girl is the stakes character. There may be others who have a stake similar to hers in the outcome of the young man's valiant struggle, but she's the primary stakes character. She's the "casus belli", is she not? It's for her sake -- not for the sake of the others -- that he initially goes into action, right?
Ergo, to maintain and increase dramatic tension, keep the audience worrying, it's better that the fate of the stakes character that was the "casus belli" should be at risk,in doubt until the very last minutes of the story. (If he does save her by the end of Act 2, it's a pseudo-victory: there ought to be 3rd Act reversal that not only enslaves her again, but also puts the young man's life in maximum danger.)
Take a plotting cue from Homer (the poet, not the cartoon character) and the epic saga, "The Iliad". Menelaus led the Greeks in a 10 year war to return the stakes character, Helen, his lawful wife who had been abducted by Paris.. Homer didn't construct the plot so that he got her back 2/3 of the way through -- and then proceeds to conquer Troy to avenge her abduction. Menelaus didn't get back the stakes character, Helen, until the very end of the conflict, after Troy was conquered and sacked.
Three thousand years later, it's still the best way to plot a rescue: keep the fate of the stakes character in doubt, at risk, until the end.
So it is probably better to construct the action so that bringing down the entire criminal enterprise becomes a necessary means to the desired end of saving the girl, the only means left after all other options have been exhausted.
That his narrowly focused objective goal -- save the stakes character -- becomes harnessed to a greater cause and greater good should evolve in the course of the story. He doesn't start out intending to "save the world", only save her. Come to find out after all other options are exhausted, he has no choice left but to "save the world" -- a much harder task with bigger stakes -- in order to save the girl he loves.
fwiw
