Nir Shelter,

My “Doh!” on the term “clown doctor”. When I see the word “doctor” I automatically think of a medical doctor who has to go through all the training, residency, etc.

I occasionally ask for more information than would be revealed in a logline in order to understand the bigger picture of the story and, hopefully, offer more useful suggestions.

Clarification: My intent was not meant to be personal but merely to offer an illustration that differentiates between subjective need and objective goal and between means and ends.

We are all protagonists in our own life plots. I think it safe to assume that the objective goal of our participation here is NOT to write a logline that elicits unanimous positive feedback as an in end in itself. FADE OUT… CREDIT SCROLL. Rather our efforts here are merely a means to an end, a minor goal on the way to the mega goal: write a script good enough to be made into a movie.

My personal minor objective goal is not to acknowledge and accept the fact that I haven’t been able to write a good logline for the stories I am working on. Or to criticize others’ loglines in order to inflate my ego. (That’s my character flaw!) Rather, my minor objective goal is to learn how to write a good logline, a means to achieving the mega goal of a marketable script.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

I have no problem with his subjective need being to accept his son’s death. The way modern plotting is supposed to work, the protagonist can’t prevail against the antagonist and reach the objective goal until he constructively deals with his subjective need. But my understanding is that while the objective goal should be explicitly stated in a logline the solution to the subjective need should not. Rather it should be implied in the character flaw.

So whereas you characterize your protagonist as a “guilt-ridden clown doctor”, I would suggest a “clown doctor grieving the death of his son”. As in “On the verge of being fired by a callous medical doctor, a clown doctor grieving the death of his son must…”

Well, must what? Here is where I’m uncertain because of my lack of knowledge on the subject. Maybe something like:

On the verge of being fired by a callous medical doctor, a clown doctor grieving the death of his son has 2 weeks to give a terminally ill 8 year old boy the gift of laughter.

The only thing I am fairly certain of is that it feels better to say “give the gift of laughter” than “make… laugh” even if the phrase takes up more words in the logline. I suggest it casts the protagonist’s goal in a more altruistic light. It seems to me that ultimately the story is not about what the clown doctor can make other people do in relation to his ego or character flaw. It’s about what he can give.

>>is this an interesting premise in your mind and a compelling dilemma?

Oh yes. This is a movie I want to see. Which is why I’m camping on your doorstep on this logline. 🙂

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.)