I think Richiev’s logline fairly well conveys the gist of the story as far as we know it from the original logline. ? This appears to be a story more about relationship than action.

I, for one, would like to know what the stakes are. ?The immediate stakes. ?What will the mother have lost by the end of the story if she fails? ?What will she gain if she succeeds? ?And as this is a story for a visual medium, ?how does the stakes translate into a specific visual, a specific scene that let’s the audience know whether she has succeeded or failed?

Or to look at it from another angle, this is a story millions of mothers can identify with because this is something they have experienced. There comes a time when children fly away — they take wing and become independent. ?They must.

But this ability to identify with the character’s predicament as a shared experience is a two-edged sword. Because become an empty-nester is so common, such an inevitable and, ergo, ordinary event in a parent’s life, what is so uncommon, so extraordinary about this character and her experience that would induce an audience to want to invest their time and money to vicariously relive it?

To put it ?crudely, after enduring the ordeal of a root canal, why would I want to watch a story about someone else having a root canal? ? Why would I want to re-experience the ordeal, even if only vicariously?

fwiw