In order to take care of her recently orphaned younger sister, a broke twentysomething decides to sleep around with married men with the intention of blackmailing them, lest she expose them for their infidelity.
Even if she’s doing it for her younger sister, it still seems a touch too callous. Does it have to be several married men? Wouldn’t targeting a single, high-profile married man be the best way to go. Surely that would be enough money to get by, and any more would seem greedy.
The last line about – lest she expose them for their infidelity – is completely unnecessary. Obviously that is the case. I would prefer if the male target she went after was already having an affair (and hitting on her) and she just decided to take advantage of the situation to benefit her sister. If the man was her boss or something like that it would also add interesting complications.
To provide for her orphaned sister, a young woman accepts the sexual advances of her sleazy boss with the intention of blackmailing him later.
I like the idea. It’s an interesting concept.
I agree with Paul Clarke about the last line to be unnecessary.
But I actually think that the idea of her doing it to several men is more interesting. It evolves more risk this way.
Ant it’s something believable if she doesn’t have access to a very rich man. If she’s unemployed, for instance, she then won’t have a rich boss to blackmail. It’s just a matter of explaining throughout the film why she has to blackmail more than one guy. I don’t see a problem there.
I’d suggest that the woman should be married and she and her husband love each other. This way she would be risking more and it could create more tension.
For me the logline is good enough to get me curious to watch the film, so it works for me.
Why does it always have to be a woman who sells her body? How about a role reversal? A guy utilizes his only marketable assets– his looks and charm — to take care of his loved one by becoming a gigolo, blackmails married women. Who, after all, are likelt be more emotionally vulnerable and economically dependent (on their husbands)?