Strife
kbfilmworksSamurai
On the run from a Yakuza enforcer, a young Londoner would rather die than be captured but the enforcer is under oath to kill himself if he fails.
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
As written, it stimulates more questions than interest in my mind.
Who is the protagonist? The enforcer or the young Londoner?
And why is the young Londoner being pursued? What has he done to make the enforcer his nemesis?
And: “kill himself if he fails” Fails to do what? Kill the Londoner? Capture and deliver him to the Yakuza boss
One way or another, is the Londoner doomed to die anyway?
The young Londoner is the protagonist. Why the pursuit? The enforcer needs to capture him and torture him for information that would lead to the pain and suffering of innocents. I suppose what I’m pitching is – the intensity of a conflict which is almost impossible to win and which neither party can afford to lose.
Also, the enforcer is under oath to his boss because he owes him a debt of honour which can only be repaid by killing himself if he fails to capture the protagonist – which is essentially the enforcer’s motivation not to fail.
The enforcer seems to me to be a more interesting character and have a more interesting predicament than the protagonist. He owes a debt of honor and MUST pay with his life if he fails to capture the Longdoner. That’s extraordinary high stakes.
One person’s impression, fwiw.
Yes, innocent people may die if the Londener squeals — but will he also die?
Again, as written , the personal stakes for the enforcer seem higher.
Thanks for your comments. I just think that the most marketable element of the script needs to appear strongly in the logline and in my view a thriller needs to be driven by a very strong conflict. And, yes the antagonist may appear more interesting and it’s important for a thriller to have a great villain. But the protagonist has a character arc along with his predicament. I just think producers of low budget thrillers are basically looking for that extra something that sets a script apart.
” the antagonist may appear more interesting” — as is Darth Vader in the 1st “Star Wars” trilogy. I take your point.
“that extra something that sets a script apart” — Of course, but I just don’t see an ‘extra something’ with a Yakuza enforcer in light of how many other films been made featuring the Yakuza.
Another thing: it is never sufficient for a protagonist in an action genre to be merely fleeing from something. He/she must also concurrently struggling to accomplish something– must have a objective goal. But in the logline, the enforcer is the one with an objective goal. The other guy is just fleeing. (Which is why I asked who was the protagonist.)
So it seems to me the logline might better reflect the protagonist if it were along the lines of “The Londoner must [yada-yada.]… or else …before [ ye ol’ ticking clock ] he is stopped by a Yakuza enforcer sworn to capture him — or commit suicide.”
Consider: The Fugitive. The movie is not about a protagonist who just flees from the relentless FBI agent who stays on his trail like a bloodhound. It’s about a protagonist with an objective goal: find the person who killed his wife.
I have to agree with dpg here — with the way the logline is currently structured it definitely reads like the ‘Londoner’ is the protag — but there is no drama here in this case, as he’s prepared to die rather than be captured. Spinning that around though, and making the enforcer the protag — well there’s some drama and a true dilemma:
‘On the trail of a young thief who is prepared to die rather than be captured, a yakuza enforcer must capture him alive or fulfill his suicidal oath if he fails’
… I’ve just used ‘thief’ here as I think an earlier version had the Londoner as stealing a briefcase (??) from the group the Enforcer works for.
Obviously, if you have the Londoner as the hero then you might need to look at ‘prepared to die rather than be captured’ and also look at his goal as mentioned by dpg.
Good luck.
Your comments are fair and inform me that the logline is consistent with the with script. Particularly in regard to your take on the protagonist. I don’t agree that a protagonist can’t just flee. The main character on Psycho – played by Janet Leigh – steals money and runs away. Her urgency and narrative drive are what capture our attention. Also, film noir protagonists are often victims. Take for example, the writer in Sunset Boulevard. The drive and energy comes from the story. Gloria Swanson character’s actions are critical to the evolution of the story. And, this character is one of the greatest ever.
Uh, Janet Leigh gets killed in the shower at the end of Act 1.
>> Also, film noir protagonists are often victims
Okay, but Joe in “Sunset Boulevard” stills has an objective goal, writing a script that will enable him to get out of debt, break free of Norma Desmond.
The villains in both movies are the more interesting characters. But are they the protagonists? And doesn’t all the fleeing takes place in the 1st Act?
I like the the idea of a very motivated Yakuza enforcer. But, you say he’s not the protagonist. The focal point of a a logline is supposed to be the protagonist, but yours tells me more about the antagonist than the protagonist. Just saying.
If he has to flee than at least he has to be fleeing TO somewhere/ someone/ something, doesn’t he? If his objective is to escape capture, enough so that he is prepared to die trying, surely he has some kind of indication of when he has achieved that — a point/ place/ a somebody that lets him know “I have escaped capture?… so that he doesn’t have to die. Surely the only point he would choose to die is when he realizes there is truly no escape from The Enforcer… and not before… not before… What?
Personally, I think if the logline included that ‘WHAT’ it would be much clearer as to who the protagonist is… and I think the less kind of basic/ fundamental questions a reader of the logline (and hopefully your movie) has to ask the better.
Also, — ‘Why the pursuit? The enforcer needs to capture him and torture him for information that would lead to the pain and suffering of innocents..’ — all we have here then is the need of the enforcer, which is cool, but all we really have of the Londoner is that they ‘…must escape capture’. I can’t think of a movie where you have a protagonist that must escape capture and they don’t have a goal in mind or an idea of HOW they’re going to do that… In Psycho, it’s not about an escape from the law by Janet Leigh because she stole cash from her employer, it’s about a psychotic killer with a split personality that preys on young females that come to stay at his hotel… . Psycho?s a weird one in that there are two protagonists, and two very distinct Acts: Janet Leigh in Act 1, and her sister in Act 2 (which carries into 3?) ? I would be pretty sure that the logline of Psycho would only make mention of Janet Leigh?s character?s death? not that she escapes the law.
Again, just me, but I think it’s simply a matter of including either what the Londoner (or protagonist) is going to do to avoid capture, or, how they’re going to do it, or why they’re doing it, in the logline — to me that is the essence of the film — that is of course if the Londoner is the protag…
Thanks. I’m reflecting on all these comments.
Yeah… Sorry for so much waffle in my last post btw… It was kinda late at night. I think the only problem with the longline is the risk being attributed to the enforcer; get rid of that, and it should work… I think that’s the main thing making hard to determine the protagonist.
Good luck.
I like the iead that it’s do-or-die for the enforcer. My concern is whether it is EQUALLY do-or-die for the protagonist; to wit, his life is as much on the line as the stakes people he doesn’t want killed.
It would be a break from the stereotype to have an agent of the boss villain who wasn’t such a cheap and stupid and expendable piece in the game. The standard plot is that the King throws all his pawns, knights, bishops and rooks to defeat the protagonist. In vain, of course, so he finally must deal with him mano-a-mano.
That’s my thinking as well – to try and break from the stereotype.
The protagonist knows he will be tortured for the information and killed so if he is captured his plan is to kill himself to save other lives and himself from torture. So yes, it is equal stakes for both protagonist and antagonist.
My approach to the logline is to get producers wanting to see the script without giving too much away or compromising the high concept nature of the pitch with a lengthy logline.
I’m not sure if – when writing a logline solely to market a script – it matters too much if producers initially think the enforcer is the protagonist as long as they request the script. Of course, when writing a logline as preparation to write a script this approach will not fly as one needs to be clear about protagonist and antagonist.
Kuramo bay,
You have my sympathy. The version of a logline for a story I’m writing that has the strongest hook also shifts the focus away from the protagonist.
My guts tell me to go with the version with the strongest hook. Rules were made to be broken. As my Latin teacher used to say, pecca fortiter. (Sin bravely)
I’d say definitely use the strongest hook when approaching the industry.
Sounds to me like you have a false antagonist that becomes the protagonist’s ally/ dual protagonist…. The real antagonist is the Yakuza, or whoever is playing the Enforcers boss. I think this would explain the issues with the longline (to me anyway)… I could be wrong… But if I’m not and if that’s essentially what happens then it probably should/ could be more clearly stated in the longline. It sounds like they both have the same goal… Stop innocent people from dying…?
… Sorry, strike that, I misread a previous post of yours…
I think the fact that the intended protagonist is prepared to commit suicide (which gets lost in the logline as it reads… he’s just prepared to die…) acts as a pretty good hook and isn’t something you see too often… so what you’ve got going on is both a protagonist and an antagonist who are both prepared to commit suicide if they fail in their respective missions — this to me is the hook. The other issue I see is ‘Young Londoner’ — IMO this is vague. Yes, we know where he’s from (if it is a he…), but we don’t know his function — either in the film or in society.
‘After uncovering a Yakuza secret that could kill thousands of innocents, a young man (or whoever he is function-wise) must out-run a Yakuza enforcer under a suicide oath to catch him, and (or, but) is prepared to kill himself if he’s caught.’
or:
‘A young man, prepared to die rather than be caught, must out-run a vicious Yakuza Enforcer bound by a suicidal oath, or risk the lives of thousands of innocents.’
Good attempt. I think the hook needs to jump out at the reader immediately: the protagonist is prepared to kill himself to evade capture and the antagonist will have to kill himself if he fails to capture the protagonist. In a way, it’s like a Mexican stand-off. And the question I want readers of the logline to ask is: how is this stand-off resolved?
That’s a good question — hopefully they don’t ask another one, like, “Who’s the protagonist?”
😉 Good luck with this.
On the run from a Yakuza enforcer, a young Londoner would rather kill himself than be captured but the enforcer is under oath to kill himself if he fails.
I think that hits the concept — but just personally I’d want to know why the hero is running from the Enforcer, and from the hero’s perspective. Yes, the stakes are suicide… but why? Maybe this would do if you were pitching face to face, but otherwise I think you need the goal stated if it’s being delivered in written form, i.e. that if he gets caught and the Yakuza get whatever he’s got, then thousands of innocent people will die.
I don’t know. Maybe not. I’d be interested to hear dpg’s take.
Kuramo bay,
Even though I have a better grasp of your concept from our exchange, my notes are given as if I were an underpaid, underloved, sleep-deprived script reader reading your logline for the first time. I pretend I’ve never read any version or explanation of your logline before. Your logline has 10 seconds to grab my eye balls and hold their attention.
By that criterion, your revised logline, taken on its own, still raises confusion as well as interest. The fundamental question remains: if the Londoner is the protagonist, what is he running from — and toward?
Breaking out your latest version by words pertaining to each character, here is the amount of word play your 2 characters get:
“On the run… a young Londoner would rather kill himself than be captured…” (13 words)
“..a Yakuza enforcer… the enforcer is under oath to kill himself if he fails.” (15 words)
So your antagonist gets more billing in your logline than the protagonist — and better billing. The enforcer is the more interesting character. I intuit in the phrase “under oath to kill himself if he fails” a compelling “B” story.
But, alas, the Londoner remains a cipher.
Again, I appreciate your struggle with this logline as I am struggling with a similar predicament for a script I am writing.
Kuramo bay,
Question #1: Which character changes more during the course of the story?
Questions #2: Why?
The protagonist. But it’s a thriller and the logline can’t be about the character arc it has to be about the main plotline.
Meanwhile, back from the woodshed:
When a penniless young Londoner steals a suitcase full of ?dirty money? he soon realizes he?s practically committed suicide. It?s too late to give it back and there?s an enforcer on his trail who never quits.
When a penniless young Londoner steals a suitcase full of ?dirty money? for a charitable cause a Yakuza enforcer is sent to recover the money or kill himself if he fails.
When a penniless young Londoner steals a suitcase full of ?dirty money? for a charitable cause a Yakuza enforcer is sent to recover the money or kill himself if he fails.
When a penniless young Londoner steals a suitcase full of ?dirty money? a Yakuza enforcer is sent to track him down and an epic battle begins on the streets of East London.
When a penniless young Londoner steals a suitcase full of ?dirty money? a Yakuza enforcer is sent to track him down and an epic battle begins on the streets of East London.
My current favourite:
When a penniless young Londoner steals a suitcase full of ?dirty money? for a charitable cause he soon realizes he?s practically committed suicide. It?s too late to give it back and there?s an enforcer on his trail who never quits.
Ditto. I’m not a slave to the general rule of cramming it all into one l-o-n-g sentence.
But I have one question: is the dirty money already earmarked for a charitable cause — and then the Londoner steals it? (I love the notion the Salvation Army sends an enforcer to get their donation back — but that’s a twist for a comedy.)
Or is the Londoner stealing it to give to a charity? (He’s penniless, yet stealing the money for charity, nothing for himself?)
Yeah dpg, it still needs work! I’m sticking with the original logline for pitching purposes.
To me, the initial logline still has two issues:
1) how and when does the Yakuza enforcer decide he’s failed
2) the Young Londoner simply has to hide out until the Yakuza enforcer decides he’s failed and kills himself
Of course, you can easily remedy this by giving the Yakuza enforcer a way of tracking the Young Londoner so that it’s impossible for him to escape…
Hi EdgeWriter,
Yeah, I posted a few variations of this logline. At the time I didn’t fully understand the rules. Apology.
After a total of about 100 comments, in my view, dpg totally and irrevocably nailed it with: a fearsome street enforcer pledges to kill himself if he fails to kill a penniless drifter who seeks personal redemption by defending innocent people from the enforcer’s boss.
The sole protagonist’s deadly determination is not enough. What action will he take and how will he act? In general, of course.
My new suggestion: What, if we present the fight as a clash between the civilizations?
A young Londoner apprentice in English/European martial arts…uses all his combat arsenal to…
# # #