THE BLACK LIST 2014 - Logline Beat Down

[Pitchpatch]

A GARDEN AT THE END OF THE WORLD - good
Gary Graham

In a post-apocalyptic world, a recluse, trying to recreate trees to produce new life, takes in a young girl who is on the run from some bad men, including her father.



A clear sense of setting and genre.  A strong setup with clear goals for protag and antag – opposing goals that cannot avoid crashing head on, leading inevitably to a final showdown between tree farmer and the runaway's father.  I really like this logline's simplicity.

Phrased as it is, there's ambiguity about whether her father is with the “bad men” or whether he's pursuing her separately in his capacity as just another bad man.  I'll assume the father is with the others – in fact, he's their leader.  Solid drama there.

“A recluse trying to restart tree growth in a post-apocalyptic world takes in a young girl on the run from bad men led by her father.”

If that's too exhausting without commas, we can slow it down.

“A recluse, working to restart tree growth in a post-apocalyptic world, takes in a young girl on the run from bad men led by her father.”

Comfortably under 30 words now.  With or without the changes, the logline does its one job well.

[Pitchpatch]

COFFEE & KAREEM - good
Shane McCarthy

An overweight, foul-mouthed nine year old reluctantly teams with the straight edge cop sleeping with his mom to take down Detroit's most ruthless drug lord.



A terrific pairing of title and logline equals must read.  All those loaded words creating anticipation of conflict: overweight, foul-mouthed, reluctantly, straight-edge, take down, ruthless, drug lord.

You should only need to read a logline once, as demonstrated here.  The only acceptable reason to read a logline twice is when it blows your mind so completely you have to go back and confirm it said what you think it said.  That's why I'm such a stickler for resolving ambiguity – unless the ambiguity is the rare good kind that elevates a logline.

One thing this logline does is play it PC safe.  "Overweight" not "fat."  "Sleeping" not "screwing."  Wouldn't it better serve the logline, this being an action-comedy screenplay, if we use the unPC version?

"A fat, foul-mouthed nine-year-old reluctantly teams with the straight-edge cop fucking his mom to take down Detroit's most ruthless drug lord."

Okay, okay.  I know that version will never make it verbatim into any TV program listing.  "Screwing" might survive scrutiny, though.  I like how the unPC approach flavors the logline with the nine-year-old's POV, as if he's reading out loud the official logline and correcting it on the fly.  Fucking his mom is how he'd see it.  "Straight-edge" he'd certainly swap out for something more derogatory.  Maybe "... teams with the straight edge dickwad cop fucking his mom...."  Then, probably: "... to take down Detroit's most asshole drug lord."  Putting the POV version together:

"A fat, foul-mouthed nine-year-old reluctantly teams with the straight-edge dickwad cop fucking his mom to take down Detroit's most asshole drug lord."

The kid would surely play up his role.

"A fat, swearing, totally awesome nine-year-old reluctantly teams with the dickwad pussy cop fucking his mom to take down Detroit's most asshole drug lord."

Mwahahaha.  Now the logline drips with obnoxious tween boy attitude.  But we'll use Shane's original version whenever we're in polite company.

[Pitchpatch]

FORGIVE ME - good
Max Hurwitz

How Mike Wallace helped to create 60 Minutes and how years later, he confronted and dealt with his own depression.



Biographical loglines are tough to get right, as we've seen again and again throughout this Black List topic.  Max succeeds, I think, by including that second clause about Mike's battle with depression.  We love to learn about other people's sorrows and misfortunes.  It's why we enjoy dramatic entertainment.  It's why TMZ thrives.  It's fascinating to watch the Mighty fall and struggle, the Meek rise and prosper.  It's human.  An acute awareness of contrast is coded deep in our monkey genes.

Before we move on, I'll quickly point out the need for a comma after “how” to properly punctuate the sentence.  Or, slide that single comma left and let it rest in front of “and how years later he confronted...”

[Pitchpatch]

IN REAL TIME - nope
Chai Hecht

A young man convinced that his mentally unstable sister needs to relive her high school prom from ten years prior to overcome her depression goes to great lengths to recreate that event.



Overstuffing a comma-less sentence is something I do too, but I try to keep watch for when the floor starts creaking and cracks start appearing.  I'm hearing and seeing it with this logline.  We're maybe two words away from total readability implosion.  We can easily thin it all out without sacrificing anything.  Cut useless words, compress ideas, tell the story without circumlocution.

“Ten years later, a young man recreates his sister's high-school prom, hoping it will end her crippling depression.”

Massive word slaying: 32 to 19.  Do we need "mentally unstable sister" when we've given her "crippling depression"?  I don't think so.  Crippling depression comes with all kinds of mental instability.  Do we need "relive"?  The revision's last part can be interpreted no other way than he's recreating the prom for her to relive.  How would it solve her depression otherwise?

I'm concerned about a lack of embedded conflict.  There's no antagonist other than depression.  We know something terrible happened at the prom to cause her chronic depression.  Maybe give us a hint of that.  We have ample room now to add it if we feel like beefing up the logline.

[Pitchpatch]

IN THIS, MY DARKEST HOUR - nope
Bryan Mc Mullin

A man rises to power during the California gold rush, tearing his family apart.


Will there be blood?  There will be blood!

A man rises to power at the expense of his family.  And?

[Pitchpatch]

MONEY MONSTER - good
Alan DiFiore, Jim Kouf, Jamie Linden

After a man loses all his money in the stock market by following the advice of a Wall Street TV host, he takes the money adviser hostage on live television.



The double reference of “Wall Street TV host” and “money adviser” begs to be unified.  I attempted to further distill this pretty good logline, but I'm not completely happy with the results.  The original robustly resists any serious tinkering.

“When a man follows a Wall Street TV host's stock market advice and loses everything, he takes the adviser hostage on live television.” (30 words down to 23)

“After a man follows a Wall Street TV host's stock market tips and loses everything, he takes him hostage live on air.” (22 words)

“Wall Street TV host's stock market advice” is a mouthful.  It's nice to have “Wall Street” and tap into that ready-made hatred, but it's not required to understand the setup.

“A man follows a financial adviser's TV stock market tips and loses everything, so he takes him hostage live on air.” (21 words)

Having stripped the LL to bare bones, we have room to add elements.  Right now we have Inciting Incident (protag loses all his money) and Act One turning point (takes the advisor hostage on live TV).  That's an excellent foundation to build on.  Let's try some color:

“When a retired police negotiator follows a financial adviser's TV stock market tips and loses everything, he takes the adviser hostage live on air.” (24 words)

I'm reaching for the nearest thing here, so forgive the cliched example, but already we've amped up the intrigue simply by adding character elements that creates irony and conflict.  The protagonist is retired, so we know his life savings have gone up in smoke – big stakes, big motivation.  We know he's an ex-cop – but not just a cop, a police negotiator.  If such a person chooses to reverse roles and take a hostage, they're in a strong position of power.  They can predict how the opposition will think and act.  That should create some exciting twists and turns as the retired cop and the acting negotiator try to outwit and outmaneuver each other.

[Pitchpatch]

MY FRIEND DAHMER - hmmm
Marc Meyers
 
Based on the acclaimed graphic novel by John Backderf, Jeffrey Dahmer struggles with a difficult family life as a young boy and during his teenage years he slowly transforms, edging closer to the serial killer he becomes.



Provocative title indeed.  Right up there with “My friend Hitler.”  Films with these titles are surely death at the box office – unless the audience knows Mel Brooks is the director.

Let's lose the name-check immediately.  I don't care if this story is based on Shakespeare's lost manuscript for "Hamlet 2: Wrath of Horatio."  The LL must convince me on its own merits.  Which leaves us with:

“Jeffrey Dahmer struggles with a difficult family life as a young boy and during his teenage years he slowly transforms, edging closer to the serial killer he becomes.”

The LL presents two ideas: Dahmer had a difficult childhood; Dahmer's teen years put him on the road to serial killer.  The LL kind of fumbles the latter, I think, using unnecessarily convoluted language.

Here's my first eye-popping revision.  See if you can spot the tasteless (there I go again!) word choice:

“A difficult family life as a young boy feeds Jeffrey Dahmer's teenage years, when the serial killer in him matures.”

That captures and connects the two ideas pretty well.

Despite the title “My Friend Dahmer,” the logline doesn't mention this friend of Dahmer.  Why not?  It's reasonable to think the story will be told through the POV of this friend.  Knowing we'll be insulated somewhat from the toxic fumes of Dahmer's evil nature would certainly make this story more palatable for audiences.  Something like:

“A high-school newspaper editor fights his principal to publish a story about serial killer Jeffery Dahmer's difficult childhood and teenage years.”


FOUR loglines remain in this year's Black List Beat Down.  Any aces left in the pack?

[Pitchpatch]

SEDUCING INGRID BERGMAN - hmmm
Arash Amel
 
Based on Chris Greenhalgh's eponymous novel. Ingrid Bergman and war photographer Robert Capa engage in a passionate, life-changing romance in post-World War II Paris.



The famous subjects plus the period plus the foreboding use of “life-changing” keeps this LL interesting.  Once again we must strip off the bubble wrap in order to see the logline clearly:

“Ingrid Bergman and war photographer Robert Capa engage in a passionate, life-changing romance in post-World War II Paris.”

An accurate description, I do not doubt.  However, here is the novel's plot summary from Wikipedia:

“The novel opens in 1945. France is recently liberated by Allied Forces. Robert Capa has photographed the Normandy Landings and been parachuted into Germany. Now he is kicking his heels in Paris, waiting for something to happen. As a dare, he slips a note under the door of Ingrid Bergman’s room at the Ritz, inviting her for a drink. The flirtation escalates quickly into a passionate affair. Ingrid has a husband, child and career back in Hollywood. Capa can’t escape from his traumatic memories of the war or his addiction to the adrenaline high that he only gets from his work. Against his better judgement, Capa follows Ingrid to California, but both still have painful choices to make.”

That's a magnificent one-paragraph synopsis.  Again, the LL:

“Ingrid Bergman and war photographer Robert Capa engage in a passionate, life-changing romance in post-World War II Paris.”

To me, this is like seeing a “beware of the dog” sign posted outside a zoo's Russian Black Bear enclosure: there's a befuddling disparity between the two.  Why not work into the logline some of that conflict and struggle we know the story possesses...

“In post-World War II Paris, movie star Ingrid Bergman and danger-addicted war photographer Robert Capa make passionate, life-changing love, despite her career, child, and husband.”

There we go.  Twenty-eight words, and now we've exposed some of the obstacles they'll face.  Our headline characters are no longer just names on a marquee.


THREE loglines to go.

[Pitchpatch]

THE BEAUTIFUL GAME - hmmm
Zander Lehmann
 
A high school soccer star's personal life becomes complicated leading up to his championship game as he develops a relationship with his soccer coach.



With some light pruning becomes:

“A high school soccer star develops a relationship with his coach, complicating his life before his championship game.”

“Develops.”  “Complicating.”  With those weak, sleepy verbs it's no wonder this LL can substitute for half an Ambien.  The vague premise doesn't help.  Is this a romantic relationship?  I'm guessing so, but the logline leaves that door wide open.  Plenty of other relationships to choose from.  Is the coach male?  Female?  I'm going to assume male, based on statistics and likelihood.

“A high school soccer star falls for his coach, who has a wife and family, complicating life ahead of his championship game.”

There.  Now the situation is clear.  No longer do we need the placeholder of “complicating life.”

“With a championship game approaching, a high-school soccer star gets romantically involved with his coach, who has a wife and family.”

We can imagine the scenarios that might flow from those players and stakes.  How about a version with gender switched?

“With a championship game approaching, a high-school soccer star gets romantically involved with his female coach, who has a husband and family.”

That one needs “female” because “husband and family” applies to gay men too, which would circle us back to the first LL revision.  The object of this exercise is to remove the story-sucking quicksand of ambiguity.

Now let's change the nature of the relationship:

“With a championship game approaching, a high-school soccer prodigy starts believing his gambling-addicted coach is his dead father reincarnated.”

Intriguing.  Got ourselves a “FIELD OF DREAMS but soccer” thing going on there.


TWO loglines remaining.

[Pitchpatch]

THE MAN IN THE ROCKEFELLER SUIT - good
David Bar Katz
 
The story of Clark Rockefeller, a con artist thought to be American royalty until he kidnapped his young daughter initiating a manhunt that revealed his true identity.



As I pointed out during a previous logline critique, people love to watch a trickster at work.

Cons, kidnap, manhunt, the truth.  Conflict, conflict, conflict.  The logline does a sterling job.  But I much prefer using snappy, punchy present tense, like:

“Con artist Clark Rockefeller, thought to be American royalty, kidnaps his young daughter triggering a manhunt that reveals his true identity.”

Compared with past tense, present tense feels immediate, inclusive, urgent.  And it shortens word forms.   We saved six words this way.  Any technique that compresses sentence length without compromising readability is welcome.


FINAL logline coming up.

[Pitchpatch]

THE WILDE ONES - hmmm
Tyler Shields
 
In a corrupt Southern town, a dangerous sociopath runs bareknuckle boxing fights that pit its youths against each other.



Yikes.  That malodorous title.  What's the inevitable double meaning, I wonder.  Town of Wilde?  The Wilde brothers join the fight-clubbing?  Perhaps the sociopath's surname is Wilde?  Thankfully, the logline's pleasing brevity offsets any liability the title imposes.

Conspicuously missing: the protagonist.  It'll be one of those youths.  A quick handshake introduction would be nice.  For that we'll need to switch focus.

“When a resilient young addict starts bareknuckle boxing for drug money and doesn't die first try, the dangerous sociopath in charge smells money and pits her against increasingly invincible foes.”

As yet, we have no goal for our protag other than, I suppose, kicking the habit by learning to kick ass instead.  I like the closing reveal: the kid is a she.  Right from the start, the subject matter of boxing and drugs leads our expectations down a different road.  So, all in all, it doesn't bother me how my speculative revision feels like only half a logline.  The half we've got feels strong.  It bleeds conflict.



THE END.

Final score: I wrecked some loglines; I fixed some loglines.  My aim wasn't always true, but my intentions were.  My thanks to the Black List and to the accomplished screenwriters named in this topic.

These screenplays found an audience of industry insiders in spite of or because of their loglines.  A poor logline won't kill your chance of success.  But it might delay it.  Fight for a good logline.  Then fight harder for a great one.  Your weapons are brevity, clarity, and stimulation. What goes for movies also goes for loglines: the worst sin of all is being boring.