A corrupt rural sheriff must find a senator's abducted daughter to bring a quick end to an FBI manhunt that could expose his ties to local drug trafficking.

Why do we root for him?

I think both Richiev and Valentin raise interesting points.

For me, one of the similarities between "Man on Fire" and "Silence of the Lambs" is that in both cases there is a strong emotional subtext/link between the protagonist and the victim. Both allude to the linkage in "Man of Fire", the bond that developed in the 1st Act between Creasy and Pita.

In "Silence of the Lambs", I interpreted the scenes of the trapped and terrified victim in the serial murderer's pit as connecting to the terrifying memories Clarice had of the lambs trapped and being slaughtered -- memories that Hannibal Lecter forced her to confront. (Which was sufficient dramatic justification for me for the scenes of the victim's entrapment and terror.)

In any event, I agree with and would amplify Valentin's observation that there needs to be a personal connection between the victim and the protagonist. Personal in the sense that the sheriff knows her or personal in the sense of a shared emotional conflict and/or psychic trauma.

In "Man on fire", the theme is different. It is about a relationship between a broken man and a lonely little girl. How she saves him emotionally. Denzel Washington is introduced as a wash up alcoholic. The little girl behaviour and incessant questions means that he can see a way back into humanity for him. There is love, trust and respect between the two characters. When she kidnapped, his motivation are personal. He goes back to being a killer, but this time he has a purpose and does not feel bad about it.
From the logline, the situation is completely different. Here, the sheriff does not know the kidnapped senator's daughter. He has had zero interaction with her before. So she can't be his internal motivation. He does not care about her, just about the concept of her. Hence the McGuffin.
One way to give him personal connection with the kidnapped victim would be to make her a surrogate. Maybe she remind him of his lost/killed daughter, but then what need to be shown is how he lost his daughter. Maybe he is a former FBI agent/police who got a kidnapped victim killed. Then again, we want to know how the previous kidnapping unfolded. In all cases, we would want to know why she is a surrogate, of whom she is surrogate and what happened to the original in order to understand him. It's not about the victim, it's about making things right this time according to the protagonist.

I disagree with Valentin. Take the movie 'Man on Fire' part of the reason we care that John Creasy "Denzel Washington" succeed in getting the bad guys (Even though he himself is flawed) is because we care about Dakota Fanning's character.

Instead of creating a "McGuffin" for him to save, create a real flesh and blood character the audience can care about.(But do it in as few scenes as possible because he's the the lead character not her)

When I read your logline, I immediately thought of the movie "Bad Lieutenant" by Abel Ferrara with Harvey Keitel. It is bleak, harrowing movie about an individual so far gone he can't see the good in people. He tries to redeem himself by solving the rape of a nun.
However from what you describe, it looks it more resemble its 2009 remake by Werner Herzog with Nic Cage (turning in one of his few good performances) . A good cop, turned bad and corrupt by circumstances who then tries to get out of a situation that is getting messier and messier.
Personally, I disagree with Richiev. To me the girl is a McGuffin. The less you show her, the better. That does not mean that you cannot show what she is risking to suffer. Past victims. Her finger as a proof of life.
From your logline, it looks like she is driving the events, but this is not her story. This is about the corrupt cop and his big choice. In "Silence of the lambs" the scenes with the kidnapper senator's daughter were the weakest of the movie. Also, in order to make her sympathetic, scriptwriters and movie directors tend to increase the suffering of the kidnapped victim. The classic approach "Look at how much she is suffering" that in some cases culminates with some torture porn scenes. However It may be counter intuitive with cinema being a visual media, but I find scenes where victims suffer mistreatment and even torture offscreen while their scream can be heard much more powerful than the ones with explicit visual.

Have you decided where the script is going to be based? You mentioned rural so. The bayou of Louisiana? Kentucky valleys?

Thanks for the encouragement, Richiev. I like the idea of the anti-hero doing the right thing too. Even if their motivation at first is to save their own ass.

Hear, hear. I agree 110%. Thanks for all of your input, dpg.

The best thing you can do is get the audience to care about the girl. Just a scene here and there. Then the audience will want the corrupt sheriff to succeed in his goal: Save the girl.

He may be a bad man, he may be corrupt, he may be doing it for all the wrong reasons, but he's doing a good deed.

To me, a bad person forced by circumstance to save the girl makes for a far more interesting story than a hero saving the girl.

I also think it's a intresting story (Y)

Hi, yes sure. I diddn't mean that he should be a "lovable cat man who makes the world a better place" just why we want to follow this guy's story? Hope you understundom what I mean :)

Don't get too down, this is a logline site. Sometimes loglines expose story flaws.

I personally like the idea of a corrupt sheriff having to do something noble to get out of being exposed as corrupt. To me that dichotomy makes a great story. but obviously, from the criticism it's not for everyone.

In the end, write the story you believe in. Good luck with this!

Thank you everyone for your feedback. I've discovered a problem I need to solve. I know the risk he takes by not acting (he goes to jail or gets killed), but I need to think about the risk he is taking by acting. A risk he might even be aware of. Thank you again. Everyone on this site is great.

Apropos the discussion:

Someone asked me about the likability of my characters, and I said, verbatim: ?Fuck likability. I don?t give two shits whether someone likes my characters.? I do care if they?re attracted to them.?      --Beau Willimon (writer/producer of "House of Cards" [U.S. version] daily quote on writing at Go Into The Story)

Maybe we should uses adjectives like "attractive" or "interesting" rather than "sympathetic" and "likable" when discussing characters, particularly the protagonist.

As Valentin said:
>>>emotional attachment is exactly what you want for a protagonist

A must-have for a marketable story.

>>>A crooked sheriff has to make a life defining choice.

Yep. He's made a Faustian bargain with the local devils, the drug lords, and the day of reckoning has come for the immoral choice he made.

I think this logline is better than ver 1.0 because the FBI's motive is more clearly defined. Given their heavy caseload , there's got to be a darn good reason they are dedicating so much scarce resources to one kidnapping, and ver 2.0 establishes it: she's an important politician's daughter.

My modest tweak is:

A rural sheriff scrambles to find a senator's abducted daughter before the FBI does and uncovers evidence and witnesses to his ties to drug trafficking.

Not entirely satisfied with it, however. And because I have no (positive) emotional investment in the sheriff, I'm rooting for the FBI to get to her first and take him down! ;-)

Keith, maybe you didn't root for Tony Montana, but you cared for him. You wanted to know what was going to happen to him. You knew that it was not going to end well, but still you wanted him to have an honourable death or at least in line with his life. That's why so many Trekkies were in uproar with "Star Trek. Generations". They killed James T. Kirk, but his death was nor heroic, nor grandiose enough. Not in line with the rest of his life.
Despite what you, emotional attachment is exactly what you want for a protagonist. Somebody who engages its audience, somebody who fascinates them. Otherwise the audience emotionally switches off, then switches off the movie itself and walk away (in some case physically before end) unsatisfied.

Maybe that story is about redemption.
A crooked sheriff has to make a life defining choice. Save the life of the kidnapped girl and show that ultimately he still has some shreds of decency in him. Or turn to the dark forces inside and dive deeper into the crooked, criminal and depraved underbelly of the world. Think Darth Vador's death. His final choice.

The rise/fall (in some case both combined) of an individual is one of the classic plots. It's just that because Hollywood does not like tragedies, recent movie don't tend to focus on the fall part. It's mostly "based on real events" Direct To Video or movie of the week that tends to specialise in that category.

I believe that you have all the ingrediants there.
On the question of rooting for, i do agree that he doesn't have to be a good guy, but am i the only person wanting him to find the kidnapped girl? That is something to root for.
Besides, even the bigest serial killers would of done some nice things, bought mothers day cards, gave change to a homeless guy or helped an old lady across the road. As a sherrif, he would already be doing some good stuff. One such action early on, even something rather small, not writting a parking fine for a poor single mother for instance, and we have a rooting for moment that every one's obsessed with.
Good luck.

Matilda,

Thank you for replying. That whole "root for" thing bugs me. I didn't "root for" Tony Montana in Scarface, but I was interested in his fall. Sometimes I think the concept that we are told as writers that our protag has to be sympathetic is bunk. I believe a character should be compelling by merit of their actions. So I'm not trying to write a character that you would root for or want to see win, but a character that is compelling and one that you wonder what they will do next. I hope that answers your question. Again, thanks.

Matilda, thanks for replying. That whole "root for" thing bugs me sometimes. I didn't "root for" Tony Montana in Scarface, but I was fascinated by his fall. I think too often we are told we need to root for the protag or sympathize with the plight, but I disagree. I just want a fascinating character of action, even if that action is despicable. So, in reply, I don't necessarily want him to be sympathetic or to win. But I do want his choices and actions to be compelling. Does that answer your question?

Sounds like an intresting story :) but, correct me if I'm wrong, it is the sheriff we follow and rute for, but why do we like him and why do we want him to win? I know this is a story question and not a logline question but hope it's okay anyway! :)

Reckon this one is much better Keith. Crisper and clear what the goal and stakes are.

Good luck with it.