Alice Paul?s true and violent struggle for women?s equality under the constitution, from Suffrage to the failed battle for the Equal Rights Amendment

Thank you, dpg. I appreciate your thoughtful feedback.

I think that movie are not the best media for a full biography. In a book, the author can explain feelings, he/she can even give conflictual voices. A well balanced biography give insight into a mind without falling into the trap of the hagiography or the other extreme the character assassination.
In a movie, a biography can only give you one point of view: the main character or an observer.
Straight away you are limited. If you chose to tell your story from the point of view of the main character, then you risk the trap of the hagiography or the overcraming of irrelevant information. If you use an observer, then you are limited to what your observer can see. So unless you invent a new character that is present at every important and relevant events, you are limited to the events your observer assists to.
A classic trick, scriptwriters have used is to introduced a fictitious character who can our eyes and ears. Usually he/she is the young innocent naive person who is befriended by the main character and much later recall his or her time with the hero. Badly used, that trick can quickly feel contrived. "Amadeus" solved that problem by using an existing character Salieri but giving him the role of jalous, envious nemesis.

By concentrating on the achievements, and a narrow band of activities, movie biographies can also give a sense of resolution that a full biography may not. The end had to have a sense of resolution, accomplishment. Most lives don't finish that neatly. Unless the main character dies just after he or she succeed in his/her main goal, then there is always some down time between personal victory and death. Having Alice Paul achieves a big political victory in the 20s, then spends the next 50 years failing to repeat the same feat sound very boring.

Another advantage of using a narrow set of events, is that it is easier to hide the character flaws of your protagonist or at least make them more palatable for your audience. From what I have read, Alice Paul may have been very effective at campaigning, but she was not the easiest of person to live with. Unless you intend to make an hagiography, you can avoid that minefield by concentrating on her political achievements. Even Better, in that context her stubbornness can be portrayed as a quality.

KellieMck:

You raised a very good example with "Lincoln". Spielberg had wanted to do a movie about America's most complex (and arguably greatest) President for years. But there was so much material, so many historical events, so many "actions" per Aristotle. Where to begin?

And when he tapped Tony Kushner to write a screenplay (not the 1st screenwriter who had tried to condense Lincoln's life into a manageable movie script for Spielberg), Kushner's 1st draft came to some 500 pages.

I don't know if either Kushner or Spielberg have read Aristotle's "Poetics" (although I would be surprised if they are not aware of the treatise's influence on dramatic theory); all I know is that they finally decided to focus on one dramatic action: Lincoln's political fight to pass the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery.

(And, of course, that is what a logline is about: one "action", one plot spine, one story thread.)

>>but then is assassinated.

Seventy four days after passage compared to 55 years that Alice Paul lived after the ratification of the 16th Amendment. (And the assassination is not the entire 3rd act; it transpires in the closing minutes.) That is a difference between the 2 stories -- and a challenge you may face in deciding how to wrap up your story.

As story lines with strong females characters are so appallingly under represented in cinema, I am keenly interested in scripts that have them. I hope we may stay in touch. I can be reached via my Facebook address as listed in the Logline.IT directory.

dpg,

You have summed up the challenge brilliantly. You are clearly very learned. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and perspective.

My plan is: Act 1 = Alice Paul's Quaker upbringing, Act 2 = suffrage, and Act 3 = unsuccessful ratification of the ERA and Miss Paul's death. Obviously, that means that Act 3 condenses 57 years, but I think it is important to include the ERA and not just end with suffrage.

And yes, this story does not end well. In "Lincoln" he achieves his objective of ratifying the 13th Amendment, but then is assassinated. This story is somewhat similar, I think.

I very much appreciate your feedback. If you are interested and available to review my screenplay once it is written, please let me know. I'd value your input.

>>>>most people today are not aware of the intensity of the struggle for woman suffrage,

True enough, which is why we need films like "12 Years a Slave" to inform us through poetry (as in Aristotle's "Poetics") what we tend to ignore in prose.

But as Aristotle pointed out in his durable classic "Poetics", the dramatization of a historical event or person entails a different narrative challenge and strategy than that of a history or biography. Thus, while a biography would cover the full sweep of her long life (1885-1977), a dramatic plot ideally would focus on "one action" in a narrower time frame.

Aristotle's Exhibit "A" on that point is "The Iliad" by Homer. Rather than tell a saga that encompasses the vast breadth and width of the Trojan War -- all ten years from the seduction of Helen by Paris to the breaching of the walls of Troy with the wooden horse -- the poem focuses on one episode, "one action", one plot spine, transpiring over days, a few weeks at most, "the wrath of Achilles".

If Aristotle's analysis and paradigm is relevant to modern screenwriting (which I think it still is for feature films), "one action" in the life of Alice Paul would be her struggle for the 19th Amendment. That would encompass a time frame from the inciting incident, probably her introduction to the suffrage movement in England, to the climax, the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 -- a period of less than decade.

In terms of conventional plot (as distinct from historical narrative), her ensuing unsuccessful 55 years struggle -- for an ERA -- would constitute a separate dramatic action, a distinctly different plot spine. In relation to the "one action" of the struggle for the 19th Amendment, it would constitute an anti-climatic epilogue.

So the story you wish to tell has interesting potential, but it seems to me the demands of the conventional plot -- if that is what you decide to use -- may require some hard choices as to what to leave in, what to leave out.

fwiw.

Anyway, best wishes with your writing.

dpg,

Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate your input and perspective.

As for posting my revised logline in a new thread, I wrote to Support at logline.it regarding how to post a revised logline for the same project and they told me to post it in a new thread. So I followed their direction. If I repost again, I will use this thread.

I posted the revised logline to see if anyone had additional comments.

Yes, I am aware of "Iron Jawed Angels" from HBO. I have chosen not to watch it to keep my efforts separate. Therefore, I cannot answer what is different in my script, but yes mine is focused on Alice Paul, not the group as a whole. Plus it covers Alice Paul's entire life through authoring the ERA and until her death at age 92 in 1977, not just the suffrage campaign. In addition, I am hoping for a feature film, ala "Lincoln".

Yes, I think material is relevant now for a number of reasons, including that most people today are not aware of the intensity of the struggle for woman suffrage, and most people (including very educated people) think the ERA was ratified and is part of our constitution, which is not the case.

Thank you again for your input. If you have any further thoughts on the logline or the movie in general, I am quite interested. I appreciate your help.

KellieMcK:

I am responding to version 2.0 of your logline here for the sake of maintaining one thread of discussion. The usual practice is for authors to post revised versions of their loglines in the comment thread or edit their original logline to reflect ideas and suggestions that develop in the thread.

What are you searching for by posting essentially the same concept again?

I assume you are aware of the 2004 HBO movie, "Iron Jawed Angels" about the struggle for the franchise for American women. The project attracted top-drawer talent including Hilary Swank (as Alice Paul), Angelica Huston and Vera Farmiga. Consequently your logline (and pitch) are going to be confronted early and often with the question: "It's already been done. What's different, unique about your script?"

Which is not to say the story doesn't merit a re-telling. Based on the mixed reviews of the 2004 movie, perhaps it's a story that needs to be told again. And your story focuses specifically on the character of Alice Paul, not just on the broader cast of activist and their struggle for equality. So I'm rooting for your story, but I'm just saying...

(The year 2020 will mark the 100 year anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment -- so there's a relevant time hook for marketing another telling of the story.)

I like it. Thank you.

The true story of activist Alice Paul, who risked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to win the right to vote and equal rights for American women.