Where screenwriters learn the form and logline their screen ideas.
Infatuation
Love is a luxury few can afford during the Russian Revolution. A luxury that Nadya must decide whether or not to fight for when the object of her fianc?'s lingering infatuation returns. Her identity may shatter more than just their budding relationship.
One of my favorite miniseries is North and South (BBC). The story is similar to something Jane Austen might have written. What sets it apart? The strike at the cotton mills. These events add depth and urgency to the story, which is what inspired me to rethink my screenplay. The plot of the book is such that it could be set anywhere during that period. Changing the setting to place experiencing political turmoil added dimension, changed it from a meandering, soapy, drama, to an epic journey of finding real love even in the face imminent danger. Just that.
Well done on finding the book DPG!
A point well raised about the setting change as it is significant and harks back to the comments I made earlier about the stakes and obstacles. A story happens to a specific character in a specific place at a specific time to create a specific set of circumstances that enable an interesting story.
Therefore when specifying such a setting as Russia and a time as the revolution you strait away call the readers attention to the details of the environment, the reader then thinks that it must have been done for a reason. If this is the case what is that reason? Does it help tell the story or detract from it? Does it give the characters a more interesting way to do what they do?
However, since the above has been left out of the most recent draft of the logline this is more of a question to be tackled in view of the treatment/script as appose to the logline.
With a clearer context of the logline at work here, as a pitching tool, it could benefit from a few changes. The latest draft of the logline is "leaner", easier to read and therefore understand but a bit of restructuring is needed to aid in its goal (pun intended...).
For your reader to make sense of who the story is about and what she does perhaps first describe the MC then the introduction of the other woman. I think best to avoid such descriptions as "A new found love is put to the test," because they are too vague to depict in what way the love is put to the test. Better to specify an action done by a character or event that happens to them than a broad description such as this.
My problem with the concept is that if another woman comes along Nadya would care and be greatly bothered by him having an affair.
The husband (according to your descriptions) doesn't really want to be with Nadya, regardless, due to circumstances (society, culture, socioeconomic backgrounds) he proposes and she accepts. If Nadya is a strong and capable woman as you described her then she would be well aware of this and if anything be prepared for it. Presumably she wold fight for her man?
Since you keep iterating the importance of the story focusing on Nadya's emotions, wouldn't her pain be her motivation to do something to fix the pain?
Otherwise I'm just not sure what it is that the story will be about. What does Nadya actually do once she discovers the other woman is back?
>> The only major change I made was to the setting
Not an insignificant change, methinks, and I have to wonder why. Does the upheaval in Russia directly impact the plot, create seemingly insuperable complications or obstacles? What unique, dramatic purpose does Russia serve in the working out of the plot that can't just as well be served by England?
That is the correct book. The only major change I made was to the setting. It was not difficult to work some of the historical circumstances into the exsisting storyline. You have the beginning of the story right, but what happens once they part ways is the meat of the story.
The "love is desirable, but not always practical" situation is exactly what makes her marrying a man who has mixed feelings about her believable.
The other sister doesn't have to survive, she sells out and goes to live with their rich aunt whom the MC blames for their mother's death. Nadya is left alone with her ideals. Through a series of events she falls for a man who is intrigued by her, but doesn't really love her. He comes to see, however that she is strong woman and good match for him. He has given up on finding the woman he spent only one night with and never even learned her name, so he proposes to Nadya. Knowing his history, she accepts anyway.
The complication arises when he sees the woman he's convinced is his one true love. When reading the book it's not difficult to guess who this mysterious woman is, but for the screenplay I tried to make it a little less obvious.
Nadya's objective need throughout the story is to survive. First the death of her mother, then the falling out with her sister, after that being blindsided by her love for a man who's indifferent towards her, and finally the heartbreak of a love lost. Or is it?
Thanks to Google I was able to find an extract of what appears to be the start of the book. The inciting incident (which is usually where a logline kicks off), seems to be the death of their mother which plunges the 2 girls into dire economic straits ( ala "Sense & Sensibility" where the death of the father plunges Eleanor and Marianne and their mother and younger daughter into hard times.) And the setting for the story seems to be England.
Are we talking about the same book?
All of Austen's major books are about women confined in a narrow world of limited opportunity; they can't inherit property, they can't even earn their own way in the world. Their only hope of improving their situation is to get a good match. Finding true love is desirable but not always 'practical' -- see Charlotte Lucas in P&P.
Then there's Edith Wharton's grim "House of Mirth" set in a similar period as "Heart of Gold" (albeit in the USA) about the descent woman from the upper class into poverty.
So, what is Meade's story about in terms of their objective needs? (Love wasn't an objective need in that era. It's was a collateral benefit, a bonus.) Aren't the girls trying to survive in a tough world after their mother's death, hoping for love, but... ?
A newfound love is put to the test, when the object of his lingering infatuation comes back into their lives. Her identity may shatter more than just their budding relationship.
I can come to terms with the need to reign in some of the wordiness. However, the story itself does need to be modified. The focus in most romantic dramas is the emotional journey. Of course, this is reflected in their actions, no argument there.
In my question concerning the antagonists of Pride and Prejudice, I simply meant that bigger isn't always better, whether it be a novel or a movie. Elizabeth Bennet's struggles are relatable. Not everyone has fought ih a revolution, but we've all dealt with people that make life difficult.
I enjoy a big budget action flick as much as the next person, but I still think there is a place for the classics. Afterall, at the heart of every good movie there's an emotional journey, even a big budget action flick.
Yes, alas, the length of the logline needs trimming. As Karel Segers points out in the guidelines, a logline should be one sentence. That is not an arbitrary stipulation. It reflects the nature of show business. Producers and directors are very busy, multitasking people. Realistically, you have only a few seconds to hook their attention for a story idea.
Ideally, a logline should not exceed 30 words. Again, that is not exactly an arbitrary number. I proved it to my own satisfaction by collecting loglines, analyzing them for methodology -- and word length. I've got a sample size of almost 600 loglines for recent and classic films. The average length is 23 words. Almost 87% come in 30 words or less.
Not one logline exceeds 40 words. So there it is, there's the constraint -- and the challenge.
fwiw.
I agree with you completely concerning Jane Austen. The author of the original novel from which I have adapted my screenplay is certainly less known, but by no means a nobody. Her pen name was L.T. Meade and she was a highly prolific writer producing around 300 books in her lifetime. The book which I have adapted is The Heart of Gold. She was feminist and al;most all of her works feature a strong female lead.
In a way the dilema does compare to that of Gatsby. I think the story endures because it's so much more relatable than the traditional "happily ever after". Who hasn't had a crush on someone only to find out in the long run that they weren't worth the time of day?
I know the story isn't edgy, but I know it has the potential for success in it's genre. Is this genre extinct? Pride and Predjudice, Gatsby, Anna Karenina, Atonement, Jane Eyre. I think not.
I'm not looking to modify the plot of the screenplay, only to create a logline that best piques one's interest in it. Other comments state that it's too wordy, would you agree?
Adapting a novel presents different challenges and opportunities when it comes time for loglines and pitches.
Jane Austen's reputation is so well-established and illustrious that her name pre-sells any story and any character based upon her writing. (And her books have not just interesting characters, but strong ones who know what they want, more precisely, WHO they want.)
It may not be the case with the author of the book you are writing. I don't know, since you've not disclosed the source, and I haven't been able to ascertain it from the bread crumbs you have dropped.
>>it is more the notion of love at first sight (infatuation),
Reminds me of the character problem in "The Great Gatsby". Daisy Buchanan is an empty vessel, a canvass on which Gatsby projects his dream girl. She's a zero in whom Gatsby overinvests. And that's the way Fitzgerald wrote her! And that's the way she comes across in the movie. She's a silly, shallow character. I have always thought the love story was insipid.
So why do they keep re-making the movie? I dunno. Maybe what attracts Hollyweird to the story, like flies to honey, is not the love story, but the razzle-dazzle of Jay's opulent lifestyle, the decadence of the roaring 20's.
"...your approach would create a perfectly generic logline."
Don't confuse words for actions which words you use can be "generic" or simpler as I would call it. The actions and beats they describe and the combination of actions and beats are what make the story unique not the words used to describe them.
"...with the focus being the character?s emotional journey..."
Giving your MC an antagonist and a clear obstacle will do just that because they force your character to make choices and take actions.
Good story telling is based on metaphors of reality not didactic literals referencing reality. If your character only goes on an emotional journey you won't necessarily be able to show this visually in the film. However if you accompany the emotional journey with an external one that acts as a metaphor for the inner one then the emotional journey will come across at the end of the film through visuals and subtext.
"Would you suggest to Jane Austen that she replace Wickham with the entire British militia? Or Mr. Collins with the Church of England? Or Lady Katherine De Bourgh with the Queen of England?"
No I wouldn't seeing as she wrote Pride and Prejudice as a novel. In books a writer can directly reference a character's emotions without the need to rely on visuals.
Further more her writings are great works of the time and were written in the context of the culture and social conventions of 18th century England. Now days for most of the audiences these stories would not necessarily gain as much an interest as they did when first published.
Yes these are timeless classics and you and I will always enjoy them. However, will he majority of movie going audiences now days prefer to pay $20.00 to see these stories over other options when going to the cinema for a night out?