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.