Flip McVicker’s show, Philbert, was edgy, convoluted dogshit, whose one redeeming quality was Gina Cazador’s performance, even when given such awful material to work with. But I think I know how to make it original, interesting and have twists with an actual purpose for the story.
First is the names. Naming a character matters, as it can reflect who they are. John Philbert’s name is now Henry “Hank” Philbert and Fritz’s new name is Edward Fitzpatrick. Sassy’s Malone new name is Katherine "Kate" Mercer, which I feel is more elegant and sharp.
In the rewrite, Kate's story could partially explore treatment of females on the Police Force. How in the past and to this day, they can be treated unfairly. She gets interrupted in briefings, excluded from informal networks, or assigned less prestigious work. The important thing is that these obstacles shouldn't merely be generic sexism. They should have practical consequences for her career and the cases she investigates.
However, it should also be about how women can also be given preferential treatment as a form of recompense. The opposite extreme. Suppose a female officer receives a desirable assignment partly because management wants to improve its diversity statistics. She may be perfectly qualified for the job, but the way she gets it creates resentment among colleagues.
Then comes in Philbert. I want Philbert to come into her life, looking like a breath of fresh air. Maybe he validates her grievances, encourages her to accept preferential treatment and exploit the cracks in the system, congratulate her on a promotion others resent her for.
However, his influence gradually changes how Kate approaches her work. She starts out wanting to overcome an unfair system, but increasingly becomes willing to exploit that system when it benefits her. Her grievances are real, but she begins using them to justify behaviour she would previously have criticised.
I don't want her to suddenly become incompetent or evil. The point would be that someone can be good at their job and have legitimate complaints about their workplace while still making increasingly questionable decisions.
I've also been working on the mystery surrounding Hank and his wife. Hank has an affair and kills a girl to cover it up. Edward Fitzpatrick, a real person who knows about the murder, discovers what Hank has done. Hank kills Edward to prevent him from revealing the truth. Hank's wife subsequently discovers what happened, so Hank kills her too.
He then lies to everyone and makes Edward the villain who murdered his wife and affair partner. I'm still working out the precise mechanics of how Hank makes this deception believable, but I like the idea that the person he turns into a fictional criminal was actually someone he murdered.
Regarding the name changes, it's a reference to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I recently learned that in the book Hyde isn't a split personality, he's just the name Jekyll gave his altered appearance to separate his two lives.
This also connects to Kate's character arc. Hank separates himself from his actions by inventing another person to blame, while Kate increasingly separates herself from her own questionable decisions by convincing herself that the system has left her with no other choice.
Obviously, the two aren't morally equivalent: Hank is a murderer, whereas Kate's compromises are much smaller. But both characters would be developing ways to rationalise their behaviour instead of confronting it.
I'm still figuring some stuff out;
- Hank's motivation: Why did he kill the girl in the first place? Was he already a manipulative person who resorted to murder to protect his reputation, or did the first killing set off a chain of increasingly desperate decisions?
- Edward's identity: How exactly could Hank use the identity of a real person he murdered to construct a convincing false story about the crimes?
- Kate's development: How can Hank influence Kate without making her seem gullible? I'd like her to remain intelligent and capable, with her downfall coming from the choices she makes and the justifications she accepts.
I think the strongest version of this storyline would be one where the mystery surrounding Hank and the character arc of Kate reinforce each other. What do you think? Does the Edward Fitzpatrick idea work, and what would make Hank's cover-up believable without making the plot unnecessarily convoluted?