I heartily endorse this question. Modern CGI could easily do the climactic scene of the ice-9 getting loose (“The sky was filled with worms. The worms were tornadoes.”) and is there a more awesome closing shot possible than a slow zoom-out of a single frozen figure flipping off the sky forever? No. There is no more awesome closing shot possible!
The money in A Simple Plan is my favorite MacGuffin. The found money in this terrific Sam Raimi movie spurs a generally upstanding, decent guy (Bill Paxton) into reprehensible acts. It changes everyone in the movie except Paxton’s supposedly dimwitted brother (Billy Bob Thornton) who apparently knew a lot more about their father than Paxton did. Bridget Fonda’s change from normal wife to devious plotter is especially frightening. Like any classic MacGuffin, keeping the money turns out to be a futile goal.
Nothing tops The Maltese Falcon. Bogie sums it up: it’s the stuff that dreams are made of. That definition makes it the ultimate MacGuffin archetype. I was looking for ones not named in the initial post, but sorry, I find this choice more inescapable than the ones ruled out as too obvious and easy.
The One Ring In The Lord of the Rings (viewed as a single film): Nations fall, cultures are obliterated, wholesale slaughter and mayhem, all on account of one small ring. Plan for the Death Star? Small potatoes - the war continues with or without that MacGuffin. Everyone is bent on destroying it, stopping it, or recovering it. It tests the willpower of all who come into contact with it, its both desirable and a curse.
Private Ryan in Saving Private Ryan. Just an excuse to go on a patrol and have a climactic battle - it could have been deliver orders, pick up a prisoner, rescue the Bayeux Tapestry…you still hit the beach, traverse Normandy, and have some skirmishes and blood-soaked battles.
It’s good… but not as good as Shallow Grave, which is the same basic movie.
Decent take on a similar situation, but I never found the protaganists of Shallow Grave to be as sympathetic as hapless Hank Mitchell and his dimwitted brother.
Also, the book came first!
I completely sympathized with Eccleston’s character in that movie, although he does go a bit off the rails, heh.
Curses, foiled again.
But I preferred the darkness of Shallow Grave… but it’s been a while since I saw the other.
I can’t really get on board with money ever being a memorable MacGuffin. It’s just so…so…typical. Common. Done to death. If you’re going to go with the money changing the characters in A Simple Plan or Shallow Grave, what makes it any different than, say, Treasure of the Sierra Madres? Money is all good and well as a MacGuffin, but memorable?
-TomTrue that… even coming from the dude redefining MacGuffin.
Great device for conflict but in itself not memorable… although they did borrow a million real pounds for Shallow Grave because they wanted to know exactly how such a bag would look and feel. I’ll remove my pick and go for… hmmm.
Actually, Treasure of the Sierra Madre was my second pick! And why not use money or gold as a MacGuffin? The audience easily understands it which negates the need for clumsy exposition. It may not be as mysterious as a bejewelled falcon or a holy box of sand, but it certainly cuts down on the setup.
Compare the Bogart/Holt version with the later Sadler/Paxton version and check out the exposition needed when you change the MacGuffin from regular gold to a church’s artifacts. (Of course, I still like Trespass for Sadler and Paxton!)
I’ll go with The Most Fabulous Object in the World from Time Bandits, which is a great MacGuffin in the time honored tradition of being nothing (see also Kung Fu Panda) and also a great example of how greed for the MacGuffin can lead to Bad Things™, since the dwarves already have quite possibly the most fabulous object in the world but want more.
It is also apt named and embodies the perfect MacGuffin. It’s The Most Fabulous Object in the World, but we’re never told what it does or why you’d risk everything to have it.
I have a hard time with this MacGuffin concept. Yeah, I’m familiar with it, having seen quite a few Hitchcock movies and interviews with him about the idea. And I’ve seen most of the movies listed, and have enjoyed many of them immensely.
My problem with the idea of the MacGuffin is the rider that it must be something that the audience doesn’t care at all about. Because I think I’ve cared about all of the MacGuffins to some extent. How can you not? I find it amusing that Tom argues that of course he’s curious about the contents of the Ark of the Covenant, but doesn’t really care about the Ark. What? Yeah, I get that your concern is at a remove, in that you really care about Indy and Marian. But if you buy into the characters and their motivations, does that not involve some sharing of their concerns? It does for me, anyway.
Anyway, FYI – the Maltese Falcon is covered in jewels and has a complicated history of owners, so its value is both tangible and historical (this is covered in the movie itself). Just had to throw that in because I love that movie, and there seemed to be some question as to why anyone would even want the Falcon.
Of course those are used as MacGuffin’s - but they tend to be plain greed rather than have mystery and appeal. Usually you have to dress it up, and thus you add back in set-up and exposition. Pirate loot, for example, be it found in Curse of the Black Pearl or The Goonies. Is there any more set up in the explanation of history of The Dingus in The Maltese Falcon or the Nazi gold in Kelly’s Heroes (which I mention because it was just on)? And I’d certainly argue that watching Sydney Greenstreet’s delivery was the superior viewing experience. I think the real question was it worth the screen time of the explanation, or are you better off just plunging into the effects - it really depends on the story and execution. I doubt if there is a one true way.
I’m not redefining anything. I’m passing along a pretty commonly accepted definition. You can look it up if you don’t want to take my word for it.
No one’s saying not to use money or gold. I’m just not sure how they qualify as particularly memorable. But there are indeed some very good movies in which money serves that role.
The point isn’t that the audience doesn’t care at all. The point is that it’s main meaning for the audience is that the characters in the movie care about it. Their caring is their motivation, and it drives the action of the movie.
-Tom
Glengarry Glen Ross. Maybe it doesn’t count, because are there any good guys Glengarry Glen Ross? But, the characters really, REALLY care about those leads and it drives some amazingly tense scenes between characters that really don’t like each other.
I know. Just like the notion of the Ark not being a proper MacGuffin isn’t particularly original either. And it happens to be the definition I like.
I considered Three Kings as well, but the gold itself isn’t very memorable. I just love the movie.
Most of mine have alreayd been covered, but here’s this:
Raising Arizona: The baby
What happens when you take a normal, but infertile, woman and instill in her the insatiable need to have babies? What happens with this same woman can not adopt because she leads a certain lifestyle considered unacceptable by the governing bodies of adoption agencies? What if every moment of her life is spent fighting the primal urges of motherhood (and there’s man at her side who feels an all-too-familiar obligation to throw his newly reconstructed life away in order to please her)? You end up with sane people going off the deep end in order to fulfill their base urges.
This is a story that shows a woman putting-into-action the thoughts and feelings unrequited would-be mothers all over the world must feel when they are unable to create or raise children of their own. Although the Coen brothers pull their punches by making this a comedy, it could easily have played out as a drama/tragedy. With recent headlines showing women cutting fetuses from their mothers wombs in an effort to satiate these same urges this movie brings a bit of mirth to an otherwise deadly dilemma that women the world over struggle to keep from affecting their daily lives.
OK I’ll buy that. I’m still not very clear on what is a MacGuffin and what is just a motivating factor for the characters.
Hey, how about this one: Harry Lime in the Third Man starts out as a MacGuffin, right? But then he turns up alive and becomes one of the main characters in the climax! But can he still be the MacGuffin after showing up?
I’m surprised I’m the first person to mention Bunny Lebowski in The Big Lebowski.
Well, according to the BFI:
The whole point of the MacGuffin is that it is irrelevant. In Hitchcock’s own words, the MacGuffin is:
“the device, the gimmick, if you will, or the papers the spies are after… The only thing that really matters is that in the picture the plans, documents or secrets must seem to be of vital importance to the characters. To me, the narrator, they’re of no importance whatsoever.”
The MacGuffin is the engine that sets the story in motion. It can be anything, or nothing at all.
So, the briefcase in Ronin, for instance. Or the Dude’s rug. Or the colony on LV-426.