Given that Hitchcock named the trope, and that his tendency was to have MacGuffins that were not the central focus of the movie, I think it’s reasonable for us to differentiate between obviously different examples.
Obviously the Ark, R2-D2, and the Pulp Fiction briefcase drive the narrative in their respective movies. But just as obviously there’s a big difference between the first two, and the last.
I think comparing Time Bandits to Raiders of the Lost Ark reveals the most contrast. The properties of the Ark are vital to the plot–and there is absolutely nothing of story importance to The Most Fabulous Object other than that it is stated to be desirable.
I’m prepared to accept that examples such as The Ark and The One Ring are “MacGuffin-like,” but it is my position that when a MacGuffin becomes the title of the film, we’re in different territory.
Additionally, I’m concerned that a) this hasn’t been linked yet, and b) that I was quickly able to form an opinion on the matter without having to read about it first.
I’m really confused. According to definitions by people like Hitchcock and Lucas, both of whom use the term, whether the audience cares or not is irrelevant to whether it is a MacGuffin.
It just has to be an object that drives the plot. That’s IT, as far as I can tell. So where are you guys getting this notion that the audience reaction to it is important or unimportant? It may be important or it may not. It’s a plot device used to move the plot.
My goal is to get people to bring up interesting examples of MacGuffins, not to engage in some long debate about, say, whether the Ark of the Covenant is a MacGuffin. I know, I know: too late!
I imagine there is no single accepted definition, so I’m willing to let go of my bit about the audience caring because the characters care. That’s how I’d always understood it. Note Jackstar’s link up there, for instance, would rule out a lot of what we’re talking about and it seems to be the line of thinking madkevin was laying out earlier in the thread.
But I’m honestly not interested in ruling out people’s choices so much as hearing what they’d pick as memorable examples. I love Lionel bringing up the transit papers in Casablanca, not because they’re memorable, but because they’re so forgettable! What a perfect meaningless MacGuffin, so beautifully upstaged by the characters in the movie. I also quite like Traumahound’s Glengarry leads because they’re just a bunch of stupid little index cards. That’s a great one.
I think the Ark of the Covenant is giving people so much confusion because it’s both a traditional MacGuffin and not a MacGuffin. I think it’s deliberately both, and I think that’s the genius of the movie. It’s an example of why it’s still the best of the Indiana Jones films.
Everything in the movie is telling you that it’s a MacGuffin. The old pulp adventure style, the fact that it switches hands from heroes to enemies and back multiple times, the fact that you don’t really know what it is or does, and the fact that Indiana Jones is a fortune hunter with a reputation for going after these sorts of MacGuffiny artifacts (the Idol from the opening scene is nothing more than an inanimate chunk of gold). And the last shot of the film basically tells you: “See? This is just one example of a million other things that we’ve put in crates. MacGuffin.”
And yet - the whole movie turns on what the Ark is: supernatural. Indiana’s whole character ark in that film takes him from non-believer to a man who respects the supernatural (The awesome power of God). He and Marion are the only ones who survive the final scene because they are the only ones who submit to the Ark’s power (by closing their eyes) rather than trying to control it like the Nazis were. It’s hard for me to say that the Ark is a MacGuffin when it is responsible for the hero’s main character change.
And while in some sense, I do feel that you could replace the Ark with Pandora’s Box or Vecna’s hand like I posted in the other thread, I also think that the movie would lose a lot of its impact if the Ark were replaced by a non-jewish artifact, because you wouldn’t have the subtle Nazi/Jewish sacrilege connection. The scene where the Ark burns the swastika on the Nazi crate makes that connection, not to mention the Nazi commander who is “uncomfortable with this Jewish ritual” at the end.
And the final scene where the Ark is taken into the warehouse doesn’t only make you think that it’s one of a million other MacGuffins … it also makes you feel a sense of wonder at just how many powerful artifacts might have been discovered, a true feeling of awe.
So yeah, I think the Ark is a bad example of a MacGuffin for all these reasons - the film is totally playing with the way MacGuffins are expected to work, but turning that on its head. Nothing else has really come close since.
The NOC List from Mission Impossible
I’m a Mission Impossible apologist - not the sequels, just the Brian De Palma first one. The MacGuffin is supposed to be a list of all the different secret agents in the world. The enemies want it so they can sell it, the hero wants it so that he can find out who set him up. I like this one because it’s the best example I can think of where the MacGuffin is computer files. This means we can have a scene where they have to physically break into the CIA to get them, but later they can transfer them around over a network via modem.
“The Box” from Sneakers
It’s a microchip that can break into any website…er…“computer system”. I like this one because I like any movie where Robert Redford is supposed to be playing a computer nerd. Just kidding. What I actually love is this was one of the first “high tech” MacGuffins that I remember seeing, and they made an effort to make it seem realistically hacker-like (ie: there were wires everywhere, the nerds used old-school AV equipment, computer screens were monochrome and filled will little characters, etc) as opposed to movies like Hackers where the computers were all psychedelic colours or something.
OK, then, how about the attempt to find a cure for unwanted super powers/mutations in almost every movie about either subject? Such a cure drives the plot, but those of us in the audience often actively root against the finding of such a cure, since we like them to have their powers and such. See: Underworld (lots of Vampire flicks, actually), Hulk (don’t STOP being Hulk!), etc.
Oh, hey, I don’t want to rule out anyone’s choices. I just want to judge them for being wrong.
Bubaru from Joe vs. the Volcano – I can’t describe this for fear of spoiling those who haven’t seen this excellent, underrated film. Unfortunate as I am not entirely certain this example qualifies.
Unobtainum from Avatar – I thought Avatar, on the whole, was relentlessly stupid and an affront to humanity. However, I still appreciate the blatant joke.
1.21 Gigawatts from Back to the Future – I’m thinking if Unobtainium qualifies, then perhaps this quantity of energy can as well? The main characters certainly do spend a lot of time in pursuit of this goal, although it cannot be said to be the one thing that drives the whole movie directly.
I would agree with these as being valid examples, but of a less pure type than The Most Fabulous Object In The Universe from Time Bandits, which I suspect may be the ultimate template.
The demon in Paranormal Activity? - not sure if that qualifies as it’s more of the antagonist, but there is a lot of ambiguity about whether it actually exists. just tried to think outside the (kiss me deadly) box. plus, it freaked me out.
The Mexican in The Mexican - the thing I love about this titular firearm are the little vignettes that explain its history and curse. too bad the Julia Roberts side plot was so annoying. plus, it’s an awesome looking gun.
The Book of the Dead in Evil Dead 2/Army of Darkness - groovy.
This one is a little iffy, but I’m more confused about what constitutes a mcpuffin now then I was before this podcast/thread…
The Cube in the The Cube. It’s driving the whole movie and they talk about what it could be or why they are there. In the end it doesn’t matter, it becomes about whether or not they can make it out…ALIVE.
3)The sort-of eponymous shotguns from Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. It’s a movie about guys with guns in a country where guns are so rare, gangsters kill people with dildoes. These shotguns are valuable, both because of their great financial worth and because they are actual firearms. The shotguns are so old they’re exempt from gun control laws*, which I think embodies the rich and vaguely irrelevant history of that country. The characters just don’t care about any historical significance of the guns, which I think is also thematically appropriate.
The big bag of money in Jackie Brown. Yes, it’s merely money, and $500,000 is not the multimillion dollar score that a heist movie uses just to ante up. But it’s enough. The plot is a game of wits between players (including some witless players); the bag is the jackpot. The movie sets it up as the bulk of Samuel L. Jackson’s murderous character’s life savings. He will kill to keep what is his, and so death is tied to the bag. Michael Keaton, representing the long arm of the law, marks the money to trap Jackson. Keaton doesn’t want the money, he just edits its properties. And Pam Grier casts enough misdirection spreading the marked death-money around she can get the bad guys to kill themselves off and pull the wool over the authorities’ eyes.
the letters of transit in Casablanca. As I noted in my blog six months ago, Casablanca has one of the best Macguffins in film history. The way they are presented, they are an almost-magical artifact of civilization. They do not grant protection from Peter Lorre, but they’re still ungodly useful. Whoever bears the papers are unbound by strictures, bonds, and boundaries, becoming legally unassailable, even Nazi-proof. The closest real life equivalent I can imagine would be getting a key to the city…that actually opens every lock in the city. It’s like a literal get-out-of-jail-free card or a license to kill. If I were Ingrid Bergman, I would pull a gun on Humphrey Bogart to get them, then (if that didn’t work) I’d wile him with my feminine tears and charms.
Honorable mentions: the microfilm in Notorious, Daryl in D.A.R.Y.L.,and the VR clip of a rapper getting executed by Vincent D’Onofrio in Strange Days. And The Rock has two or three MacGuffins (more microfilm containing all kinds of juicy secrets, missile guidance chips, terribly poisonous gas clusters independent of the missiles that need the chips for guidance) which must count for something.
*I don’t know if this is true, and I certainly don’t want to get all P&R up in here.
Water or missing water from Chinatown. I am not sure if it counts as a McGuffin, since the whole movie is build around it. But I don’t care about water in a movie, … hm, it could not be replaced by anything other, because the missing water is adding a lot to the atmosphere of the movie…
yeah, I heard that water is a big issue in California, but I think in the movie it is really a plot device, a setup. The movie is really about the relationship between John Huston, Gittes, Faye Dunaway and morality and some rich people and maybe corruption.
Well, it kick-starts the story at least. But I can see how it’s not really the engine that drives the story since it’s only mentioned near the start and never again.
