S. Hamley Bildebrandt

“Morningstar is my hot stewardess.”

MacGuffins

I’m about to type a sentence you probably never thought you would read or hear. You probably never even thought to think you’d never read or hear it. I certainly never thought to think I wouldn’t type or say it. Here goes: I’m all about the MacGuffins. Can’t get enough of ‘em.

If you don’t know what a MacGuffin is, allow me to tell you. If you do, feel free to skip down a few paragraphs (I’ll tell you right now, the MacGuffin in this blog post is the MacGuffin). The MacGuffin is a plot device used in film, TV and literature. It is the object that sets a plotline in motion. It is almost always a physical item that is greatly sought after by the characters in a story. It is the force that drives them, the common thread that binds them and, depending on the kind of story, the instrument that makes or breaks them. MacGuffins have been around probably as long as stories have been told, but it was Alfred Hitchcock who popularized the term and took the use of MacGuffins to whole new heights. According to Hitchcock, a MacGuffin is an essentially meaningless item. It serves but one purpose: to give the characters in the story a reason to act. Once they act, the story takes over and the MacGuffin takes backseat. The item does not, therefore, have to contain any intrinsic value apart from convenience. It requires no back story, no justification, no deeper meaning. The thief in a story, Hitchcock said, is always after jewels. Spies are always after documents. No more need be understood or explored.

It is the inherent meaninglessness of the MacGuffin that inspired its name, which is, appropriately, inherently meaningless. Apparently it was Hitchcock’s friend, a man named Angus McPhail, who coined the term MacGuffin. When asked what a MacGuffin was, he used to tell a story that went like this:

There were two men on a train from London to Scotland. The first man noticed a bizarre package in the luggage rack above the other man.

“What have you got there?” asked the first man, indicating the package.

“Oh,” replied the second man, “That’s a MacGuffin.”

“What’s a MacGuffin?” asked the second man, confused.

“It’s a contraption used to trap lions in the Scottish highlands,’ the second man said.

“But,” came the first man, “there aren’t any lions in the Scottish highlands.”

“Oh, well then I guess that’s no MacGuffin!”

Film is especially full of MacGuffins, and I’ve noticed recently how many of my favourite films and TV shows revolve around them. Every episode of Duck Tales features a MacGuffin. All four Indiana Jones films are pretty heavy on the MacGuffin action. So much about what I consider adventurous, romantic and exciting is defined by the types of films that feature an irresistable object. There is something so thrilling for me about the idea of trotting the globe, braving countless dangers in search of some elusive, mysterious treasure. It’s simultaneously a tragic and a heroic act. One outcome is the finding of the object which brings untold riches and possibly fame, but fails to satisfy the emptiness it embodies in the heart of our hero. The other outcome involves the hero failing to find the item and always feeling the sting of the “what if?”, but he finds out a lot about himself in the process and is therefore greatly enriched. Hitchcock might have considered the MacGuffin a shallow expedient, but it becomes a mirror for all the characters’ actions and struggles.

So I thought I would make a list of ten of my favourite MacGuffins. This is by no means a definitive list, and it’s subject to change or addendum, but here it is nonetheless.

10. Leeloo in The Fifth Element

A nice twist on the traditional MacGuffin. The elusive fifth element is said to be the key to unlimited power; the perfect weapon. It turns out it is actually a she. It’s also the only proof I have that Milla Jovavich can be anything but obnoxious. “Multipass.” That’s all I have to say.

9. The plant in WALL-E

Deeply symbolic of rebirth springing from barrenness; about direction being found in a directionless world; about Man returning to his original mandate to cultivate the earth. A symbol of WALL-E’s ability to grow and change beyond what is possible and for EVE to transcend her own directive in submission to a higher one. A simple, beautiful olive branch for this futuristic Noah’s ark story.

8. Princess Peach in the Super Mario franchise

What Peach, and the entire Mario franchise may lack in substance it makes up for in staying power. The story may never change; the story may never be a real story, but it never fails to capture the imagination and to earn the loyalty of successive generations. I can think of few things more iconic in the last twenty-five years than Mario and his quest for Peach.

7. The Green Destiny in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

This is one of my favourite films of all time. This is the movie that made me fall in love with movies. Tragic heroes, star-crossed lovers all in search of a legendary sword and the greatness it endows to the one who holds it. Aesthetically, the sword has a subtly ethereal, almost elvish quality to it. In its first appearance in the film it quietly sings a soft, metallic song when struck, like a siren beckoning all who hear it to come and claim it as their own. And like a siren, it dashes its pursuers against the rocks. As the warriors in this film clash and move closer to their respective fates, it becomes clearer that the sword is not what they seek at all, but love, identity, rest and absolution. Ang Lee deftly turns the pulp fiction source material into subtle, tragic beauty.

6. The Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Monty Python’s Holy Grail and far too many films and stories to bother listing

The mother of all MacGuffins. I list the Holy Grail this low on the list for a couple of reasons. First of all, it’s a victim of its own fame. The Holy Grail has become so synonymous with sought for treasures, that it has taken on that second meaning. “It’s the Holy Grail of professional competitive taxidermy,” is something you might hear. As a result, it’s lost a lot of its original meaning. Our culture is so saturated with its presence, it’s difficult to sift through the legend and gaze upon the mystery of the Grail with the same wonderment and awe of a Knight Templar or a Nazi hating adventurer. Secondly, even if one can see through the ubiquitous hype of the grail, it is, at the end of the day, a cup. A cup Jesus may have drunk from, but a cup nonetheless. Of all the holy relics one could search for, the Lord’s cup is not even close to being the coolest. Nevertheless, it is iconic, steeped in religious lore and medieval mysticism. That makes it one sweet MacGuffin.

5. The Maltese Falcon in The Maltese Falcon

The Maltese Falcon has its origins with the mysterious Knights of St. John, or the Knights of Malta –  monks, warriors, secret society. They went to Jerusalem during the Crusades to protect pilgrims from ambush. They remained to build a hospital and their own private army. When the Crusades ended, they left the Holy Land with mountains of gold, or so the legend says, and they built their own secretive kingdom on the island of Malta. The King of Spain, it is said, required only one thing in exchange for allowing them to remain on Malta: a single falcon sent to him every year. As a token of their gratitude, instead of sending him a simple bird, the knights carved a falcon from solid gold and adorned it with the finest of their jewels. They sent one of their own commanders to guard the falcon on the voyage to Spain. But en route, the boat was attacked by pirates. They killed all on board, including the knight, and disappeared. The falcon was never seen or heard from again…or was it?

Let me also mention this: Humphrey Bogart. Enough said.

4. The Dead Man’s Chest in the eponymous Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest

Most people I know did not like Pirates of the Caribbean 2. I liked it a lot. It wasn’t a perfect film, but what it got right it nailed. Davey Jones’ tragic love story is what fairy tales and pirate stories such as this are all about. The mystery of the Dead Man’s chest, the power it holds, the lengths heroes and villains alike are willing to go through to get it, the act they must be willing to commit to get what they desire – all of it is classic bedtime story adventure.

3. The One Ring in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings

Obligatory on any MacGuffin tribute, Sauron’s ring is nearly as compelling a MacGuffin as could be imagined. Forged by the Dark Lord, he poured all his power, all his malice into it, giving it a life of its own. With it, he would be far more powerful than he ever was. Without it, he is nothing more than a flickering shadow of his former greatness. Any who bears this Ring is granted the power of its maker, but at a cost. Its living, breathing malice consumes the bearer, twisting them into an abomination as dark as Sauron himself. A terrifying symbol of man’s love of darkness and the corruption of desire, it is literally Wagnerian in its scope. Tolkien borrowed heavily from Germanic myth and Wagner’s brilliant, 18 hour long Ring of the Nibelung opera featuring a cruel dwarf who forges a Ring that endows its bearer with unlimited power on the condition that they forsake love eternally.

The One Ring is nearly as tragic an object as was ever forged, but Tolkien outdid himself with the next items.

2. The Silmarils in The Silmarillion

The Silmarils are the center of the most tragic tale in Tolkien’s expansive world. The Silmarils are jewels of incomparable beauty, forged by an elf named Feanor who was consumed with lust for his own creation. As the centuries and millennia unfold, successive generations of elves and men commit acts of unspeakable darkness in order to possess these jewels. They are the focal point and the narrative vehicle for the slow moral demise of both elves and men. Far more tragic than the One Ring because the jewels were originally created in purity but were corrupted by their maker’s lust, they drag down generations of people into darkness and murder and they do not end in triumph for the cause of good. The Silmarils meet an end as shameful and pathetic as the races of men and elves they corrupted. By far, the most heart breaking and sorrowful moral tale Tolkien wrote.

1. The Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark

But nothing tops the Ark of the Covenant. Built under divine command, the Ark contains the original Ten Commandments, Moses’ staff, and manna bread from heaven. It is also the throne of God on this earth; the dwelling of his power, the place where his glory dwells, the seat the God of the Universe sits on to pronounce judgment and mercy. As long as the army of Israel carried it before them, they were invincible against all attacks of their enemies. The Ark of the Covenant is the ultimate weapon, gifted to Israel by God himself. The Knights Templar, the original creepy secret agents, searched for it on Solomon’s mount, secret cults claim to hold it in their compounds in Europe, even real life Indiana Jones style adventurers like Ron Wyatt have risked life and limb to find it in rubble and caves beneath the Old City of Jerusalem. Throw in a story about Hitler trying to claim it as his own to take over the world and slaughter the very people who crafted the ark in the first place and you’ve got yourself the MacGuffinest MacGuffin cinema has ever known.

Advertisement

13 Comments»

  xristosdomini wrote @

8.) With the advent of such games to the Mario franchise as “Super Smash Bro.s” (1-3), “Super Mario Sluggers”, and now the fourth installment of Mario Kart, I’m not sure that Princess Peach can actually qualify as a MacGuffin anymore. Certainly it is case of the older games, but in this era of Feminism, political correctness and women’s liberation, I don’t think it is a proper classification.

5.) Humphrey Bogart is the man… just saying…

3.) I’m still a little baffled as to how the One Ring is a MacGuffin. In the Hobbit, it is certainly an object of little-to-no intrinsic value that motivates Gollum to some intense action… but it just doesn’t really seem to be much more than an accessory as opposed to a motivation in the rest of the story. As for in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I would argue that it has incredible intrinsic value (what with being the Tabula Rasa for the unleashing of the embodiment of evil in the story) and rather than being a passive object (such as the Ark of the Covenant in Indiana Jones) it is an active participant in the story (what with the “wanting to be found” and “trying to screw over the hobbit” shtick). Just a thought……

  S. Hamley Bildebrandt wrote @

Your point is taken on number 8, but you’re referencing non-narrative spin offs of the Mario franchise. These are meant to supplement the preexisting platform games, not replace them. The Mario adventure games are still Nintendo’s flagship games and the princess is still very much in need of saving, as Mario Galaxy proved very recently.

I would agree that the Ring is not the MacGuffin in ‘The Hobbit’. Smaug’s treasure clearly is, but it is where the Ring is introduced. It does take an active role in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ but that doesn’t disqualify it. Hitchcock thought MacGuffins should be passive and almost immaterial to the plot. I disagree. Like I said above, good MacGuffins act as mirrors of the motivations of the characters, and what does that better than the One Ring? Besides, characters can be MacGuffins (Leeloo, Peach).

As long as the Ring is the focus of the quest, the driving force for the main character and the tie that binds the other characters, it’s the MacGuffin. That’s how I see it anyway, though you raise excellent points all around. I’m just happy you read the post and actually joined in a “MacGuffin discussion.” Super cool!

And Humphrey Bogart is indeed the man. I don’t think I could respect someone who disagreed on that point.

  xristosdomini wrote @

So… in your MacGuffin paradigm, giving the Ring anthropomorphic qualities such as a personality and active participation in the story line does not disqualify said ring from being a MacGuffin? I see the mirror/motivation thing, but unless I am mistaken, the Ring was described as being a controlling factor (ie, “… almost forced his hand from his pocket and willed him to put it on.”) rather than a mere motivation (which would look more like “He was overcome with desire to fondle this heavey band and scandalously slip it on his finger…”). I dunno, maybe I’m missing the point of a MacGuffin…

  Amanda Beattie wrote @

@ Adam – But we don’t see pages of dialogue about what the ring is thinking and feeling. i.e. “‘Well,’ thought the ring to itself, ‘I sure am sick of putzing around in some hobbit’s pocket. I’m going to try and make Boromir bust me out of here.’” We mostly know what the ring is up to (or more accurately, what Sauron is up to, through the ring) based on its influence over other characters.

@ Matthias: I’m pretty sure this post is going to dramatically change the way I watch movies.

  joelmw wrote @

Well, as much as I hate to agree with Adam, I’ve got some serious misgivings about most of what you’ve identified as MacGuffins, unless we really want to stretch the definition. In which case, we’d need to come up with another name for the real MacGuffins (that sounds like it should be the name of a band or a movie; anyone know if it is?).

In fact, especially as opposed to the One Ring and Leeloo, I’d argue that the entire enterprise of video games is a MacGuffin or thoroughly MacGuffiny.

Other than Princess Peach, the Holy Grail in Monty Python’s movie might qualify. As might the Maltese Falcon. I know this won’t earn me any love, but I’d have to say that, coming as I did to Bogart, that whole movie is a MacGuffin, as I am apt to believe the illustrious actor himself is. Part of why I haven’t watched “Casablanca” is fear that I might be mortally disappointed.

I’ll try to collect my thoughts on why I think your list is an abomination. Having said that, I’m not entirely opposed to abominations. Like Amanda said, your perversion does cast an interesting light on things. I wonder if in some weird way the Cross is a MacGuffin . . . or the Kingdom . . . or Heaven. Seriously, and I don’t even mean to be blasphemous, well, not really blasphemous. I’ve long thought that the purer conflict occurs in the Garden, the cross being an anti-climax and almost a distraction–especially as it turns to icon and takes on magical powers. The Kingdom, well, that depends on how we define “kingdom”; in a true sense, “the reign of the King,” not, but by most of the rest of our imaginings, probably. Similarly, if Heaven is about the presence of the LORD, not; but too much of religious propaganda and popular mythology turns Heaven into a place independent of the presence of our Beloved and merely nice digs enticing us to live well or believe rightly. Dogma itself might be the biggest MacGuffin of all, in a similar sense.

Oh, and I like Milla, especially in the “Fifth Element.” The “Resident Evil” franchise is, in any case, no worse than “24.” ;-P

  S. Hamley Bildebrandt wrote @

Abomination schmabomination. I researched the topic before I blogged and I researched it again to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Not only “might” the Maltese falcon be a MacGuffin, it’s literally a textbook example of it. It’s the quintessential movie MacGuffin. Creativescreenwriting.com calls says the “Maltese Falcon”, “told a fascinating off-screen story, and illustrated a textbook case of what Hitchcock would later dub the MacGuffin.”

According to Princeton University, the only requirement for being a MacGuffin is to be, “a plot element that catches the viewers’ attention or drives the plot” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macguffin). According to Merriam Webster, a MacGuffin is, “an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macguffin).

Each of the items/people I mentioned drives the plot of their respective movie/video game. The only room for contention then is whether or not they are “lacking intrinsic importance.” It could be argued that the One Ring especially has too much instrinsic importance, but lacking intrinsic importance is not necessary for something to be a MacGuffin. The Ring has a lot of backstory and lore surrounding it, but it can easily be swapped out without altering the story. I know this because Tolkien had already done this. In “The Hobbit” the quest is for a pile of dragon’s gold. In “The Silmarillion” it’s magical jewels. In Wagner’s opera that inspired “The Lord of the Rings” it was a magic helmet that turned its bearer invisible, not a ring. The item itself is not important, but the plot is driven by it. The same is true in “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”. Make the sword a magic spear or the magic spear a sacred scroll. The plot is still driven but remains relatively unchanged.

This is the case with the Princess in Mario. Exchange her with a pile of bananas and you have the plot to “Donkey Kong”. Make her Zelda, and you have “The Legend of Zelda”. The Princess herself doesn’t matter, but she drives the plot.

As far as the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant go, George Lucas, who created the stories for all four “Indiana Jones” movies, described these items as MacGuffins in interviews (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/indianajones200802?currentPage=4), as did Harrison Ford (http://uk.imdb.com/news/ni0610961/).

I could just as easily defend all ten of my choices as MacGuffins. Most of these are classic examples. None of them is a perversion.

  joelmw wrote @

It is true that part of my issue is with the whole idea of a MacGuffin and, yes, it has to do with the issue of intrinsic value. And that is, wouldn’t you agree, a critical aspect of the definition. I too did a bit of research–and made my comment anyway. Fundamentally, I reject the notion that plot should be held over metaphor, and I think that’s probably my problem here: whether the MacGuffin is bad in itself or because of what it inspires. Part of why I have a problem is that so many folks–maybe this is our culture–are obsessed with plot and play little attention to the texture, substance, nuance and basic worth of image within an artistic work.

As I suggested, I’ll give you “The Maltese Falcon.” Really. Take it. Please. Likewise, just about anything in a video game. Again, I also conceded the Grail in Python’s production. I could argue against those, even, but don’t feel the need at the moment. If nothing else, I would concede that their devices are relatively meaningless and with delightfully humorous effect, whether intended (as with Python) or not.

That Lucas considers the Ark and the Grail MacGuffins is understandable and evident (if also disappointing), but part of what I appreciate about both films is the significance lent by their driving artifacts. “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is crap and partly because it lacks the gravitas of a biblical backstory and the support of a substantive icon.

Replaceability means nothing. It could be argued–indeed, has been argued–that there are only two basic plot structures. That means that essentially all elements could, by your reductionist argument, rendered intrinsically inconsequential. And the fact that there are so many Christ figures in narrative art and that they might be reasonably posited to be interchangeable (again, not in my world view, but according to many), well, what does that do to the notion of intrinsic worth?

You’ve undermined your own position with “The Hobbit.” The ring matters. The pile of gold might be a MacGuffin (though it works well as a figure of material wealth). The acquisition of the ring, its influence, its story, its origins, its lurking evil, its targeted reflection on the essence of power and the nature of the human soul–these are all ultimately consequential. To say that the Ring could be replaced by a similar object, that, um, happens to possess a preponderance of very similar qualities, while it might be true in a sense, is also absurd. Any will do–as long as it meets these criteria. And, though I confess that I am not much familiar with Wagner, it’s interesting to me that a ring figures predominantly in his cycle and that the Ring of Gyges is also a precursor to Tolkien’s emblem of evil.

Again, I want to emphasize that this is inspiring lots of thought (though, granted, a good bit of it in reaction and response). And the abomination itself is a useful trick, especially for someone like me, who tends to focus more on the archetypes and the imagery. Further, as some have said and you yourself have implied, one of the messages of the MacGuffin is that the journey is often more important than the perceived destination (though it should also be noted that mere movement itself is no more intrinsically meaningful). And, heck, I’m not even going to say “but just don’t get carried away.” Please do: “the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.”

But the fact that there is a whole class of creative types happy with their perversion and a largely ignorant and indifferent populace willing to numbly follow along, well, that’s not the kind of thing that’s going to convince me that they are all correct.

  Amanda Beattie wrote @

@Joel: I don’t think I blame the silliness of the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on the fact that it lacked a biblical backstory as much as on the fact that it could have been titled “Indiana Jones Meets the Space Aliens” (Okay, so technically they’re interdimensional beings, but I still call them space aliens. That’s clearly what they are). And Indie Jr. swinging through the trees with all the cute and friendly little monkeys like George of the Jungle didn’t help. Neither did the undead natives guarding the treasure. Or the whole “space between spaces” bit.

I think if the overall script and sequences had been better I wouldn’t care that much about whether it was a crystal skull or a biblical artifact. Especially since the whole Indiana Jones series is a bit on the hokey side anyway, I don’t come to it expecting much in the way of deep symbolism. I actually relaxed a little more in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, not having to fight back discomfort with misapplied biblical concepts. It’s time-killing, popcorn-consuming, action-watching fun to me… so I would totally call the Ark and the Grail MacGuffins.

  S. Hamley Bildebrandt wrote @

I think the problem with ‘The Crystal Skull’ is both: it lacks biblical backstory and it’s about space aliens. Everything is just a little bit lamer after you’ve seen the wrath of God melt a bunch of Nazis’ faces off. Alien skulls have their own intrinsic lameness. When you combine the two, you get ‘Indiana Jones 4′.

And, Joel, believe it or not I agree with a great deal, maybe even most, of what you said in your last comment. I’m not entirely sure you’ve been directly addressing my post to begin with. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you have a problem with the whole idea of MacGuffins. A lot of what you said seems to flow out of that.

I agree that plot is favoured over metaphor and substance has been lost. That’s why most of the MacGuffins I highlighted are the ones that have transcended themselves and become something more. The rest I just really like. I don’t need more than that.

I’d be happy to continue this discussion about art and culture, I admit I’m a little shocked that it has attached itself to this post. This was meant to be a fun one in which I highlighted certain plot elements I enjoy and that have shaped me growing up. It has quite outgrown that by now. I find it amusing that of all the posts on my blog, it’s the ones about celery and MacGuffins that have created the greatest debates.

  S. Hamley Bildebrandt wrote @

And by the way, to all: From now on on my blog, avoid the use of inflammatory and insulting terms. I’m sure no one would intentionally try to insult another, but humour doesn’t always read properly so things can be misunderstood. Calling someone’s views ridiculous, for example, will not fly. Keep the tone respectful or I will delete the comment.

In fact, I’m declaring this thread at an end. I’m not interested in debating this particular topic further. Like I said above, I’m happy to debate art and culture. Just not on this post.

  topher274 wrote @

I actually heard someone use the word macguffin in context. I was shocked!

It was in a tech podcast. The host was talking about a new bill that would supposedly require ISPs, and maybe even any hotel, wireless hotspot or even home networks, keep all of their browsing records for two years to be available for police investigation.

This bill is, at least billed (:P) as a measure to protect against child pornography. The commentator, however said,

“Now they can always use this macguffin of child pornography, but it’s not about child pornography,” and another said, “yeah, you can get anything passed in terms of restrictions if you put enough child pornography clauses in it.”

Now whether or not I agree with what they were talking about, you’ve got to admire the use of the ol’ macguffin.

Now, Matthias, I certainly appreciate you for bringing this marvelous word to my knowledge, but can you imagine a person who has macguffin in their active vocabulary?! It’s not like macguffins were the topic of the conversation, he was just talking about something else and effortlessly used the word. Mad props.

The blog, by the way, is a great new tech podcast I’ve been getting into called ‘This Week In Tech’ or TWIT. I highly recommend it :)

  S. Hamley Bildebrandt wrote @

That is pretty sweet. I have to say, for all my recent talk of macguffins in the blogosphere and the life-osphere, I’ve never used the word in a non-macguffincentric conversation. Very impressive.

Thanks for the telling me about that and the podcast. I’ll check it out.

  Dorean Beattie wrote @

I’m really glad to have wandered over here and read this post. I was flipping through TV channels the other day and caught the end of an old interview with Alfred Hitchcock. He was in the middle of a sentence about “The Maltese Falcon” when I landed on the channel, and said something about the MacGuffin. I was totally lost, thinking I was going to have to watch the movie again just to figure out where I had missed the MacGuffin. Or Mr. MacGuffin. Or whatever it was he just said… I feel so informed now!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.