Chapters: 00:00 - Intro 00:41 - What Is A MacGuffin? 01:56 - The Alfred Hitchcock MacGuffin 04:20 - The George Lucas MacGuffin 06:22 - Why Use A MacGuffin? 09:41 - Wrap-Up / Takeaways
Another example I can think of is 1917, where the main character carries the letter to the general. The letter itself carried limited importance, but the journey gave the characters full growth.
@@theonlybigmorg it's a kind of Lucas McGuffin, I think the main story arc was how a soldier just chosen to accompany the mesenger became the messenger himself.
To me the question of whether we should accept Alfred Hitchcock's or George Lucas's definition of MacGuffin is simply that there are already perfectly good terms to describe the George Lucas MacGuffin, and they are simply "plot device" or "character".
@@georgebailey8179 yes. Most people know the difference. Imo the OP is little different than saying "there's already a word for porn, it's called a movie" Like... yeah I guess but we all know there's a little more to it than that
In my movie, everyone would say "we MUST get the MacGuffin!" and when anyone would say "what's a MacGuffin?" the character says "There's no time to explain!" and the plot moves forward.
That's probably my least favorite trope of all time, especially with horror movies--the "I have a critical piece of information--one I KNOW I should probably share--but instead I just yell that we don't have time to explain right now (when 90% of the time we actually DO have plenty of time for me to explain) and then I die for the sole reason that it prevents me from being able to share that information, or at least to share it fully or with proper context." That needs a fun name like MacGuffin, too. Like O'Banyon. "Dude was going to tell them the monster's weakness, but he got O'Banyon'd instead."
@@NekoMouser Or, what about a "McGuffin Break", where the scene ends with one antagonist starting to explain it to the other, or a scene begins with the one antagonist wrapping up explaining it.
As Hitchcock points out, it is the genre of "spy movie" that causes a "macguffin" to be a particularly ARBITRARY plot device. A different genre will change the nature of the "macguffin": In sci-fi, the macguffin is usually technology. In fantasy, it is often a symbolic representation of a virtue or vice that can be carried or worn. In adventure, its usually a sacred object (if its historic adventure, the object will also have historic importance). In horror, it is the place or thing that allows the evil access to the characters. In action, it is often a person or other living entity that needs to be rescued or protected. In romance, it is the thing that brings two people in contact with one another. In mystery, it is the clue that shows the real motive and/or method. In spiritual films, it is often a name or a symbol. In comedy, it is that thing which allows the protagonist to overcome great odds or causes the epiphany to do so. In other words, a "macguffin" is the form of the characters motive, not the motive itself, usually tangible due to movies being a visual medium. It is an object (sometimes in the form of a person) that the audience who is watching the movie can point to as the reason actions are occurring (based on the genre, this thing can range from "of greatest value" to "temporarily valuable" to "an imposter of value") . It is a storytelling device which exposes the characters values by literalizing the "symbol" portion of "symbolic" in order to create tensions and movement towards resolution.
Thank you! I thought it had to be tangible item and carried until reading this. Also, I find the “audience doesn’t care” or other “care” language used in the video very unhelpful. I actually do care, because I want to understand why the character cares, hence understand his motivation and feel moving along with the ride better. I find a character simply caring about a thing unconvincing or lacking emotional depth for me to connect to and sometimes downright unrealistic so much that it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
With all respect to Mr. Lucas; I tend to agree with Hitchcock. A 'MacGuffin' is what it is. The object driving the action ceases to be a 'MacGuffin' if that object becomes important in itself - if no other object could replace it and have the same story be told. The entire point of a 'MacGuffin' is that it could be anything; it doesn't matter. (And I just know Tarantino borrowed his from 'Kiss Me Deadly', for use in 'Pulp Fiction'.)
I agree as well, but don't see any problem using a plot device that isn't a MacGuffin lol I think people get their egos involved and sometimes think because we say Lucas didn't quite understand the point of it, that means we're saying his film making was bad. Not at all. I think the end-result is all that matters, and what we call these things in the end, is just a matter of semantics. That is to say, if the film is good, I don't really care much about the details. It is interesting to think about the different uses of these plot devices though.
@@user-jp7tw3sd3x I think the force was the actual mcguffin cause it could be replaced with something like spidy sense for or magic and not change the story cause we are giving little explanation on what the force is in a new hope by the end of the movie if obi wan does tell Luke to use the force instead of the targeting system on the ship we wouldn’t have remembered it by the end of the movie
@@kevin10001 I tend to agree, but only in A New Hope. The character of Yoda is much more dependent on specific attributes of The Force than anything in the original movie, as is the kind of training Luke has to go through. It's not just magic, it appears to have an intent of its own, thus making it not a MacGuffin. I certainly agree that it's in a bit of a gray area, but I stand behind my conclusion.
I’m inclined to the Hitchcock version. The whole name for the device - MacGuffin - is a name with no meaning or context to the casual observer, but can be reasonably understood to mean something to someone in the story. And that, to me at least, makes sense. Any plot device that the audience should care about will have its own name. And the daft thing is, Lucas actually does use MacGuffins in the Hitchcock sense, but he doesn’t seem to realise it
It is interesting because Lucas makes sure the story focuses on the MacGuffin giving them importance, whereas Hitchcock deliberately made them as unimportant as possible.
What I've come to understand with time is that there are A LOT of things about Lucas's own work that he utterly failed to realize, including what drew so many people to it in the first place.
Would you say the Maltese Falcon is a MacGuffin? It seems like it is to me. It's clearly unique, and has it's own name, but it could easily be an Eagle, or a Bear, or a Wooden Elephant; does this essentially make it 'nameless'?
Great video, thanks! George Lucas and Steven Spielberg actually use Macguffins just like Hitchcock, they just got the labels mixed up. The medallion in Raiders is the Macguffin, not the ark. The grail diary in Last Crusade, not the grail itself. They're devices to keep the plot rolling so the actual ark itself doesn't have to switch hands in a sequence of repetitive set pieces from page 20 to 120, but instead we can do something else that propels the plot. But at the end of the movies no-one says "Hey, who's got the medallion? Dad, where's the diary?" Because they're ultimately not important to characters or audience.
The Grail Diary not so much; It's more than just an object, since it both contains the clues to solve each puzzle (thus requiring a significant change to the screenplay if it were anything else) and serves as an important connection between Indy and his father even before they're reunited (since it was written by Henry Sr. himself). As a thought experiment, try replacing the Diary with anything else, and see how much of the movie would have to change as a result - or how impactful the change would be on the relationships between the characters.
Nope. It's not really a MacGuffin if it can't be replaced with something else. If you replace the grail diary or the medallion with, say, a diamond, or money, the story wouldn't work. So they aren't MacGuffins, because you'd have to rewrite entire scenes if you swapped them out. That isn't the case for any of the MacGuffins in any of Hitchcock's or the Mission Impossible movies.
@@anderslarsen4412 @Headrock Thanks for your input. None of that applies to what Hitchcock says though, so I'll pass. The Macguffin is "the thing people are after and fight over" but fades in importance in act three and is at the end of the movie not important anymore. Sure you can rewrite the medallion and diary to anything else. Just because it leads to the actual important device in act three doesn't mean it's not a Macguffin. Your points are merely semantics, you're not listening to Hitchcock.
R2-D2 is a character. The Mcguffin are the plans. And sure, the plans have a great importance, but same goes for the microfilms in old spy fiction, or the list in mission impossible. They could be fighting for something else, it's "a really important thing that will have dire consequences for the characters and the settings".
I took aesthetics of film in college from a self proclaimed scizoid prof (that confession stuck with me) I often wish I had taken a chance and pursued screenwriting, as my English teachers encouraged me to do. It’s all coming back to me now. Thank you for this channel ❤
The money inside the doll in "The night of the hunter" is a good example for a McGuffin too. Without it there would be no story, and it could be anything valuable small enough to fit inside a doll.
The Lucas Macguffin is the attempt to eliminate the Macguffin by giving it real meaning, therefore, it isn't one. I prefer that the plot device not be entirely replaceable, but some fantastic movies have a Macguffin.
Actually, "a Lucas MacGuffin" is the term for when someone tries to sound smarter and deeper than they are by taking the already perfectly valid work or words of another person and then attempting to redefine them for their own purposes so those unfamiliar with the original jargon will look on and go "ohhhhh. ahhhhhhh. He *must* know what he's talking about, then."
Okay so, you guys are the best. I really appreciate your videos and I wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart because one year ago you made me fall in love of cinema and filmmaking in general. Without you I wouldn’t have that passion and that obsession with films. Cinema is my life now and that’s why I wanted to thank you. Thank you so much for your content that interested me and made me discover the essence of cinema. Sorry for the mistakes I’m from Switzerland. I don’t know if you’ll read that but love from Switzerland continue like this please ❤️
My personal favorite use of this plot device is in a 1980's animated cartoon, specifically G.I. Joe. In one particular episode their arch-rival organization C.O.B.R.A. had stolen something that the Joe team had to get back. The reason this is my favorite usage of this plot device is because the thing was called...The MacGuffin Device. Yeah.
The Lego Batman movie opens with a plane full of explosives flying over "the most crime-ridden city in the world." That plane's airline? MacGuffin Air.
It's more of a game device, but "ultimate weapon Macguffins" (Infinity Gauntlet, Master Sword, Vampire Killer, etc) are my favorite. An iconic representation of whatever series you are engaging with that also fits into the story and gives a creative object for action scenes? Yes please.
I sat poised with my pen in hand. I heard " "what is a MacGuffin". My bipolar brain made me write"what is a muffin ". I laughed, scribbled and tried again. Thought I would share this with someone who needs a chuckle.
I would argue that the plans are the McGuffin in Star Wars, not R2D2 ... he is just the vessel carrying the McGuffin. Now the McGuffin could be, instead of plans for the Death Star, a self destruct code, or a device that could blow it up, or some other item. So while R2 is important, the plans, in general, have minor significance to the plot of the movie.
A MacGuffin is a kind of inverted Chekhov’s gun. I would say that the removal of the MacGuffin would neutralise the cause effect relationship between character and their destiny. Marion Crane’s theft of the money is a karmic metaphor. Her amorality leads her to a symbolic earthly punishment. Even though its hardly proportional to her crime, it raises the question of of cause and effect. It prompts us to reflect on the strangeness of how each decision we make has random consequences beyond all logic.
Lord of the Rings ring is NOT a MacGuffin. It's basically a character of its own. You wouldn't call Palpatine a MacGuffin. The ring and its effect on Frodo is the heart and soul of the movie.
Absolutely. The Ring is an allegory for so many things. In politics nowadays, we often talk about The Ring as absolute power that absolutely corrupts. Many have joined Team Frodo to destroy The Ring. It is indeed its own character. In a lot of ways too it’s more than just a character. That’s why Tolkien’s LOTR is a masterpiece.
@@umiluv Tolkien had a serious disdain for allegory. It grated on his nerves. His friend C. S. Lewis was much more fond of using it. The difference shows.
Except people/characters can totally be a macguffin. Think Dakota Fanning's character in Man on Fire, or Liam Neeson's daughter in Taken. The only important aspect of a macguffin is that it creates a motivation for the characters of the story to attain it. It's not good practice to use people as plot devices like this, as it is highly reductive of a person's worth and a common criticism of the "damsel in distress" archtype, but the archtype does exist for a reason.
@@WoodlandDrake They are characters, not people, though. If you reduced the actor his/herself or an actual person into a motivation or thing that is bad. Probably not exactly the right thread to start this thought, would John Wick's dead wife and/ or dog be a MacGuffin?
It seems significant that the McGuffin used in Andor is of the Hitchcock variety in an absolute sense. It provides the protagonist an excuse to take his first steps and then is forgotten about
One of my favorite Mcguffins is from the "Sam and Max: Freelance Police" cartoon, where in one episode, their favorite snack, the "Glazed Mcguffin" gets discontinued, and so the whole episode is them trying to get them produced again
Great video. Although some of your splices imply the one ring is a macguffin… not sure I would class that particular case in the same way. By your example, we both care about it as an audience and understand why it compels the characters forward, and it’s also fundamental to why and how certain characters act from moment to moment. I see that as (maybe not a character, but..) at least a forceful element of the greater world constructed. Curious if people disagree with that though
I agree with you. I wanted to write a similar comment but I see I am not alone on this one. The presence of the One Ring is ever present in the story and we can see how it is affecting Frodo as he gets closer to Mount Doom. and I believe that it cannot be replaced by any in universe object. The series itself is not free from the Macguffin though. I woul argue that the Palantiri themselves are Macguffins.
It is somewhat debatable as the ring is used at key points to make Frodo invisible, but the ring itself could have been all sorts of other things and you'd have the same movie. It could easily have been a necklace, a wand or a talisman. Potentially even a book. It certainly has more interest and a more direct impact on the plot than is typical of a macguffin, so it's definitely reasonable to classify it as a plot device or possibly even a character as it does seem to have a mind of its own at various points.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade I think that’s a fair point, the fact it needn’t be a ring is definitely valid. I guess what I was arguing for is that it’s used as a more pivotal plot device. The way it tarnishes the mind of Gollum, Bilbo, eventually Frodo somewhat, the temptation for Gandalf and Sam to turn heel, the power it has to specifically direct the black riders to its destination etc… all huge plot points that I think make it stand apart from something like unobtanium or some other equivalent. Like, there’s almost a way you could say it needn’t be a ring, it could be a person, and still have it plot out the same way. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say it’s debatable. I can definitely see both sides of that argument
@@massivecowbreakout7555 fair point, much agreed, although which movie are you talking about with Palpatine? Because I’d argue Palpatine is essentially just a macguffin in episode IX. Although they tack on a couple extra Macguffins for good measure with the dagger and also the Exegol wayfinders (god, that movie’s sloppy!). But yeah, otherwise, episode V they do an important tease of Palpatine’s influence over Vader, Episode VI he’s an important authority to give Vader his big arc turn. Prequels (mainly episode III), they did more with him as a character (however one might feel about those movies). I feel the ring surpasses all that though. It’s ever present and influential to the core characters’ reactions and relationships, moreso than Palpatine is at most points, but especially that last chapter. Without the ring, you wouldn’t have weight in that moment where Aragorn closes Frodo’s hand and tells him he would have “followed him to the end” (a meaningful testament of character compared to Boromir), you wouldn’t see Gandalf wince when Frodo says he’ll be the one to take it mount doom (knowing Frodo was the only one capable), and it wouldn’t have meant nearly as much when Sam, having been tempted himself, came to the realisation that he couldn’t carry the ring for Frodo, but that he could still carry Frodo (I still get chills, despite how cheesy that moment is!). It’s always leeching, ever present and draining. Much like Sauron’s eye, neither our attention as the audience nor the characters’ behaviours can escape it!
Luckily found this channel today and how could I not subscribe now? I wish channels like this one had been around back when I was still studying, being drawn to the art of filmmaking.
please make at leats 3 or 4 videos about better call saul ... please. what an imazing content you have. i'm very thankfull for all team members of studio binder.
Wow man! You guys just hacked my brain i was watching Madmax Fury road and thinking of MacGuffin and wished that studio binder should have a video regarding it and wala you made it ❤️❤️
The One Ring is not a MacGuffin. It drives the plot but it very much affects the plot and it matters a lot. It has powers and changes behavior with those powers. It's a character, not a plot device. Sure, it could be another item, like a necklace, but in most movies you could change a character from male to female or change their occupation and the story would still work, just in a different way.
Maybe the McGuffin is also somewhat like the genre of the movie, atleast to me. Firstly we got to see the movie because it has some interesting genre, like sci-fi or western, but as we watch the movie, it's the most important to build connection to the characters, no matter the genre. Genre is just a device to tell that important human story. Nic Pizzolatto said that when he wrote True Detective for HBO, he wrote it as a crime story, so he can sold it to the television, but he really wanted to tell the story of those two detectives, those two men.
Just two days ago, I uploaded a short film called 'The Adventures of Barney', where the characters are after the "Golden MacGuffin"... This video is a perfect companion piece to that!
I think some stories already have the MacGuffin imbedded in the idea without even knowing it's significance. Some people have ideas that pose the MacGuffin as the explorative perspective subsequent to their idea and general expression of the films purpose they are posing in the type of film that is being made. StudioBinder... thanks for the perspective insights and providing me with insight perhaps has either proven my personal (inexperienced) direction but have confirmed that I could possibly be on the right track! These tidbits are great either settled as confirmation to my passion projects or confidence in the alignment of "how to get my ideas across" I find that your videos explore the very artifact of me having invested in being a music producer but otherwise sorts out that expression has no limits. I am not a film maker but someone who has an idea that he wants to pose. Whether its through music expression or visual art and expression, I thank you because the angle of the information (explanation of lingo in film), I have been able to feel confident that my inexperience has led me down the corridor of "common" truthful expression which has been confirmation for me. I couldn't have finished my first project as a film maker without having spent time watching your videos.... over and over again.... gravitating to the ones that explained a lot..... But let me make a comment. I remember your Anamorphic video... the original one and then it was gone. At some point, I have followed the situation and some time afterwards the Video was back!!!! or an upgraded version.... so I have been in admiration of your work for a while... I just want to express that I appreciate your channel! Wishing you much success in helping the expressionist get to his goal... while I find your videos so gratifying!!!! I know it's longwinded... but this is the condensed version... lol... Cheers!!! and Godspeed! I would advise anyone who was interested in film to find your channel!!!! Condensed in one place, I think you cover the most important things to think about that may not be topics of conversation... So cheers to education!! and StudioBinder!!!
Rosebud is one of my favorite MacGuffin. It's just an excuse for the journalist to interview Kane's relatives about his life. It's somthing that doesn't really matter. It could have been anything.
My favorite MacGuffin is the suitcase i̶n̶ ̶P̶u̶l̶p̶ ̶F̶i̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ in Ronin. Also the Videogame Supraland where your objective literally is "find the MacGuffin"
I saw all movies you described in this video. And now i comprehend what "MacGuffin" is.. But most bizarre "MacGuffin" i ever saw is Brian de Palma's "Blow Out". thats "Sally's Good Scream" Lol.
I love, love, love, love, love, love, love Studiobinder. You are my film school. I have written ALL my screenplays on your website platform. I just cannot thank you all enough from the bottom of my ❤. Also, you better tell me what the Rabbit's Foot is, and what's in Marcellus Wallace's briefcase... Though we shouldn't necessarily care about these "plot movers", I really wanted to know!! It's been a few decades now of not knowing 😂😂 Also also, anyone else thinks that Unobtainium is a kinda really stupid name?
Google algorithms are getting better. I wanted to know what a MacGuffin is... I didn't write anything related to that since then but now there it is, a video about the subject!
A favorite Hitchcock MacGuffin of mine is the cigarette lighter from Strangers on a Train (1951), and how the evil character Bruno, at one point, manages to accidentally drop it down a sewer grate, leaving you both wanting him to get it back, and not to get it back, at the same time!
HA! I had heard of the term MacGuffin a few times. I really didn't understand what it is, but you explained it very well! The funny thing for me as new writer, and the writer for the story of the game I'm developing...I HAVE a MacGuffin and had know idea that I made it one! 😁
Loved that last sentence! So true Mandy peoples life plots could be analysed and you could see Most decisions are driven by one or two major Mac Guffins ...and I would absolutely love to See a BTS how an Episode of Studiobinder comes to existence, how many people work in it for how long and how you get all the footage
Personally, I feel Trope Talks definition of a MacGuffin is great for including both Lucas and Hitchcock versions. Essentially, the defining feature is that it drives the plot and is replaceable. Like, you could swap the Ark of the Covenant out for any magical artifact that turns out to kill the one who opens it, such as most of the items from the Uncharted series. Where as the One Ring from Lord of the Rings is not a MacGuffin because the psychological effects it has on the wearer are very unique.
If you can swap the ark for any magical artefact that turns out to kill the one who opens it, then you can also swap out the one ring for any magical artifact that makes the wearer (or holder) invisible and causes psychological effects. It could be the one shoe and the plot would be exactly the same.
@@nuberiffic how many magical artifacts are there that make you invisible, have this type of corruption, and aren't clearly designed as rip offs of the One Ring? The One Ring has a collection of specific abilities and effects that directly affect the plot in ways it's hard to replace. It doesn't really matter how a "kill the finder" artifact works. Whether it's a collection of flashy lights, a poison gas booby trap, or a bomb, it would minimally affect the story.
@@Zander2212 ...dude, it's fiction. The ring is just a magical object, it could be literally anything. The ark is just a magical object, it could be literally anything. I feel like you're completely ignoring the point I've made due to your biases.
@@nuberiffic and this is a video doing a serious analysis on plot devices in fiction. I'm simply stating my opinion, and explaining why I don't agree with your response. I wasn't trying to be aggressive, sorry if the first response came off that way.
Can you Guys make 2 Videos on Camara Movement and the reason behind such as building a emotional tension, realease tension and Dramatic tension. Also, Motivational and Unmotivated Camara Movement.
MacGuffin is relative to the lacanian ideas of symbolic/real order, things that seem useless, but without being "real", concrete, shape how meanings are put together, how we act in the face of reality. "Synecdoche, NY" is a great film on that thing
Lucas is misusing the word for his own purposes, but I wouldn’t question Hitchcock. He is the master. George just doesn’t want to make up a name for his… thing.
What are your thoughts on a Chekhov's MacGuffin? Like the Ark in the Indiana Jones movie, that unbeknownst to the audience that it can be used as a weapon the whole time? Or perhaps R2D2, while having the plans to destroy the death star, the droid is also part of the X-wing that helps destroy it?
