“The main thing I’ve learned over the years is that the MacGuffin is nothing. I’m convinced of this, but I find it very difficult to prove it to others.” –Alfred Hitchcock
Other wise known as McGuffin or maguffin, a MacGuffin is a plot device that is usually given little or no narrative explanation. It can be in the form of a goal, desired object, or other kind of motivator, and can be either a person, object or place. Sometimes, you might not even notice what the MacGuffin is in a film, but it's always there, and it's the driving force behind the main character's actions in a film.
Alfred Hitchcock is famous for using this term throughout his films.
MacGuffin use in Hitchcock films
Vertigo: Carlotta Valdes' character never appears in the film, and her death isn't important at all to the audience. However, because she is apparently possessing Madeleie Elster, it starts the case for Scottie to investigate and drives the entire film's plot. Some also have noted that the necklace or Scottie's vertigo is also a MacGuffin.
The 39 Steps: Mr. Memory's memorization of plans for an airplane engine.
Rear Window: the "murder" committed by Lars Thorwald.
Notorious: the uranium ore that is in all the vintage wine bottles.
The Birds: the reason why the birds are attacking everyone.
Psycho: the $40,000 in the envelope.
His famous method has also inspired other films to use this method in their films. Some examples are:
We have talked in class about Paramount's film Rango and how it is a film that has hundreds of film references throughout. Another film that caught my eye and does the same thing is 2000's Chicken Run. Essentially the film is a claymation parody of The Great Escape but with chicken famers instead of Nazis. In some parts the film is almost exactly the same but not only that the film references so many films on top of that.
From films like Psycho, Ace in the Hole, Enter the Dragon, and Alien. The list goes on and on. When Rocky is giving a inspirational speech he even directly quotes a line from the Italian Job. And even the famous Star Wars jump that wasn't even original in Star Wars. If you haven't seen the film I suggest you watch it, not only is it spectacularly written but it is also beautifully animated.
Art comes in a lot of different forms. Film and television are some of those forms. They are the art of storytelling. I strongly believe in the preservation of art. I'm not talking about old films from 1910, although I do wish more films from that time survived. I'm talking about respect for the art of storytelling. Marketing, and really the industry, seems to to lack that respect. They see money as more important than conserving this art. Storytelling has been jeopardized by trailers and sneak peeks that are used to advertise and up their ratings. The currently system used to advertise is an insult to the work it is advertising.
I'm only writing about it now, because of recent advertising that upsets me. CBS's The Good Wife is currently my favorite show (tied with Showtime's Shameless). It is easily the most well rounded show I know of. It's a political drama, a lawyer drama, and a family drama all at once. The amount that happens in one episode is equivalent to probably an entire season of Breaking Bad...or more. And still, while juggling so much, they never drop the ball. There is not a dull moment and nothing is ever predictable. For example, the season four finale was unbelievably incredible. In the fifty-ish minutes, there were over a dozen unexpected twists and turns. You thought you were following the story until the last shot of the episode, where you learned you were completely wrong and misinterpreted everything and were left with wide eyes and jaw dropped as you realized that nothing on this show will ever be the same.
I can talk about how phenomenal The Good Wife is forever, but that's not why I'm writing this. Back to my point. Here we are. Four episodes into the fifth season, with episode five coming out on Sunday, and it already feels like this next episode should be a season finale...or season premiere. No other show can tell a story as well as Robert and Michelle King. Their art speaks for itself. Example, as soon as last week's episode ended, I yelled to my roommate, "And that is what it looks like when shit hits the fan." I found out the day after that the next episode is actually called "Hitting the Fan." So why am I talking about this? Because CBS and The Good Wife have been really trying to create buzz about this Sunday's episode. I don't blame them, the entire world needs to see how great they are at their art. However, it's their methods that I'm honestly so appalled by.
At first, I came across a Buzzfeed article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacelacob/the-good-wife-hitting-the-fan-review. This came out the day after last week's episode, but it is a review on next week's episode. I thought maybe he got the title wrong, so I read it. He didn't get it wrong. CBS screened the episode for critics ahead of time to create buzz. I quote and agree with Jace Lacob, "I’m not one of those Good Wife adherents who qualifies their
passionate engagement with the Robert and Michelle King-created drama by
adding “on broadcast television,” as the show shouldn’t be forced to
carry such a backhanded compliment." The Good Wife is without a doubt one of the best television shows, period. Despite this, the ratings are not doing very well. My age group is extremely important when it comes to ratings, and nobody my age watches this show. The only people I know that watch The Good Wife are my roommate and my best friend, and that's only because I made them. I fear this is the last season of the show, as a result of their ratings. For that reason, I gave them some slack and didn't get upset about early reviews.
Then, the show released four sneak peeks on YouTube. They have been posting the videos like crazy on Facebook, Twitter, CBS's website, and whatever other social media networks. I do understand the need to keep their ratings up. However, those four sneak peeks add up to 7 minutes and 24 seconds of footage, from let's assume a 52-minute program. Now that pisses me off. Why is the solution to give things away, spoil parts of the next chapter, and insult your art? There has to be another way. The last scene of the latest episode contained a pivotal moment of the story. To keep this spoiler-free, let's just say it left us with one of the characters finding out that he is being betrayed by the last person he ever expected. Clearly, the entire next episode will be able how he reacts and how everything plays out. Now that's something I could spend an entire week thinking about, freaking out about, and waiting to learn about. However, there's no need to wonder how he will react. Just check out the sneak peek. No. Absolutely not. That is rude and offensive to character development, and I personally, as a fan, find it irritating that my experience of the story has been compromised.
Another example of this was the season eight trailer for Showtime's Dexter. My brother somehow convinced me that it didn't spoil anything, and I stupidly trusted him. SPOILER ALERT - The previously season ended with Dexter's sister Deb about to shoot him, then instead shooting a co-worker to save Dexter. If you watched the show, you'd know this is extremely unexpected of Deb, just completely out of character. There couldn't be a cleaner, more hard-working cop. She would never kill an innocent person. With an ending like that, the viewer is left wondering what happens next. Does Deb join Dexter as a serial killer? Does she turn herself in? Is she unable to live with herself? Here's the trailer to season 8:
How my brother thought that didn't give anything away is beyond me. Things I learned in that trailer that I shouldn't have: Deb turns to drugs, lots and lots of drugs, Dexter is safe, nobody knows that Deb killed LaGuerta, Deb blames and hates Dexter for what she has become, Deb wishes she shot Dexter instead of LaGuerta, there's some new character named Evelyn Vogel who is an expert at psychopaths and is a potential threat to Dexter, Deb is getting DUIs and getting into car crashes. Now my brother argues that all those things happen in the first episode of two anyways so it doesn't matter. I very much disagree. Every episode is important when telling a good story. Every scene is significant to the world that has been created. Deb's character change, like Will's in the next episode of The Good Wife, is a definitive moment and a game changer. Sneak peeks and trailers do not display critical moments properly. They ruin them.
Similar to my feelings towards trailers and sneak peeks, I despise the "Next week on (insert television show that I'm about to spoil)" that comes at the end of every episode. My only exception to this is "On the next... Arrested Development." At the end of every Arrested Development episode, there is an epilogue segment in which lingering stories are wrapped up or extended humorously. The scenes in this segment rarely appear in the next episode, but instead further ongoing jokes.
Most shows use a "on the next" or "next week on" to show mini clips of what will happen in the next episode. It is a pathetic attempt to get the viewer to tune in next week. If do you do your job correctly, engage the viewer, and end at a place where they would like to see the next part of your story, then they will tune in next week. I now know what direction they are taking the next step when I shouldn't. I want to know when I am supposed to know, which is when I would find out in the story. I used to have to run out of the room and down the hall when an episode of Walking Dead ended to make sure I heard nothing. Then I would come back, wanting to talk to my friends about what think Rick is going to do. Only all of them knew already that he would meet with the Governor. I find it aggravating that it's an option for people to hinder their viewing experience like this.
All my examples have been on television, but movies are even worse. Trailers give away every good part of a movie. Let's start with comedies. Go watch the trailer of a comedy that you have seen a dozen times. Try to tell me that the funniest lines, the ones you quote weekly, aren't in that trailer. Lies. They are. Moving onto action films, go watch the trailer of your favorite action movie. It probably showed every explosion, car chase, fight or battle scene in the movie. It isn't as cool to see that slow-motion bullet-dodging badass move in The Matrix (you know what I'm talking about) when you already knew it was coming.
The amount that is spoiled in a trailer is a major flaw of this industry. Why are we showing all of our cards? It isn't just that trailers spoil the funny lines or the big explosions. They're guilty of bringing you way too far into the story. It would be one thing if they set the stage, showed you life pre-initial plot point. It would be one thing if they revealed the first plot point that changes daily life. Either of those would be understandable. Trailers do more than that, though. They show key points in rising action and often show clips from the climax of the story. It is absolutely ridiculous.
My favorite trailer of all time is that of Hitchcock's Psycho. I'm warning you, it's long. Six and a half minutes long. I think it's wonderful though. Alfred Hitchcock gives you a tour of the set of the film. He brings you to different rooms where important scenes in the film take place. He almost talks about the action that takes place in each place, but repeatedly brushes it aside. By never revealing the action, he teases the viewer and draws their curiosity. I am not saying it's perfect, but I prefer this style of trailer to the ones that ruin key parts of the story.
Another great trailer is the one for Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. Welles himself narrates this trailer, similar to Psycho and Hitchcock. He introduces each key actor, then asks the characters (not actors) of the film what they think of the protagonist, Kane. Without a single second of footage of the actual film itself, Welles reveals what a complex character Charles Foster Kane is and invites the viewer to see the film and form their own opinion of the man. Again, I would love to see trailers more like this. Citizen Kane and Psycho both have trailers that honor the story being told. Hitchcock and Welles showed their respect and confidence in their art by advertising in this fashion.
I realize that it is my choice to watch a trailer or sneak peek or "next week on," and as you can assume, I choose not to watch those things. However, I believe it shouldn't be my choice. I respect the art of film and television and storytelling, because this art is my life. Not everybody thinks this way though. They don't care if things get spoiled and I have a problem with that. It's our responsibility as artists to preserve the art of storytelling and give our viewers the experience intended for them. It's time we find other methods to advertise movies and television shows, one that doesn't compromise the art.
Tonight I've been able to knock another off another from my list-
All I have to say is that I love Mel Brooks even more than I already did (and that's a lot of love).
This movie is a parody of about 10 Alfred Hitchock films- and each done so well that Hitchock himself loved it. Seriously- Brooks dedicated the movie to him at the beginning of the film. He also had a private screening for Hitchock and after the movie, he left without a word! Brooks thought that the film icon had hated it- but actually the complete opposite! Hitchock sent Brooks wine congratulating him on a job well done. Pretty sure that's one of the highest compliments anyone could ever get- ever.
High Anxiety is about Dr. Richard H. Thorndyke, a highly regarded Psychiatrist from the East coast and comes over to the West coast to run the:
PsychoNeurotic Institute for the Very, Very Nervous. Here in the institute you meet Cloris Leachman as the very manly, pointy-breasted nurse and Harvey Korman as another doctor who was going to run the institute before Thorndyke arrived. Having been a HUGE Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein fan for years, it did my heart good seeing Frau Blucher and Hedley Lamarr get um... *ahem* kinky? Also, anytime I see Madeline Kahn in anything- I know it's going to be good.
So many direct spoofs from his movies are so well done that you had to know that Brooks watched Hitchocks films on repeat- like for example...
The shower scene from Psycho. We all know how it goes down in Psycho, but in High Anxiety, Brook's character has been asking the bellhop to get him a copy of the newspaper since he got to the hotel. The bellhop, not being the nicest/sane guy in town, rolls up the newspaper and stabs Brooks's with it and leaves. Instead of the usual blood we would have seen, instead we see the ink go down the drain and Brooks looks like he's dead but then blurts out "He's not getting a tip". If it wasn't for the fact my room mate has been asleep for almost two hours, I would have laughed so hard out loud.
(Even the opening scene where Thorndyke goes through the airport seemed so hilarious once you put it in context- just watching everyone's face as the plane goes for the landing and then you see Brooks- Lordy that's the exact look my mom gets whenever we're on a plane...)
Due to this movie, I know understand why my parents always joke about the drapes (seeing as my dad is a psychologist) and when ever I say I'm getting anxious, my dad will always sing "Hiiiigh Anggggg-sietyyyy". And I got that it was from the movie but I thought he was just being a dad but nope. Mel Brooks takes a jab at Frank Sinatra while he's at it... Ahhh... Mel Brooks...
If you are either an Alfred Hitchcock fan, Mel Brooks fan, thriller fanatic, or a comedy enthusiast, High Anxiety is probably one of the best films you could see. So if you want to hear Mel Brooks sing or just get a brief idea of the movie, watch the video I have at the bottom- It's of the movie's theme.
What annoys me more than awful sequels/ trilogies is when a motion picture studio decides to make a "remake" of an original movie that came out years ago. Like sequels/trilogies, there are few good remakes, but most ruin the reputation of the original film. It makes audiences appreciate the original movie that came out years ago. There is nothing like a huge slump in the box office when the oldest edition of a film does better than the newest edition. Below are 2 of the many remakes that I left thinking "Really!!! Come On"
1. Total Recall
Before I watched this years newest edition of Total Recall with Colin Farrell, I watched the 1990 version with Arnold Schwarzenegger. While I thought this was a decent film to sit through, after leaving the theater I thought the 2012 was nothing compared to the original. Ok maybe the special and visual effects were much more advanced, but I followed the story and characters better in the original story. Here is what I want to emphasize about above when I said "slump in the box office." In 1990 when Total Recall, it made an overall gross of $119 million with $26 million opening weekend. 22 years later, the Total Recall's overall gross slumped down to $59 million with the same opening weekend around $26 million.
2. Psycho.
After watching Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, I literally peed myself and couldn't take a shower with the curtain closed. I thought Anthony Perkins played an excellent Norman Bates and I thought the overall quality of the film, despite in black & white was overall well done. After watching the 1998 film directed by Gus Van Sant starring Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche, I was in utter disgust of how they remade this movie, ESPECIALLY in color. I thought it gave it a more terrifying film in black &white. Talk about a slump, the first Psycho made a total gross of $32 million while the 1998 film made a total gross of $21 million.
In all, I feel remakes are an enormous waste of production money and we as audiences don't need to watch movies a lot of us have already seen. However, I cant say that about all remakes because some have actually turned out quite well and have done a great job in the box office.
