That is the point I was trying to make. There can also be multiple MacGuffins at the same time, the ring and the newspapers in Shadow Of A Doubt.
Pretend it isn’t there. It’s one of his most interesting films.
On PSYCHO: << I had totally forgotten the unforegivable crap at the end. >>
I assume that you mean the psychiatrist’s “explanation” rather than the final shots of Mother not swatting the fly?
Be sensitive to the history. When PSYCHO first came out, there needed to be an explanation. Not every viewer would have figured out what was going on. So, there needed to be a scene with a psychiatrist explaining things.
I find it an attest to Hitchcock’s brilliance that the psychiatrist’s “explanation” is so lame – it doesn’t really explain anything beyond the basics of whodunnit and howcome.
From Robin Woods’ wonderful book Hitchcock’s Films
Just watched Marnie on TCM.
hmm.
Kinda cheaply melodramatic–and DON’T get me started on Sean Connery’s viciously overplucked eyebrows–but I was surprised at how much “adult” material it revealed; hadn’t remembered that from the last time I saw it like 20 years ago.
Subtract the glib freudianisms, though, and Marnie’s experiences, consequences, and recovery have a kind of emotional accuracy. I was surprised at that. But overall, not one oh my favorites. And every time Diane Baker walks into the scene, I wanna go, “Love the suit.”
Hi,
I re-watched Marnie today as well, and while I agree its melodramatic, its one of my favorite Hitchcock films (although doesn’t come close to touching Notorious). The dialogue in Marnie is interesting (and not just because of Sean’s brogue 
)
The actress that played Marnie’s mother put in a good performance and I like Tippi Hedren more in this movie than The Birds.
One thing I noticed that was similar about this film and Notorious is the racetrack scenes- is that meaningful or just a popular thing to do back then? In both scenes the lady is not who she is pretending to be- or I guess Alicia is who she is but not acting like she normally would and Marnie is trying to hide who she is. Both have near misses at either being revealed (as a spy) or identified (as a thief) at the track.
And I agree on Diane Baker’s suit- there’s a maroon, plushy one I particularly liked.
I haven’t seen Marnie, but I picked up The Birds on DVD.
c’mon, didn’t ANYONE get my “Love the suit” reference?
“Dr. Lecter?”
Yeah, but I still haven’t seen “Marnie.”
I just finished rewatching Psycho. Awesome stuff. The point about the psycho-babble at the end I believe was the same as in the South Park epsiode “Jared Has Aides.” There is that scene where he is recapping the plot so far, while whaling on a dead horse with a baseball bat. Hitchcock explained the plot to anyone who didn’t get it, while at the same time giving a sly wink to those who did. This was a common function of his “cheesy” endings.
In terms of MacGuffins, I think that Psycho should be re-examined. Yes, Mother is a red herring, as is Arbogast.
The money is a MacGuffin. However, after we meet Norman, we care about him. We forget Marion for the moment after meeting this sad young man. A MacGuffin is something all the characters care about, but the audience doesn’t (to some extent, because we obviously care about the money). In this context, Marion is a MacGuffin. She exists solely to drive the plot at that point.
In the same context, Mother is a MacGuffin and a red herring.
<< In the same context, Mother is a MacGuffin and a red herring. >>
Oh, please. Marion is NOT a McGuffin, nor is Mother, not in any meaningful sense. There are lots of things that drive plots besides McGuffins. A McGuffin is a very specific type of plot element. Similarly, other plot elements include the Hero or a Villain or a Sidekick, or Love or Hate or Romance or Revenge. Or the Setting. All those things (and more) can drive a plot, and none of them are McGuffins.
I repeat – the McGuffin is the irrelevant motivator. It’s a reasonably well-defined element. In PSYCHO, it’s the stolen money. How can you tell? You can tell if it’s easily replaced – it needn’t be stolen money, it could be diamonds or industrial secrets or microfilm or a rare art treasure. It doesn’t matter. The film would be the same whatever Marion stole. The McGuffin can be replaced. It’s the trap to catch lions in the Scottish highlands, remember? It’s prime characteristic is that it’s completely irrelevant to the audience (but important to the characters.)
You’d have to work long and hard to say that any character is a McGuffin. Arbogast is neither irrelevant nor replaceable. He functions in critical scenes, like when he questions Norman (a critical scene), when he explores the house, etc. He goes prying the way the audience wants to (and at the same time doesn’t want him to.) He evokes a whole realm of reactions. It’s absolutely nuts to call him a McGuffin.
Marion is a major character, and I don’t think the audience “forgets” her – we’re constantly reminded of her in the investigation. It’s Marion’s story (up to her death), she’s the Main Character, and thus can’t possibly be a McGuffin.
And I guess I don’t know what you mean by Mother, but Mother is certainly NOT a McGuffin. She’s neither irrelevant nor replacable. She’s either a major red herring (the body in the cellar) or a major character (the murderess who takes over Norman). In no way is she a McGuffin.
Sorry, Ilsa, but you’re being ridiculous if you think that every plot element and every character and everything in a movie is a McGuffin.
Note that while the OBJECT (the money in PSYCHO) is a McGuffin, the THEFT isn’t. The theft is the plot itself (until the plot twists a bit.)
And “cheesy ending”?? I don’t know about you, but I think the sequence of Norman not swatting the fly is mind-numbing, horrific, and a magnificent bit of film. Cheesy, indeed. Humph.
Now, really Dexter!
Ok, I see your point. I had been under the impression that Geroge Kaplan from North By Northwest was a MacGuffin. From that framework, my theory makes more sense. So what is George Kaplan in North By Northwest? MacGuffin or Red Herring?
:rolleyes: is an appropriate response.
:rolleyes: That sequence is the best that Hitchock EVER directed. I meant the psychoanalyst bit. Don’t be pedantic, young whippersnapper!
I was referring to North By Northwest or The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956).
lissener, I just finished The Birds. Othere than the obvious comical and farcical bits, is there an overarching comedic line, or is the whole film simply tongue in cheek? In your opinion.
<< I had been under the impression that Geroge Kaplan from North By Northwest was a MacGuffin. From that framework, my theory makes more sense. So what is George Kaplan in North By Northwest? MacGuffin or Red Herring? >>
The McGuffin in NORTH BY NORTHWEST is the microfilm that James Mason is smuggling out of the country in a little statue. The evidence that it’s just a McGuffin: when Cary Grant asks Leo G Carroll what it’s all about, Leo G responds something like, “Oh, government secrets.” It’s like the mathematics formula in TORN CURTAIN or the uranium in NOTORIOUS, it doesn’t matter what it is. The way Hitchcock defined them, the McGuffin is a very specific type of plot element.
What’s George Kaplan? He’s a character. He may be a non-existant character, but he’s a character nonetheless. It’s a plot twist on the old identical twins theme (like PRISONER OF ZENDA or PRINCE AND THE PAUPER). He’s definitely a red herring from the point of the view of Leo G Carroll – I think they actually call him that – trying to divert suspicion from the real agent. He’s an enemy agent and threat to James Mason. Characters can be different things to different people within the movie.
That make sense?
On THE BIRDS, I don’t think it’s a comedy, I think it’s a deep philosophical statement. I hate to sum up in one line, but the idea is that life itself is fragile, unexplainable, tenuous, with the illusion of order and control easily shattered to reveal the chaos lying just underneath.
(BTW, this is similar to the underlying theme in PSYCHO – “We all go a little mad sometimes” – that madness, chaos, lurks just beneath the surface of normalcy.)
Yeah, it’s got comic and tragic bits in it, but the overwhelming thrust is uncertainty, ambiguity, and hopelessness. Pivotal moment, when Rod Taylor picks up a stone to throw at the birds that killed Suzanne Pleschette. Talk about a totally helpless hero! There’s nothing he – or anyone – can do. I think it’s an amazing movie. Special effects have moved on, of course, and the characters sometimes lack substance, but it’s frightening as hell if you stop to think about it.
I asked because of this.