The McGuffin Theory about the creatures

[cwipperman]

OK,

I'm very new to the forum but I have been lurking for a while. I had a theory about the "creatures" that are on the island. I was trying to think how to describe it when I remembered something I'd read so bear with me as I explain my theory.

Many of you remember the movie Pulp Fiction - and the briefcase. Throughout the movie - you are shown the case - you see the effect of the case on other people - but you never see what is inside the case. Tarentino did this in some of his other movies - showing you the idea of something important - but never revealing what it actually was.

This act is called using a "MacGuffin"... and dates back to Hitchcock. Here is a quote from an article on "The Strait Dope" about a "MacGuffin"....

What's a MacGuffin? In a 1939 lecture at Columbia University, Alfred Hitchcock spoke of the MacGuffin. Crediting it to his friend Angus MacPhail, Hitchcock said it originated in the following exchange:

Two Scotsmen are riding in a train. One asks the other what is contained in a package in the overhead luggage compartment.

"It's a MacGuffin."

"What's a MacGuffin?"

"A device for hunting tigers in Scotland."

"But there are no tigers in Scotland."

"Well, then, it's not a MacGuffin, is it?"

Simply put, a MacGuffin is a plot device. It can be anything--secret spy papers, a mysterious briefcase, etc.--but its only purpose is to set the story in motion. Once that's accomplished, the MacGuffin usually become relatively unimportant.(It's an interesting article and you can read the whole thing here: www.straightdope.com/mail...ction.html (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpulpfiction.html) )

So.... my theory is that whatever is in the woods will NEVER be seen - but will always be there for us to think about in the back of our minds. We will NEVER be told what it is - or shown what it is - but we will know that it causes fear and death.

[bigmouth]

I respectfully disagree on all counts. I think the creature will be revealed eventually, and that it will actually turn out to be fairly benign. What it will represent is the fear of the unknown within all of us.

[acr2]

New here, but I agree...I think this is a good point.

[azteclady]

welcome, cwipperman and acr!

I believe you are on to something, cwipperman - check out pinnerman's "I guessed this one" thread here: p073.ezboard.com/flostthe...D=13.topic (http://p073.ezboard.com/flosttheunofficalforumfortheabcseriesfrm29.showMes sage?topicID=13.topic) I think the quote proves you right.


Beto

[cwipperman]

The more I think about it - I honestly think that we will never be told what "it" is. I mean, Locke saw it - but we only saw his reaction. The pilot was attacked by it - but we never saw whether it was one big thing or many little things. The frenchwoman talks about "it" - not giving any information as to what "it" might be.

I bet this entire series will run - and we will never learn what "it" is.

Or.... after the series is over in 5 or 6 years - we'll have to pay $10 to go see "Lost: The Movie" to learn what "it" is.

[bigmouth]

Sorry to always be on your case, azteclady, but I'm not sure I follow you. Pinnerman's point was that the indentity of the creatures will have greater symbolic significance than plot significance--"once we finally figure out what [the creatures] are."

Cwipperman's point is precisely the opposite. He/she thinks the identity of the creature is irrelevant. Under this view, the creatures exist solely to forward the plot and have little symbolic significance. That's why cwipperman thinks it plausible that we will never actually see the creature in the trees. (If I misinterpreted you, cwipperman, please let me know.)

I actually agree with Pinnerman, which is why I disagreed so strongly to this thread.

[drabauer]

Since I have already stated my support for the creature as MacGuffin theory, let me add that everyone on this thread could be correct. That is, if we do come to see the creatures, than something else on the island will take over their function. I see no reason why they might need to be hidden for 4-5 seasons if they have done what they needed to to advance each castaway's character development. Sometimes in Hitchcock the McGuffin is revealed - once it is, the viewer is by necessity always disappointed, as it can never live up to the implications of the shadow it cast over the narrative.

This was the entire problem with the X-Files. Chris Carter tried to have his cake (let us learn aspects of the alien conspiracy) while eating it (creating a more complex conspiracy in the process). If it was done properly, it would have worked, but it wasn't. JJ Abrams has tried to do this on Alias--as soon as one conspiracy is revealed, another raises its ugly head. But it's a difficult balancing act (re: season 3).

Long story short: the creatures will remain unseen until they no longer serve their purpose, because a larger mystery takes their place.

[azteclady]

From pinnerman's post:
"That was me on 9-28-04. Here's what JJ Abrams is quoted as saying in a 10-10-04 Boston Globe article from www.lostfansite.com:
The creature will be ``more of an underlying threat,'' he said. ``It's more about what it represents. If you have something that represents terror and fear and the darkness of this place, to me that's incredibly valuable.'' "

My interpretation of this quote is: the 'monster' itself is relatively irrelevant to the character driven drama, i.e., it's a motivator, a MacGuffin. Which is also how I interpret cwipperman's post: that the actual 'identity' or reality of the 'monster' is irrelevant to how the survivors react to its very existence.

And no worries, awsecond, I know I don't always make myself clear. And even when I do, there's no law saying my reasoning must seem rational to any one but me :D


Beto

[DriftWood]

If the monster is not real but simply a motivator, a device to challenge the survivors, etc., then wouldn't this fall into the category of the supernatural? I prefer (at this point) to think that the monster is real...maybe not as big as we have been led to believe, sort of like the Wizard of Oz - an image projected by some meek creature someplace designed to drive people away.

[azteclady]

Driftwood, I don't mean to imply that the 'monster' is not real, just that the survivors' perception of it (and hence, the audience's), is completely distorted. We are making it into something terrible, big, complicated, etc. while it may turn out to be something mundane.

The best example I can come up with is this: have you ever been woken in the middle of the night by a feeling of wrongness? maybe a whisper of noise downstairs? You feel every single hair in your body standing up and ghostly fingers walking up and down your spine...

So you grab the cell phone and the hammer (or baseball bat or fire extinguisher or some other makeshift weapon), and creep slowly downstairs, ready to defend your property, your family members, or the contents of your fridge. And when you finally make it to the kitchen...

(insert appropriately scary/suspenseful music here)




... you find the kitty cat chasing a lizard over the counter.

I personally hope the monster doesn't turn out to be something as... deflating (another word for lame), as this example, but that's what I mean when I say that the identity (explanation) of the monster is relatively irrelevant.


Beto

[DriftWood]

OK, I see your point...but SOMETHING gobbled up the pilot and then deposited his bloody remains on the treetop. Perhaps it wasn't the same monster we're talking about...I mean, a motivation device couldn't do that and neither could a Wizard of Oz type character.

So, that leads us back to the conclusion that there is indeed some creature out there which smashes and slashes.

Maybe it's a 50-foot tall nasty French woman.

[azteclady]

Drifwood:
"...but SOMETHING gobbled up the pilot and then deposited his bloody remains on the treetop. Perhaps it wasn't the same monster we're talking about...I mean, a motivation device couldn't do that and neither could a Wizard of Oz type character."

Something gobbled up the pilot, and it's a real something. Something is making noises near the beach, and moving treetops. Something killed that boar Locke dragged back. These things can be explained if:
a) all of these incidents involved one creature
b) all of these involve a certain numbers of one kind of creature
c) some of these involve one kind of creature, some another

Then, if a, b and c turn out to be zoo animals which survived a shipwreck (and this could explain the polar bear), or if they turn out to be a species of animals adapted to the island, then their identity (what they REALLY are) it's irrelevant from the point of view of storytelling. The animals *are* the plot device, or rather their existence itself is. It's not what they are but how the survivors are afraid of them, and how the survivors react to them, that's important to fuel the story, to further the plot.

Clearer than mud now? :D


Beto
too many words, too little meaning

[schwartzcaster]

I am only paraphrasing this (and not subscribing to the "they're dead" theories.)

In Jacob's Ladder Danny Aiello says something about the demons that Tim Robbins has been seeing. He says something like "If you're clinging to life you will see demons but they're really angels trying to free you."

I believe the creature(s) exist but they will only be revealed (as stated above) when the perception of the castaways change. To those who want to escape from what they see as a nightmare everything is dangerous and filled with dread. To Locke, who is where he always wanted to be the creature was wonderous. Or as he said "magic". Right now their presence represents the mind set of the castaways. Once they begin to accept and adapt to their surrounding the threat of the creatures will lessen and then I believe we will learn what they are along with the cast.

just throwing my quarter into the pot.

[DriftWood]

OK, I buy the theory about zoo animals, but (since so far there's been no evidence of a shipwreck) perhaps they came from ANOTHER plane that crashed there - maybe one also carrying the French woman...

[Stu1961]

...and all this time I thought that the reason there were no tigers in Scotland was because the MacGuffin had worked so well!:eek Seems like I'm always one theory behind.:rolleyes
IMO, regardless of what the creature may be - it will be a loooooong time before we are tossed that bone of knowledge. Would it answer, or raise more questions by just seeing the creature? If I was on the island, the last thing I would want is to be close enough to see what the creature is. It's dangerous. Knowing what it is, or looks like, is unimportant. Just Avoid it.

[Badger]

One theory states the briefcase contents is Marcellus Wallace's soul. It's an ancient belief that when the Devil takes a person's soul, it's removed through the back of the head. When we see the back of Marcellus' head he has a Band-Aid covering the precise spot indicated by tradition for soul removal. Perhaps Marcellus sold his soul to the devil which would also explain why the combination to open the briefcase was 666.

On the other hand Tarantino did in fact state later that the contents of the briefcase were the souls of all those they had killed for their real boss, Satan.

However, was it a MacGuffin to the audience when they first saw the film? Yes.

[Badger]

As far as the unknown entity commonly referred to as "the creature" or "the monster" it's just that, a MacGuffin. Personally, I hate to use the words "creature" or "monster", etc. because that implies it's a living entity, and at the present time we simply don't know WHAT it is.

It's been stated previously by one of the writers? that as time progresses we will learn more "about it" but I suspect we may never know for certain what "it" really is. Therefore we could speculate for the duration of the series and never know if we're correct or not. It isn't as though the one who correctly guesses what "it" is will win a prize. ;)

Some have said they think it could be something mechanical. If I were to speculate I would say it just as easily could be some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon, perhaps something as yet unknown. (Atmospheric plasma vortexes and crop circles anyone?) 0]

[bigmouth]

Badger32: I think what you've touched upon is that the briefcase in Pulp Fiction is actually a kind of ironic take on the MacGuffin. On the surface, the briefcase appears simply to drive the plot, making its contents irrelevant to our interpretation of the film. That's what a traditional MacGuffin does.

At the same time, the film's failure to ever specify the contents of the briefcase actually defies the MacGuffin's convention. Whereas the MacGuffin is something specific and mundane, the briefcase becomes something ambiguous and extraordinary. It demands speculation and interpretation. In this way Pulp Fiction works on a whole other level to subvert and redefine.

No real Lost point here--I just love that film!

[cwipperman]

I've been gone for a couple days so I'll try to catch up a little. To further my own personal explanation of how I think the creature is a "MacGuffin".

I feel that the most important thing we need to know about "it" (I'll call the creature "it" for now) is that "it" is dangerous, big, and mysterious. So far, this has been established in several ways.

Big - Because we have seen it moving trees.

Dangerous - Because we have seen it kill the pilot.

Mysterious - Because we have seen Locke look at it, and be in awe of it. And obviously because we all want to know what it is.

Because of these three things - I feel like "it" has already served it's purpose. There is now a tension on the island as to what "it" is, and how will the survivors cope with "it".

In the whole scheme of things, "it" is not yet the main character. It hasn't tried to attack them on the beach. And although it has killed - there seems to be no immediate threat to them at this point. However, there is that underlying gut feeling that they cannot just wander around the island - because "it" is still out there.

I honestly feel like now that "it" has started to serve it's purpose - we will see less and less of it (just like this last episode - we only heard it briefly when Jack was destroying the coffin). Granted, there may be episodes where "it" will become central to the drama - but overall, I still feel like we won't be let in on the identy of "it" for some time - if ever.

[drabauer]

Awsecond, you are so correct. The traditional function of MacGuffin and the briefcase are the same. But when the MacGuffin is revealed, it is always something mundane that stood in for the great mysterious Freudian thing. The fact that the contents of the briefcase in PF are never revealed thus means that it is still serving that purpose, unlike the MacGuffin in a Hitchcock film, which is usually revealed after the plot has run its course. So why don't we see what's in the briefcase? 1. the plot isn't linear, so there's no convenient endpoint; 2. there is no way to picture what's inside; or the most likely 3. sequel! (or in this case, according to Tarantino, prequel)

BTW, we don't even need six degrees of separation to link PF to Lost-one will do! (Wonder if QT will guest star as the head of an evil organization?)

Back to the monsters: as I said above, if we see them, something else will take their place. If we don't, it is because they are still driving the psychological action. Perhaps this is a veiled political comment: when people are motivated solely by fear, they may not make logical choices and may actually make things worse.

[azteclady]

drabauer sayeth words of wisdom:
"Perhaps this is a veiled political comment: when people are motivated solely by fear, they may not make logical choices and may actually make things worse."

I believe this is a sociological reality (you people who actually KNOW these things, please come and explain better).

As far as the McGuffin, the fear our survivors feel is what's motivating the plot, not the creature behind the noise, behind the killed board, behind the flayed pilot. It's the fear of whatever it *is* that's in the "magic forest."

Jack asks Kate why she wants to go hunting when she "know's what's there" and she replies, "no, actually I don't." Yet, they are both clearly scared of whatever it is. This set us up for Kate fumbling the antenna down the tree when she hears *it* moving around and heading roughly for Locke.


Beto

[cccourt]

I would love to say I have heard of this specific theory, but I can't.

The ploy?? Yes...basis of all good story writing.

Now then: A number of weeks ago quite a few of us went out on a limb and gave our predictions for the future...think it was called "place your bets, predict the future." None the less, one of my first ones is we will never see the "creature." I did NOT go into why...but basically it was because of the Macguffin theory. The creature is not important: the path it takes us is.

As to the reality of what happened to the pilot? After Locke says it what he sees is "beautiful", I thought well, we are on a desert island, the pilot is obviously in bad shape...who says we have to be "taken" to death in a halo of white light, and in a somber kind of way. Who says our souls can't be ripped from us in a way we would view as violent. We all know that in death, the body is left and the spirit is transported. The pilot was near death...and he was "taken." It is our perceptions which color what death is. We don't really have any real world accounts or images as to what happens at death. (beyond the mythical white tunnel)
ccc:hat

[cwipperman]

Anyone notice..... no "monster" this week. I wonder if they will already start scaling back on it's presence. Now that the "fear of the unknown on the island" has been established - they don't want to force it down your throat that there might be something out there.