The Baby of Mâcon

This film was shown at the Cannes film festival nearly a decade ago and apparently received more walkouts than any film in the festival's history--and "Wild at Heart" won the grand prize here?

Unlike most films that use sex and violence to help sell them, Greenaway seems to have no interest in "selling". The story he tells--which takes the form of a play attended by royalty and commonfolk alike--is a Shakespearian fable regarding a young woman (Julia Ormond) who uses her disfigured mother's newborn as a messiah-like figure to gain wealth and comfort, much to the dismay of the church (repped by Ralph Fiennes).

To say that the writer/director of this film is a sick person because of what happens in the story is shortsighted, at best. Yes, there are truly heinous atrocities committed by some of these characters--but the manner in which it is depicted does nothing to suggest glamour or vicarious thrills. David Lynch's Golden Palm winner, on the other hand, is full of all manner of freaks and malicious acts played mostly for laughs. Greenaway definitely got the soiled end of the stick on this one.

It's a shame, too. This film recently played for just a few nights in one of Chicago's most prominent art theaters. It's never received anything remotely close to a nationwide theatrical or video release, and it's my favorite Greenaway film, second only to "The Cook, the Thief...". If one is interested in this sort of experience and has a fairly strong stomach, I'd recommend a theatrical screening in a minute.

I first made Peter Greenaway my "acquaintance" through "Prospero's Books," an equally beautiful and equally compelling film. I have also seen some minor pictures of his, like "The Belly of an Architect" and "Drowning by Numbers" which cannot really live up to the image of "The Baby of Macon." Personally, I believe it is Greenaway's best. It is a play, a performance, where shape-shifting is as spontaneous as breathing, indicating that the world is, at it were, a theater, and we the people are merely actors. "The Baby of Macon" is the tale of the exploitation of a child for profit. A beautiful healthy son is born into a poor family, in a time of plague and bareness, in the old Gothic city of Macon. The child is seen as a mere toy, an opportunity for gain, both by his unnamed sister (so beautifully played by Julia Ormond) and the Church. The sacred Child, identified with Christ, brings riches and prosperity and fruitfulness unto the wretched crowds who live in Macon. But his sister's over-weening ambitiousness and the Church's avarice worsen the matters. The Child is immolated and all is lost. The masque is shown on stage in a doric playhouse in 1650 AD, before the viewers whose desire for pious histrionics is forceful. In due time you cannot possibly tell whether this play is acted or merely actual. You cannot tell whether or not you are in a playhouse or in a Cathedral, or whether this wondrous baby represents an earlier Miracle, born by Virgin Birth in a Nativity in the presence of ox and ass. At the play's apogee you cannot be sure who are the players and who are the viewers. This is Peter Greenaway's most shocking film, a somber "miracle-play" of wonders, semi-wonders, and would-be wonders conceived in an epoch of veritable godliness, but performed in a Baroque era of Religiousness when the fancy is starving for various feelings.

Oh, the humanity! I have deep admiration for the man that is Greenaway. The Baby of Macon is a masterwork that is really above criticism. The imdb reviews are pretty much what I would expect from people who live by the credo "ignorance is bliss". They are shocked. They are apalled. They are horrified. How can this film be viewed as anything less than indulgent maniacal trash, they say.

Well, of course, they must be correct. After all, with all the nudity and curt cursed characters who exist in a red world of servants and oblivious royalty embroiled in seemingly pointless situations.....

Huh?

To sum up, come to Greenaway when you're ready for him. He is so far ahead of modern cinema that he'll be dead 60 years before people start to call him the greatest filmmaker of all-time.

And the nudity? All you "appalled" juveniles are just upset that it is unerotic. You sick perverts.

This is an astonishing Fiction-Within-Fiction exercise that ingeniously implicates the viewer in the appalling acts of violence on screen. Thus, it is one of the most visceral and sickening movies ever made, but of the highest moral and artistic integrity.

Don't miss it. If you can handle it...

Easily eclipsing The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover as Greenaway's masterpiece. Ormond and Fiennes have never been better. Makes the other films released that year (The Firm, Sleepless in Seattle) look like lukewarm consomme at a spinsterish teaparty. Most powerful and horrifying rape scene since Bergman's The Virgin Spring. Surprised the Christian Coalition hasn't tried to get it banned: full frontal male nudity, infanticide, gang rape. What blood-and-thunder Elizabethan melodrama is all about.