The Baby of Mâcon

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.

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.

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.

This film is simply a masterpiece, the ultimate experience in visual poetry. If I didn't think Greenaway was a master film maker before, I certainly did after viewing The Baby of Macon.

His use of the Camera is stunning, I believe it is the closest thing to perfection in reference to the Camera, Actor and Stage. There were so many moments of genius throughout the Film that I was overwhelmed and had to see it a second time to soak it all in.

He has captured the era, the aura, the atmosphere of the subject better than anything I have seen before. The script was a work of Art, the blending of Vulgarity and Beauty, from the spoken word to the lavish colours and movement captured on Film, a true masterpiece in every sense of the word.

Yes, I highly recommend this Film, it has volumes to say, if you desire a deeper, fulfilling feast of mind and heart. Everything a Greenaway fan could want, and more.

This is one of (if not THE) most controversial films Peter Greenaway has ever made. Having become something of a media darling, first with "The Draughtsman's Contract", but mainly after "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" and "Prospero's Books" the British media turned against Greenaway when "The Baby of Macon" was released in 1993. This fact is all the more ironic since the central theme of the film is the danger of celebrity and the way in which people are built up so they can be knocked down at a later stage in their careers.

"The Baby of Macon" is not necessarily an easy film to watch and many viewers may not find it to their taste, due in part to the powerful imagery Greenaway utilises within the film. The infamous gang rape of Julia Ormand's character is what everyone comments on, although I think it's very well handled and for the majority of the time the camera focuses on the other characters around the stage (a similar process to the way the camera pans left to a corner of the warehouse when Michael Madsen slices the cop's ear off in Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs") rather than the rape itself.

It seemed to me at the time (as it does now) that the majority of film critics who dismissed the film missed the point of it all. All too often so-called popular film critics merely discuss films in terms of whether they personally enjoy them or not, rather than examining a director's motives and aims in making a particular film and whether those objectives have been achieved. In my opinion, Greenaway does succeed in hitting his marks in "The Baby of Macon" and manages to make some very important points about society in a powerful and challenging film, which will not however leave the viewer with that 'feelgood' feeling that they get from a film like, say, "Titanic".