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.

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...

THE BABY OF MACON is Peter Greenaway's most disturbing and shocking film yet. It's about a baby born of a deformed woman in a disease ridden village. The villagers go berserk due to the fact that the mother is so grossly deformed, and soon a different woman claims the baby as her own and pretends that she is still a virgin to gain the town's approval!!!

Her parents detest, so she locks them up. She tries to seduce a man that she is in love with, but the man is killed by the baby in the process. What occurs afterward is nothing short of horrifying. I'll just say that some truly disgusting events transpire, and the film ends in a hollow and empty climax.

I felt that the film was effective in demonstrating it's views and certainly was grueling, but the appeal of the film is what makes it so hard to really review. Who on earth would want to watch this? People who want to see a good movie maybe, but they will no doubt be put off by the subject matter. Fans of independent cinema will probably appreciate it, but most likely won't rush to see it.

Everyone else will probably not find much appeal in this kind of storytelling. But that's kind of what's so cool about Greenaway. He is able to create film in a way that most cannot. He's in a class of Chaotic cinema where any sort of personification is possible and signature themes are easier to put to light than a real story. I found the film moving, but unless your a big fan of set design, I'm going to have to recommend it to Greenaway fans only.

Peter Greenaway is one of the most unique directors at work in cinematic arthouse today.He made several truly original movies like "The Falls"(1980),"A Zed and Two Noughts"(1985),"The Pillow Book"(1997) etc."The Baby of Macon" is pretty demented with the scenes of cannibalism,incest,rape and gore.The film is difficult,challenging,brutal and darkly beautiful.A baby is born from a supposed virgin woman,so a chain of hysteria about divine intervention in the birth takes place.The scene when stunningly beautiful Julia Ormond is gang-raped is really hard to watch-it is not graphic,but her agonizing screams are quite convincing.Highly recommended if you want to see totally challenging piece of art.