O Bebê Santo de 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'm surprised at the common interpretations of this film, and I agree it is incredibly gratuitous in it's manner, but it also reflects that of a modern crisis. Greenaway based this film on his witnessing of the virtual exploitation of youth in mass commercialism, from television to that of city billboards.

The story revolves around an infant who is exploited by a young woman, ultimately for attention, by claiming the child as being holy and that God speaks through him (the voice being that of a man plainly seen, hidden up near the rafters. Quite brilliant production settings I think). What begins as a sudden rise to fame for her soon starts to unravel leading to an eventual murder, and her quick descent into hell (as explained by the other reviewers).

The production values are simply superb in it's theatre settings with either minimalist action and wonderful dialogue, or a stage filled with constant movement and flair, (and wonderful dialogue). The subdued, yet bright colour's throughout, and morbid setting's reflect perfectly that of an intoxicating period of history, and really makes one glad that they dont exist in this corrupted, horrific environment. As said elsewhere, you can almost smell the stench.

The acting is absolutely brilliant, from Ormond as the child's disturbed mentor to her eventual lover "The Bishop's Son" Fiennes. I truly can't understand how one of the reviewers would consider this to be a low point for Fiennes, as, if I were in his position, I would be truly proud of the performance given and the content of this wonderful film. It's morbid, but gives much at the same time to the imagination.

It's a shocking film nearly all the way through but I think that's just one of the factors that contributes to it's success and it's portrayal of a truly bloody and socially immoral period of time and context (especially for the classic theatre settings) Any other way would have detracted from the subject. The ending has never left my mind. I love this film.

10/10.

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".

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.

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.