The Baby of Mâcon

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.

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 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".

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.

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.