The Baby of Mâcon (1993) User Reviews

Examine the director's aims behind the film not just the content

[Arkwright99 · 7/10 · 10 January 2001]

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".

Great arthouse drama.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 26 January 2003]

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.

Examination of whats real, whats not and how we perceive what we see whether real or not

[dbborroughs · 8/10 · 22 July 2007]

While watching a play on stage concerning the events around a "miraculous" birth, the pretend story begins to become real, however the audience isn't always aware of whats real and whats not leading to some tragic consequences.

Hated by many, loved by others this is a tough film to watch. Most people will point to the rape that happens late in the film as an endurance test, others will point to some of the other nasty acts. I find the film hard to take because all of the characters are basically hateful. I don't think there is anyone we truly like anywhere in the film. To be certain we feel for some more than others, but everyone has an edge that keeps us distant. I like the film on many levels simply because the film provokes strong reactions and makes you think about what you are seeing.

To be honest the film isn't perfect, as I said the film isn't filled with likable people, and the film also suffers in that one of its key points, that we as an audience sometimes take what we perceive to be entertainment too lightly, has been picked up and done almost to death thanks to reality shows, subsequent movies and just a casual looking at the media. That said the film still is a kick in the pants thanks to Greenaway's wizardry at putting the story on screen.

Not for the squeamish or those upset by nasty acts including a never ending rape, this is worth a look for those who want to be challenged as to how we see the world.

What is everyone so upset about?

[CineRam · 20 January 2003]

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.

What is ultimately a Stage Epic....

[magstarted · 10/10 · 22 May 2000]

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.

Flawed but full of really interesting ideas

[brianberta · 6/10 · 19 July 2020]

Prospero's Books is the only other Greenaway film I've seen. While I struggled a bit with that one and had some difficulty with getting a handle on Greenaway's style (I plan to revisit it in the future), I still enjoyed it quite a bit and found it to be one of, if not, the most unique book-to-film adaptation I've ever seen. I'd say I enjoyed this one a decent bit less, but I still found plenty to like and, for the most part, enjoyed my time with it.

The most prominent aspect of it is that it's shot in the style of a staged play which is represented by an audience watching the play as the actors/actresses perform it in front of them. This was an interesting premise and I was curious to see how it would develop, beyond the initial function of it being a distancing technique of course. Initially, I wasn't sure what to make of this aspect (specifically, the handling of it in the final act), but it all started to come together when I thought about the film from the perspective of the audience members watching the play who had no idea what was actually going on. If you've seen the film, you'll know that a shocking sequence of violence occurs in the final act which completely changes the initial purpose of the staged play aspect. The violence shown in the "play" is real, but nobody in the audience understood what was going on and thought it was part of the act. Since the full extent to the heinous nature of the act doesn't translate to the audience, this means they aren't feeling the real-life visceral power of the act. They're instead feeling a disturbing, yet watered down depiction of the act. Beyond that, however, this dynamic doesn't just solely apply to this film. This also applies for pretty much all films which display extreme violence (murder, torture, rape, etc.). Of course, there's all kinds of disturbing films out there which depict these acts and most directors and actors involved in these scenes do as much as they can to make these scenes as realistic as possible. However, as disturbing as these scenes may be, the knowledge that the people in them are just actors and that nobody is actually getting hurt or killed during filming means that these acts are both watered down and a misrepresentation of the actual seriousness of the act. Until actors/actresses are actually hurt and killed on set (which, obviously, won't ever become standard), all films which show these scenes, as disturbing as their portrayal of the act may be, will always fail to capture the true heinous nature of the acts. Due to this, The Baby of Macon acts as a criticism of all films which feature extreme violence by arguing that the medium is unable to properly represent this.

While this is a terrific point in and of itself, the more I thought about the staged play dynamic, the less supportive I was with it. Beyond the final act, I don't think the rest of the film did nearly enough with this dynamic to keep me that engaged with what came prior. That so much of the film's strengths would be lost without its climactic scene makes me wonder whether Greenaway was interested in developing this point all throughout the film or if he was saving the majority of his commentary for the final act. Like, doing something like this isn't inherently bad or anything (I thought Five Easy Pieces, for example, didn't kick in until its final act, but I still really liked it). I also have no intention of writing this film off entirely or dismissing it as average since I appreciated a decent bit of what came prior to the final act such as the care in which everything was put together, the unique framing of the film, the occasional scenes of the actors in the play talking to each other while they weren't performing (at one point, this foreshadowed the final act), and the unexpected shift into violence in the second half. On the other hand though, the film could often be problematic with its bloat given that some points were lingered on longer than necessary, like the Bishop's son distrusting the Daughter and the lengthy sequence of the Baby acquiring a cult-like following amongst the townsfolks. Emphasizing those aspects seemed to serve no point beyond restating those points that were already made clear, often causing the film to feel longer than it really was. I also found the fairly frequent naked/sexualized shots of the main child actor to be really disconcerting. Due to this, when I rewatched the film after getting a good handle on its themes, I found myself somewhat disinterested in most of what came before the final act and found myself impatiently waiting for it to happen. Again, the strengths of the final act are strong enough to shine through this, but I couldn't shake the feeling that a decent portion of the film failed to connect with me throughout both my viewings of it.

Overall, while I found this film to be a bit of a chore to get through, I'm still recommending it since the points it makes in its final act are strong and layered enough that they're able to shine through its flaws. I'll definitely keep going with Greenaway's films.

Disturbing and Brutal, but somebody needed to film it.

[NateManD · 10/10 · 21 July 2005]

"The Baby of Macon" is a very bizarre film. Part play, part period piece and part religious satire. As usual director Peter Greenaway creates a stunning masterpiece, that looks like a painting come to life. Of course the film has disturbing elements and is probably Greenaway's most violent and brutal film. Julia Ormond plays the daughter, a beautiful young women. Her mother who's extremely ugly gives birth to the most beautiful baby. The daughter lies and says the baby is hers and that it was a virgin birth. She profits from the child and has him bless the whole town, even the cow. Both Ray Fiennes and Julia Ormand have very tough roles in this film; including a manger scene seduction. When the town finds out that the daughter is lying and the baby is not hers, they sentence her to be raped by over 100 men. Poor Julia Ormond. Avoid this film if religious or easily shocked. The film does have a dark sense of humor and makes a powerful statement about greed and religion. Although brutal, "The Baby of Macon" is a surreal masterpiece in which reality and stage performance collide. You'll wonder what parts a play and what events are actually happening in the story. This film also includes an amazing film score by Micheal Nyman. If only it would get a DVD release in the US?

Has the most profound scene in movies

[dfle3 · 6/10 · 20 March 2008]

If you could give a movie 10/10 for a single scene, this movie would qualify and it would be for the notorious rape scene. The movie is otherwise pretty dull and has delusions of grandeur-in other words, you could describe it as pretentious. It's been many years since I've seen this film, but I do remember coming into the cinema a pico-second after the movie started and feeling hopelessly lost with regard to what was happening in the movie...yes, it's that kind of film.

But I do remember the rape scene. This scene is, I think, the greatest scene in all movie history. Now, you may be shocked by this scene, but I think if you can get past this reaction, you will have a feeling of "Enlightenment". I don't want to say too much on this scene, so as not to spoil it for you, but the 'right' way to view this scene, I think, is to imagine you are sitting behind yourself in the cinema watching you watching the movie.

There is definitely a 'wrong' way to see this scene, I think. That was magnificently demonstrated when an SBS TV journalist, Helen Vatsikopolous (I think) interviewed the director, Peter Greenaway. Her question was so staggering in its naivete that Greenaway had to talk to her like Jesus to a child.

Yes, the movie is disturbing and the rape scene is very confronting. But if you see it for what it REALLY is, it is very rewarding-this is Art at its best.

This scene is right up there with other favourite scenes of mine in movies...including a scene in A Clockwork Orange, which I've just posted on today.

Again, The Baby of Macon is a rather boring movie, with a 10 out of 10 scene. If the scene makes you angry, it's just a sign of how good its art is.

Possibly the most shocking film ever!

[ALETT1984 · 10/10 · 15 August 2002]

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.

Is likely to horrify most viewers

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 7/10 · 10 October 2021]

Greenaway's best after The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover, though that's still easily my favourite from the five films I've seen from him so far.

I think Baby of Macon might be a bit too clever for its own good (it's a play within a play within a movie... maybe?), which isn't always a problem when it comes to a film because it can motivate a rewatch... but Baby is so horrifying I don't think I'll ever want to willingly revisit it.

That leads me to another critique which is that unlike Cook, Baby is much more concerned with focusing on showing horror than mixing it with beauty (though there are bold colours, interesting shot compositions, and impressive one-takes). But Cook really balanced the beauty with the horror into a perfectly blended cocktail, whereas this one is even more grim and distressing thanks to its emphasis on the ugly.

Still, those visuals, the skilled (and quite gutsy) performances from Ormond, Fiennes, and Stone, and the sheer audacity of the story being told and the themes being explored makes this one I could recommend to those with strong stomachs. A few things hold it back from being great imo, but there's still a lot to appreciate and/or be absolutely sickened by.

Greenaway's Disappointing Final Film

[sb-18109 · 4/10 · 3 August 2022]

I'm a huge Peter Greenaway fan. My favorites are Drowning by Numbers, The Cook The Thief His Wife and Her Lover and Prosperos Books. I believe I've seen everything by him including all of The Falls. So I'm very familiar with his work. I was really looking forward to watching this movie and boy was I disappointed. I found it very boring, pretentious, silly and completely lacking in the incredible and bizarre cinematography that made all his other work so memorable. I kept watching to see the shocking part and even that was a let down. I would consider this his worst film (it used to be 91/2 Women). So if this is your first exposure to Greenaway, don't prevent it from watching others. You'll miss out on some beautiful, very memorable and fantastic films. I rate him right up there with Bergman, Godard, Fellini and even Orson Wells. Definitely watch his stuff but don't begin with this.

One of the most skilled directions you'll ever see.

[lennart-6 · 10/10 · 21 September 2003]

This movie is about many different things at once, and is played out on several different levels at once. On the surface, the movie is about the setting up of a play about a historical event. Peter Greenaway lets the storyline switch between the play and the historical event, thereby breaking down the barrier between the movies play and the movies reality, and simultaneously breaking down the barrier between the movie and reality, making it near impossible to brush of the events as "Ah, it's just a movie".

The way he does this is so skillful, that somebody should invent a Nobel price in directing and give it to him. :)

This is a movie lovers movie. If you aren't a cineast and would rather see a guy with two machine guns killing people that spend an hour or two thinking, forget about it. It will only make you confused. And if you are a sensitive person, this movie might make you feel bad for days.

The Baby of Mâcon

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 7 January 2023]

I've always found Peter Greenaway films rather hit or miss, and this rather theatrical effort I found more the latter. It all centres around a sort of immaculate conception birth at the Medici court and follows the anticipatory and resultant shenanigans as human nature is (quite literally) laid bare for all to see (and that nature doesn't always come off so well!) It has something of the bawdy romp to it, with some suitably appropriate ecclesiastical excesses and loads of colour - usually red - to liven it up. The story? Well though interesting for the first twenty minutes or so, I felt it fell into pantomime territory all too quickly. The cast are a collection of reasonably competent talent, but too much of the emphasis of this production is on the style, imagery along with an admittedly glorious choral score that does so much to add to the vivid and seamy look of this rather lengthy effort. The message is clear enough, but it has something of sledgehammer and nut to it; there is no subtlety or nuance to it, it's an intellectual brute of a film before a denouement that confirms what most of us - certainly those without religious convictions - may have expected from the outset. As with all of his films, this is certainly worth watching - but as to enjoying it, well I didn't really.

One helluva disgusting movie.

[Elja · 1/10 · 19 March 1999]

Despite the wonderful color and scenes, I think the movie was disgusting. The gang-rape scene was too much for me (and a couple of others who fled the theatre). Don't recommend the movie for anyone who gets offended with brutal scenes and rape.

Tapestry of Self-reference

[tedg · 11 May 2002]

Spoilers herein.

For art to be real, worthwhile, it has to be more than a mere political statement. It has to be `open,' producing rewards beyond what the artist might have had in mind. Greenaway is the richest artist working in film and this film has bottomless rewards.

The key dimension here is exploitive mercantilism: the irresistibility of the personality, expectant generation of miracles, and the engineering of these for profit. In other words, theater to support power.

The key presentational mechanism is an incredibly deep self-referential nesting. Paintings within a play within a play within a movie, all shuffled. The Church is both within and without as is the power base of the artists and Medici scion. There is a phenomenal, long tracking shot during the rape that deliberately weaves through all these layers, following the main threads of the tapestry. It incidentally includes a disturbing scene; the effect is to give us no them-us boundary to retreat behind.

As we watch and deconstruct this, so do the participants (whom we fancy we are better than) deconstruct the child. Every element, from disemboweling to some heavy disgust with priests, is beautiful.

Any Greenaway project is an experience which impresses -- some are life-altering. This is great art in my opinion, but I prefer Greenaway projects that have broader ambition. This is like `Belly,' `Women' and `Draughtsman's' which each present a single metaphoric skeleton. The book (Pillow and Prospero) and counting projects (`Zed,' `Drowning,' `Falls') have fuller horizons. Where this is bottomless, those are bottomless in many directions.

If you are looking for an `easy' beginning into Greenaway's imagination, this could be a good start.

A Triumph of the visual.

[dactyl spondee · 9/10 · 17 January 2002]

As all of Peter Greenaway's films, this one is a feast for the eyes. A beautifully shot and staged Grand Guignol horror, that is as certain to please some as it is to cause revulsion in others. It certainly won't give you an easy time of it, but if you're willing to ignore such things as plot and story you can enjoy some of the purest eye-candy ever filmed. I enjoyed it, but wouldn't recommend to my friends without a word of warning.

Riveting Unforgettable Disturbing

[RaquelFelix · 10/10 · 22 July 2006]

This film was in limited release but I saw it in Dallas through USA Film Festival screening. I asked a friend to go - she's as open to difficult material as anyone and she was pretty repulsed, although didn't get up and leave. Not being a film buff per se, I was mesmerized by the visual drama. I'm hooked by Greenaway's gutsy artful literate approach to hooking the audience. After the film I had trouble sleeping for a few days and I'm not sure I could see it again, but don't regret it. It's hard to articulate without a working knowledge of film making and depth of knowledge of all the literary and historical references, but the film hits you on so many levels at once, it's an emotional and mental feast, borderline overdose. You can always get up and walk out if it's too much but fascination and experiential high overcome the trauma of what's happening on the screen. A fabulous beautiful, riveting, difficult film. Not for the squeamish.

The most underrated "controversial art film" of the last 50 years

[Stay_away_from_the_Metropol · 10/10 · 9 January 2020]

I just finished watching this and honestly I am completely astounded that I have never heard this film referenced a single time in my entire life.

I am 35 years old. I was born in 1985. In high school I saw the film Ravenous and Michael Nyman's score has remained my favorite film score of all time since then. Fast forward 15 years and I acquire one friend who knows Michael Nyman. We listen to more of his scores - first, A Zed & Two Noughts, then The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover. He suggests I watch some Peter Greenaway. A year later, I finally watch The Cook, and it instantly becomes one of my all time favorite films.

Tonight, I watched The Baby of Macon, knowing only that it was considered a masterpiece by some but primarily regarded too controversial for most upon it's release. Well, it blew me away, and I must say, it is fully understandable why it was perceived as so controversial. This gets very graphic, very heavy conceptually, and even adds extra discomfort with some Michael Haneke-esque 4th wall play.

Peter Greenaway is one of the true masters of film as an ultimate art form. When you watch a Greenaway film, you get stimulation on all angles - spectacular sets, costumes, cinematography all unlike you have ever seen - immense performances, daring & challenging concepts, and, to top it all off, eerily dramatic soundtracks - some of the best i've ever heard. All the signature Greenaway elements are here, firing on all cylinders.

Julia Ormond a is beautiful and fantastic lead, effectively delivering a role that manages to make the viewer equally love and despise her. Fiennes lays out his usual stoicism and sternness. Mr. Grady from The Shining has an important role as well. All in the all, the entire cast is intense and jarring. All tasteful and impressive.

It's hard to say much else about this film other than the only things I could ever compare it to are the works of Alejandro Jodorowsky and Ken Russell. The thing is, those directors are talked about and celebrated regularly, while Peter Greenaway is the quiet British master getting slept on. If you have a taste for the abstract, the offensive, or simply film as an artform, and you're not easily upset by things you see on the screen, this is a film you absolutely need to see. There is nothing like it, except other Greenaway films. But even then, he takes things further here than he does in any of his others, in a sense. I believe The Cook will always be my favorite film of his, but this truly is a terrifying masterpiece of jarring obscurity and I know it's the "furthest" we will ever see Greenaway go.

I can't believe this is only the 36th review of this film since it's release in 1993. This film deserves so much more exposure.

Putrid and Vile

[zedul · 1/10 · 13 January 2002]

In a word, one of the most putrid and despicable movies ever made. Its bad from the start and by the end the movie plunges to such depraving depths you feel like sticking a gun in your mouth and blowing out your brains to punish yourself for subjecting your mind to such vile and horrific images.

After this movie was over I rushed about the house trying to find the most sickeningly sweet movie ever filmed as an antidote for the poison I had just consumed. I ended up having to endure some second rate Disney flick just to get the foul taste out of my mouth.

I suppose the only good thing about this movie is the fact that the director is making movies rather than engaging in some other enterprise, like stalking the night streets as a tormented serial killer. I question not only the sanity of the director, but the integrity of the actors and actresses who participated in this pile of stinking refuse.

Pornographic would be a poor label for this movie, as pornography is quite simply, much easier to stomach when compared to the "art" that this film purports to be. I would rather sit through ten screenings of the infamous and ugly "I Spit On Your Grave" (the first movie I ever saw that truly offended me)than watch five minutes of "The Baby of Macon".

I think this is a movie made for and by people who are so bitterly angry at religion that they feel they have to be blasphemous. That somehow, by defiling their minds as thoroughly as they can, they will either get back at God, or at their mean Catholic mommies who made them say one too many prayers before bedtime. Give it a rest folks, the only person you are getting is yourself. Go see a shrink - if you don't believe in God then there is no point inflicting this sort of mind altering blasphemy on yourself, you are wasting your time and damaging your humanity.

Sitting through this movie made me feel like Nicholas Cage in 8mm. I will feel tainted for the rest of my life for seeing what I have seen.

One more thing: It's a bad movie. If it weren't for the shocking imagery and that insatiable curiosity that causes people to slow down and watch the car wreck then there would be no reviews here at all because no one would have sat through it.

Vivid, eye-catching, curious - exceptional

[I_Ailurophile · 9/10 · 4 September 2021]

I'm not entirely sure what to say. The costume design and set design is phenomenal, and even extravagant. The very concept is simply grand - a play within a film, ostensibly performed in mid-17th century France. From that premise follows strong attention to detail of stagecraft, with set pieces, stage hands, and practical effects completing the illusion. The very screenplay much more echoes the penmanship of a playwright than a film-maker. Even before truly taking into account the content, 'The baby of Macon' is a marvel.

Hand in hand with substantial nudity, blood, and general violence walks content warnings for infanticide, gore, and far more so for sexual assault. Profound overarching themes present of corruption - of society, of the church, of the human soul; of exploitation and manipulation; of deserved ruination, on any and all levels, as a consequence of ill deeds of any severity; of mercy, cruelty, greed, and of superstition correlating with belief in religion and miracles. It's not wholly wrong to call 'The baby of Macon' a nihilistic picture. Yet all the ideas it broaches are all realized with exquisite work from all departments, including effects, props, makeup, and hair. Peter Greenaway's orchestration of scenes is as outstanding as his writing, and also arranges some fine shots with his camerawork. Lighting is also used in many ways to only further enhance the spectacle before us.

And this is all to say nothing of the cast, who are all gratifyingly excellent. From the smallest supporting parts to the main roles, everyone involved readily inhabits their characters, bringing them to life with all due poise, range, and dynamism. I've never seen Ralph Fiennes quite like this, no matter what other roles one may bring to compare, nor Philip Stone. This goes most of all for Julia Ormond, turning in a fierce, riveting performance - her feature film debut! - as "the daughter," to the point that I'm frankly shocked that there wasn't so much as a single award nomination to come from her portrayal. Ormond above all, but again, I think everyone on hand - cast, and crew - exceeded all possible expectations.

The film pointedly blurs the boundaries between player and spectator, theater and "reality," from the very beginning through to the very end. This defiance of "the fourth wall" makes the picture a bit difficult to latch onto at first, yet it becomes increasingly engrossing. And that same disregard for convention also makes pivotal scenes all the more entrancing and impactful - to the point that further renders the feature's most singularly shocking sequence with it an added measure of ghastly disbelief on par with the opening scene of Sion Sono's 'Suicide Club.' Although, what one considers most jolting will be tested, as 'The baby of Macon' offers more than one contender.

The magnificent visual display, the thematic material, the writing, the performances, the technical craft - in every possible aspect, this is utterly captivating, and low-key mesmerizing, no matter how grisly it may get. I began watching with no particular expectations, and have been confounded in the most welcome of manners by what I've seen. For the unquestionable gruesomeness and weight of the content, this is hardly a picture to recommend to all comers. But I find it to be as fascinating and bewitching, and I'm thrilled to have come across this movie, however belatedly. 'The baby of Macon' is a disturbing, dreary, and often devastatingly extreme tableau, yet so awe-inspiring in its macabre pageantry as to be dazzling and transfixing. Wherever one may find it, this is well worth seeking out.

Awfully slow and sometimes sickening movie

[jhoogakk · 1/10 · 17 June 1999]

This is the worst film I've ever seen. It is terribly slow with numerous repetitions. I've seen a lot of horror movies which couldn't make me sick, but this movie almost made me run to the toilet. Greenaway has gone over the top on this movie. The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, and her Lover was great. This movie goes beyond all limits.

Theatre of Life

[shierfilm · 25 September 2002]

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.

Renaissance painting dramatised

[Mutley-2 · 9/10 · 27 October 1998]

The colours and textures of previous eras are rarely captured in film.

The Baby of Macon, a deeply thoughtful and masterfully tragic picture, brilliantly captures the shapes and tones of early Renaissance high art and combines them with the content of late medieval notation style painting.

The sounds and the staging reflect back to early theatre and the 'smells' of the scenes are almost tangible - something that always means that I am absorbed in the energy of a film.

A brilliant piece of atmospheric cinema, combined with the confusing, shocking world that is late medieval quasi- religious morality tales.

A visual delight and cinematic feast

[ilansherr · 10/10 · 28 December 2005]

Be warned, this is a Peter Greenaway film and may cause offence. The incredibly moral plot with its littering of fable and allegory make the script enchanting and involving, and leave plenty of room for an in-depth analysis.

The soundtrack is haunting and appropriate, and the set is marvellous. The story is told as a "play within a play" and the theatre-like set is used to its utmost. There is a strange violence created from darting between the characters of the theatre being portrayed and the actual actors. The rape scene is the most effective use of this tactic, which is by far the most horrifically violent scene of its nature I have seen in any film. The audience is left shocked and silent.

Every intricate detail of this story is sewn together beautifully and the many plots and ideas collide at the end to form a brilliant Greenaway masterpiece.

A must see for Greenaway enthusiasts, but beware - this film is an acquired taste and may not sit well with your average moviegoer.

Key scene

[allan-marsden · 8/10 · 9 May 2005]

A great film, with the richness of texture we have come to expect from Greenaway, but in a context - the medieval church and court - which better suits this richness than some of his earlier offerings. Looking through the comments on this film, I am surprised that no-one has picked up on the pivotal nature of one specific scene in the film, that in which the girl tries to seduce the Bishop's son in the 'stable', against the wishes of the child. This scene to me is the heart of the tragedy which is the principal plot line of the film, and is excellently put together and acted. As such, it is far more important than the rape scene, which is merely an acting-out of the inevitable consequences of the split between the girl and the child, and is less significant than, for instance, the dismemberment of the child. I'd also just like to say how well the device of the separate voice for the child works for me.