Film: The Baby of Mâcon

Directed by: Peter Greenaway

Year: 1993

Starring: Julia Ormond, Ralph Fiennes

Reviewed by: The Bad Man editor, et. al.

I'll start off with a bad review by zedul, to set the stage, and then show you what other people thought.  The question that comes to mind is how amazing it must be that these people are even talking about the same film.

I'll separate them with these horizontal bars:

___________________________________________

Putrid and Vile, 13 January 2002 Author: zedul from Seattle WA

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.

___________________________________________

Okay - Bad Man here again - now how fantastic is that?!? I would really WANT to watch the movie that person above is talking about, it actually sounds wonderful - that a movie would have so much power to affect them that strongly; it must be a great film indeed.

Okay, now back to what some other people wrote...

___________________________________________

Poetic Cinema in its purist form, 14 August 2001 Author: acejase from Adelaide, Australia

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.

___________________________________________

It Is Amazing What Diletanti Snobs will Endure for their Elitist Sanctimoniousness, 29 October 1999 Author: vox-sane from USA

"Art" is a meaningless term these days. When "modern" yeilded to "postmodern" I think something snapped in the collective psyche of artistic dilettantes. Yes, avante garde art often shocked, but a Van Gogh or a Monet shocked by bursting the barriers of how art was defined by the entrenched artistic establishment. But one artistic establishment replaces another, and the present establishment seems to believe "postmodern art" should mean art that shocks because it offends. And however tedious and ridiculous something labelled "art" is, so long as it offends -- especially if it offends those groups singled out for particular loathing by today's diletanti entrenched artistic establishment (i.e., religious groups, etc.) -- is thought of as ground-breaking, or artistic, or . . . well, this movie is neither. It's a brutal and stupid story, featuring excessive violence. The only scene worth watching is the rape scene. I hope Julia and Ralph perpetrated this movie for the money.

If nothing else, "The Baby of Macon" proves the most gullible people are artistic snobs, who seem distrustful of anything they can "like" or "enjoy" and can easily convince themselves that they approve of something just because they know it will disgust someone else.

___________________________________________

One of the most skilled directions you'll ever see., 21 September 2003 Author: Lennart Regebro from Paris

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.

___________________________________________

Truthfully the worst film I've ever laid my eyes on., 24 August 1999 Author: Miika Ytti (miika.ytti@pirko.fi) from Finland

I wrote my comments about this film some time back ago, but unfortunately they didn't publish it for some dubious reason. Maybe my use of words might have been a bit too colorful. ;)

So, having learned my lesson(?) I won't degrade myself again to use foul language or mock this film beyond any limits.

In short this movie was the most agonizing and frustrating movie experience I have ever witnessed in my entire life. I watched it from a tape and believe me I was _this_ close at... (I'm sure you can imagine the rest.) But having superior (hah!) tolerance I managed to watch it all the way through but it sure wasn't an easy task to accomplish.

Only good thing I learned from this movie is that when I previously thought that movies do not affect in negative ways to people who are totally sane, I've been compelled to think a bit differently. This is really insane film and I'm not surprised if someone gets totally wrong ideas into his/her mind after seeing this one. I am surprised though in case anybody finds this movie entertaining or amusing in any part, let alone hold this film as a masterpiece. Sickening, honestly.

I refuse to recommend this film to any living soul.

___________________________________________

Incredible experiment in narrative., 11 August 1999 Author: damnfine from Australia

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...

___________________________________________

Two hours of sheer hell, 26 March 1999 Author: queenb-5 from Brooklyn, NY

I have never seen anything so horrific as this movie. While the director tries to use costumes and pageantry to tell his story, one cannot help but wonder what mental institution he escaped from to make this film. I would think twice about the sanity of any person who enjoys the gang-rape scene and all of the other horrific violence. The story could of been told in a way as not to be so disgusting. Sitting through this film was two hours of sheer hell. I regret not shutting off the tape sooner, but I thought the film would redeem itself in some way.

This film is NOT for the faint of heart. The violence and graphic scenes are gratuitous, and could of been done much more tastefully to convey the story. Definitely NOT a movie to escape reality with. I'm sure Ralph Fiennes, one of the best actors in the world, regrets doing this film, or regards it as a low-point in his career.

___________________________________________

Great arthouse drama., 26 January 2003 Author: Embalmer from Chyby, Poland

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.

___________________________________________

What is everyone so upset about?, 20 January 2003 Author: CineRam from Chicago, IL

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.

___________________________________________

Theatre of Life, 25 September 2002 Author: shierfilm

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.

___________________________________________

A Triumph of the visual., 17 January 2002 Author: Dactyl Spondee from Oulu, Finland

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.

___________________________________________

Awfully slow and sometimes sickening movie, 17 June 1999 Author: Jan-Willem Hoogakker from Arnhem, The Netherlands

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.

___________________________________________

Best movie of 1993, 28 July 1999 Author: William Garner from Washington DC

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.

___________________________________________

One helluva disgusting movie., 19 March 1999 Author: Elja from Helsinki, Finland

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.

___________________________________________

Amazing in all ways, 16 March 1999 Author: Raul Fuentes from Guadalajara, Jal.

When you see a movie that is based in theater you may think this is going to be SO boring, but think twice if the movie is the Baby of Macon.

This one rocks in all ways. Is pure and perfect cinema, an homage to both theater and movies.

And don't miss the incredible sequence when Julia Ormond is raped, just a great scene.

Marvelous film.

___________________________________________

The cinematic equivalent of Chinese water-torture, 25 February 2003 Author: Ben-209 from London, England

A film for the truly masochistic, this is the worst Peter Greenaway film I have seen. Very rich to look at, the film resembles a stage play into which the camera roams. This is a good device to turn what could be a flat stagey film into something far more involving. Greenaway's visual style cannot be denied. But it's still rubbish! Turgid, nasty, misanthropic rubbish. I sat through the opening sequence, which is so boring it is painful to watch, hoping that I wasn't wasting precious minutes of my life. However the 'shocking' turn of events is predictable and dealt with in a plodding manner, and isn't shocking at all. If you are shocked by this film, then you are clearly rather a dull person. If you are moved or entertained by it in any way, you are quite clearly mad. No offence, like. Peter Greenaway should have been a painter.

___________________________________________

Renaissance painting dramatised, 27 October 1998 Author: Steve Lewis from Derry, Northern Ireland

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.

___________________________________________

Uninteresting. Empty spectacle, not enough story/character/humour/premise., 6 August 2004 Author: clifford43 from Oz

A baby is born amidst a ritualistic theatrical event in the 17th century, with gaudy costumes and gilded sets, while a crowd look on and cheer. Many characters declare multiple times that the baby is too good looking to have come from such an ugly mother (who no-one can see anyway for the bag over her head) - so a better-looking mother is chosen.

Its so slow that its impossible to enjoy as a story - and when you don't have much plot, its important that your central situation is fascinating enough to keep our interest up - but here, it wasn't enough. Its tedious to watch - unlike Greenaway's masterpiece, The Cook the Thief His Wife and Her Lover.

Also, the camera is held at such a great distance to the action that its impossible to be anything but empty spectacle. It gives it a very stagey, theatrical feel, which seems intentional. But this same point of the shallowness and corruption of a society might have been better demonstrated with the aid of a story and some closer camerawork.

The only real mystery is how someone could have read the screenplay (if there was one, which i doubt), or heard Greenaway's proposal for it, and agreed to give him money to film it, knowing they would neither enjoy the finished product nor ever see any returns on their money.

1/5

___________________________________________

Okay, glad that's over.  Suffice it to say, there is no way a movie could possibly be this good, this powerful, and so now that you've read the reviews you'll probably be disappointed by the movie.  You might say, after viewing it, 'well, it was shocking, but it wasn't THAT shocking', and 'well, it was beautiful, but it wasn't THAT beautiful'.  And that's okay, your imagination is ALWAYS better than viewing some other person's incarnation anyway.

So there you have it - I saved you from 2 hours of bliss, or despair, and now you have your own ridiculous opinion without having to spend the time to actually watch the stinking film.  You're well on your way to being a Pretentious Critic, just like me!

Brought to you by The Bad Man.

Comments on this movie.