The Baby of Mâcon (1994)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Dreadfully Boring

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Is it possible that "Peter Greenaway" is really a pseudonym for two people? One of them directs entertaining, imaginative films that have remained in my memory, and that I have eagerly watched two or three times. I am thinking of examples such as "The Draughtsman's Contract", and "Prospero's Books". I have seen these movies in cinemas, and later on video, and enjoyed them immensely. The other person is a would-be shocker who fails to shock, and who clearly spends an enormous amount of time, energy and money on brightly-co loured, predictable and tiresome films such as "A Zed and Two Noughts", "The Cook, the Thief . . ." and "Drowning By Numbers". I have managed (only just) to watch these on video, where I was able to fast-forward through the most boring sections. "The Baby of Macon" was obviously the work of this second individual. Admittedly, he did achieve two remarkable things. First, he somehow persuaded competent, well-known actors to participate in this trash, and second, he presented a potentially appalling act, a mass rape, as long-winded, repetitive and tedious.To sum up: an utter waste of money, talent and film stock.

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.

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.

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.