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 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.

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".