The Baby of Macon (1993) by Peter Greenaway

I've watched this yesterday and I think it is one of the best Greenaway films I've seen so far (haven't seen much yet). I'd still say I like Draughtsman's Contract more, but this comes pretty close.

I have looked around the web, read reviews of it and whatnot, and thought that this film is getting unfairly trashed, where it should've been hailed along with other Greenaway masterpieces. The weird thing is that it is being put under so much heat for the scenes which I think is its strengths. Now, I don't wanna spoil the horrific scene at the end where the world ends and the baby turns into a huge green monster and start throwing up all the bananas he had eaten, therefore the rest of my analysis will be wrapped in a spoiler tag.

[spoiler:1rcjcbty]Great acting, wonderful framing and camera movement and all that has been discussed elsewhere, so I will only offer a few interesting points other than the obvious.

Firstly, there is the brutal rape sequence, definitely one of the most horrifying film moments ever. I am with the majority of the critics who says that this was the only way such scene could be depicted, because we don't want to glorify rape. Even if the actress was really guilty of the sins committed by her character (mostly greed), does she deserve such cruel and inhuman punishment? If the rape was played out as a playact, then we would have felt much less of the brutality, and may even have thought that justice is being done. It is through Greenaway's blurring the line between the play and the reality (the reality within this film) that we question the integrity of the justice system of the era, and even perhaps its reflections on today's justice system.

The actress is a neutral character who played an immoral character driven by greed. Cosimo condemns her because he confuses the play with the reality, even though one of his servants reminds him it is only a play. Through all this, Greenaway puts us in an interesting position. We are judging Greenaway in a similar way to how Cosimo judged the actress. He confuses us our reality with the reality in the film by blurring his reality and his play. If we are to dismiss this film for showing us this brutal and horrifying reality, then we need to remind ourselves that it is only a film. So what is the implication of this? My interpretation is that just like what Cosimo needed but lacked, Greenaway is reminding us, that we need to resist being swayed by our emotions, and instead we should, with reason and rationale, try to gather the meanings and the messages of the film; again, like how Cosimo should have done with the play within the film.

Now then, with reason and rationale, what are the meanings and the messages of this film we ask? There are many, ofcourse this is a very rich work, but one of the main one is that we need to resist being swayed by our emotions, and instead we should, with reason and rationale, try to gather the meanings and the messages of the film. On the other hand, Greenaway fills his film with a lot of brutality, not just the rape, but the gory death of Ralph Fiennes character and the death of the bull. Does this mean my previous analysis is wrong? No, I think he provokes us enough to challenge us from doing what we should be doing, and sometimes crossing the line to make us more confused. Wow now that is mindblowing.

Lastly, how authentic is the play within the film? There are only two short scenes (one right before the rape), where we see the actors playing out of their characters. Are these really not parts of the play? The play is shown in such a way that in some scenes, the audiences (within the film) cannot possibly see the play. Clearly, Greenaway is not interested in depicting the play in a genuine historically accurate way. All of this and the fact that in the end Cosimo is bowing to the audiences, and then the audiences bowing to us, totally blurs the line between the play, the film, and the reality, our reality.

Ah and yes, how about the death of the bull? No, we don't see an onscreen slaughter, but we do see a dead one. Perhaps animal cruelty is the point where everyone says everything else does not matter. I don't know what I'm talking about anymore. aerpjgaperijgapergiehipearhpienjhripejhi

Masterpiece... for making me go nuts.[/spoiler:1rcjcbty]
I rented a DVD version of it (Siren R4 Australia) and the transfer is easily one of the worst I've ever seen. The aspect ratio is incorrect (luckily I could fix it from my player), and it just looks really bad. I believe the UK (or was it US) version of it was again from Siren, and was wondering how good or bad the transfers are on those.

Thoughts (both on film and DVD)?

To my knowledge the R4 DVD is the only official one around. The rest is VHS which is probably just as bad. Maybe some day we'll see a good DVD of it (the stills I've seen from the film in various Greenaway books really re-enforce the point that the film suffers tremendously in its current video state). Nonetheless, it's one of my favorite Greenaways as well (after the 80s films and the shorts), and I think pretty underrated in general, although its poor availability is surely part of the reason. I think this is the one post-Nyman Greenaway film where I don't feel like the film suffers in Nyman's absence (to clarify, The Belly of an Architect was done while the Greenaway-Nyman collaboration was still basically happening, and I think Wim Mertens and Glenn Branca did a great job there). I really love how the film works on multiple levels of fictional reality - we always have to ask if what we are watching is the play within the film, the film itself, and at the end, we have another level of filmic (un)reality added to complicate matters (the play's cast bows, but suddenly the film's cast does as well). I think of all Greenaway's films, the sheer harshness of this one probably turns people off, but if you're a fan chances are you can handle it, and it turns into a fascinating exploration of (among many other things) Greenaway's own feelings towards the pitfalls of organized religion. In some ways maybe it's a little like Greenaway's version of 'Weekend' - no longer particularly subtle, nor playful (at least not in a lighthearted sense), it is completely uncompromising, it never holds back.

I'd also say that the Australian 'Macon' DVD is probably the worst I've ever seen, regarding the fact that the film is actually pretty new. Even the British VHS was better (and had the correct aspect ratio). But Greenaway in general hasn't fared well on DVD so far (excepting the BFI releases and the US version of "The cook"). All the releases of "The Pillow Book" have fiddled with the varying aspect ratios in the film (so that when watching it on a 16:9 tube you can't zoom in the widescreen parts, as this will necessarily cut off the image once it turns back to academy ratio). The Australian "Drowning by Numbers" is much better than 'Macon', but a little unsharp and it's in 4:3 ratio, which I doubt is correct. And still no sign of his masterpiece, "Prospero's Books", anywhere in the world (except for it being a part of a 16DVD-collection of films that got some prize in the Netherlands, films which probably noone has ever heard about before). A ridiculous situation.

As to Macon: I always had and still have my difficulties with it. The style and the cinematography are brilliant as ever, but the whole thing has terrible lengths and does not have the wit of most of his other works. If you have a good knowledge of medieval mystery plays (on which the film is apparently based) you might be pleased about the various references, but still I think there is a certain lack of tension and relentlessness that drives "Draughtsman" or "Drowning by Numbers". As an exploration of various levels of 'reality' it is less subtle than "Prospero" in my view, but those who could stand "The cook" will certainly not be appalled by the violence of "Macon". Still, of course, essential viewing for any Greenaway fan, but probably not the first choice if you're new to the director.

Just wanted to add, regarding Prospero's Books, that the DVD itself is quite nice - a 16x9 transfer, original English audio, and optional subtitles. Of course, it should be a separately available release, but at least it exists somewhere on DVD in good condition, unlike Baby of Macon.

Great, thanks for the information! Buying the whole set is out of the question for me, but at least that's very good news! I really wonder what keeps the BFI or any other company from releasing it.

Typical of Siren who released Baby of Macon , their DVD transfers are appalling. The reason is that they are renowned to not only use the original Beta SP master used for the intial video release, they are also notorious for using a VHS tape (!) to use for their DVD transfer. They have also been caught out (not in this case though) to illegally release films on DVD to which they DO NOT OWN THE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS!!!

I'm glad to see a discussion about this film hidden away here despite the fact that I can't say I'm a big fan. It is a very haunting and memorable film, though, and when it works it works very well. I think about 35 -- 45% of the film is shit to the core but about 60% works so well that I came away thinking that here was a film with the potential to be a masterpiece but alas! fell into the wrong hands. I picked up a copy (or a copy of a copy of a copy, it seemed) a few years ago but couldn't get much past the first 20 minutes. It's ugly, grotesque, repulsive, scatological and in extraordinary bad taste. Even if a person can get through the opening prologue speech by that pasty, stuttering, tongue-twitching Jim Carrey look-a-like then there's more ugliness to be put up with. I also can't say I appreciate Greenaway presenting Prince Cosimo as a retarded lip-stick wearing drag-queen (somewhat reminiscent of the homophobic caricature in Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible"), but once you can get through all of that the second act is simply mind-blowing. The music, the visuals, Ralph Fiennes floating about in flowing white robe looking like something out of a goth-rock music video, Julia Ormond with the baby striking a very icon tableau as the Virgin Mary offering blessings and passing judgment. And that voice! It's an extraordinary mix of medieval mystery play and the avant-guard theater. Artaud would have been proud. The cinematography and set designer -- obvious even in my very low quality version -- really just demand that a good quality DVD be produced somewhere along the line. Has anyone here seen it on the big screen?

Yet with all the film had going for it -- putting aside how ugly Act I is & to a certain extent ACT III -- I thought a lot more could have been done with the conceit. It seemed to me that at times the director was too content with making the simple equation of corruption with money. Attacking the Church on that level is too easy of a target. There is a missed, non-existent dialectic between the Bishop and his Son -- why is he so unproblematically affiliated with the Church if his philosophy so clearly rejects Biblical dogma on Creation, etc. It is fine that he sees God as the Great Scientist but it seems historically and dramatically incorrect to so little differentiate them.

This is my interpretation of the film:

[spoiler:39tdblsj] A healthy child is born alive to an ugly old woman during a time of famine. Ormond's character capitalizes on this occurrence in order to profit off of the seemingly miraculous nature of the child, who is fetishized by a dying and sterile community. She goes mad with power rather quickly (ordering the farmer's daughters into prostitution quite suddenly, etc). Although she thinks the Child is her creation the faith instilled in him by the community makes it so that he comes to life and is able to order his consecrated animal into killing the Son in order to preserve the Daughter's virginity (necessary to his remaining God, we're meant to suppose... I suppose). Ultimately the Church is set against the Daughter for religious co-option and the Child is taken in and made "official" by the Church (like-wise, the bull is officially sanctified after it is killed). She is finally destroyed for her murder of the Child, yet the gruesome sparagmos that follows allows a certain faith to continue, although it is a faith of disappointment.

While this story is taking place on stage; behind the scenes the actors are vying for parts. Why are they so set on getting bigger parts? The actresses are seen with a whole lot of babies back-stage so there is no plague. Julia Ormond's character doesn't seem to care much for her lines or for her role despite the fact that she is reminded that she was very much intent on acquiring it. I think the acting is pointing to the fact that we're all playing roles while not being aware of it. That is, we have religious forms imposed on us which we sometimes believe to be literal truth rather than social constructions and that we sometimes also have to pay something (i.e. the irrational punishments) for the payment we receive for playing our part (spiritual relief) in the ritual/play/life. Sometimes we get confused as to when we're playing and when we're getting played (I think BertoltNietsche has it right). I think the rape is the horror/violence of the illusion that is the Church taken to it's most extreme.[/spoiler:39tdblsj]
For all of its triadic perspective, I still think there could have been more going on. Miklos Jancso's "Red Psalm" presents us with a labyrinthine array of dialectics and complex motion. Peter Watkins' "Punishment Park," a film with a similarly complex conceit, is a little more successful in opening up greater possibilities to thought. The architectonic structure of "Baby of Macon" is all there, but perhaps it needs a little more movement inside the structure. But then again there is the problem that Greenaway shit all over the house, so that I find only about a third of the film watchable (literally). It's in such bad taste!

A few more thoughts before departing: Ritualistic repetition of lines sometimes works wonderfully; sometimes it doesn't. Sparagmos too cartoonishly ugly. If we simply saw the body being surrounded with a person occasionally seen carrying a knife the effect would have been much more disturbing without the silly yet disgusting visuals. Cartoonish floating head is too much. During the dinner scene conversation between Julia Ormond and Ralph Fiennes; why did the crops grow despite the fact that the baby's divinity is a hoax? Why did the Son's irrigation projects not manage to affect nature when the hoax did? Is this simply a lapse on the writer's part? And why is the Daughter so intent on marrying the Bishop's Son? The auctioning that begins Act III is much too long and reductive (I prefer the sociological aspects to the 'corruption = money' equation that is harped upon). Ugly, ugly film. Must end by asking: was there a more beautiful leading lady working in film during the 1990's than Julia Ormond? Interesting film. Despite its significant failings my mind keeps going back to it.

The fact that they don't own the distribution rights?

(I've no idea who does: the film credits four production companies plus five associates and three more contributors of "financial assistance"!)

Thanks Michael, I thought as much. I'm not sure who owns the rights either, but would assume that like probably with all his later films, Kees Kassander is in control (and by implication, Greenaway himself).

But does the fact that the BFI doesn't have the distribution rights at the moment necessarily exclude a dvd release by them? In other words, do they only release films for which they currently have the rights anyway, or do they buy the rights for a dvd release from others from time to time, like MoC or Criterion? I just think of their Kurosawa releases, the forthcoming "Teorema" and many other non-British films they release, in which cases I don't know whether they had rights already.

Oh true, there's nothing to stop the BFI acquiring the rights (assuming they're available), though they're in no stronger a position than any other distributor.

But the four existing BFI Greenaway DVDs were based on material that the BFI owned outright, so there's a fundamental difference there - not least in terms of upfront investment.