If you’ve ever fallen down a rabbit hole of "disturbing cinema," you’ve probably seen the name. The Baby of Mâcon isn’t just a movie; it’s a sensory assault that feels like being trapped in a cathedral while someone screams in your ear. Released in 1993, it remains one of the most polarizing entries in Peter Greenaway’s filmography. It’s dense. It’s gorgeous. It’s absolutely horrific. Honestly, it’s the kind of film that makes you want to take a shower and read a theology textbook at the same time.
Most people who stumble upon it are looking for a period piece. They see the lush costumes and the 17th-century setting and expect something like Girl with a Pearl Earring. They are wrong. Greenaway doesn't do "period pieces" in the traditional sense. He does meta-theatrical deconstructions of human greed and religious hypocrisy.
The plot—if you can call this fever dream a plot—centers on a city cursed with sterility. Suddenly, a child is born to an ugly, old woman. It’s a miracle! Or is it? The woman’s daughter, played by a young and fierce Julia Ormond, claims the child is hers, born of a virgin birth. She wants the power. She wants the money. She basically commodifies a "miracle" until the Church decides they want their cut.
Why The Baby of Mâcon Broke the Ratings System
When this film hit the festival circuit, it didn't just ruffle feathers. It plucked them out one by one. In the UK, the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate without cuts, but in the United States, it was essentially dead on arrival. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was never going to give this an R. It’s an NC-17 through and through, but not for the reasons you’d think.
It isn't just the nudity. It’s the context.
There is a sequence in the final act—a ten-minute long tracking shot—that is widely considered one of the most harrowing scenes in cinematic history. We aren't going to sugarcoat it: it involves the systematic, ritualized assault of Ormond’s character by 176 soldiers. Greenaway films it like a stage play. The camera moves with a cold, detached elegance. You see the audience in the film watching the play within the film, cheering. It blurs the line between the "actors" on screen and us, the viewers. It’s an indictment.
Greenaway is basically asking: "Why are you still watching?"
The Art of the Tableaux
Visually, the film is a masterpiece. There’s no other way to put it. Greenaway was trained as a painter, and every frame of The Baby of Mâcon looks like a Caravaggio brought to life. He uses a color palette of deep crimsons, golds, and blacks.
The lighting is high-contrast (chiaroscuro).
👉 See also: Is Heroes and Villains Legit? What You Need to Know Before Buying
It’s beautiful.
And that’s the trap.
He uses beauty to make the depravity more palatable, which in turn makes you feel more complicit. Ralph Fiennes is in this too, playing the Bishop’s son. He’s young, lean, and eventually meets a fate involving a cow that is... well, it’s a lot. If you’re a fan of Fiennes from Harry Potter or The English Patient, seeing him in this role is a total system shock. He represents the naive intellect being crushed by the weight of religious dogma.
Religious Satire or Pure Provocation?
People debate this constantly. Is Greenaway just trying to be an edge-lord? Some critics at the time, like Roger Ebert, weren't fans. Ebert famously gave the film zero stars (or refused to rate it), calling it "malignant." He felt the film's craft was used for nothing but cruelty.
But if you look at the historical context of the 1990s, Greenaway was pushing back against the "heritage cinema" trend. While everyone else was making polite Jane Austen adaptations, he was digging into the filth of the Baroque era. He wanted to show that the Church and the State have always used the bodies of the innocent as currency.
The "Baby" in the film is literally a prop.
It’s a commodity.
The child is passed around, sold for blessings, and eventually—in a scene that defies logic—dismembered for relics. It’s a literal representation of "The Body of Christ" being consumed by a hungry, desperate public. It’s cynical? Yes. Is it accurate to the fervor of 17th-century religious superstition? Sorta, yeah.
✨ Don't miss: Jack Blocker American Idol Journey: What Most People Get Wrong
The Technical Madness Behind the Scenes
You've got to appreciate the sheer logistical nightmare of filming this. Most of the movie takes place on a single, massive stage.
- The set was built in an old warehouse in Germany.
- The extras were often local people who had no idea what they were signing up for.
- The music, composed by Borut Kržišnik, uses period-accurate sounds twisted into something discordant and modern.
The dialogue is also strange. It’s rhythmic. It’s not how people talk. It’s how people declaim. This keeps you at arm's length. Greenaway doesn't want you to "relate" to these characters. He wants you to observe them like insects under a microscope.
A Note on the Cast
Julia Ormond deserves a medal for this performance. This was before her Hollywood breakout in Legends of the Fall. She is brave, feral, and utterly convincing as a woman trying to navigate a world that views her as either a saint or a vessel. When her character realizes that her "miracle" has become her executioner, the look in her eyes is haunting.
And then there's the "Baby."
Actually, multiple babies were used, and the production had to follow strict labor laws, which is a bizarre contrast to the on-screen carnage. While the film depicts the exploitation of a child, the set was reportedly very controlled and professional. It’s one of those "movie magic" ironies.
Why You Should (or Shouldn't) Watch It Now
In 2026, we are used to "elevated horror" and "extreme cinema." We’ve seen Midsommar. We’ve seen The Substance. But The Baby of Mâcon still holds a unique power because it doesn't rely on jump scares. It relies on the slow, crushing realization that humanity is capable of anything if they think God told them to do it.
It’s a hard find on streaming services. Most of the time, you have to track down a boutique Blu-ray release from companies like Film Movement or find a dusty DVD copy.
Wait, who is this movie for?
🔗 Read more: Why American Beauty by the Grateful Dead is Still the Gold Standard of Americana
- Students of cinematography who want to see how to use a moving camera to create a sense of theater.
- People interested in the history of censorship and the NC-17 rating.
- Fans of transgressive art who aren't easily squeamish.
- Anyone who thinks modern movies are "too safe."
If you’re looking for a fun Friday night flick, this is not it. It’s an ordeal. It’s a 122-minute long scream into the void about the corruption of innocence. But it’s also one of the most visually stunning things ever put to celluloid.
Actionable Takeaways for the Brave
If you decide to dive into the world of The Baby of Mâcon, do yourself a favor and prepare. This isn't a casual watch.
- Watch Greenaway’s other work first: Start with The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover. It’s more accessible (relatively speaking) and will get you used to his style.
- Read up on the Baroque period: Understanding the religious obsession with relics and icons will make the film's "logic" a lot clearer.
- Check the content warnings: This isn't a joke. The film contains extreme sexual violence and child endangerment themes. Know your limits.
- Look at the frame: Ignore the plot for a second and just look at the background. The amount of detail in the sets and the movement of the extras is staggering. It’s a masterclass in mise-en-scène.
The legacy of the film isn't its "shock value." It’s the way it forces the viewer to confront their own voyeurism. By the time the final credits roll, you aren't just an audience member; you're part of the crowd in Mâcon, watching the spectacle unfold. And that’s exactly where Peter Greenaway wants you.
To fully grasp the impact of this film, one must look toward the scholarship of film historians like Sianne Ngai or David Pascoe, who have written extensively on Greenaway's "aesthetic of the grotesque." They argue that the film isn't just about the 1600s—it's about the 1990s, the AIDS crisis, and the way society reacts to perceived "plagues" with finger-pointing and religious hysteria. It's a layer of meaning that makes the film even heavier than it already is.
Don't expect a happy ending. Don't expect a resolution. Just expect to be changed.
Once you’ve seen it, you can’t unsee it.
Next Steps for Deep Exploration
- Locate a high-definition restoration: The film’s color work is lost on low-res YouTube clips. Seek out the 2017 restoration for the intended visual impact.
- Compare with "The Devils" (1971): Ken Russell’s film covers similar ground regarding religious hysteria and is an excellent companion piece for a very dark double feature.
- Research the "Theatre of Cruelty": Look into Antonin Artaud’s theories. Greenaway applies many of these principles to the screen, aiming to shatter the audience's complacency through "shock" to the system.