In class discussions much has been revealed about M. Butterfly: how it criticizes Western concept of the East, how Western women emasculated the men with their confidence et cetera. These issues are openly stated in the play instead of being implied which has been rather disturbing as it seems to underestimate the reader (and the audience) as being incapable of coming up with their own ideas about the play. Hwang leaves nothing to chance.
He wants his message to be well understood. Unfortunately, I tend to read a work of literature without an analytical eye. I try to enjoy the story itself. I let myself identify with the characters or events, symphatize with their feelings and so forth. Since I became a student of literature my reading has been deformed. I see things glowing behind the lines like John Nash decoding magazine articles.
In order to maintain the pleasure I received from literature I try to read each work twice if I have that luxury. In M. Butterfly’s case I did not feel the need to read it twice because Hwang did not allow me to enjoy his play. I wished that he had only written an article on Orientalism and leave me in peace. I even got angry with him. After watching David Cronenberg’s movie version I suddenly saw “the beauty of the story.” Although I believe in the superiority of imagination, I guess, sometimes, we need visual aid to comprehend things.
I like Cronenberg as a director. He seems to have a purpose: showing new possibilities for the body, or the flesh. He can use this purpose in other people’s works as well. In M. Butterfly, it shows itself in the physical love of two men which is not a new possibility, of course, but still a use of the body not considered thoroughly normal. Cronenberg knows how to play with the expectations of the audience.
The Essay on David Cronenberg Work Film People
David Cronenberg People can interpret different things in different ways. Some people look at the Eiffel Tower and say that it is a work of genius. Others may look at it as if it were the ugliest thing in Europe. Two opposing views creates controversy. People look at the work of the well known director, David Cronenberg, the same way. In my essay, I will not take a side, but I will clearly and ...
I remember reading an article comparing M. Butterfly with Neil Jordan’s Crying Game which were made in the same year and have similar subjects. A man falls in love with another man whom he thought to be a woman. Neil Jordan does not let the audience to understand the situation until the end of the movie.
So the audience, who have identified with the characters and want nothing but their happiness, are shocked at the end. Thanks to this ‘shock’ factor, Crying Game got the Oscar for the best screenplay. On the other hand, the popular audience did not like and identify with Cronenberg’s movie because Song looked really masculine unlike Jordan’s female character. Besides he was quite a famous actor, John Lone.
So the audience knows before it was even clearly stated in the movie that it was two men making love. When watching the movie with my classmates, I saw people laughing and asking how can a man be such a fool. Some people did not like the movie, I guess. And I, a hypocrite, laughed with them from time to time. However, I gained a new sight with the movie version. I made the mistake to imagine a more feminine Song.
Cronenberg showed the fact that it was two men making love. It was Gallimard imagination, not his foolishness that made him love Song, I understood as I went through the play again. I guess Hwang, knowingly or not showed the superiority of ‘the white man’. Gallimard loved the image of the perfect woman, not Song.
He was just a man. Everybody has an image of a perfect lover. Gallimard chose to enliven his love inside and killed himself and the image together. I respect him and feel sorry for that..
