In 1960s China, French diplomat Rene Gallimard (Jeremy Irons) falls in love with an opera singer, Song Liling (J. Lone) -- but Song is not at all who Gallimard thinks.
I liked when Song Liling said, "It's one of your favorite fantasies, isn't it? The submissive Oriental woman and the cruel white man." She put the story of Madame Butterfly in its place, and then in the much larger context of the Vietnam war that was about to erupt. I do not wish to make any political remarks, but this film was layered very well -- the Madam Butterfly aspect had at least three parallels.
Jeremy Irons is excellent, and it is nice to see him reuniting with Cronenberg. This does not have the "science" of Cronenberg, the "flesh" aspect, but as he says in a feature on the DVD, he leans towards odd communities as a filmmaker. And truly, there are some odd people here... is Song in love with Gallimard or just playing him? What is her secret? I loved the multiple twists and how smoothly they were revealed.
Roger Ebert sees the big twist as obvious from the start, but I think this might be because he cheated. I have to agree with him on this comment, though: "Irons bases his performance on the understanding that erotic impulses are always completely humorless to those who hold them, even though they might seem hilarious to the observer." That, and Irons naturally has a very humorless persona -- even when he jokes, he is all too serious.
I never saw the original play or read it, so I cannot make any educated comparisons to source material. But the film is great, and while not one of Cronenberg's better known films, still a must-see. Just so weird in a non-weird way.
I liked when Song Liling said, "It's one of your favorite fantasies, isn't it? The submissive Oriental woman and the cruel white man." She put the story of Madame Butterfly in its place, and then in the much larger context of the Vietnam war that was about to erupt. I do not wish to make any political remarks, but this film was layered very well -- the Madam Butterfly aspect had at least three parallels.
Jeremy Irons is excellent, and it is nice to see him reuniting with Cronenberg. This does not have the "science" of Cronenberg, the "flesh" aspect, but as he says in a feature on the DVD, he leans towards odd communities as a filmmaker. And truly, there are some odd people here... is Song in love with Gallimard or just playing him? What is her secret? I loved the multiple twists and how smoothly they were revealed.
Roger Ebert sees the big twist as obvious from the start, but I think this might be because he cheated. I have to agree with him on this comment, though: "Irons bases his performance on the understanding that erotic impulses are always completely humorless to those who hold them, even though they might seem hilarious to the observer." That, and Irons naturally has a very humorless persona -- even when he jokes, he is all too serious.
I never saw the original play or read it, so I cannot make any educated comparisons to source material. But the film is great, and while not one of Cronenberg's better known films, still a must-see. Just so weird in a non-weird way.