While not one of my favourite directors perhaps, David Cronenberg is to me one of the most interesting and unique directors. His filmography is not a consistent one (very few directors did or do), but more often than not his films are very well made, his films are full of good or more performances, he deals with difficult and daring themes and deals with them in a way that unsettles and stirs emotion. His films are more than full on horror.
'M Butterfly', based on a true story and a successful play, is generally considered one of his lesser films. Can sort of understand why and can understand some of the criticisms directed against it. The play is much more challenging and unsettles more (like with Gallimard's obsession and mental instability) and the film is in comparison on the conservative side and almost like it was being careful not to offend, and some can say that compared to Cronenberg's other work that it appears to be somewhat tame and could have done with more edge. Yet there is also a lot to recommend about 'M Butterfly', although the themes could have gone into much more depth thematically it's not really atypical Cronenberg. The themes are typically thought-provoking and the subject, far more disturbing than anything full on horror, is a difficult and brave one. It is nowhere near one of Cronenberg's best (put it somewhere around lower middle myself, but for me it is better than its very lukewarm reputation and the good things are many.
For starters it looks great. The scenery and locations are enough to take the breath away and both complemented and enhanced by the splendid cinematography, shot by somebody who is in as much love with the locations as anybody who's been there. The night scenes had an eeriness that contrasted nicely without jarring. Wonder if there is anybody else who loved the opening credits, another fine example once again of opening titles that are designed both beautifully and cleverly matched ideally by the music. Speaking of the music, Cronenberg regular Howard Shore is on hand and he doesn't disappoint, it's another one of his haunting and going for the emotional core rather than doing anything obvious scores and that is more than fine by me. The healthy doses of Puccini's 'Madama Butterfly' (anybody who has not seen the full opera, do as it is an absolute treat but bring tissues) embedded will delight fellow opera fans, full of beauty and emotion. Just to say that the story here has no connection to that opera.
Cronenberg does direct precisely and carefully, perhaps too careful in places, as well as with a suitably sympathetic edge. The script does provoke thought and is well-meaning and sincere, even if too literal. Despite what was said in the second paragraph and the story execution is far from perfect, 'M Butterfly' did move me and make me feel uncomfortable which were clearly its aims and achieved. The central relationship is sensitively portrayed and the complete anti-thesis of distant, and the cultural differences aspects could have offended but the film handles them tactfully enough. There is intrigue too with everything to do with Gallimard's job, not presented in a convoluted way at all. Despite having problems with the latter stages, the prison van scene and especially Gallimard's final monologue for me were actually very powerful, did cry during the latter and Jeremy Irons performed it very movingly.
Any issues had with 'M Butterfly' do not lie with the performances. Jeremy Irons is a wonderful lead in a role he's perfect for, it's not as good as his magnificent career-best performance in the infinitely superior 'Dead Ringers' (one of Cronenberg's best) but it is a very sincere performance with the right amount of understatement and edge. He has believable chemistry with John Lone, who does give a deeply felt portrayal despite never ever being believable as a woman, one of the film's criticisms and anybody not familiar with the true story or play will straight away find it obvious, which does spoil the major story point that should be a shock. Ian Richardson is suitably sly and authoritative, the supporting cast are all competent without being completely remarkable in roles that are fairly small but Richardson does stand out memorably.
On the other hand, 'M Butterfly' has to me quite a number of faults. As said, it could have done much more with its themes, and not been too careful to offend which would have made the film feel less conservative. Have no problem with deliberate pacing, some of my favourites have it and for a reason, did think that 'M Butterfly' did have too many dead spots and did feel draggy and uneventful at times in some of the middle act especially. The script can tend to be too literal but it's in the latter parts where the film is most problematic.
This is where story elements (especially the pregnancy subplot) are too abruptly introduced, not explored enough and done away with too soon. Shifts felt rushed and sudden in an almost out of nowhere way, one doesn't even notice the time jump. Following the big revelation, which sadly is not a surprise for anybody, the storytelling got ridiculous, with it taking so long to get to the truth when really there would have been cause for suspicion quite early on, and made Gallimard look like a total fool.
In conclusion, an uneven film, that is neither among Cronenberg's best or worst, but better than its reputation thanks to many impressive elements and far from a failure. Interesting but could and should have worked better than it turned out. 6/10
'M Butterfly', based on a true story and a successful play, is generally considered one of his lesser films. Can sort of understand why and can understand some of the criticisms directed against it. The play is much more challenging and unsettles more (like with Gallimard's obsession and mental instability) and the film is in comparison on the conservative side and almost like it was being careful not to offend, and some can say that compared to Cronenberg's other work that it appears to be somewhat tame and could have done with more edge. Yet there is also a lot to recommend about 'M Butterfly', although the themes could have gone into much more depth thematically it's not really atypical Cronenberg. The themes are typically thought-provoking and the subject, far more disturbing than anything full on horror, is a difficult and brave one. It is nowhere near one of Cronenberg's best (put it somewhere around lower middle myself, but for me it is better than its very lukewarm reputation and the good things are many.
For starters it looks great. The scenery and locations are enough to take the breath away and both complemented and enhanced by the splendid cinematography, shot by somebody who is in as much love with the locations as anybody who's been there. The night scenes had an eeriness that contrasted nicely without jarring. Wonder if there is anybody else who loved the opening credits, another fine example once again of opening titles that are designed both beautifully and cleverly matched ideally by the music. Speaking of the music, Cronenberg regular Howard Shore is on hand and he doesn't disappoint, it's another one of his haunting and going for the emotional core rather than doing anything obvious scores and that is more than fine by me. The healthy doses of Puccini's 'Madama Butterfly' (anybody who has not seen the full opera, do as it is an absolute treat but bring tissues) embedded will delight fellow opera fans, full of beauty and emotion. Just to say that the story here has no connection to that opera.
Cronenberg does direct precisely and carefully, perhaps too careful in places, as well as with a suitably sympathetic edge. The script does provoke thought and is well-meaning and sincere, even if too literal. Despite what was said in the second paragraph and the story execution is far from perfect, 'M Butterfly' did move me and make me feel uncomfortable which were clearly its aims and achieved. The central relationship is sensitively portrayed and the complete anti-thesis of distant, and the cultural differences aspects could have offended but the film handles them tactfully enough. There is intrigue too with everything to do with Gallimard's job, not presented in a convoluted way at all. Despite having problems with the latter stages, the prison van scene and especially Gallimard's final monologue for me were actually very powerful, did cry during the latter and Jeremy Irons performed it very movingly.
Any issues had with 'M Butterfly' do not lie with the performances. Jeremy Irons is a wonderful lead in a role he's perfect for, it's not as good as his magnificent career-best performance in the infinitely superior 'Dead Ringers' (one of Cronenberg's best) but it is a very sincere performance with the right amount of understatement and edge. He has believable chemistry with John Lone, who does give a deeply felt portrayal despite never ever being believable as a woman, one of the film's criticisms and anybody not familiar with the true story or play will straight away find it obvious, which does spoil the major story point that should be a shock. Ian Richardson is suitably sly and authoritative, the supporting cast are all competent without being completely remarkable in roles that are fairly small but Richardson does stand out memorably.
On the other hand, 'M Butterfly' has to me quite a number of faults. As said, it could have done much more with its themes, and not been too careful to offend which would have made the film feel less conservative. Have no problem with deliberate pacing, some of my favourites have it and for a reason, did think that 'M Butterfly' did have too many dead spots and did feel draggy and uneventful at times in some of the middle act especially. The script can tend to be too literal but it's in the latter parts where the film is most problematic.
This is where story elements (especially the pregnancy subplot) are too abruptly introduced, not explored enough and done away with too soon. Shifts felt rushed and sudden in an almost out of nowhere way, one doesn't even notice the time jump. Following the big revelation, which sadly is not a surprise for anybody, the storytelling got ridiculous, with it taking so long to get to the truth when really there would have been cause for suspicion quite early on, and made Gallimard look like a total fool.
In conclusion, an uneven film, that is neither among Cronenberg's best or worst, but better than its reputation thanks to many impressive elements and far from a failure. Interesting but could and should have worked better than it turned out. 6/10