For all the weird, wonderful films David Cronenberg has made in his career, this may actually be the weirdest of all, by way of being an outlier. Over several decades of rejecting normalcy, 'M. Butterfly' - a romantic drama - is likely the most straightforward and conventional feature he has made. It feels more ordinary still for the ways in which it may briefly touch upon biting sociopolitical commentary, but not necessarily pervasively emphasize it as an element of the narrative as one may expect or even hope. It still manages to feel like classic Cronenberg, if only for the fact of the fundamental construction, including outstanding production design, rich shot composition, and camerawork. Denise Cronenberg's costume design is, of course, fabulous, and Howard Shore's original score is warm and stirring. Common Cronenberg collaborator Peter Suschitzky contributes marvelously lush, inviting, crisp cinematography, as he has elsewhere in the filmmaker's oeuvre. The substance within this structure is a different question, yet I've not watched any feature Cronenberg directed that was any worse than "average," so one way or another this earns my attention.
The abject forthrightness of 'M. Butterfly' is exemplified from the start as the plot and themes of the classic theatrical work is figured into early dialogue, belying the shape the movie itself will come to take to one degree or another. To this add a romance whose trajectory we can long foresee provided we've watched any other romantic dramas that bear political tones; the chief characters' involvement will inevitably have consequences for them both in some capacity. And even still - while glimpsing those harsh, jolting geopolitical truths of the 1960s, that still sadly remain relevant across the globe in 2022 - this title tends to lean more heavily into suggested LGBTQ themes, and the pointed sexism of patronizing and condescending to women.
Yet for all that this picture broaches, and all the striking concepts that could have been focused upon to great success, none seem to ever entirely find purchase to give 'M. Butterfly' utmost meaningful direction and form. I recognize significant potential. That potential, however, is scattered. To be sure, some aspects are more fully realized than others, and regardless, the story is satisfactorily compelling. The cast give performances of strong, admirable poise, and nuance - especially stars Jeremy Irons, and John Lone, who both command terrific screen presence. In the broad strokes I think this is written well. However, it kind of comes across as a title on autopilot: it progresses from A to B, from beginning to end, and passes distinct landmarks, but never really takes in the sights and sounds around it. It's a fine film, but a middling experience.
No doubt many others have sat to watch this and found it a much more rewarding film than I have. To each their own. To be clear, I definitely don't dislike it - there's much about it that's considered and done well. Only, the whole is somehow lesser than the sum of its parts, and nothing here truly captured my imagination, not even the final scene which is the nearest that 'M. Butterfly' resembles its Cronenberg brethren. Recommendable above all for fans of the filmmaker or the cast, it's still worth checking out on its merits. Ultimately, though, I just don' think this is a picture you need to go out of your way to see.
The abject forthrightness of 'M. Butterfly' is exemplified from the start as the plot and themes of the classic theatrical work is figured into early dialogue, belying the shape the movie itself will come to take to one degree or another. To this add a romance whose trajectory we can long foresee provided we've watched any other romantic dramas that bear political tones; the chief characters' involvement will inevitably have consequences for them both in some capacity. And even still - while glimpsing those harsh, jolting geopolitical truths of the 1960s, that still sadly remain relevant across the globe in 2022 - this title tends to lean more heavily into suggested LGBTQ themes, and the pointed sexism of patronizing and condescending to women.
Yet for all that this picture broaches, and all the striking concepts that could have been focused upon to great success, none seem to ever entirely find purchase to give 'M. Butterfly' utmost meaningful direction and form. I recognize significant potential. That potential, however, is scattered. To be sure, some aspects are more fully realized than others, and regardless, the story is satisfactorily compelling. The cast give performances of strong, admirable poise, and nuance - especially stars Jeremy Irons, and John Lone, who both command terrific screen presence. In the broad strokes I think this is written well. However, it kind of comes across as a title on autopilot: it progresses from A to B, from beginning to end, and passes distinct landmarks, but never really takes in the sights and sounds around it. It's a fine film, but a middling experience.
No doubt many others have sat to watch this and found it a much more rewarding film than I have. To each their own. To be clear, I definitely don't dislike it - there's much about it that's considered and done well. Only, the whole is somehow lesser than the sum of its parts, and nothing here truly captured my imagination, not even the final scene which is the nearest that 'M. Butterfly' resembles its Cronenberg brethren. Recommendable above all for fans of the filmmaker or the cast, it's still worth checking out on its merits. Ultimately, though, I just don' think this is a picture you need to go out of your way to see.