Arriola 1

Fatima Arriola

Professor Batty

English 102

22 November 2017

Two Faces of M. Butterfly

Many methods of texts are now being made into movies, adapting from books, games,

or even radio shows. When directors tend to make changes in the films compared to the original

work of the author, fans get outraged when the films are not truthful to the original text because

then everything changes for them. Films will often use the terms, based on this book, or

inspired by to give an idea how different the adaptation, will be. The reason why they do this is

that they dont want people or critics to say that they have stolen work from other people. In this

essay, I will examine issues of adaptations in relative to M. Butterfly both film and script

version, focusing on the differences and similarity of the adjustment.

M. Butterfly was a play that was written by David Hwang. It tells the story of a story

about a French diplomat named Gallimard who fell in love with a Chinese female opera singer,

named Song. Then the story proceeds and shows how their relationship started to grow. The big

twist in the story is that Song turns out being a male, and hes a spy for the Chinese government.

Fascinatingly this story was based on a true story that happened in 1983. In 1993, David

Cronenberg made a movie adaptation of M. Butterfly. In +true to its nature which is true because

people expect to see something that they have read already especially if it's played. Fans

occasionally get let down when it comes to books to film adaptation. There is a different order

between literature and film, making books much preferable rather than film. In the concept,
 Arriola 2

the movie M. Butterfly would less be better compared to the book because the movie is for the

audiences and seen as a low class while a play looks upon as high culture. For example, more

people will dress more appropriately to watch a play compared to the people who go to the

movie theaters dress casually. The first noticeable differences between the book and the movie

are the opening scene. In the book, the opening scene is a sequence of flashback. We start off by

seeing Gallimard in his cell, telling the story about his life, while in the film, its the other way

around. The flashback became the opening scene, while the cell scene was moved to the end of

the movie scene. In addition to the play, the movie adaptation might share different themes.

Despite the fact, that subject of feminism revolved around both the film and the play, but there is

an element of horror in the movie. The film has a more an of scary tone compared to the play

because the play is more of a comedy tragic love story which makes me wonder why the director

changed it into such a dark film.

Reading a book generates your imaginary to provide the scene that was written, but in the

film, it portrays it to the viewer. David Cronenberg had this view of representing M Butterfly as

a shadowy world which could lead us to the conclusion that he probably had an awful childhood

or adulthood. Cronenberg perhaps could have also change the storyline to give the audience a

new perspective view of the story. Some people hate reading and dont understand whats going

in the book, so they prefer to watch the movie instead, but the problem with that is that theyre

interpreting something different compared to the book. The play is written non- linear because is

more confusing to understand the structure, especially in M. Butterfly because it contains a lot of

flashbacks which makes the story a little hard to understand. It's not well structured because we

see flashbacks from the past and all sudden it comes back to the future. I think that the
 Arriola 3

sequence of the book should be in order, so the flashbacks can make sense. The film is more

linear because its more straightforward. Theres no way that you can get confused because of it's

following a pattern where its told by a fist, middle and end. We can connect to the actors more

because they show us their emotions in an obvious way compared to the play. We get two senses

of looks which is why we cant say the film, and the play is similar.

A play is limited. Its performed on a stage, which does not have many places to move.

But it is different with movies. In the film, the cameras rotate around the character, and they can

jump from places to places. Therefore, it could cause feeling from the viewers. For example, this

is seen in the Chinese opera house scene. In the movie, the first time Gallimard finds the Chinese

opera house, he only says one line is asking where the opera house is so that he can see M

Butterfly. Its different from the play in because, in the play, Gallimard is explaining his

curiosity about the butterfly. So, in the film, its more explicit, not through words but a

description. The facial answer and the signs of Gallimard specified that he was curious about

Song. It gives the viewer more feeling to understand Gallimard. The play and opera are complex

because It requires high knowledge for someone to understand or follow through the story. This

is the reason why films adaptions are low class because it attracts everyone from a different

class. Most people assume that reading a book is more professional than watching a movie, so its

mentality classified as mass audience which is referring to any person. What makes M.

Butterfly, so complex is its narrative. On the play, it is fully seeing as the way Gallimard is

telling the story. It is related in ways we can understand Gallimard, but the sequences of the

event are over places. For example in scene 1 is Gallimard being in prison, telling the story of his

while, switching to scene 2 where everything is different Then he tells his

 Arriola 4

story about his life in China; which continues for several scenes in the opening act. Like I

mention earlier, its very confusing. In the film, David Cronenberg does not use this method

because he follows a chronological timeline for viewers to understand the stories better. If David

Cronenberg had used this method then, it would have been a film where the viewers had to use

their brain while watching which would have been boring. A play is considered more for high-

class people than a film.

In conclusion, both film and play portraits the same stories but with various aspects of

how its being told. The play is more confusing even though its more a happy story unlike the

film which is more of a tragic story but its in sequence order. Most people asked themselves

why Cronenberg did such changes to the film and not leave it as the way David Henry Hwang

wrote it. Most director like to change or add new things because it will get the viewers attention

which is true because the film of M. Butterfly is way much entertaining than the play. Although

Cronenberg made some weird changes that I didnt like for example the tone and the theme, I

think that he did a fantastic job on putting such a film together. Directing is not an easy job so I

cant judge Cronenberg work. Every director has its image of how they see things and some

people might love it or hate it but at the end of the day what matters is the demanding work that

people put in.