Edit
Storyline
During the Cultural Revolution in China in the mid-1960s, a French diplomat falls in love with a singer in the Beijing Opera. Interwoven with allusions to the Puccini opera "Madama Butterfly", a story of love and betrayal unfolds. Written by
Michael C. Berch <mcb@postmodern.com>
Plot Summary
|
Plot Synopsis
Edit
Did You Know?
Trivia
The Chinese opera being performed by Song near the beginning is called "Gui Fei Zui Jiu", aka "The Drunken Concubine", aka "Yang Gui Fei Gets Tipsy".
See more »
Goofs
The word accordion is misspelled "accordian" in the closing credits.
See more »
Quotes
Rene Gallimard:
You made me see the beauty of the story, of her death. It's, it's pure sacrifice. He's not worthy of it, but what can she do? She loves him so much. It's very beautiful.
Song Liling:
Well, yes, to a Westerner.
Rene Gallimard:
I beg your pardon?
Song Liling:
It's one of your favorite fantasies, isn't it? The submissive Oriental woman and the cruel white man.
See more »
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.