Amazon.com essential video

Jeremy Irons gives another superb and underrated performance in M Butterfly, an elegant adaptation of the Broadway hit by playwrightDavid Henry Hwang. Irons plays a French diplomat in China in 1964 whofalls in love with a star of the Beijing Opera, not realizing that theentrancing performer holds secrets that will ruin his life--that thesinger is a spy for the Communist government is only the beginning of thediplomat's troubles. Though M Butterfly may seem like a departurefor director David Cronenberg (best known for horror and science fictionflicks like The Fly and Scanners), the themes of desireand self-deception fit comfortably into his oeuvre, alongside hisadaptations of difficult novels like Naked Lunch and Crash.M Butterfly, like the more popular movie The Crying Game, isa cunning examination of love and denial. Also featuring John Lone (TheLast Emperor). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history
This 1993 film is based on the true story of French diplomat, Rene Gallimard, who carried on an affair for 18 years with Chinese opera singer Song Liling. Later, he was arrested when it was discovered he was passing diplomatic secrets to the Chinese government through his lover. However, there is a twist. Song Liling was actually a man, not a woman, and supposedly kept this fact from Gallimard through all this time.

Jeremy Irons is cast as Rene Gallimard. John Lone, who was actually trained in the Beijing opera and who played the title role in The Last Emperor, is cast as Song Liling. He is not a convincing female but I feel this was the director's intent. The story is, after all, about Gallimard's blind obsession in his desire for the perfect woman. Both Irons' and Lone's performances are magnificent. Both are tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history.

The theme is also about the role of men and women as well as Communist China and the cultural revolution. Great cinematography and setting brings us to the heart of China which is going through its growing pains. Deception and betrayal are everywhere, not just between the two leading characters involved in the romance.

I was unprepared to like the video as much as I did. It did not do well at the box office, I knew the theme in advance and felt it would strain my belief system. However, I was swept away in the story and the excellent performances and had no trouble overlooking its flaws. Of course the author took dramatic license and created a ending that played like an opera, but who is to blame him; the story itself just cried out for theatrics.

Recommended as an interesting departure from the ordinary.

Cronenberg and Irons: Masterful
A bit of a departure for horror/sci-fi director David Cronenberg, but nonetheless one of his best films. Jeremy Irons plays Rene Gallimard, an accountant for the French Embassy in Beijing, who becomes infatuated with a Chinese diva (Song Liling), played by John Lone. After a passionate and scandalous affair, Song leaves Beijing, supposedly pregnant with Gallimard's child. Years later when he is arrested for espionage, Gallimard is forced to confront the fact that not only was his lover a spy for the Chinese ministry, but a man. Some people find John Lone's inability to completely pass as a woman problematic, but as Cronenberg explains: "I didn't want an unknown who was incredibly female and almost undetectable. I wanted a man. When Gallimard and Song are kissing I wanted it to be two men. I wanted the audience to feel that... M. Butterfly for me is about transformation.." For me, it's a brilliant exploration of the nature of curiousity and desire that necessarily ends tragically. The devastating notion that you can give up your entire life for something that is not true, that it's possible to fall in love with an idea, an image, a masquerade. Cronenberg abounds in his insights to imperialism, gender performance and the human capcity for transformation. Still, above all is the emotional intensity of this film, his best (in that regard) to date. Beautiful cinematography and exquisite acting, earns five stars for the closing scene alone. Highly recommended.

Breathtaking
I don't think anyone could have done justice to writing the screenplay to M Butterfly (based on David Henry Hwang's stage play) than Hwang himself. While it is a bit of a departure from the 1988 play based on the true story of a French diplomat who falls in love with a Chinese opera singer and the disastrous outcome of their affair, as a film it could not have been done otherwise.

Jeremy Irons, a wonderful actor no matter what role he plays, makes for an astounding Rene Gallimard. Less sarcastic than John Lithgow, who created the role on Broadway, Irons gives new depth and intensity to the frustrated, naive accountant. The dramatic depth to John Lone's Song Liling is equal to Irons and equal in departure from BD Wong's somewhat giggly Broadway portrayal of the Chinese diva.

A great deal of "s" words can be used to describe David Cronenberg's film, the top of that list including subtle and sexy. The tone is set, mostly, by the score--which includes traditional-sounding Chinese music and variations of Puccini's Madame Butterfly (especially the recurring theme of "Un Bel Di")--and the scenery (shot in the Far East and Budapest). The ubiquitous soft red and gold tones add to the seductive, nearly erotic edge of the film, all of which culminate at the end.

I don't want to give any of it away, mainly because when I saw the movie I had already read and seen the play, and there is so much more meaning to realize the end with Rene, but I will say that it is moving to the point of tears. Not necessarily because of the outcome, but more in how the actors play it and how the director has realized it. If you have ANY interest in purchasing this film (especially if you have any experience with Hwang's stage play), by all means buy it. It won't disappoint.

Who's French??
Yet another spectacular tale of love and maddness with a Freudian twist by the great David Cronenberg. There are some slight flaws with the film such as a cast portraying French people, none of which sporting French accents. But I suppose thats better than trying to do a French accent and it being inconsistant. All-in-all though, a really great, really strange (though not as strange as some of his other work) surprisingly poetic movie. Definately a must see for fans of Cronenberg and Jeremy Irons alike.

Moving
Considering that it was a Cronenberg movie, I found it surprisingly normal and accessible. I also found it thoroughly engrossing and much more emotionally satisfying than I's expected, given some of the reviews. Jeremy Irons gave his usual pitch-perfect performance; perhaps this film was something of a warm-up for his playing Humbert Humbert in the similarly themed Lolita. However, I was blown away even more by John Lone. He wasn't as convincing as a woman as he might have been, but that really wasn't the point, and when you see his transformation to his true persona at the end of the film, the sheer contrast, and the conviction to both the performances, should prove just how talented he is.
Overall, I found an unexpected treasure here; what from the box could have been a overwraught weepy sex-drama was actually intelligent, emotionally truthful, and well made. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Emotional acting, strong story
Anthony LaPaglia plays a quiet, humble priest during the Nazi occupation of a small Italian village. His emotions are torn between service to God and love for a beautiful parishioner. His participation in a resistance mission leads him into danger. He believes he is a coward. (true heroes never believe they are heroes) I watched Anthony LaPaglia talk about acting on Larry King a year ago. He stated that acting can transcend. His belief shows in this movie. Powerful, emotional acting from LaPaglia and Embeth Davidtz. A strong, well-crafted story as well.

Very Good!
i love this film , i must have rented it countless times. it's a beautiful story& the picture is great. i'm going to buy a copy for myself soon , it 's just a great film . ... Read more

Reviews (19)

One of the few good movie versions of a Shakespeare play.
Much better than the earlier Julius Caesar, which starred Marlon Brando as Mark Antony and James Mason as Brutus. In this version, Jason Robards as Brutus is admittedly an embarrassment, but the rest of the cast is quite strong. The delivery of Antony's funeral oration by Charlton Heston is brilliant, powerful, well-paced, the dramatic high point of the movie. Richard Johnson as Cassius, John Gielgud as Caesar, Robert Vaughn as Casca and Diana Rigg as Portia are fine actors, with full dramatic presence, at home in Shakespeare's language. Brief parts, like the soothsayer's and the cobbler's, are memorably played. The screenplay omits two short passages that are important to the plot: (1) Cassius' avowal in the first act, after his attempt to persuade Brutus to oppose Caesar, that if their positions were reversed and he, Cassius, stood as well with Caesar as Brutus does and Brutus made a comparable appeal to him, he would certainly not listen. (2) Immediately after the assassination, a promise by Brutus to Antony's servant of safe conduct for Antony, who thus knows when he comes to the Capitol and weeps over Caesar's body, challenging the conspirators to kill him also, that he is in no danger of their doing so.

Successful Version of Shakespeare's Caesar
Not a bad version at all of Shakespeare's play. Most of the attention for Julius Caesar is clearly with the 1950s version, but this one holds up as well. In this version, Charlton Heston plays Antony. Others include Jason Richards (Brutus), John Gielgud (Caesar), Richard Johnson (Cassius), Robert Vaughn (Casca), Richard Chamberlain (Octavius), and Diana Riggs (Portia).

In this story, Brutus comes forth as the tragic hero who joins the conspiracy to kill the ambitious Roman, Julius Caesar. Shakespeare's story delves much into the realm of politics within the Roman society. Brutus' tragic flaw is perhaps that he sees too much of the benevolent side of people and society; he gives in to help Rome only after pondering deeply the plan of Cassius, and "trusts" Antony to not give a stirring speech (big mistake there). He still considers Caesar a "good" man, but justifies his role in the conspiracy as for the common good of Rome. A tale that definitely concerns itself with justification, or lack thereof, of removing leaders from political positions, and the consequences those actions bring unto an entire nation and their citizens.

The set design, background and acting are true to the play. One of the differences between this and the Brando version is the scene in which Caesar is assassinated. It is far more bloody and gruesome (yet the movie is rated G, go figure). Heston, as Antony, does a decent job with the "Countrymen, lend me your ears" speech, making an emotional appeal to the crowd as a friend of Caesar. He stirs up the rage among the Romans in this emotional appeal on Caesar's behalf. Eventually, he will go to war against two of the leaders of the conspiracy, Cassius and Brutus.

This is definitely worth a view, especially if you are a Shakespeare fan. This also is an excellent resource for the study of Julius Caesar.

Also Recommended: Julius Caesar (Marlon Brando version)

If you're a huge fan of Heston's or of this superb play
If you're a huge fan of Heston's or of this superb play, you might want to suffer through this terrible print.

It's blurry, the colors blur and flash like a bad animation, and it sounds like it was recorded underwater with a megaphone. It's really a piece of crap.

The performances are good, and because it's the only other film version of the play, (that I can find) they warrant comparison with the 1958 Brando version. Heston's needlessly pompous and swaggering Antony is occasionally amusing and occasionally pretty good, but ultimately the performance lacks the authenticity and verve of Brando's, and one can't help but compare. Robards's Brutus is stoic and tortured and it is something like torture to watch him act, at least for the first half of the film. By the time Brutus is heading up the wrong end of the civil war, Robards aptly transforms Brutus into a man whose passions have fermented to the surface. It's by turns a flat, interesting, and jarring performance accented by an occasional flash of brilliance, such as the scene in which Brutus and Cassius argue about funds and bribes. Much of the supporting cast: Diana Rigg, Gielgud, and Robert Vaughn, in particular are excellent.
It's a shame really that this is such a horrifying print (the worst in fact that I've ever seen), because this was a good movie once. Somewhere through the blur you can make out decent production values: large crowd and battle scenes, attractive costumes, and what looks like the hilly Italian countryside. Who knows maybe even the "seven hills," though I doubt even a Roman native would be able to tell for sure.

Little more than terrible
I ordered this DVD for use in teaching the play. I had anticipated it for months and waited with impatience for its release; I now find I was impatient for mediocrity. The performances are disappointing, with only Richard Chamberlain as Octavious showing any passion in performance. Indeed, Jason Robards as Brutus is the poorest Shakespearean acting I've yet seen, and it's an embarassment for anyone attempting to light a fire for Shakespeare in teenagers. Robards speaks his lines as if he is reading them for the first time on his couch at home.

Until Hollywood gives this another try, I recommend the BBC version of the play available with English subtitles from Ambrose Video. Of course, there is always the Brando version of the play with James Mason doing a much more credible job than Robards as Brutus.

Quality Terrible
I ordered this tape to show to my Sophomore English classes as we read the play. The quality of the video was so poor that my colleagues and I judged the tape unwatchable. I do not recommend this tape. Instead, order the Marlon Brando edition. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

One of the few good movie versions of a Shakespeare play.
Much better than the earlier Julius Caesar, which starred Marlon Brando as Mark Antony and James Mason as Brutus. In this version, Jason Robards as Brutus is admittedly an embarrassment, but the rest of the cast is quite strong. The delivery of Antony's funeral oration by Charlton Heston is brilliant, powerful, well-paced, the dramatic high point of the movie. Richard Johnson as Cassius, John Gielgud as Caesar, Robert Vaughn as Casca and Diana Rigg as Portia are fine actors, with full dramatic presence, at home in Shakespeare's language. Brief parts, like the soothsayer's and the cobbler's, are memorably played. The screenplay omits two short passages that are important to the plot: (1) Cassius' avowal in the first act, after his attempt to persuade Brutus to oppose Caesar, that if their positions were reversed and he, Cassius, stood as well with Caesar as Brutus does and Brutus made a comparable appeal to him, he would certainly not listen. (2) Immediately after the assassination, a promise by Brutus to Antony's servant of safe conduct for Antony, who thus knows when he comes to the Capitol and weeps over Caesar's body, challenging the conspirators to kill him also, that he is in no danger of their doing so.

Successful Version of Shakespeare's Caesar
Not a bad version at all of Shakespeare's play. Most of the attention for Julius Caesar is clearly with the 1950s version, but this one holds up as well. In this version, Charlton Heston plays Antony. Others include Jason Richards (Brutus), John Gielgud (Caesar), Richard Johnson (Cassius), Robert Vaughn (Casca), Richard Chamberlain (Octavius), and Diana Riggs (Portia).

In this story, Brutus comes forth as the tragic hero who joins the conspiracy to kill the ambitious Roman, Julius Caesar. Shakespeare's story delves much into the realm of politics within the Roman society. Brutus' tragic flaw is perhaps that he sees too much of the benevolent side of people and society; he gives in to help Rome only after pondering deeply the plan of Cassius, and "trusts" Antony to not give a stirring speech (big mistake there). He still considers Caesar a "good" man, but justifies his role in the conspiracy as for the common good of Rome. A tale that definitely concerns itself with justification, or lack thereof, of removing leaders from political positions, and the consequences those actions bring unto an entire nation and their citizens.

The set design, background and acting are true to the play. One of the differences between this and the Brando version is the scene in which Caesar is assassinated. It is far more bloody and gruesome (yet the movie is rated G, go figure). Heston, as Antony, does a decent job with the "Countrymen, lend me your ears" speech, making an emotional appeal to the crowd as a friend of Caesar. He stirs up the rage among the Romans in this emotional appeal on Caesar's behalf. Eventually, he will go to war against two of the leaders of the conspiracy, Cassius and Brutus.

This is definitely worth a view, especially if you are a Shakespeare fan. This also is an excellent resource for the study of Julius Caesar.

Also Recommended: Julius Caesar (Marlon Brando version)

If you're a huge fan of Heston's or of this superb play
If you're a huge fan of Heston's or of this superb play, you might want to suffer through this terrible print.

It's blurry, the colors blur and flash like a bad animation, and it sounds like it was recorded underwater with a megaphone. It's really a piece of crap.

The performances are good, and because it's the only other film version of the play, (that I can find) they warrant comparison with the 1958 Brando version. Heston's needlessly pompous and swaggering Antony is occasionally amusing and occasionally pretty good, but ultimately the performance lacks the authenticity and verve of Brando's, and one can't help but compare. Robards's Brutus is stoic and tortured and it is something like torture to watch him act, at least for the first half of the film. By the time Brutus is heading up the wrong end of the civil war, Robards aptly transforms Brutus into a man whose passions have fermented to the surface. It's by turns a flat, interesting, and jarring performance accented by an occasional flash of brilliance, such as the scene in which Brutus and Cassius argue about funds and bribes. Much of the supporting cast: Diana Rigg, Gielgud, and Robert Vaughn, in particular are excellent.
It's a shame really that this is such a horrifying print (the worst in fact that I've ever seen), because this was a good movie once. Somewhere through the blur you can make out decent production values: large crowd and battle scenes, attractive costumes, and what looks like the hilly Italian countryside. Who knows maybe even the "seven hills," though I doubt even a Roman native would be able to tell for sure.

Little more than terrible
I ordered this DVD for use in teaching the play. I had anticipated it for months and waited with impatience for its release; I now find I was impatient for mediocrity. The performances are disappointing, with only Richard Chamberlain as Octavious showing any passion in performance. Indeed, Jason Robards as Brutus is the poorest Shakespearean acting I've yet seen, and it's an embarassment for anyone attempting to light a fire for Shakespeare in teenagers. Robards speaks his lines as if he is reading them for the first time on his couch at home.

Until Hollywood gives this another try, I recommend the BBC version of the play available with English subtitles from Ambrose Video. Of course, there is always the Brando version of the play with James Mason doing a much more credible job than Robards as Brutus.

Quality Terrible
I ordered this tape to show to my Sophomore English classes as we read the play. The quality of the video was so poor that my colleagues and I judged the tape unwatchable. I do not recommend this tape. Instead, order the Marlon Brando edition. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

feast of july --- my favorite movie that nobody knows
This is an amazing film --- exquisitely executed, shot and acted with a simple story and gorgeous period detail --- both Embeth Davidz & Ben Chaplin are brilliant.
I saw this movie twice in the theatres because it was such a "gem" and then nobody was interested --probably because there were no stars in it --- but see it,,,,it's a tragic and beautiful love story. Pay special attention to the cinematography which is extraordinary.
steven

feast for the heart
This movie is one of the few that made me cry! I was pleasantly surprised to see Davidtz in a more compassionate and warm character than the one we remember as 'Natasha' from 'Bridget Jones's Diary'....the costumes were lovely in this film, and although the character goes through so much burden, she comes out on top with strength and understanding. A touching film that moves the heart.

Purefoy a Delight in Feast
I mainly bought this film to see James Purefoy. Purefoy did a masterful job as the charming yet bossy older brother in his small role. This film was vintage Merchant Ivory in terms of the lovely scenery and great costuming. The film also had a tragic story in rural England Thomas Hardy type quality reminiscent of Tess of the D'Urbervilles and The Woodlanders, eventhough this is not a Hardy story. I'm glad I got the film, but be prepared for an unhappy ending.

bittersweet feast
A credible step back in time, this beautifully filmed period piece set in 19th century England follows the fortunes of a troubled young woman taken in by a family with three unmarried sons. Hospitality is sincere but conflicts of affections naturally develop. The mother in the household, severe and stoic in her aspect, slowly warms to the earnest and unassuming nature of their guest and a tenuous bond forms until conflicts emerge.

The film portrays a variety of male characters with their array of emotions and situational ego struggles in an historic setting that draws you into the period as well as the story's building drama. Even the young woman's villianous past lover receives comprehensive treatment of the qualities of his character.

The high-strung son's unbridled passion and the young woman's responding compassion that suddenly envelops these two uniquely tender and intense hearts is compelling and lifts the story above cliche. A fateful dilemma, born of sudden violence, confronts and pursues the young lovers and makes for a desperate moral/psychological impass, the conclusions of which are hauntingly profound.

Casting of this film is flawless. Davidtz is just the sort of woman to stir any man's heart and her performance is utterly magnetic. As the center of a gripping and soulful story that stretches the heart to maximum understanding and acceptance, her poignant final scene is one that lingers in its hopeful promise. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Anthony Andrews is amazing as Moriarty!
This movie is by far the best Sherlock Holmes adaptation ever! Anthony Andrews is absolutely chilling as the evil Professor Moriarty. He inhabits the character and exudes the searing darkness of his soul. Although this movie does not actually come from a particular Sherlock Holmes mystery, it maintains the feel of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work. The actor playing Dr. Watson is also fantastic and the only drawback is the actor playing Holmes, who bears no resemblance to Doyle's famous sleuth. The last word? See this movie...soon! ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history
This 1993 film is based on the true story of French diplomat, Rene Gallimard, who carried on an affair for 18 years with Chinese opera singer Song Liling. Later, he was arrested when it was discovered he was passing diplomatic secrets to the Chinese government through his lover. However, there is a twist. Song Liling was actually a man, not a woman, and supposedly kept this fact from Gallimard through all this time.

Jeremy Irons is cast as Rene Gallimard. John Lone, who was actually trained in the Beijing opera and who played the title role in The Last Emperor, is cast as Song Liling. He is not a convincing female but I feel this was the director's intent. The story is, after all, about Gallimard's blind obsession in his desire for the perfect woman. Both Irons' and Lone's performances are magnificent. Both are tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history.

The theme is also about the role of men and women as well as Communist China and the cultural revolution. Great cinematography and setting brings us to the heart of China which is going through its growing pains. Deception and betrayal are everywhere, not just between the two leading characters involved in the romance.

I was unprepared to like the video as much as I did. It did not do well at the box office, I knew the theme in advance and felt it would strain my belief system. However, I was swept away in the story and the excellent performances and had no trouble overlooking its flaws. Of course the author took dramatic license and created a ending that played like an opera, but who is to blame him; the story itself just cried out for theatrics.

Recommended as an interesting departure from the ordinary.

Cronenberg and Irons: Masterful
A bit of a departure for horror/sci-fi director David Cronenberg, but nonetheless one of his best films. Jeremy Irons plays Rene Gallimard, an accountant for the French Embassy in Beijing, who becomes infatuated with a Chinese diva (Song Liling), played by John Lone. After a passionate and scandalous affair, Song leaves Beijing, supposedly pregnant with Gallimard's child. Years later when he is arrested for espionage, Gallimard is forced to confront the fact that not only was his lover a spy for the Chinese ministry, but a man. Some people find John Lone's inability to completely pass as a woman problematic, but as Cronenberg explains: "I didn't want an unknown who was incredibly female and almost undetectable. I wanted a man. When Gallimard and Song are kissing I wanted it to be two men. I wanted the audience to feel that... M. Butterfly for me is about transformation.." For me, it's a brilliant exploration of the nature of curiousity and desire that necessarily ends tragically. The devastating notion that you can give up your entire life for something that is not true, that it's possible to fall in love with an idea, an image, a masquerade. Cronenberg abounds in his insights to imperialism, gender performance and the human capcity for transformation. Still, above all is the emotional intensity of this film, his best (in that regard) to date. Beautiful cinematography and exquisite acting, earns five stars for the closing scene alone. Highly recommended.

Breathtaking
I don't think anyone could have done justice to writing the screenplay to M Butterfly (based on David Henry Hwang's stage play) than Hwang himself. While it is a bit of a departure from the 1988 play based on the true story of a French diplomat who falls in love with a Chinese opera singer and the disastrous outcome of their affair, as a film it could not have been done otherwise.

Jeremy Irons, a wonderful actor no matter what role he plays, makes for an astounding Rene Gallimard. Less sarcastic than John Lithgow, who created the role on Broadway, Irons gives new depth and intensity to the frustrated, naive accountant. The dramatic depth to John Lone's Song Liling is equal to Irons and equal in departure from BD Wong's somewhat giggly Broadway portrayal of the Chinese diva.

A great deal of "s" words can be used to describe David Cronenberg's film, the top of that list including subtle and sexy. The tone is set, mostly, by the score--which includes traditional-sounding Chinese music and variations of Puccini's Madame Butterfly (especially the recurring theme of "Un Bel Di")--and the scenery (shot in the Far East and Budapest). The ubiquitous soft red and gold tones add to the seductive, nearly erotic edge of the film, all of which culminate at the end.

I don't want to give any of it away, mainly because when I saw the movie I had already read and seen the play, and there is so much more meaning to realize the end with Rene, but I will say that it is moving to the point of tears. Not necessarily because of the outcome, but more in how the actors play it and how the director has realized it. If you have ANY interest in purchasing this film (especially if you have any experience with Hwang's stage play), by all means buy it. It won't disappoint.

Who's French??
Yet another spectacular tale of love and maddness with a Freudian twist by the great David Cronenberg. There are some slight flaws with the film such as a cast portraying French people, none of which sporting French accents. But I suppose thats better than trying to do a French accent and it being inconsistant. All-in-all though, a really great, really strange (though not as strange as some of his other work) surprisingly poetic movie. Definately a must see for fans of Cronenberg and Jeremy Irons alike.

Moving
Considering that it was a Cronenberg movie, I found it surprisingly normal and accessible. I also found it thoroughly engrossing and much more emotionally satisfying than I's expected, given some of the reviews. Jeremy Irons gave his usual pitch-perfect performance; perhaps this film was something of a warm-up for his playing Humbert Humbert in the similarly themed Lolita. However, I was blown away even more by John Lone. He wasn't as convincing as a woman as he might have been, but that really wasn't the point, and when you see his transformation to his true persona at the end of the film, the sheer contrast, and the conviction to both the performances, should prove just how talented he is.
Overall, I found an unexpected treasure here; what from the box could have been a overwraught weepy sex-drama was actually intelligent, emotionally truthful, and well made. ... Read more