The play M. Butterfly was a very thought-provoking and more modern take on Puccini’s opera, Madama Butterfly. I enjoyed the clever role reversal of the main roles and the commentary on Orientalism in the original work and in society as a whole. I thought that although the dialogue of the characters is light-hearted in many occasions, it also tackles serious topics. There were two things that impressed and challenged me about the play.
First off, the scenery, although pretty minimal, played a crucial role in the play. The backgrounds were made entirely out of giant mobile (I think metal) plates with backgrounds painted on them. There was very little furniture in each scene, like the one chair and bare lightbulb in the prison cell, or the desk and chair for Gallimard’s boss at the Embassy. But the best part comes near the end of the play, when Gallimard cuts the story and declares it over. All of the plates are rolled away and the bare stage itself is used as the background to the fourth-wall breaking scene. Gallimard doesn’t want to finish telling the audience what happened, but the rest of the characters, especially Song, want him to finish because it shows the truth of what Gallimard and Song went through. A bare stage was the perfect setting. The play used creativity in their settings for the play.
The nudity in the play was something that challenged me. One of the most important scenes in the play is when Song undresses in front of Gallimard to erase the feminine illusion he created. Since his facial structure didn’t stop Gallimard from believing Song was a woman, he had to show the most definitive evidence.This scene was another representation of the theme of revealing the whole truth because the characters themselves have to face it.
I agree with the intrigue and challenge of both of these elements of M. Butterfly.
Firstly, I concur that the scenery was very simple and revealing. It was essential to viewers’ understanding of the setting. However, because it was so simple, it was a bit underwhelming. The repetitive use of these huge rectangular blocks was always expected and never shockingly good.
Secondly, the nudity of the play was certainly challenging. The fact that Song Liling, a man dressed as a woman, stripped fully naked, reminded me of the concept of gender construction in society. People may be born with specific reproductive organs and given one of two sexes, but how they express their own gender is completely separate. This play is, without a doubt, a doubt of the gender binary.