M. Butterfly

by David Henry Hwang

Based on a true story that stunned the world, M. Butterfly opens in the cramped prison cell where diplomat Rene Gallimard is being held captive by the French government - and by his own illusions. In the darkness of his cell he recalls a time when desire seemed to give him wings. A time when Song Liling, the beautiful Chinese diva, touched him with a love as vivid, as seductive - and as elusive - as a butterfly.

How could he have known, then, that his ideal woman was, in fact, a spy for the Chinese government - and a man disguised as a woman? In a series of flashbacks, the diplomat relives the twenty-year affair from the temptation to the seduction, from its consummation to the scandal that ultimately consumed them both. But in the end, there remains only one truth: Whether or not Gallimard's passion was a flight of fancy, it sparked the most vigorous emotions of his life.

Only in real life could love become so unreal. And only in such a dramatic tour de force do we learn how a fantasy can become a man's mistress - as well as his jailer. M. Butterfly is one of the most compelling, explosive, and slyly humorous dramas ever to light the Broadway stage, a work of unrivaled brilliance, illuminating the conflict between men and women, the differences between East and West, racial stereotypes - and the shadows we cast around our most cherished illusions.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Fiction, Classics, School, Theatre, Historical Fiction

100 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

David Henry Hwang (Chinese: 黃哲倫; pinyin: Huáng Zhélún; born August 11, 1957) is an American playwright who has risen to prominence as the preeminent Asian American dramatist in the U.S.

He was born in Los Angeles, California and was educated at the Yale School of Drama and Stanford University. His first play was produced at the Okada House dormitory at Stanford and he briefly studied playwriting with Sam Shepard and María Irene Fornés.

He is the author of M. Butterfly (1988 Tony, Drama Desk, Outer Critics Awards, Pulitzer finalist), Golden Child (1998 Tony nomination, 1997 OBIE Award), FOB (1981 OBIE Award), The Dance and the Railroad (Drama Desk nomination), Family Devotions (Drama Desk Nomination), Sound and Beauty, and Bondage. His newest play, Yellow Face, which premiered at Los Angeles' Mark Taper Forum and New York's Public Theatre, won a 2008 OBIE Award and was a Finalist for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize. He wrote the scripts for the Broadway musicals Elton John & Tim Rice's Aida (co-author), Rodgers & Hammerstein's Flower Drum Song (2002 revival, 2003 Tony nomination), and Disney's Tarzan. His opera libretti include three works for composer Philip Glass, 1000 Airplanes on the Roof, The Voyage (Metropolitan Opera), and The Sound of a Voice; as well as Bright Sheng's The Silver River, Osvaldo Golijov's Ainadamar (two 2007 Grammy Awards) and Unsuk Chin's Alice In Wonderland (Opernwelt's 2007 "World Premiere of the Year"). Hwang penned the feature films M. Butterfly, Golden Gate, and Possession (co-writer), and also co-wrote the song "Solo" with Prince. A native of Los Angeles, Hwang serves on the Council of the Dramatists Guild. He attended Stanford University and Yale Drama School, and was appointed by President Clinton to the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

Reviews

[Elle (ellexamines on TT & Substack) · Rating 5 out of 5]

We become the Rice Queens of realpolitik.

I am physically incapable of conveying how obsessed I am with this play.

This little play was based off a true incident in which a French diplomat fell in love with a Chinese woman… only to discover that his love was a man spying on him all along, something the diplomat insisted he did not know. The public, of course, reacted in disbelief. But when David Henry Hwang heard this story in the 1980s, his reaction was not of disbelief, but of belief; if the spy were playing the submissive Asian woman, how could she not fool him?

Song performs the version of submissive Asian womanhood Gallimard finds most appealing. Song tells us that “The West thinks of itself as masculine… so the East is feminine… her mouth says no, but her eyes say yes. The West believes the East, deep down, wants to be dominated”. This is the lens by which she caters performance: at times outspoken, but always loving the white Western man.

But the burden of this performance does not fall primarily on Song. Gallimard has grown up in a society where he has been taught to view Butterfly through a prism; thus, he does not think to question whether or not she genuinely fits the image she projects. Gallimard, in every moment, sees himself as Pinkerton and Song as Butterfly. This is the lens with which he loves her.

This is also, incidentally, the reason I heavily disliked the movie adaptation of this play. To make Song a person in love with Gallimard fails the text. Song could be in love with Gallimard, but that is not the point, and not the tragedy. To make Gallimard so easily believe the reveal that Song is not who she says she is fails the text, as well. Gallimard has never loved Song: only ever the idea of Song. Most of the changes in narrative come from removing the fourth wall breaks and making the entire play diegetic—taking place in real life rather than fantasy. These are each misguided and bad choices.

I have a lot more to say about this—my final paper in a class this semester was about this play—but I am going to end this review with a compilation of quotes from this show that made me go absolutely buckwild:
Rene: While we men may all want to kick Pinkerton, very few of us would pass up the opportunity to be Pinkerton.
Rene: Yes actually, I’ve forgotten everything. My mind, you see—there wasn’t enough room in this hard head—not for the world and for you.
Song: Rene, I’ve never done what you’ve said. Why should it be any different in your mind?
Song: Your mouth says no, but your eyes say yes.
Rene: You showed me your true self. When all I loved was the lie.
Rene: I’m a man who loved a woman created by a man. Everything else—simply falls short.

EDIT: I’m watching Watchmen right now and every time I see Jeremy Iron’s face I am reminded of how much i dislike the movie version of this. this is not a tragic love story. it’s a commentary on imperialism and gendered racism. don’t watch the movie. it’s fine, but you will not understand why this play is so good.


Blog | Twitter | Instagram | Spotify | Youtube | About |

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A play based on a true story about a French diplomat who falls in love with a Chinese actress, only to realize that his exotic butterfly also identifies as male. Hwang's story highlights the beginning, middle, and end of Gallimard's descent through Song's seduction and how his appetite for dominance blinds him from the truth in front of his own two eyes. Though Gallimard earns little respect in this play, we see how he falls victim to the stereotypes assigned to men and to women, to the East and to the West.

I wish I could see this play live. The intersectional, transnational quality of M. Butterfly always made me evaluate the archetypes associated with gender and culture. Gallimard and Song's relationship had so many facets: Gallimard's sorrow, Song's manipulation, their desperate and theatrical dialogue, and more. Other books I read fall into an already solidified genre - young-adult, romance, action-adventure, etc. - while M. Butterfly stands out as an undefinable, uncouth, and unique subset of its own.

Overall, recommended to someone who enjoys plays of a dramatic yet sometimes dark, comedic nature. M. Butterfly integrates sexuality, gender, transnationalism, and more, so if any of those topics interest you, I would recommend it.

[Ivonne Rovira · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Henry Hwang’s masterpiece must be heard to be appreciated — no mere reading of the script can do it justice. Nor can David Cronenburg’s film version provide a substitute. With all of the political overtones stripped away, the film M. Butterfly becomes just another of the freak shows for which Cronenburg is so well known.

At its heart, Hwang’s original play reveals how the hubris and ignorance of the West and its preference for the comforting lies of Orientalism over a reality too harsh for the West to bear leads to downfall — in Rene Gallimand’s case, a humiliating political and personal one; in the West’s case, a humiliating political and military loss in the Vietnam War. The parallels are obvious, but in Hwang’s hands, so deftly handled that I would recommend the L.A. Theatre Works edition to everyone.

[Georgia Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tear from your memory cells any trace of the Cronenberg film with Jeremy Irons. PLEASE.

Now, read the original play by Hwang and get ready to laugh. It is based on the true story of a French diplomat tried for treason when his "wife" turns out to be a Chinese spy . . . and a man. The Frenchman said the lights stayed off because she was, well, you know, as they are, Asian women, shy. None I've met, Hwang thought and took out a pen to set the record straight.

Liberating and excruciatingly funny. Mel Brooks should have made the film.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Your telling me he didn't know he was sleeping with a man for 20 years. Come on! Denial is not a river in Egypt!.

[Ana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Need to see this live. Need it!

[Ceilidh · Rating 4 out of 5]

White male privilege will fuck you up!

There are a couple awkward lines and sometimes it feels like Hwang is being far too obvious with the themes of the play, not letting the audience work them out for themselves, but overall, M Butterfly is a fascinating study of racial and gender stereotypes in an East vs West battle of sorts. It's also an interesting puzzle to work out, with both leads providing their subjective view-points of events, distorting the truth to show the fantasies they had created. It openly embraces its theatricality, which is one of the reasons the movie is so disappointing in my opinion; it focused too much on realism which made it feel so awkward. The incorporation of the actual opera Madame Butterfly into the play provides an interesting mirror to the characters's situation, although the parallels do veer dangerously close to melodrama in one or two scenes. Obviously, the premise is one that may require a real suspense of disbelief for some - although it is based on a true story - but that feels natural to the play itself. Rene has spent so long building up his perfect fantasy, living out Madame Butterfly with his own apparently submissive beautiful Chinese woman, and he's desperate to hold onto it, even in the face of destruction. It's a play that would require a strong director and actors to match. Highly recommended.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I first heard of this play, I initially confused it with Madame Butterfly by Puccini (which I had read), and dismissed it as another reprise of the racist, misogynistic play that is Madame Butterfly. I could not have been more wrong.

I read this text thanks in part to my Asian American Theater and Performance class, and I am so grateful that I picked up this incredible play as a result.

The play reads as an incisive, intersectional critique along the lines of race, gender, gender presentation, queerness, and colonialism delivered in way that the causes the reader to be absorbed and riveted throughout its entirety. It leaves the reader wondering what is real and what is not, only to discover that it may not really matter.

I am reminded of a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling:
Harry: "Tell me one last thing ... Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?"
Dumbledore: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean it is not real?"

[Luke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Now here's a play with depth. Here you have your racial stereotypes, your political stereotypes, your gender stereotypes, all coupled in a massive sexual stereotyping for the ages. A misunderstanding so great and maintained for so long requires a massive amount of explanation, an intro to which the playwright has thankfully provided us at the end of his work. The language was a bit coarse for my tastes, so my rating originally wasn't five stars. But the amount of thought and discussion this piece provokes is definitely better than five stars. It delves unflinchingly into sexual deviations and fetishes that the public would be better off being aware of, as the repercussions of these are more rampant than one would think. One can only hope that this becomes required reading in the future at some level of education. It may not require as much digging for meaning as most books, but it will definitely broaden one’s mind in ways that are necessary in this day and age.

[Jesse Field · Rating 4 out of 5]

Song Liling: Under the robes, beneath everything, it was always me. Tell me you adore me.

Rene Gallimard: How could you, who understood me so well, make such a mistake? You've shown me your true self, and what I love was the lie, perfect lie, that's been destroyed.
Song Liling: You never really loved me.
Rene Gallimard: I'm a man who loved a woman created by a man. Anything else simply falls short.

A. and I made it to the Guthrie's 2010 production of M. Butterfly just one day before it closed, and I'm so glad we did. I always had the feeling that I didn't need to see the play since I'd already seen (and liked) the 1993 film version with Willem Defoe.

But as Robert McKee rightly argues, it's a valuable experience to compare plays that have been adapted into films. Compared to the film, Hwang's play goes much further to make expansive and even pedantic statements about the Orientalism so effectively encapsulated in the story of Madame Butterfly, the tragic story of beautiful Oriental who falls for a Western man:

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.

In an example of the expansiveness I mentioned, our protagonist here, the Frenchman Gallimard, has an "extra-extra-marital affair," with a Swedish chick he meets at a party. After they have sex, she gets a big scene in which she theorizes that male aggression is all a matter of not being able to settle who has the biggest penis. Her monologue is truly funny, though at the same time vaguely reminiscent of conversations from undergraduate classes on war and colonialism. Most importantly, it's largely a step outside the central plot of the story, so of course in any movie adaptation it would most likely have to be cut.

The play production is also more expansive in terms of Hwang's technique of very fast scene changes, characters delivering dialogue in multiple scenes at the same time, and exposition in the play simultaneous to performances of the play-within-the-play, the opera Madame Butterfly. In the Guthrie production, scenes from the opera are briefly re-enacted on a small stage above the main floor of the Wurtele thrust. The effect of the much more powerful sounds of the opera scenes, with the players in the drama looking at the opera as we look at them looking at the opera, is a really classic meta-moment in a dramatic story, all geared towards revealing the way we each of us take up romantic fantasies through the art we love (Madame Butterfly may not be politically correct, but to think kids these days are subbing in television and video games can remind us that opera is not so bad...). The effect of "oh-my-gosh, we all do that sort of thing" is more palpable in the play version, at least when it is directed properly. The great amount of space commanded by the Wurtele Thrust is no doubt a big help as well.

As Hwang tells us, this story is much more than a condemnation of Orientalism. Song Liling is a tragic figure as well, a cynical manipulator of Orientalism who comes up with his own fantasy of inverting the Butterfly role and taking up the role of Pinkerton, the selfish and unfaithful Western lover, with his Armani suit and implication of big penis. But Gallimard manages to get back at Liling one last time by denying Liling this final advantage. Gallimard sticks truer to operatic tragic figure than Liling expected: he only loves an ideal, and realizing the impossibility of the ideal, is committed to destruction.

So goes what just has to be the flagship example of postcolonial tragic drama. (Geez, what play beat this one in the 1988 Pulitzer awards?)

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

To check out my reviews: https://dancinginth3dark.wordpress.co...

Have you ever seen the infamous Madame Butterfly opera by Puccini? If that is the case then you do not really need to read this play unless you want to read a modern queer version of the opera. Remarkably this story that David Henry Hwang is based on a true story but it is not autobiographical because he wanted to create his own original story by using these people to enhance the narrative. So the audience is left wondering what actually happen and what is fictional.

During the Vietnam War, Bernard Boursicot, a French diplomat who works at the French Embassy in China leads a rather boring and typical life as a civil servant. He seems to be happily married and is practically a nobody at the embassy just another name to add to the paperwork. Until one night he attends a Peking opera and meets the opera diva, Song Liling. It feels as though it is love at first sight and the affair between them blossoms into this beautiful and organic relationship but there is one detail that hasn't been mentioned which is... Song Liling is a man who is actually a spy trying to collect intel for the government.

This affair between them last for 20 years and people have often speculated whether Bernard truly knew that Song was a man and if so does that make him gay. I believe what is phenomenal about this piece is the fact that labels should not be applied to the narrative. Deep down I believe the illusion that Song portrayed was powerful enough to swept details about gender and sexuality under the rug and allow the romance to flourish between them.

Even though Song was a spy for the government it was extremely taboo to be dressed as a woman as a "lifestyle" and a crime to be engaging in gay sex. Another factor was Bernard went from a complete loser to man with authority and power due to scandalous affair. The idea of him cheating on his wife and being madly in love with Song brought up emotions and ideas of what it means to be a man to the surface and even the whole embassy knew about the affair and applauded him as though this is what powerful men are supposed to do.

One important topic that Hwang brings up is the racism towards Asians and the perception of women. He uses words like oriental, exotic, and other stereotypes to illustrate how Western civilization perceptions of the East has tainted Asian culture. Another brilliant example is the perception of the damsel in distress syndrome that particularly white men act towards asian women. My only issue with the entire play was the whole Madame Butterfly plot and analogy mixed into the story. Since I have seen the opera it was annoying to the point that it felt like Hwang was pounding the information into me. Because of that it was not a surprise for me the way the story ended and I will leave that to the readers to interpret that ending.

[Ana Mardoll · Rating 4 out of 5]

M. Butterfly / 0-822-20712-5

No doubt you've heard the story of the man who was married to another man, but claimed to have mistakenly thought that his "wife" was a woman. In this incredible drama, Hwang takes this real life story, often distilled into a joke or a bit of trivia, and creates a compelling drama. He refuses easy answers here, noting that the thing people *really* want to ask is "Did he or didn't he know?" The novelty of the situation shocks us, and we want to hear the details - partly to satisfy a vicarious desire, and partly to reassure ourselves that such deception could not happen to us.

However, Hwang turns the question aside as meaningless and points out that the underlying deception - that of a false lover - is one that we've all seen countless times. The gender of the participants is less important than their feelings and motivations. Whatever else may have occurred, he argues, a human being was used in a terrible way, and his heart was destroyed in the process. Everything else in immaterial.

~ Ana Mardoll

[Saxon · Rating 5 out of 5]

French spy falls in love with a Chinese opera singer only to discover over twenty-years later that she is a man? Um. yes.

However, things do get a little more serious than that...kind of. M.Butterfly spends a majority of the time focusing on the Western stereotypical perceptions of "the far east" and how that can have an effect in various levels of society. However, Hwang also touches on a number of issues including Asian perceptions of the West and of course gender biases and the stereotypical ideals we try to embrace.

Its all hefty subject matter but Hwang never fails to make it entertaining, absurd and, since told from one characters perspective, full of subjective inaccurancies that question if what is being playing out on stage ever really happened the way it did. While not an element that is the focus of the play, it only adds to the various levels which this play can be examined.

[oshizu · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is hard to believe that this play was first performed 31 years ago!
M. Butterfly remains an amazing play--I read it years ago together with Edward Said's book, and yet this play's ending still managed to surprise me anew.

[Mercutio · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really good book for figuring out who you know who's read it that just like, can't fucking read because they just agonize over the idea that a man would sleep with a person who has a penis.

[Min · Rating 5 out of 5]

Happiness is so rare that our mind can turn somersaults to protect it.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

This one really confounded me. It details a man having an affair with an opera singer. The catch? The singer is really a man posing as a woman. Now I don't care how dark it is in the bedroom, wouldn't you think the dude would notice the bonus appendage?

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was hilarious to read as an undergrad freshman in a general requirement english class. A great work which some people apparently can't handle.

[Iris · Rating 5 out of 5]

this was absolutely fucking insane and so cleverly written and I very much liked it

[Eli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Find yourself a better plot. And it’s based on a true story!! And so gay!

[Manny · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's this interesting sequence in Stephen Fry's The Liar, when the hero, who I think is about 18, is having a frank discussion about sex with another character. He talks about the stuff he used to do with his girlfriend, and is surprised to discover that the other guy finds it weird. It hadn't occurred to him that anyone might think it was bizarre to spread jam and cooking fat over your lover's body and then chase each other naked through the school's corridors. Though, on reflection, it was true that he hadn't heard about anyone else doing it.

Similarly for this amusing and insightful play. The guy discovers after twenty years that his partner is in fact a man rather than a woman. It's supposed to be based on a true story! I agree that this couldn't have happened to me, and, judging from several other reviewers' comments, it couldn't have happened to them either. But I think the point of the Stephen Fry story is that there's more diversity in sexual behaviour than we're generally ready to consider. I am definitely able to believe that what happens here could happen to some people. I'm trying to think if any of them are personal acquaintances, and, you know, I do have a couple of names on my list.

I'm suddenly curious. Is there anyone reading this who's willing to admit to having done something sexual that they've never even heard of another person doing? I'm not asking what it is, and if you answer yes I'm guessing that it probably wasn't disgusting or tasteless, just odd. I'll be happy to take your word for it, and I certainly won't pose any further questions.
_________________________________________

The more I think about this, the more curious I become. If you send me your data, I will present anonymised summary results in a couple of weeks. Just mail me a private message with the heading "M. Butterfly" and the number of things of this kind which you consider you have done. The number can be zero - I'm just as interested in negative data as positive, anything else would be unscientific.

In two weeks time, I will update this review with a table giving the totals, and I promise to keep your number strictly confidential. I won't tell a single person.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved this play. The structure is interesting and the speeches well written. The plot itself is fascinating, and the relationships between the characters are deep and unusual. To quote the playwright's notes and the New York Times, May 11, 1986: "A former French diplomat and a Chinese opera singer have been sentenced to six years in jail for spying for China after a two-day trial that traced a story of clandestine love and mistaken sexual identity.... Mr. Bouriscot was accused of passing information to China after he fell in love with a Mr. Shi, whom he believed for twenty years to be a woman". 3 women playing various roles with the exception of 1, and 7 men also playing various roles with the exception of 2. Suggested by true events but emphatically stated that the play itself is not a factual representation of true events.

[Ariya · Rating 5 out of 5]

The twists are so delightful.

[Esther · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think I said "I'm dead" 11 times during these 93 pages

But wow

[Sammi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok ...

So once again I didn't quite know what I was getting into - I thought this was the original play for the Opera but I think that doesn't actually exist so here we are with the modern play version of "M. Butterfly" that has aspects and references to the Opera in it but is it's own story.

There's a lot of unpack here and it's quite interesting...

All in all, I'm just surprised. At it all.

[Amélie Bracke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dit stuk was steengoed! Het is enorm goed geschreven en de balans tussen dialoog en regie aanwijzingen vloeit mateloos in elkaar. Er wordt gespeeld met de genderroles maar ook met de verwachtingen/ emoties van de lezer/kijker. Ook de problematisering rond het oriëntalisme wordt op een confronterende en walgelijke manier aan bod gebracht.

Westerse witte mannen komen er echt verschrikkelijk slecht uit btw (terecht).

[S. G. R.]

Before partially reading Hwang's afterword, and flinging the book across the room in disgust, I thought the semi-botched ending of this otherwise wonderful play was the result of a green playwright being misled by his cleverness into too-strict a parallel between his inspiration - the original Madam Butterfly - and his creation - or, perhaps, that pernicious tendency of writers to equate misery with high seriousness and quality. After, I realized that the power of the three fourths of the play were owed more to the native powers of literature, the ambiguities it opens and invites our hearts into, than the literary talents of David Hwang - or Hwang the architect, per se.

Hwang, in his own reading, claims Butterfly is a story about the desolation caused by the illusions projected onto others. His aim was a Gatsby with none of its warmth, a story about a man who cloaks a person so totally in illusion that fundamentals about them are concealed, and the removal of those illusions means the destruction of the person who projected them. We are supposed to empathize with Gallimard only enough to be hurt when we realize we are compromised because our sympathy when we find he is compromised.

Hwang gives too little credit to illusion, and views the human heart far too simplistically to understand his own play. He has forgotten his Plato. It is Plato who makes the point, through Socrates, that we don't only love who we love for who they are, but also for their aspirations - their illusions. The brilliant man with no ambitions is less sexy than the would-be rockstar living in a garage. Gallimard doesn't love Song because he can dominate her, he loves her because she both refuses to be dominated and offers it to him. Song dictates the terms of their sexual engagement, what is done. Gallimard only ever decides if it's happening or not - the one time he legitimately tries to force Song into something, he can't. And Notcice Gallimard is intrigued by Song, initially, because of her opinionated condemnation of western men, her direction of him! Furthermore, Gallimard's history shows him to be a man deeply concerned with consent. He can't even masturbate to pornography if he doesn't imagine the women inviting. He does not dominate Song: he submits to her conditions because they free him from his anxieties.

The idea that he does not see Song as what she is, as this double thing, is absurd. The action of the play takes place over twenty years. It is compressed into a handful of scenes that have the feel of a few years, but Hwang is not a deft enough propagandist to overcome his leads chemistry.

The final test is this: imagine the play with no betrayal, with no communist agent guaranteeing at least partial insincerity. Imagine it without the ham-fisted declaration "I loved only the lie." Imagine Gallimard not being destroyed by his realization that he is the butterfly, that he wants to be the butterfly, but realizing, like Nabokov claims Gregor Samsa could have realized, that he is finally capable of flight.

(The reviewer's afterword: there is not really enough to comment on Song as a character, her or his affections; Song is filtered very explicitly through Gallimard's memory - perhaps a formal flaw from the ideological standpoint. Also interesting to notice that Tomine's Shortcomings is more or less an inversion of M. Butterfly, and, is much more compassionate about the politically compromised nature of sexuality despite being (conversely) about despicable characters. Lastly, I may have found this much more expanding, much more thrilling, if I weren't already a huge pervert. )

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some really interesting ideas in this regarding Orientalism and the subversion of Madama Butterfly, which is based essentially on racist tropes. I find it fascinating that it was based on a true story as well, which shows that the ideas in this do have some merit. I’d love to see a production.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

ughhhh i already typed so much shit then switched it off of kindle edition and now everything is gone wtf

Anyway
I got about 5 pages in and realized I knew nothing about madame butterfly, like literally nothing at all, and even though the characters explain the plot I figured I should know that material before reading a subversion of that material. So I went on a tangent of reading/watching a bunch of summaries, and then down another rabbit hole of reading about miss saigon because I also knew absolutely nothing about that show. I asked my sister who is a theater nut a bunch of questions about why it was so problematic and she graciously answered them all. I had a crazy "why is everything always connected" moment because yesterday I listened to the Hadestown soundtrack at the urging of a friend, and that stars Eva Noblezada, who also starred in Miss Saigon in the broadway revival! Why would my theme of today and yesterday involve the same girl who is also a mexicasian?life is crazy! i digress

I really liked this play! It was sharp and funny and enetertaining. critiquing orientalism, imperialism (and even threw in a line about Japanese imperialism), the nonhumanity of nonwhite and/or nonmen, and raising questions about perception of gender and how that implicates ones own sexuality. I wonder if all the explanations of things would seem too obvious to someone who was more familiar with madame butterfly, but for me I enjoyed the characters directly speaking and explaining things to me.

[stuti · Rating 4 out of 5]

so my roommate read this play for class and referenced it a couple times, and as soon as she explained what it was i was intrigued. also, it's my favorite professor's favorite play. so i borrowed my roommates copy and i swear i flew through it so fast. it's a really short play (i'd love to see it performed), but it has so much nuance. the concept itself is fascinating, i can't believe it's somewhat based on real events,, but also how it is handled thematically is really thought-provoking!! there is so much going on, like it's obviously challenging certain orientalist tropes and the realities of strange western fantasies,, but also gender dynamics and politics and sexuality and human imagination and delusion. so interesting!!! there were a couple specific scenes where after i finished i would ask my roommate like... wait what did u think was going on when this happened? and she would explain her interpretation and it was really interesting and perceptive but like u can look at it from another angle and it's still as meaningful and !!! i'm glad i read it!