The following post is actually by Elizabeth Cowan. Not Sophie Mauffray-Howell.
David Henry Hwang, an American playwright, was born on August 15, 1957 in Los Angeles, California. He later studied at the Yale School of Drama, and briefly studied at Stanford University with fellow playwrights, Sam Shepard and Maria Irene Fornes.
Hwang’s M. Butterfly was first produced in 1988 on Broadway at the Eugene O’Neill Theatre, but later enjoyed breaking all box office records within its first week at London’s Shaftsbury Theatre in 1989. It is likely Hwang’s best-known play, as it won many awards: the Tony Award, the Drama Desk Award, the John Gassner Award, and the Outer Critics Circle Award. It was also nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama.
M. Butterfly was a deconstruction of Giacomo Puccini’s opera, Madame Butterfly and was loosely based on the true story of a French diplomat charged with treason. The diplomat, Bernard Boursicot carried on a twenty-year affair with a man he believed to be a woman during that time; male Chinese opera singer, Shi Pei Pu. During Boursicot’s love affair with Shi Pei Pu, he passed over 150 classified government documents over to her/him, citing he was only trying to “protect the woman [he] loved.” The true sex of Shi Pei Pu was dramatically revealed to Boursicot during his trial, though he refused to believe it until he was offered proof in the viewing of Shi Pei Pu’s body. At the end of the trial, the pair both received six year sentences in prison.
David Henry Hwang was intrigued by the true story, but refused to do further research on the actual events because he was not interested in creating a docu-drama. Instead, he chose to dramatize the events so that he may use his art to challenge the stereotypes between Eastern and Western cultures, and even the relationships between men and women.
1. After reading the play, why do you think it was such a smashing success in London?
2. Do you think further research into the true story would have improved the social agenda of the play? Why or why not?
3. What gender stereotypes are at work in this play? Do you think they’re relevant in today’s society?
4. Hwang directly addresses the stereotypes of Western male desire for Asian women being mostly about overpowering the submissive nature (or so they believe) of Asian women, do you think there is a grander commentary about political relations between Western and Eastern nations? Where, in the play, can you justify this notion?
5. Do you think Rene Gaillimard in fact knew he was sleeping with a man? If so, why do you think he chose to ignore Song’s actual gender?
6. There seems to be a role reversal between the male and female characters when one compares/contrasts the opera Madame Butterfly and the play M. Butterfly. Can you identify these role reversals? What is the irony in this?
5. I want to say yes. But the fact that Gaillimard believe Song when (s)he said "I'm pregnant" makes me think that maybe Gailimard just didn't realize it then. He must have figured it out at some point while Song was living with him in France. I think he figured it out then and denied it. Gailimard wanted to live out his fantasy for as long as possible. Even while he's recalling his memories while sitting in his cell, he asks Song if they could stay and not move on. He wants his Butterfly, not an asian actor dude.
ReplyDelete5. I think Rene Galimard knew that he was sleeping with a man. I think he wanted to have the “image” of being a man who was confident and could allure a beautiful oriental woman. He had his own personal and sexual issues. As a teenager he wimped out of skinny dipping with other girls and his first time was experienced with a more athletic girl who had the superior position. I think Galimard was tired of being known for the awkward guy who had no chance with girls and would do anything to maintain a higher status. So, I think he told himself that Song was everything he wanted and needed to be this man. As time went on, I think he must have known deep down, that it was just an image, that Song really was not what she appeared to be.
ReplyDelete2. Do you think further research into the true story would have improved the social agenda of the play? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI think that further research could have helped Hwang’s play but it could’ve taken something away from it too. I don’t know anything about the Asian (or Chinese) culture but I know that there are things in this play that they could pick up on that I obviously could not. What these things are, again, I don’t know; I do know that this play probably offended these people though (along with others). Whether it was with correct or incorrect “info”, more research could’ve added on to the play and if he really wanted to, Hwang could’ve brought like an extra element to the play. I mean, his work is based off of Madame Butterfly and that’s based off a true story but I’m not mad at him. Besides, research into the actual thing could’ve messed the entire story up; for all we know, it could’ve been like an elementary school relationship…or it could’ve been better. I know I do this all the time, but I’m a really indecisive person when it comes to choosing things that don’t affect me. All I’m saying is I’m not mad at the guy because if I was in his situation, I’d probably do the same thing.
3. What gender stereotypes are at work in this play? Do you think they’re relevant in today’s society?
There are a lot, but the one that stuck out the most to me was what I call “Naw, that’s not how it works.” Basically, it’s the guy mentality, you know that “I run shit. You just live here. You listen to me,” sort of thing and for a while the girl might just go along and be like “Yeah, Un-huh. Ok,” because she cares AND she knows that in a matter of days, the roles will switch and she’ll get her way. Not to take a low blow at the women but we all know that loosing sucks. Unless you know how to play the game, colors will change, your turn will be skipped and the reverse card will get played every time because unless the guy leaves, the girl will always be number uno.
5. Do you think Rene Gaillimard in fact knew he was sleeping with a man? If so, why do you think he chose to ignore Song’s actual gender?
I think that somewhere down the line, he had to figure it out or at least suspect something before it was revealed. I mean really dude, really? 20 years? I haven’t even been alive that long. I think he knew that something was wrong, but in his mind it didn’t matter because everything else was perfect. He found the perfect woman; he found a butterfly and that’s all that mattered to him, even though their relationship was a total waste of time (at least for him). I felt pity for him after he found out though because he just couldn’t cope with the fact that he was hittin a man. He couldn’t admit it…and he couldn’t live with it.
The reason I believe the play was such a smashing hit in London is because of it's subject matter. Gallimard having an affair with a man (who he thought was a woman), the differences in Western and Eastern countries, and the idea of holding on to a facade, despite evidence revealing the truth to you.
ReplyDelete5. I think it is possible that he knew that Song was a man because towards the end of the play when they are talking and Gallimard is finally discovering that Song truly is a man he seems more upset by the personality differences of Song rather than by his physical differences. He even states that it is the same soft skin, same soft cheeks as before but then he goes on to explain how it upsets him how Song is now treating him and how his Butterfly never would have treated him that way.
ReplyDelete