The movie adaptation of M. Butterfly showed clear differences compared to the play. From the beginning of the play and to the end of the play compared to the beginning and the end of the movie, both are similar in multiple parts but some parts are drastically different. From reading the play to then watch the movie was an interesting experience because when I was reading the play, I used my imagination to put a face to the characters within. The voices I heard for the characters were not what I pictured when I was watching the movie. Especially after watching the two part video of David Henry Hwang’s further explanation of the play. The movie seemed to do the play justice but it also seemed like the ending had change because it would leave readers of the play, puzzled, confused, or wanting more, or even all three.…show more content… The first reason was at how well they cast the characters. Especially for the character Song Liling, who was played by John Lone, whose facial features allowed for a believable woman. René Gallimard, the character who was played by Jeremy Irons seemed a bit unrealistic as a Parisian man due to his accent resembling more of a British man. Within the movie, we were introduced to characters who were not in the play, but served as background supporters or fillers. These characters helped drive the narrative of the movie for the better. For the parts of the movie that were different, the background supporters were within those scenes. The second reason why I was amazed was how well the scenery was incorporated into the movie. I was not sure whether the film was actually filmed in China, or it was a set, but either way, it helped me as a viewer feel like it was an authentic. While reading the play, I had to imagine what every single detail looked like and to see how accurately the movie portrayed such things was eye
