The shock and awe of his particular brand of horror might be what put Cronenberg on the map, but the qualities of any great director can't be boxed in by genre. This is decidedly the case with Cronenberg.

This seemingly straight forward spy drama, is the perfect framework for the Cronenbergian exploration of omnisexuality and man's ability to evolve beyond convention and conviction, into something uniquely other and uniquely beautiful. It's the emotional equivalent to his body horror movies, and as such distinctly different but nonetheless familiar.

Having seen all but his latest movie, I find it safe to say that David Cronenberg is the most fascinating and continually surprising director I have ever encountered. I simply love that crazy old guy.

I've been searching for this film for a while. Having seen Videodrome, The Fly and Naked Lunch, I knew that Cronenberg was capable of making compelling, disturbing, horrific pieces which resonated in a dark, menacing way; staying with you via their visceral imagery and twisted ambiance. Having seen Dead Ringers, Spider and A Dangerous Method, I knew that Cronenberg also had another side to his work. A more restrained, mature, refined yet no less affecting style which, at its best, achieved a great level of tension without the visceral gore of his aforementioned works.

What I hadn't seen was M Butterfly. The almost unmentioned work which takes Cronenberg's more mature approach to filmmaking and fulfils his promise by giving him a jewel in what is an extremely impressive crown. I greatly enjoyed the movies I mentioned in the previous paragraph but even the best ones I felt were lacking something for me to be able to say they were a masterpiece. Perhaps they felt a little convoluted, gratuitously gory, or perhaps at times distant and even lifeless in some of his later works. But M Butterfly is none of these things; well some may say its plot is convoluted but, strangely enough, it's heavily based on a true story, or rather it's based on a novel which is based on a true story.

What M Butterfly has, which many of Cronenberg's other films lack, to varying degrees, is relatability and empathy. Pure, unadulterated empathy. It presents its characters not as good or bad; it's not interested in judging or condemning; it is a film which desires to take you deep into the world of an enchanted and tortured man: Rene Gallimard. It wishes to show you his most intimate passions and desires, his triumph, his awakening, his desperation and his suffering. It wishes to explore his self- realisation, his moments of greatest happiness and it wishes to show us his ultimate tragedy.

This is a film which echoes with symbolism. Its structure is tight, its performances, by the two leads, are heartbreakingly sublime. It is influenced by opera, by Hitchcockian psychological, twisted romance, think Vertigo. Its story opens and unfolds like a delicate rose which eventually must wilt and die. This is poetry, this is humanism. This is the most accomplished and meaningful work I've seen in a long time.

If you are even slightly tempted to investigate this then know that, despite its lack of recognition and a number of poor reviews, this film had the power to tantalise and haunt, in equal measure, at least one audience member. I was taken on a journey which I intimately understood only too profoundly. Perhaps it will mean something significant to you too.

"Plot" (may contain spoilers)

René Gallimard (Jeremy Irons),is a diplomat working for the French Embassy in Beijing 1964. When he goes to a performance of Puccini's Madame Butterfly performed by the outspoken and exotic singer Song Liling (John Lone), (who is actually a man masquerading as a woman) he is the witness of himself falling in love with "her". Gallimard pursues an affair with Liling, never recognizing that he is being duped. However, the deception goes even deeper, for Liling is working for the Communist government and using the relationship with Gallimard to procure important French intelligence.

"Review"

I will start my comment with the performance of both lead actors. It is my opinion that both Jeremy Irons, and John Lone have underrated for both their parts. Irons is doing his best and gives a performances worthy up to the one he gave in "Lolita" or "Dead Ringers" As for John Lone, I would say beside his role in "The Last Emperor" this is one of his outstanding performances. Both gentleman don't overdo it on the drama force, but also don't act flat when it comes to it.

Cronenberg did a good directing job, thinking about appearance, but also the content and acting, I figure he delivers a very good picture. Also being his first project outside Canada, he does well on foreign ground delivering us images that stroke the eye.

The only thing that makes this movie not perfect is the script Whang made. Not bad writing or dialogs, just the way things go through the whole story, the so called red wire doesn't really fit the spot. a little minus which gives the movie a 8/10