Madame Butterfly -- San Francisco Opera Performance -- Review
Madame Butterfly
San
Francisco Opera Performance
June
21, 2014
There are two ways of looking at this opera, and one of them
makes sense and the other one doesn't.
However the presentation favors the nonsense interpretation. It's the difference between a story from the
Bible seen as a metaphor that has a moral lesson or a symbolic meaning, and
taking it literally as a retelling of historical events. Most of the time the literalist understanding
is flawed and sometimes reduces to nonsense, but the moral message could still
resonate and be comprehensible whether you agree with it or not. Such is the case with Madame Butterfly.
This opera has some sophistication, in contrast to La Traviata, which I saw last night and
dispatched to the ashcan. Madame Butterfly is beautifully and
imaginatively presented. A special accolade
should go to the production designer, Jun Kaneko. His skillful use of lighting and special
effects as well as colorful, attractive costumes created a marvelous visual
spectacle. The singers really put their
hearts into this. From the point of view
of the performance and the staging it was truly world class.
It is the concept and interpretation of this opera that I
have a problem with. Lieutenant
Pinkerton married Butterfly in Japan while he was there on assignment with the
U.S. Navy. Pinkerton is
straightforwardly dishonest from the outset.
Even as he sets about to marry Butterfly, he explicitly states his
anticipation of a "real wedding" with an American girl. He does not take the Japanese girl or the
wedding seriously and is quite frank about it.
So one might ask, "why is he doing this?" Why does he need to marry Butterfly? He could
have her, or many other girls, on a short term basis for probably far less
money than he paid to marry her. Why is
he saddling himself with a marriage in a foreign country that he does not take
seriously, when he doesn't really need to?
His behavior just doesn't make sense.
They get married and the girl is crazy about him. By all measures
she is highly motivated and devoted to him, and he seems pleased with her. She wants to go to America and be his
wife. She renounces her religion, she
wholeheartedly embraces American culture and the American way of life. So why not keep her? What more could a guy want in a wife? Why not take her along when he leaves? Why does he leave this wonderful young
Japanese girl behind, when he just went to the trouble and expense to marry
her? It is left unexplained why he left
Butterfly behind in Japan in the first place.
If he never wanted to keep her to begin with, it did not make sense to
marry her.
Furthermore, Butterfly is a geisha. Geishas were not prostitutes in the sense
that we understand them. They were
entertainers, they were well trained for their role from an early age, and quite
sophisticated. They had social skills
and acute perception of men and their needs.
But Butterfly is presented as an immature numbskull who lives in a
cotton candy world of fantasy and self delusion -- very unlike a geisha. So Butterfly's character lacks credibility
from very early on. She does not seem
like a Japanese woman at all. Pinkerton's
behavior also lacks credibility from the very beginning and throughout. So I watched this whole opera in a state of
profound skepticism about both of the lead characters.
So Pinkerton leaves and Butterfly stays in Japan. He is gone three years. During that three years' time, he meets,
courts, and marries and American woman whom he brings with him on his return to
Japan.
Question: At what
point does Mrs. American Pinkerton find out about Mrs. Japanese Pinkerton?
Case 1: Pinkerton
tells her about his Japanese marriage before
he marries her.
"Darling, I want to marry you. But I think I should tell you
something."
"Sure, baby, what is it?"
"I'm already married."
"You mean to another woman?"
"Right. I
married a Japanese woman in Japan less than three years ago. But now I'm going to dump her and marry
you."
"That's great."
"So let's go ahead and get married."
"Sure, why not?
Oh, I'm so thrilled that you would dump another woman that you had just
married and marry me! I must be so
powerfully appealing to you!"
"You are, indeed.
And there's something else."
"Oh?"
"I have a two year old son with my Japanese wife."
"Really?"
"I want to go back to Japan with you in tow so you can
meet my Japanese wife, I'm going to tell her I'm dumping her for you, and then
we're going to wrench my young son away from her and bring him home with us so
that you can raise him as your own son."
"Nothing could make me happier. I'll start packing."
"Now I know why I married you."
If that doesn't seem real enough to you, then consider Case
2: Mrs. American Pinkerton finds out
about Mrs. Japanese Pinkerton after
she is married to him.
Pinkerton courts
her, proposes to her, and marries her without ever mentioning that he has
another wife already in Japan. They get
married and the morning after their wedding they are having breakfast. She serves him his pancakes and he says to
her,
"Honey, I need to tell you something."
"Sure, baby, you know you can tell me anything. I'm
your beloved wife."
"I'm already married, Sweetheart. I have another wife."
"Well, what about it?"
"I married her in Japan less than three years ago. But I like you better. I'm going to dump her and keep you
instead."
"I'm very touched."
"There's something else."
"Don't hold it back.
Share it with me, baby. You know
I'll always be there for you."
"I have a two year old son with her."
"Big deal."
"I want to go back to Japan. I want you to go with me and meet my Japanese
wife. I'm going to let her know I'm dumping
her once and for all, and we are going to take my son away from her and bring
him back with us for you to raise as your own son."
"That sounds awesome."
"I'm glad you are so understanding."
"Our love will conquer all, darling."
I think either alternative is equally plausible. But then, once we have the new Mrs. Pinkerton
in Japan and the first Mrs. Pinkerton is enlightened as to what is going down,
she is faced with several alternatives. She
could return to being a geisha, which would not be all that bad. The production in its ignorance portrays this
as "dishonorable," but that is a very un-Japanese attitude. In Japan geisha were, and still are for the
few that are left, highly regarded. The
second alternative would have been to marry the wealthy Japanese man, Yamadori,
who was very interested in her and wanted her.
That, of course, could have been a plus or a minus, you can never tell. And the third alternative was to give up her
child without an argument and kill herself, which is what she chose -- totally
ridiculous folly. Why does she so
willingly give up her child to this strange woman who shows up one day on her
doorstep with the man she married just a few years ago? She says that she must obey her husband and
hand over the boy. Why would she feel
like she must obey a foreign man who deceived her, betrayed her, and now shows
up with the woman he is dumping her for demanding the child that they had
together. Butterfly is not credible as a
woman.
This is why I have concluded that looking at this opera as a
story of interpersonal tragedy reduces it to total absurdity. The presenting story simply lacks
credibility. But there is another way of
looking at it that has much more plausibility.
If one looks at the story metaphorically, then it really does begin to
make some sense.
This is the story of the rape of Japan by the western powers
in the nineteenth century, and the United States in particular. It is the story of ruthless colonial
exploitation and the Japanese struggle to come to terms with it. The United States did not send its warships
into Japanese harbors in the nineteenth century as a gesture of
friendship. The object was to open it up
to colonial exploitation as had happened to China and other Southeast Asian
nations. There was a great struggle in
Japan over how to deal with this. One
strain of thinking was that Japan needed to modernize, to adopt western
technology and culture or it would be inevitably subjugated. But there was also resistance to this. Many Japanese became enamored with western
culture and fascinated with the United States.
To be sure Japan was a repressive, feudal society. Westernization with its traditions of civil
liberties and individual rights had a lot to offer ordinary Japanese. This opera offers a verdict on that
infatuation with the West and its likely outcome for the Japanese.
Butterfly should be seen as the simpleminded, superficial,
trend in Japan to naively embrace western culture, values, religion, etc. Butterfly represents the foolishness of this
course and the disappointment and disaster it will inevitably lead to. Taking the child away from Butterfly
represents the younger generation of Japanese turning away from traditional
Japanese values and culture and being wholeheartedly given over to
westernization. Butterfly's embrace of
all things Western is the instrument whereby the children are given away to the
West -- they follow her example. Butterfly's
suicide should be understood as the outcome of that ill-considered embrace: the
self-destruction of the Japanese as Japanese.
It is a much more profound tragedy than this preposterous love story
that is only a facade. This opera has
promise and could be a great production if it could be directed to emphasize
this clash of cultures and this imposition of imperial power upon Japan, rather
than as a sorrowful tale of love gone wrong between two people who are both
unconvincing on their own terms.
I think the opera makes this metaphorical intent very clear
in the name of the American Lieutenant, "Benjamin Franklin
Pinkerton," and his ship's name, the "Abraham Lincoln." He is clearly representing America, the
historical power and cultural bellwether, and not just himself as a
person. His callous reprehensible
behavior reflects the attitude of the American government toward Japan and
serves as a warning to Japanese people enthused in their naive embrace of
American culture. This issue remains in
play even today in Japan.
The problem with this opera is that it emphasizes the
personal tragedy, which is kind of silly, really, and subordinates the symbolic
clash between the intrusion of western imperial power and the relatively
backward, technologically inferior Japan.
The story really does not work if it is conceived as a personal story of
love and betrayal between two people. But
that is the way it seems to come out in the performance. I don't know if it could be directed and
staged differently to bring out a more macroscopic interpretation, or if it is
just badly written and can't be fixed. This
story has to be seen symbolically, as a story of grand conflict between two
civilizations of very different character.
I was surprised to see the director Nicola Luisotti make the
remark in the program notes that "prostitution was illegal in Japan" (p.43)
during the time of this story (the early 1900s). Could it be that this man who says he has
directed this opera 70 times, including twice in Japan, is so brazenly ignorant
of its historical context? Japan has had
a thriving sex industry from time immemorial.1 Maybe it was a misprint in the program. Prostitution was legal pretty much everywhere
in the United States and everywhere else in the world around the time of this
opera's conception (very early 20th century).
It was only over the course of the first two decades of the twentieth
century that commercial sex was suppressed in the United States. In Japan prostitution continues to thrive,
although the influence of the United States after World War 2, and pressure
from Christian groups has steadily eroded the public acceptance it once
enjoyed. (Bornoff, 1991, p. 331) If
Luisotti really thinks that prostitution was illegal in nineteenth century
Japan, then he has no concept of this country at the time in which this opera is set.
The second act was excessively long and most of the time was
spent simply waiting for Pinkerton to return to Japan. Waiting for something to happen is not
dramatically effective except for a short time to raise tension and
expectancy. If waiting becomes the
dominant theme in a performance, it devolves into something akin to watching
clothes tumble in a dryer. Unless there
is something else going on, waiting has to be kept within reasonable
proportions. In this opera there is
nothing dramatic going on except the introduction of "Sorrow," the
toddler who is the son of Pinkerton and Butterfly. He does take over the second act to a large
extent. That three year old boy, Miles
Sperske, deserves a special award of merit for his demanding role. He was on stage for most of the second act
during which he was required to sit patiently, motionless, and silent in the
midst of continuous ongoing drama and stimulation. It was quite an achievement for a young
toddler.
While this opera was staged and sung at a very high level of
quality, it is a deeply flawed opera that is not well thought out and shows
ignorance of Japanese culture and character.
It does at the same time present a telling lesson to the Japanese and to
all nations and peoples around the world who thrall to America's culture and
its political and economic agenda.
Butterfly's outcome could be you.
Think of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Latin America, etc. There are some universal themes here that it
would pay to heed. It would be a much
better production if it emphasized those larger themes rather than this
ill-conceived love story, which I don't think was ever the primary intent of
this opera.
1. Bornoff, Nicholas
(1991) Pink Samurai: Love, Marriage and
Sex in Contemporary Japan. New York,
London: Pocket Books. See especially Chapter 11.