Anyone seen BD Wong's portrayal of Song Liling?

i havent seen BD Wong's performance. I imagine he was good. I love BD Wong, so I would love to know where you saw clips of him in it.

I cheated a little and got the audiobook version off of iTunes, and it's actually John Lithgow and B.D. Wong dramatizing the story! It's not visual, but it's still worth the investment. He did a fantastic job as Song, but he managed to put a completely different spin on it versus John Lone in the movie. To me, the biggest difference to me is that B.D. made Song a little sarcastic and little more modern and Western. John seemed to embrace more of the sterotype of playing Song as the almost too-submissive type. Both performances are great, though.

The film was played strictly as Drama --- while the stage play had quite a lot of comedy/comic elements. BD had a chance to be quite funny, more vindictive and ultimately a much shallower Song. When Gallimard says he was a "man unworthy of such sacrifice" that is absolutely clear to the audience.

John Lone's Song was much more ambiguous in his/her feelings about Gallimard and ultimately just as tragic a figure by film's end. In the film when Lone at last bares all for Jeremy Irons, and is then rebuffed as "falling short" of Gallimard's beloved Butterfuly, he is destroyed and that moment is played very differently on the stage. BD's Song is revealed to be a con artist, more worried about his designer suit being dirtied on the floor.

I think I have seen BD Wong in M. Butterfly. In Kansas City.
M. Butterfly was a first date for me, and I was impressed with the gentleman I was dating when we sat center, a few rows back from the stage. The play was good enough to carry me thru' it without my hoping for an end. But the end of it, oh my word!! (gasp) BD Wong was full frontal nude right in front of me. My eyes tried hard not to leave his face, and I knew Wong was watching the reaction of the people that he could see. I sat there stunned. No doubt about it, I felt more naked than BD Wong did in those ending moments.

IF it was BD Wong that played Kansas City.
But his face from there on out has been one of great recognition for me. Can't blame me for remembering since my eyes were glued to it thru some seriously naked and raw moments.

The biggest difference (and it is a VAST difference) was the simple fact that B.D. Wong was *believable* as "Song" as a woman. Unlike the movie - one can only assume that this was Cronenberg's way of trying to cater to ignorant homophobia by emphasizing the crudeness of Song as a male spy - the stage production was highly stylized and despite the massive publicity and awards Wong received, played to the fiction that Song was creating for Gallimard. While on one level we know, the truth about song is only actually revealed to us in the audience as it is revealed to Gallimard and until that point the production allowed us to suspend disbelief and go along with the fiction. As excellent an actor as he proved himself in THE LAST EMPEROR, Lone was simply not believable as a woman for most of the film audience - which contributed to the films commercial collapse in its initial release in theatres and VHS.

I would have loved to have seen BD's vrsion of Song. Does anyone know why they did not use him and Lithgow for the film version?

I saw B D Wong as Song Liling, and I don't know whether he simply gave a better performance, or if it is easier to create illusion in the theatre than in a film, but frankly I thought he was head and shoulders above John Lone. Not only was Wong's performance more convincing, but the truth is that Lone just did not look feminine enough in close-up to pull off the masquerade. The critic Roger Ebert expressed the opinion that it was never Cronenberg's intention to fool the audience; that the only one who was supposed to be taken in was Gallimard. In the stage version it was obvious that the audience was not in on the joke: billing Wong with his initials in the Playbill was part of the deception, so when his male identity is finally revealed, it is a surprise to the audience as well as to Gallimard.

The other significant difference between Wong and Lone is that Wong's interpretation of Song had a great deal of humor in it; he was saucy and sarcastic and baited Gallimard in a way that Lone did not even attempt in the film. In fact, in general, the play had a definite comic side to it, while Cronenberg's film was deadly serious.

In fact I never understood why Wong and Lithgow did not get to repeat their stage roles. Jeremy Irons was fine as Gallimard, but Lithgow was more dynamic in the role; both Irons and Lone are so subdued in their approach to their roles that the film becomes quite tedious before it's over.

Although I have not seen the film yet, I was fortunate enough to see Lithgow and Wong on Broadway in the original production, on the recommendation of a friend who told me it would "inspire" me. They were both wonderful (I recently got to work with Lithgow on the set of his new film with Paul Rudd and Albert Brooks called "This Is 40" and, especially after seeing his one-man show at the Taper in L.A. last year, have become a devoted fan of his work), but Wong was breathtaking in it. It was a rare theatrical experience, especially since it became the breakthrough role of his career. The "reveal" was stunning in the true sense of the word. I will have to check out the film....