Was the movie "Basic Instinct" misogynistic/homophobic?

[Robin_Starveling]

`The thread raises an interesting question, what are examples of movies that ARE misogynistic? Not that feature instances of misogyny, but that in one way or another seem to promote it.

I think there's an element of misogyny in Hitchcock's movies, but I might be biased because I'm aware that he sometimes treated his lead actresses, like Tippi Hedren, badly.

I think the real issue here isn’t whether a certain character or creator is misogynistic. It’s about artistic freedom. Under the guise of criticism, some try to block the portrayal of certain negative human traits because they might “harm the social fabric.” You can’t make your character misogynistic, it might offend women. You can’t make them racist, it might offend minorities. You can’t depict the weak in a negative light, it might have real-life consequences. Where does it end? How is this any different from the LW crowd who insist on turning every story into a moral lecture?

What if I want a character who is sexist, violent, racist, or utterly depraved, not to teach a lesson, but simply because I find that character fascinating? What if my creativity has no interest in preaching love and world peace, and only wants to revel in being despicably nasty?

Did Marlon Brando traumatize that poor girl in Last Tango in Paris? Yes. Do I want that film censored? Absolutely not.

 

[onehitwanda]

 

[crookedletter]

I think the real issue here isn’t whether a certain character or creator is misogynistic. It’s about artistic freedom. Under the guise of criticism, some try to block the portrayal of certain negative human traits because they might “harm the social fabric.” You can’t make your character misogynistic, it might offend women. You can’t make them racist, it might offend minorities. You can’t depict the weak in a negative light, it might have real-life consequences. Where does it end? How is this any different from the LW crowd who insist on turning every story into a moral lecture?

What if I want a character who is sexist, violent, racist, or utterly depraved, not to teach a lesson, but simply because I find that character fascinating? What if my creativity has no interest in preaching love and world peace, and only wants to revel in being despicably nasty?

Did Marlon Brando traumatize that poor girl in Last Tango in Paris? Yes. Do I want that film censored? Absolutely not.

You can do all these things. You can do whatever you want. And then your audience can look at your work critically and point out the issues they have with it.

It's not about artistic freedom. You're free to make bad art that exemplifies -- or doesn't -- whatever broad or narrow worldview you want. You're not entitled to being above criticism.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I think a stickier example for conversation might be The Shining, not because of how the film portrays Wendy Torrance but for how Kubrick treated Shelly Duvall on set. At what point is actively fostering a hostile work environment for the only woman on set a problem?

Duvall herself admits that what he did got an amazing performance out of her. There's no question there, but "do the ends justify the means" is a question I don't know how to answer.

EDIT: "the only actress on set," I should have said. There were plenty of women in the crew.

 

[nice90sguy]

Vertigo

A really modern film, which I love. Hitchocks famous obsession with "ice-cool" blondes manifests in a lot of his movies. I think he shows the "male gaze" brilliantly.

 

[AwkwardMD]

A really modern film, which I love. Hitchocks famous obsession with "ice-cool" blondes manifests in a lot of his movies. I think he shows the "male gaze" brilliantly.

Vertigo was prescient, decades ahead of its time.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think the real issue here isn’t whether a certain character or creator is misogynistic. It’s about artistic freedom. Under the guise of criticism, some try to block the portrayal of certain negative human traits because they might “harm the social fabric.” You can’t make your character misogynistic, it might offend women. You can’t make them racist, it might offend minorities. You can’t depict the weak in a negative light, it might have real-life consequences. Where does it end? How is this any different from the LW crowd who insist on turning every story into a moral lecture?

What if I want a character who is sexist, violent, racist, or utterly depraved, not to teach a lesson, but simply because I find that character fascinating? What if my creativity has no interest in preaching love and world peace, and only wants to revel in being despicably nasty?

Did Marlon Brando traumatize that poor girl in Last Tango in Paris? Yes. Do I want that film censored? Absolutely not.

I agree with you. There's nothing inherently misogynistic about portraying a woman as a villain in a movie. At the same time, it's perfectly fair for the moviegoer to interpret what the "message" of the movie is, whether that message is intentional or not on the part of the filmmaker.

For instance, I don't think of Basic Instinct as misogynistic because of the way it subverts the femme fatale stereotype. Catherine Trammel has agency--more than any other character in the movie. She's always in control. A case for misogyny arises when the woman's role in the film is primarily to be a foil for a man, rather than to stand on her own. That's not the case in Basic Instinct. I think it IS arguably the case in some of Hitchcock's films. In his films I sense a lack of sympathy for female characters, an inability to see them as fully human as the male characters. The male characters are the ones that matter and the females are there to foil and deceive the men, or, in the case of a movie like Rear Window, to serve as an idealized female companion (Grace Kelly).

 

[alohadave]

I don't know much about Joss Whedon. I think I'm one of the few people who never watched an episode of Buffy, for whatever reason. I'm currently watching Firefly, which doesn't strike me as misogynistic.

It's not the writing, it's how he treats people in real life.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I think it IS arguably the case in some of Hitchcock's films. In his films I sense a lack of sympathy for female characters, an inability to see them as fully human as the male characters. The male characters are the ones that matter and the females are there to foil and deceive the men, or, in the case of a movie like Rear Window, to serve as an idealized female companion (Grace Kelly).

Personally, the only point of assessments like what we're doing now is to learn how to move forward with clarity of purpose. Maybe there is a pervasive less-than-human quality to all the women in Hitchcock's films. So what? The man is dead.

How he went about that, though, is interesting to dissect because we can learn something from it. Apply lessons to our own work. I'm way less interested in protesting to get Birth of a Nation struck from the National Register of Historic Films (or whatever its called) than I am in figuring out a masterful execution of the male gaze so I can subvert it for my own purposes.

 

[alohadave]

I'll be honest with you, I have a hard time even calling Psycho transphobic

Was he trans? I always thought he had MPD or DID or whatever the current name for multiple personalities is.

Now I wonder how sexuality works with multiple personalities. Does the host body apply to the different personalities? Serious question here, it's not something that's ever occurred to me.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Was he trans? I always thought he had MPD or DID or whatever the current name for multiple personalities is.

Now I wonder how sexuality works with multiple personalities. Does the host body apply to the different personalities? Serious question here, it's not something that's ever occurred to me.

No, he wasn't, but the movie draws an unconfortable connection between "being mental unwell" and "men in dresses" in a way that doesn’t really adhere to MPD (not a real diagnosis) or DID (a condition that is comically misunderstood by almost everyone, including me).

 

[AchtungNight]

American Psycho- hated it. Not a fan of horror in general, but this movie imo was poorly written and poorly acted by all involved. Equilibrium and the Nolan Batman films thankfully redeemed Christian Bale significantly.

Hitchcock films- Not really into him, what little I’ve seen makes me think he’s overrated. Every course I’ve taken on American film history has also completely skipped over the guy. I’ll abstain on whether he’s misogynistic.

Whedon- I enjoyed Firefly, Avengers 1 & 2, most of Buffy & Angel. But yeah, you have a strong case if you want to accuse him of misogyny. Just watch Angel Season 4, or any of Buffy’s romantic relationships (I include Xander and other characters’ relationships in this, not just Buffy’s affairs)- the guy clearly wanted to put women in a bad position as much as he wanted to empower them. The number and character of women complaining about working with him also can’t be ignored. I will always be grateful for getting to enjoy his work, but yeah, it’ll always be tainted by his infamous legacy. Same for a lot of other writers, but this one hurts more than most.

Misogynistic media- Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the only film that easily comes to mind. And that’s just my opinion of course.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

`The thread raises an interesting question, what are examples of movies that ARE misogynistic? Not that feature instances of misogyny, but that in one way or another seem to promote it.

I think that's the only right question here. A movie can have misogynistic characters, a director, producer, or lead actor can be misogynistic, but the movie itself might still be great and positive. Only the movies that promote misogyny should be judged.

 

[m_and_em_stories]

These things inevitably fall into the shifting progressive baseline. Is it progressive now? no. Was it then? to a degree yes.

When the movie came out, society and a lot of institutions were even more racist and sexist than they are now. At the time getting a non traditional/non-cis character greenlit by the studios funding the project was a stretch, likely it was a battle to be able to portray the antagonist as a non-standard sexuality and the protagonist would be a non-starter let alone multiple representations of non-standard identities in a film. "audiences will never accept it", "people will never pay for this movie" and all sorts of BS excuse.

So to me those specific arguments for it being 'mysogynistic and homophobic' are more accurately directed at the time period that set the constraints of the film, not the film itself.

But non-traditional identity antagonists paved the way for better representations by showing studios and sexist businessmen than people will still go to see movies with bi, lesbian and alternative sexuality characters, and over time we got more representation of people with those identities. These days LBGTQ+ identities are sometimes _over_ represented in a some genres compared to the population that identifies as such, esp transgender (not complaining or saying its bad at all, cis people and cis men have been over-represented forever), but we never would have gotten here without someone paving the way with smaller steps to pull us out of the sexist framing of the environment it was made in.

 

[nice90sguy]

men in dresses

One problem is the high incidence of color blindness in the male population. I mean, red shoes with cyan dresses?

 

[Baztrachian]

View attachment 2573044

 

[Kelliezgirl]

`The thread raises an interesting question, what are examples of movies that ARE misogynistic? Not that feature instances of misogyny, but that in one way or another seem to promote it.

I think there's an element of misogyny in Hitchcock's movies, but I might be biased because I'm aware that he sometimes treated his lead actresses, like Tippi Hedren, badly.

Mad Max: Fury Road was incredibly misogynistic and anti-woman.

 

[SimonDoom]

Mad Max: Fury Road was incredibly misogynistic and anti-woman.

How so? That's a controversial take.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

How so? That's a controversial take.

Just look at the obvious stuff. You have a place where men are in charge, Immortan Joe and a place run by women, the Vulvani.

The men have a functional society (you may not approve of it's rules, but it's functional).

The women were in charge of the "The Green Place" where everything was supposedly great. Turns out they couldn't maintain a functioning society, it's all a wasteland and there are only 7 people left.

The "lesson" is pretty clearly that women shouldn't be in charge.

 

[m_and_em_stories]

Brutal men in a horrible society acting selfishly and violently. People dying, enslaved, abused. constantly fighting over resources. it's not a good portrayal of men, certainly not a portrayal of successful 'male' leadership.

Contrasted against women trying to make a better place without violence and hurt, against all odds, even if they don't succeed.

One could say it's misandrist and anti men based on that perspective but I don't think it is.

I think it's a fantasy world with a baseline brutalism and often shallow characters in service to plot action.

 

[Xxllrs69xx]

Both men and women can be equally evil.

 

[m_and_em_stories]

Both men and women can be equally evil.

I agree.

But I'll be honest evil women kinda scare the shit out of me in a way evil men don't.

 

[nice90sguy]

I agree.

But I'll be honest evil women kinda scare the shit out of me in a way evil men don't.

Evil men arouse my inner warrior for justice. Evil women just make me go all goo-goo

 

[m_and_em_stories]

Evil men arouse my inner warrior for justice. Evil women just make me go all goo-goo

They trigger my four fs in different ways that I'll admit are sexist/have a lot to do with my upbringing.

Evil men: fight/flight (based on how bad will I get hurt/die)

Evil woman: fawn/freeze (I have no rational method to prepare for the emotional and mental damage about to happen to me so depends on situation)

The fifth f, fuck sometimes comes into play for either. Odd how arousal seems to find a way to shove itself into everything...

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Just look at the obvious stuff. You have a place where men are in charge, Immortan Joe and a place run by women, the Vulvani.

The men have a functional society (you may not approve of it's rules, but it's functional).

The women were in charge of the "The Green Place" where everything was supposedly great. Turns out they couldn't maintain a functioning society, it's all a wasteland and there are only 7 people left.

The "lesson" is pretty clearly that women shouldn't be in charge.

ok fine. I'll bite.

I think we're conflating different layers of analysis here. To explain, I'll start with a basic definition:

1. film portrays misogyny (thematic level)
2. film is misogynistic (textual level)
3. the creator of the film are misogynistic (authorship level)

If we agree on that, I can say that Mad Max: Fury Road portrays misogyny thematically (lvl 1) but it doesn't enact it (lvl 2). In other words, it shows a world that runs on misogyny (women literally treated like commodities), but as far as I can tell, it doesn't fall into misogynistic tropes. Mad Max: Fury Road tests out of level 2 for me. It gets a shiny star sticker.

Basic Instinct on the other hand, can be fairly criticized on a textual (lvl 2) basis, but I don't think it deserves all the outrage it gets. I'll give the film credit for its attempt at satire of the male gaze, as well as its attempt to subvert misogynistic tropes traditionally present in noir films (lvl 1).

That being said, here are a couple of points where I think the film betrays its intended messaging:

1. the women in this movie fall into moral binaries. Catherine = femme fatale; Beth (Jeanne Tripplehorn) = neurotic mess. The dichotomy between the two shows women's deviant sex life as either a danger to others, or a danger to themselves. There's very little nuance here. They're sexualized and objectified, and maybe that's part of the satire, but I found it hard to see it as such.

2. the infamous upskirt shot. I get it, this scene is the male gaze holding a mirror to itself. And its done quite cleverly. the camera perspectives put you where the men are, making you complicit as a voyeur, and the moment her pussy flashes, the camera immediately points to their horny ogling faces, and they're sweating like scared pigs. My issue with this scene is, the demonstration of "empowerment" that the scene intends portray is really just a spectacle that exotifies/fetishizes female agency. Let's be real: bring up the movie in any conversation with anyone who has seen, or even simply heard of the movie, the first thing that comes to mind is not how this movie subverts traditional Hollywood misogynistic tropes, but that Sharon Stone's pussy makes an appearance. So in that context, the scene is a spectacle, and because of that, it doesn't deliver the message that it perhaps intended.

I won't touch on the third level of analysis (the artist), because that's already been debated in AH ad nauseum, and perhaps out of scope for this thread. I know many here prefer to separate the art from the artist, and I think that's a legitimate position to take, but I'm of the opinion that the artist does matter in the critique of the art.

Notwithstanding Sharon Stone's troubling allegations leveled against the director, I think the film should get credit for making a genuine and concerted attempt at holding a mirror to itself. Its nonetheless still misogynistic.

Also, come on, I can't be the only that thinks the plot is really dumb and half-baked? lol.

*Edited for clarity. I’m tired.