Was the movie "Basic Instinct" misogynistic/homophobic?

[nice90sguy]

I only watched that movie recently, more than 30 years after it came out, and enjoyed it.
For me, it was a good "neo noir" with an uncompromisingly evil femme fatale.
I was a little surprised, when reading reviews and criticism of it, that it was considered misogynistic, a typicial "male fantasy" movie, which sterotyped lesbians as evil man-haters.


What do people here think?

 

[Robin_Starveling]

I only watched that movie recently, more than 30 years after it came out, and enjoyed it.
For me, it was a good "neo noir" with an uncompromisingly evil femme fatale.
I was a little surprised, when reading reviews and criticism of it, that it was considered misogynistic, a typicial "male fantasy" movie, which sterotyped lesbians as evil man-haters.


What do people here think?

You read it in the same gutter that feeds you your “news.” A tiny minority shapes the narrative and runs a global brainwashing enterprise. I used to think they were blind; now I realize they’re just evil.

 

[kreemi_pi]

I only watched that movie recently, more than 30 years after it came out, and enjoyed it.
For me, it was a good "neo noir" with an uncompromisingly evil femme fatale.
I was a little surprised, when reading reviews and criticism of it, that it was considered misogynistic, a typicial "male fantasy" movie, which sterotyped lesbians as evil man-haters.


What do people here think?

Might have been, but SHARON STONE

 

[Robin_Starveling]

BTW, 1992 was a great year for cinema: Scent of a Woman, Unforgiven, Reservoir Dogs, A Few Good Men... I just watched Glengarry Glen Ross for the first time. I didn’t enjoy the endless, repetitive dialogue, but I couldn’t stop watching either.

 

[TheLobster]

I was a little surprised, when reading reviews and criticism of it, that it was considered misogynistic, a typicial "male fantasy" movie, which sterotyped lesbians as evil man-haters.

It would be an odd fantasy, to imagine people who specifically hate you.

Sounds to me like whoever made that criticism thinks any negative portrayal of women in fiction means misogyny. I hope it bears no explanation how ridiculous such stance is.

 

[nice90sguy]

Might have been, but SHARON STONE

Yeah, basically.

 

[alohadave]

it was considered misogynistic, a typicial "male fantasy" movie, which sterotyped lesbians as evil man-haters.

I remember some of that. It was part of the hype around the movie which made it something that drove people to the theaters. That with the leg crossing scene gave it a ton of press. It's not an inaccurate assessment for the time, but it wasn't only that.

There is always a segment of the population that doesn't like anything that deviates from the norm, especially when it's the first example that they experience. Sharon Stone's character was a strong, female character who was bi, and who was a murderer. And even today that will bother some people.

Personally, I don't think her sexuality had anything to do with her murdering.

 

[sirhugs]

and Jeanne Tripplehorn was in her prime...

 

[SimonDoom]

I think seeing it as misogynistic is reading too much into it. Paul Verhoeven's movies indulge in sensationalism and prurience. They also have a tongue in cheek, satiric quality. Saying that Basic Instinct promotes misogyny is like saying Starship Troopers (the movie) promotes fascism. He doesn't mean it. He's playing with the audience.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There is always a segment of the population that doesn't like anything that deviates from the norm, especially when it's the first example that they experience. Sharon Stone's character was a strong, female character who was bi, and who was a murderer. And even today that will bother some people.

Personally, I don't think her sexuality had anything to do with her murdering.

Her girlfriend, Roxy, is mentioned as having castrated and murdered her own brothers, so it's not just about Stone's character.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

Serial killers usually target a specific gender, depending on their twisted parental projection. When men kill women, it’s misogyny; when women kill men, it’s still misogyny.

And don’t forget: behind every misogynist stands a mother who failed spectacularly.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I also think it's a case of people seeing what they wanted to see. Something to be outraged about. It's almost impossible to decide that your diverse character will be evil these days. The outcry would be spectacular. We will outgrow these things eventually.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

At the time, yes it kinda suggested lesbians were evil man-haters and bisexual women serial killers, but that was mostly because there weren't any other depictions of lesbians or bi women to point at. (not that reached my local multiplex, anyway!) The newspapers, and rags that don't deserve the name like the Daily Mail, pushed that narrative way more than the film did.

As a teenage lesbian, actually getting some media suggestion lesbians really existed was quite novel. Also, like most of the audience, I was too busy going 'Sharon Stone, phwoar! Plot, what plot?'

 

[desibabe2705]

Serial killers usually target a specific gender, depending on their twisted parental projection. When men kill women, it’s misogyny; when women kill men, it’s still misogyny.

And don’t forget: behind every misogynist stands a mother who failed spectacularly.

misogynistic, a typicial "male fantasy" movie

Everything is misogyny if you put enough 'theory' behind it. And I wonder why males can't have fantasies anymore! What's wrong with a film pandering to a male fantasy?

 

[SimonDoom]

There's an element of misogyny inherent in the "femme fatale" character type. It goes back to the Garden of Eden. The woman corrupting the man. It's a very basic archetype, and Verhoeven plays with it in this movie.

 

[crookedletter]

It was written/directed/produced/etc. by humans, so... probably, to some degree. Its creators aren't perfect, they have blind spots and biases and skewed perspectives, and so too will their work.

I recoil a little when we move to silo whole works -- or whole people, or whole bodies of work -- into one sort of bucket of problematic, i.e. it has these blind spots and misses these markers of current sensibilities so it's over there, it's bad, we don't watch that or read that or talk about it at parties. Better, I think, to watch it and enjoy it for what it is, while being able to contextualize its imperfections and become better writers by not succumbing to the same pitfalls.

I think if a depiction of women -- or whoever -- in a movie, or a story, comes off to some as misogynistic -- or whatever ist/ism/phobia we're concerned about -- then whatever the worldview of the creators, it's probably a case where characters are one dimensional, aren't written with enough nuance to be convincing as real people.

Also... Sharon Stone.

 

[nice90sguy]

There was a similar vocal put-down of one of my favourite comedies, "Soapdish" (I'm a major fan of both Kevin Kline and Robert Downey Jr), because of Cathy Moriarty's "evil frustrated trans" baddie.

getting some media suggestion lesbians really existed was quite novel

Of course, European Cinema (e.g. Bergman) depicted that a long while before.


I had a similar experience watching a (pretty crappy) movie called "Great Catherine", based on a G.B. Shaw play, which had a foot-fetish scene: "Wow, I'm not the only sub in the Village!" I thought. And the "domme" in that scene was the super-hot Jeanne Moreau.

 

[PennyThompson]

You read it in the same gutter that feeds you your “news.” A tiny minority shapes the narrative and runs a global brainwashing enterprise. I used to think they were blind; now I realize they’re just evil.

Uhoh, nobody ask who Robin thinks the "global minority" is, their dog whistle is going to break

 

[nice90sguy]

Jeanne Tripplehorn

When I saw her in "The Firm" (again, 30 years after it came out) I was astounded by how fantastic an actor she was -- simply using her facial expressions and reactions -- she wasn't given great lines. A real contrast to Tom Cruise (who I kind of like too, but only for stuff where he has to be angry and run a lot).

 

[Robin_Starveling]

Everything is misogyny if you put enough 'theory' behind it. And I wonder why males can't have fantasies anymore! What's wrong with a film pandering to a male fantasy?

I’m not sure “pandering” is the right word here. I believe great minds don’t consciously direct their creativity; they create mostly by instinct. Those who critique, teach, or sniff for hidden agendas are the ones who can’t create and end up weaponizing art the way they do everything else.

 

[crookedletter]

Tom Cruise (who I kind of like too, but only for stuff where he has to be angry and run a lot).

I think it must be somewhere in his terms, for Tom Cruise to consider signing on for a film there has to be a scene where he full-on sprints. Just like John Travolta has to dance, if only for a moment, and John Cusack has to stand in the pouring rain at some point.

 

[desibabe2705]

I’m not sure “pandering” is the right word here. I believe great minds don’t consciously direct their creativity; they create mostly by instinct. Those who critique, teach, or sniff for hidden agendas are the ones who can’t create and end up weaponizing art the way they do everything else.

Which is why I mentioned theory. My point was, what’s the matter even if it is pandering to a male fantasy. In fact, film students and arts students in general are taught to ‘problematise’ things these days - everything is a problem if it doesn’t fit into a narrow window of what these worthies think is politically and morally correct. Modern film making is an industrial art, so it’s not purely creative like music or literature - there are producers, there’s tons of money involved, so they best pander to the audience that gives them their buck back. We’re talking about Basic Instinct, not Ozu, Tarkovsky or Bergman.

 

[nice90sguy]

Modern film making is an industrial art, so it’s not purely creative like music or literature - there are producers, there’s tons of money involved, so they best pander to the audience that gives them their buck back. We’re talking about Basic Instinct, not Ozu, Tarkovsky or Bergman.

But I think neither music nor literature are immune to financial pressures anywhere near as much as they used to be.

 

[desibabe2705]

But I think neither music nor literature are immune to financial pressures anywhere near as much as they used to be.

True, but they can be pursued alone, without any pressure or huge investment. How they are dealt with by the market doorkeepers is another matter.

 

[AwkwardMD]

You'll all just have to trust that Tilan writes and creates, and isn't being a huge hypocrite here, because he  definitely does write and its super good.