Was the movie "Basic Instinct" misogynistic/homophobic?

[AwkwardMD]

I'll be in my bunk.

Jaynestown is one of the best episodes of television ever made, regardless of genre. Fight me.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'll be honest with you, I have a hard time even calling Psycho transphobic (and by modern standards its way more vile toward trans women than cis women). Having one victim be a woman, having her death be kind of tittilating, having it happen in the shower?

Nah.

Psycho being an all-time classic does not place it above the concept of retrospective re-thinking. I just don't think it has any real venom for women in the same way that any of the dozens of 80's sorority house slasher films that imitated it do.

I could easily be persuaded that you're right about this particular movie. I tossed it out there because I DO think Hitchcock shows signs of misogyny in some of his movies.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I could easily be persuaded that you're right about this particular movie. I tossed it out there because I DO think Hitchcock shows signs of misogyny in some of his movies.

I have not seen all of his films, but I bet I've seen Vertigo 30 times. Vertigo had a huge impact on me, how it used different shots to convey Jim Stewart's headspace. Fascinating stuff.

It’s always tricky trying to sort out something like this, where on the one hand maybe yeah there were some signs, and on the other hand most of Hitchcock's films were made in an era where women weren't allowed to have their own bank account and were functionally property. How much of whats in his films is him and how much is just prevailing societal attitudes?

Personally I think its better to just keep "what was happening at the time" in the back of your head when you're dealing with older stories, older media. It's not like people won't just go out and make something that is outright hateful when they have hate in their heart (like D.W. Griffiths Birth of a Nation, for example). Reserve the pitchforks for the stuff that really warrants it.

 

[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?