Was the movie "Basic Instinct" misogynistic/homophobic?

[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.

 

[nice90sguy]

I doubt many people here have seen “baby face” — a 1933 movie (I think) which was written by one of the few female screenwriters of that pre-hays period - featuring a very young Barbara stanwyck as a gold digger. All I can say is that it’s a lot better than basic instinct and recommend it !

 

[m_and_em_stories]

ok fine. I'll bite.

I think we're conflating different layers of analysis here. To explain, I'll start with a basic premise defining the three different layers with respect to misogyny:
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 to be fair, I don't think it deserves all the outrage it gets. That is to say, 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.

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 for the record, 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.

Thanks for the excellent reply.

>it shows a world that runs on misogyny (women literally treated like commodities)

I agree many of the women characters are treated like commodities in the movie, but when considering that, why focus on ONLY the women treated like commodities in the movie. Male slaves, male war boys etc are ALSO treated like commodities by those in power, the power dichotomy is the difference between them, not inherently the sex. Ergo that's not specifically an argument for misogyny without ignoring wider context. Meanwhile, almost every male character in Mad Max is a negative male stereotype or trope which is often ignored when the focus in on 'how sexist is this film to women'.

So from that standpoint, all the characters are one dimensional. mostly tropes, and mostly negative examples of their sexes. Does that make the film sexist thematically or textually? In my view not really, but from an authorship level it could indicate fairly negative sexist views of both sexist (or an author willingly choosing those representations in service to a wider point, but in this case that's clearly not the situation)

Which brings us to the question was the representations intentionally sexist, or incidentally sexist by virtue of their shallow and tropeish nature? I would argue most of its sexism is probably incidental/reading into things that were not specific to the movie but casual or easy things to use the audience could digest without much exposition, and present largely because the shallow nature of both the plot and pretty much every character being shitty.

As for Basic Instinct. Honestly its been so long since I've watched it, but from what I remember all the characters are sexist tropes (the morally flawed anti-hero almost always represented as a problematic male in authority i.e. the broken down detective), and yes the femme fatale and the very common trope of using a 'current' socially taboo trait (in this case alternate sexuality) to increase the feeling of unfamiliarity/danger/concern felt for the antagonist.

There is a good debate here I think on why using socially uncommon or taboo traits and identities accomplish giving people those feelings, and whether using that in movies as an artistic device is inherently sexist, or realistically leveraging social psychology to achieve an end result with your audience in service to the wider 'art'. Does it mirror society or perpetuate it?

I rationalized earlier why we may have needed the stepping stone of the 'bad guys' representing alternative identities to pave the way out of a sexist society. It certainly was limiting to the characters and unfortunate, but does that make it inherently sexist to show the bad guy/girl as an alternative identity without other better representations in a movie?

I see some merit to the argument, but doesn't that argument effectively expand to having to address and represent anything the film touches on in a much wider context to avoid negative representations and stereotypes (or alternately limit it from showing any alternative identities that it can't properly take the time to represent within the context of the plot)? Frankly this movie isn't about the identity or the representation but the half baked plot (we agree!) to begin with. Expecting them to do the additional work is nither reasonable (IMO) nor practical (its irrelevant to the plot)

I mostly agree with your assessment of the crossing the leg/flashing scene. I feel like there is always an additional point that for every woman we display using sex as a demonstration of 'womens empowerment', (usually missing the actual point by having her act out someone elses actual desire with her agency, why?!!!!!!), we're also equivalently displaying men as shallow creatures controled by their sexual urges. So yes, its sexist, its misogyny, but its ALSO misandry in its shallow representation of both male and female sexuality, agency and empowerment.

 

[Auden James]

I doubt many people here have seen “baby face” — a 1933 movie (I think) which was written by one of the few female screenwriters of that pre-hays period - featuring a very young Barbara stanwyck as a gold digger. All I can say is that it’s a lot better than basic instinct and recommend it !

I have seen Baby Face, and I wholeheartedly disagree with your verdict that it is "a lot better" than Basic Instinct. Seriously, how could you—or anyone—think that?

Basic Instinct's cinematography is on a whole other level, so is the acting (of the female lead as well as pretty much everyone else at that), the tension is much higher throughout, and the story itself is much more complex and creative than Baby Face's lame trope of a woman sleeping herself to the top (not to mention the screenwriters' embarrassingly poor attempt at adapting Nietzsche's philosophy)!

 

[Robin_Starveling]

(women literally treated like commodities)

Sigh. Creativity is a double-edged sword. As I read these five words, I was struck by a vivid vision: a man standing in a vast department store, staring up at a great illuminated sign that read "Wives." Beneath it stood women of every age, size, and color, each displayed with a price tag pinned to her chest. The image soon quickened into a blur of fleeting scenes, weaving themselves into an almost complete story -- a story I now have to write down.

It would be quite ironic if people read it and began debating whether it’s a misogynistic fantasy or a brilliant satire on misogyny. But the truth is, it’s just a story that came out of nowhere.

 

[m_and_em_stories]

Sigh. Creativity is a double-edged sword. As I read these five words, I was struck by a vivid vision: a man standing in a vast department store, staring up at a great illuminated sign that read "Wives." Beneath it stood women of every age, size, and color, each displayed with a price tag pinned to her chest. The image soon quickened into a blur of fleeting scenes, weaving themselves into an almost complete story -- a story I now have to write down.

It would be quite ironic if people read it and began debating whether it’s a misogynistic fantasy or a brilliant satire on misogyny. But the truth is, it’s just a story that came out of nowhere.

The idea came from nowhere. How you execute it could possibly be a misogynistic fantasy, or a brilliant satire, but most likely neither without specifically trying for it.

Of course people will still tear it apart and assign intent regardless which is probably your point