Was the movie "Basic Instinct" misogynistic/homophobic?

[Robin_Starveling]

I'd love to have this religious debate with you, because, as little as I think of Islam and Christianity, I find Judaism worse. But this isn't the place for it. There's a no politics or religion policy in force here, and for a good reason. Most people aren't able to discuss those things academically and in good faith. So we'd better focus on our beloved femme fatale.

You throw mud and then claim it must not be discussed - a clever tactic.

Since the story of the Garden of Eden was mentioned, it is appropriate to consider the historical and religious roots of misogyny, but that’s fine; I get why you’re running away.

 

[Nightaelf]

I think Basic Instinct was one of the best films of its time, because it actually helped shape my own emerging sense of sexuality. And of course, Sharon Stone is stunning, and Jeanne Tripplehorn is incredibly attractive too. Beyond that, it was a tense and captivating story with a character, Catherine Tramell, who isn’t a victim at all, but a brilliant manipulator who plays both men and women, and basically kills everyone.

Back then, in 1992, I don’t think it had anything to do with some male or female fantasy. It was simply a well-written story where, for once, a woman is strong instead of weak. I rewatched it recently, and honestly, it feels quite tame compared to today’s movies.

What I especially like about it, and what the film really shows, is that it’s all about desire. Lust. And that men fall for it. In this case, the roles are reversed, and the woman is the stronger one.

It was also made in a time when there was still plenty of homophobia and a certain kind of sexism, though maybe a different kind than what we see now. I think everyone’s free to see the film however they want.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

So why didn’t she wear underwear?

"The only way to avoid a visible pantie line is not to wear panties."

Michael Douglas's character needed to be intrigued by the possibility. The audience needed to think about it. What actually existed and got filmed should have been agreed between actress and director.

Not that you could see anything, on our TV with VHS.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

"The only way to avoid a visible pantie line is not to wear panties."

Michael Douglas's character needed to be intrigued by the possibility. The audience needed to think about it. What actually existed and got filmed should have been agreed between actress and director.

Not that you could see anything, on our TV with VHS.

There’s no question that Hollywood has a long, troubling history of exploiting women. Even so, I’m convinced Stone knew exactly what she was doing. If it had truly been an issue for her, she could have taken it to court and secured an injunction. The reality is that the film—and that scene especially—launched her into superstardom, establishing a career that earned her hundreds of millions. Any claims she made to the contrary years later were probably an attempt to deflect the paranoia of the MeToo era.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'd love to have this religious debate with you, because, as little as I think of Islam and Christianity, I find Judaism worse. But this isn't the place for it. There's a no politics or religion policy in force here, and for a good reason. Most people aren't able to discuss those things academically and in good faith. So we'd better focus on our beloved femme fatale.

While I disagree with Robin, you opened this door, it's disingenuous to make very bold, very broad statements disparaging religion then retreat behind, "this isn't the place to discuss that."
If you don't want to religious discussions in the AH, don't bring up religion.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Is it, though? Especially given at the time it was marketed as feminist - after all, two women ditch their crappy/violent husbands, go on a road trip in a cool car, and shag a young Brad Pitt.

OK, sure, it goes downhill and then they commit suicide rather than go to jail, but I reckon that's more because they wanted dramatic chase scenes, and that shot of a car going into the Grand Canyon.

What people remember is the soaring car and lots of topless Brad Pitt and women bonding.

As soon as they have any ability to make their own decisions they make a series of spectacularly bad ones and then die.
The obvious moral lesson is that women aren't capable of making sound decisions and need to be supervised. The Brad Pitt stuff just further proves they can't control themselves.
Highly misogynistic.

 

[Auden James]

Basic Instinct, written by Joe Eszterhas and directed by Paul Verhoeven, is an uncompromsing masterpiece, @nice90sguy and @desibabe2705, that is what it is.

Besides that, how come a self-proclaimed nice 90s guy had not seen this iconic 90s film until recently? Did it perhaps strike the nice guy in question as not "nice" enough?

 

[THBGato]

It's been a looooong time since I saw it.



However, as I recall, isn't there a scene where MD's character bursts into his therapist's office and, over her clear protests, fucks her roughly from behind.



If that's not reducing a woman to an object for a man's pleasure in complete disregard for her wishes, aka misogyny, I'm not sure what is.



Likewise, it's pretty well documented that Sharon Stone never consented to the upskirting scene...



(PS: apologies if somebody else already made these points)

 

[nice90sguy]

Basic Instinct, written by Joe Eszterhas and directed by Paul Verhoeven, is an uncompromsing masterpiece, @nice90sguy and @desibabe2705, that is what it is.

Besides that, how come a self-proclaimed nice 90s guy had not seen this iconic 90s film until recently? Did it perhaps strike the nice guy in question as not "nice" enough?

FWIW, My moniker is a reference to all those "new men" in the 90's movies who cared for babies and were sensitive. And also to those losers epitomised by Bill Pullman as Walter in "Sleepless in Seattle".

But Bill Pullman, again in the early 90's also starrred in my all-time favourite neo-noir, "The Last Seduction", with the perfect Linda Fiorentino.

 

[nice90sguy]

If that's not reducing a woman to an object for a man's pleasure in complete disregard for her wishes, aka misogyny, I'm not sure what is.

Certainly the Michael Douglas character was misogynistic. But that doesn't mean the movie was. Surely the first scene (a woman typing up a man and then stabbing him repeatedly with an ice-pick) is even more violent. And if you want to call THAT misogynistic too, then you're trying to have it both ways!

 

[THBGato]

Certainly the Micheal Douglas character was misogynistic. But that doesn't mean the movie was. Surely the first scene (a woman typing up a man and then stabbing him repeatedly with an ice-pick) is even more violent. And if you want to call THAT misogynistic too, then you're trying to have it both ways!

You're putting words into my mouth that I never said and assuming I hold views that I don't have.

I didn't mention the film as a whole nor the first scene. I said that both the protagonist and director ignored women's denial of consent, did what they wanted with women's bodies anyway and basically got away with it.

 

[nice90sguy]

@THBGato you said that the scene with the ass-fucking was misogynistic. I replied the scene showed misogynostic, violent sex. The criticisms of the movie are that its depiction of women was misogynistic. That scene showed Michael Douglas being sexually violent. If anything it put viewers off the Michael Douglas character. I'm sure very few people were clapping and cheering at the scene.

"After consulting with her lawyer, Stone said, she ultimately chose not to seek an injunction over the controversial scene, according to the excerpt [of her Biography] in Vanity Fair. “Why? Because it was correct for the film and for the character; and because, after all, I did it,” she wrote."


It may have been exploitation on the part of the directors, but that's not what the accusations of misogyny are about -- whether or not Stone was bulled, coerced or tricked into showing her pussy.

I would guess that Sharon Stone was simply weighing up the pros and cons of insisting they cut the shots. I imagine her lawyer would have said to her "are you crazy? Those three frames will make you an instant movie star!"

 

[sirhugs]

@THBGato you said that the scene with the ass-fucking was misogynistic. I replied the scene showed misogynostic, violent sex. The criticisms of the movie are that its depiction of women was misogynistic. That scene showed Michael Douglas being sexually violent. If anything it put viewers off the Michael Douglas character. I'm sure very few people were clapping and cheering at the scene.

"After consulting with her lawyer, Stone said, she ultimately chose not to seek an injunction over the controversial scene, according to the excerpt [of her Biography] in Vanity Fair. “Why? Because it was correct for the film and for the character; and because, after all, I did it,” she wrote."


It may have been exploitation on the part of the directors, but that's not what the accusations of misogyny are about -- whether or not Stone was bulled, coerced or tricked into showing her pussy.

I would guess that Sharon Stone was simply weighing up the pros and cons of insisting they cut the shots. I imagine her lawyer would have said to her "are you crazy? Those three frames will make you an instant movie star!"

I think you are confusing her lawyer with her agent

 

[ElectricBlue]

Likewise, it's pretty well documented that Sharon Stone never consented to the upskirting scene...

Don't be ridiculous. The whole set up for that scene is blatant. She knew exactly what the camera would see, and for anyone to claim afterwards, "Oh, she didn't know," is kidding themselves. Stone was the one who uncrossed her legs, ffs - and who knows how many times she did that. It's one of the most deliberately staged shots in the movie, and one doesn't choose a low camera angle for no reason.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

Don't be ridiculous. The whole set up for that scene is blatant. She knew exactly what the camera would see, and for anyone to claim afterwards, "Oh, she didn't know," is kidding themselves. Stone was the one who uncrossed her legs, ffs - and who knows how many times she did that. It's one of the most deliberately staged shots in the movie, and one doesn't choose a low camera angle for no reason.

And don’t forget she’s completely naked in other scenes. It’s fine for everyone to see her nipples and perfect ass, but heaven forbid if a few pubic hairs are visible… the hypocrisy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You mentioned Garden of Eden, but the truth is that this movie shouldn't ever be compared to the true misogynistic evil that most religions are, including all Abrahamic religions. Now THAT's one of the major sources of misogyny, one that many see as mandated by the god.

I'd love to have this religious debate with you, because, as little as I think of Islam and Christianity, I find Judaism worse. But this isn't the place for it. There's a no politics or religion policy in force here, and for a good reason.

If you understand that there is a "no politics or religion" policy here, and you agree with it, why are you making inflammatory statements about religion?

 

[Auden James]

If that's not reducing a woman to an object for a man's pleasure in complete disregard for her wishes, aka misogyny, I'm not sure what is.

Other than that a visceral depiction of the power of lust and the danger of the erotic (plus, diegetically speaking, a highly effective and affective characterization of Michael Douglas's character in the film, Nick Curran), perhaps?

 

[alohadave]

Don't be ridiculous. The whole set up for that scene is blatant. She knew exactly what the camera would see, and for anyone to claim afterwards, "Oh, she didn't know," is kidding themselves. Stone was the one who uncrossed her legs, ffs - and who knows how many times she did that. It's one of the most deliberately staged shots in the movie, and one doesn't choose a low camera angle for no reason.

And controversy sells tickets. I wouldn't put it past everyone involved to play up the drama to get people talking. I mean look at this thread, still talking about the scene 30+ years later.

 

[ElectricBlue]

And controversy sells tickets. I wouldn't put it past everyone involved to play up the drama to get people talking. I mean look at this thread, still talking about the scene 30+ years later.

It's the cinematic (Hollywood) equivalent of Playboy magazine first showing pubic hair, even if other magazines had already done so - or in the context of cinema, other countries had already done so.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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.

Leaving aside the misuse of "diverse" here (an individual character is never "diverse"; diversity is an atttribute of a group, but people use it instead of saying "minority" or "queer" or whatever they actually mean), this is still a ridiculous assertion. Of the kind invented by people who want to be outraged about "you can't do X these days".

Just last week I watched a new movie where one of the villains is a drag queen, apparently Pacific Islander. (Or at least the voice actor is Pasifika and the character was animated consistently with that.) It also features a lesbian couple who, while maybe not rising to "villain", are defined mostly by being awful parents, and another lesbian character who's ridiculously narcissistic and crappy to her girlfriend.

No outrage. No protests. Because the story was written in a way that saved audiences from having to wonder "do they think every queer person is like this?"

 

[Winter_Fare]

There’s no question that Hollywood has a long, troubling history of exploiting women. Even so, I’m convinced Stone knew exactly what she was doing. If it had truly been an issue for her, she could have taken it to court and secured an injunction. The reality is that the film—and that scene especially—launched her into superstardom, establishing a career that earned her hundreds of millions. Any claims she made to the contrary years later were probably an attempt to deflect the paranoia of the MeToo era.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ly-secrets-sexual-abuse-comeback-after-stroke

They told her that if she wore underwear it would catch the light and be visible. Where's the shadow would hide her skin more easily. They lied.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Not that you could see anything, on our TV with VHS.

Only because the tape was worn out at that point, and the rewind replay function stopped working...

There was a song around the same era, Freeze Frame, I think was the chorus.

 

[Robin_Starveling]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ly-secrets-sexual-abuse-comeback-after-stroke

They told her that if she wore underwear it would catch the light and be visible. Where's the shadow would hide her skin more easily. They lied.

Hmm, it reminds me of the joke about Left and Right, who are walking through the forest at night when they suddenly hear a suspicious noise...

“Did you hear that?” Left asks nervously.
“Yes,” Right replies. “I think I saw a crow in the bushes.”
“No,” Left insists. “I’m sure it was a black cat.”

Without hesitation, Right picks up a stone and hurls it into the bushes. A moment later, a crow bursts into the air and flies off into the darkness.

“How strange,” says Left. “I didn’t know cats could fly.”

 

[alohadave]

Only because the tape was worn out at that point, and the rewind replay function stopped working...

There was a song around the same era, Freeze Frame, I think was the chorus.

Out of curiosity, I watched a hi rez version a year or two ago. You really can't see anything. If you go frame by frame, you see a shadow.

That scene isn't about seeing pubes though. It's tease and titillation. She's playing the cops and she has them eating out of the palm of her hand. She's in control of the situation even though the cops are nominally in charge.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Hmm, it reminds me of the joke about Left and Right, who are walking through the forest at night when they suddenly hear a suspicious noise...

“Did you hear that?” Left asks nervously.
“Yes,” Right replies. “I think I saw a crow in the bushes.”
“No,” Left insists. “I’m sure it was a black cat.”

Without hesitation, Right picks up a stone and hurls it into the bushes. A moment later, a crow bursts into the air and flies off into the darkness.

“How strange,” says Left. “I didn’t know cats could fly.”

Tell me you never bothered reading the interview.