Was the movie "Basic Instinct" misogynistic/homophobic?

[AH_Mod]

I'm not ignoring the reports. I eliminated the worst, pure trolling from one individual, and I'm letting the rest remain on record, because the thread was brought back on topic without derailing into political hyperventilation. There's something to be said for leaving the receipts of bad behavior on record. If it goes off the rails based on those posts I left up, I'll eliminate them and the fallout.

My ultimate goal has always been to nudge the AH to police itself, and this thread demonstrates we're capable of that.

 

[StillStunned]

I'm glad we have @AH_Mod, but part of me says we should also have an AH_Rocker.

 

[Auden James]

And it's kind of ridiculous for anyone to say that it's better or worse than a movie that's so different in so many ways.

Well, it is still made in the same medium, and both films share the thematic element of a femme fatale as female lead. From this there should follow at least some comparability, no?

In "Baby Face", the female IS the main character, not merely an antagonist.

I think it debatable that Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone's character) is merely an antagonist. In fact, she could be considered the protagonist of the film, despite Nick Curran (Michael Douglas's character) being the detective leading the investigation. After all, it is her journey that drives the plot, as the story develops in tandem with her psychological manipulations and relationship with the investigator, making her the primary character the narrative's suspense and erotic thriller elements derive from. It is also her (or, depending on interpretation, her diegetic "double") the audience is first introduced to in the murderous opening scene, a classic element of the hero's journey as adapted for the screen by Hollywood excecutive Christopher Vogler in his book The Writer's Journey where the narrative first step is the hero's introduction.

A similar analysis, though with qeer-theoretic underpinnings, can be found on Bitch Flicks.

She's portrayed (yeah, using the cobbbler's pop psychology) as justified in her "evil" power-seeking, whereas Sharon Stone is just a rich bitch, with no real depth.

I would also reject the notion that Catherine Tramell is just a one-dimensional rich bitch. Rather she is a complex and ambigous character, amalgamating archetypal, classic noir, psychoanalytical, and mystery motives. See, for example, this psychoanalytical reading of the film and its characters by Tamar Schwartz.

 

[nice90sguy]

Well, it is still made in the same medium, and both films share the thematic element of a femme fatale as female lead. From this there should follow at least some comparability, no?

Yes, that's why I compared the two in the first place, obviously. But: One MMC, three women, vs. one FMC + female sidekick + lot of guys. They're very different! A film about a detective investigating a murder vs. a girl using her sexuality to gain power.

Once you realise the difference, you don't need a pyschoanalytical reading to see that Basic Instinct is, from a male POV a masochistic fantasy, while "Baby Face" is a "chick flick", intended to draw in a female audience.

More interesting is "The Last Seduction", released not long after "Basic Instinct", which really does have a richer portrayal of a femme fatale.

 

[Auden James]

one FMC + female sidekick + lot of guys.

You could say exactly the same about Basic Instinct!

• FMC = Catherine Tramell
• Female sidekick = Roxanne "Roxy" Hardy
• Lot of guys = basically every male in the film, including the detective, Nick Curran, himself

A film about a detective investigating a murder vs. a girl using her sexuality to gain power.

Just because Basic Instinct may be focalised mainly through the character of the detective does not necessarily make it a film about the detective, see the "Bitch Flicks" analysis linked above.

More interesting is "The Last Seduction", released not long after "Basic Instinct", which really does have a richer portrayal of a femme fatale.

I have this film on my watch list. I will let you know what I think about it once I have seen it!

 

[Auden James]

So, @nice90sguy, I have finally managed to watch The Last Seduction. And, frankly, I am somewhat baffled by your emphatic statement that Linda Fiorentino's was "a richer portrayal of a femme fatale" than Sharon Stone's in Basic Instinct.

For starters, I am wondering if her character, Bridget Gregory, even is (substantially, that is, not merely nominally) a femme fatale at all! You designated Sharon Stone's character in Basic Instinct, Catherine Tramell, just "a rich bitch," but where does Bridget differ from this terse description (accepting that 700k USD in cash would have made her "rich" in 1994)? Throughout the film she primarily bullies her supposed "love interest," Mike Swale (Peter Berg's character), who—the laughable patsy the script mandates him to be—inexplicably falls for her instantly nonetheless. But is a femme fatale not supposed to be more than merely cruel, namely, sultry and seductive? But where is seduction in The Last Seduction? I can only find it in the title!

Since, obviously, the absurd relationship antics between Bridget and Mike (and between her and her legal husband at that too) are played for laughs, the entire film felt more goofy than sexy to me. A result I can most certainly rule out with respect to Basic Instict, which really is an erotic thriller. Indeed, there is no comparison at all! Just take the sex scenes in The Last Seduction, which are uninspired, poorly lit, and in part also played for laughs (the standing scene outside the bar). In contrast, the sex scenes in Basic Instinct are almost as iconic as the interrogation scene!

But perhaps this ultimately comes down to a differing taste in women? After all, you stated earlier that Linda Fiorentino was "perfect." Incidentally, I was befuddled by Mike rejecting Stacy (the very name!) in the first bar scene—only to then almost immediately go after Bridget! Just for the benefit of readers who might have not seen the film in question, The Last Seduction, here is a still from said scene showing Stacy:



Again, at least to my mind, this rejection can only be made sense of if it is read ironically. And, in the end, what does this amount to? The need of adopting an ironic stance to make sense of the entire film—as a persiflage of the very notion of the femme fatale and her cinematic origin: film noir!

 

[DeMont]

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?

@nice90sguy,
Good evening my dear colleague, I first saw the movie in, I believe late '93 (the year after its release) It's interesting to note that the following ratings have been attached to it,
7.1/10 IMDb, 56% Rotten Tomatoes and 43% Metacritic. I have to admit I leaned more toward the 'Metacritic' end of the spectrum. Despite the obvious draw of Sharon Stone's role this was only after the movie had been turned down by several other actresses.

To be brutally honest I found it to be rather "Ho hum" after about twenty minutes and I actually left before the end. I didn't, or couldn't, at that time give it any deeper thought or analysis than that. Not really a Michael Douglas fan either. Just not my cup of tea I suppose.
Deepest respects,
D.

 

[Noor]

I think it brings home, that some people need to remind that if they don’t play by the rules, the other doesn’t have to either.

 

[DeMont]

I think it brings home, that some people need to remind that if they don’t play by the rules, the other doesn’t have to either.

@Noor,
Good evening my dear colleague. Okay, I will freely admit I am now officially puzzled. Could you explain how this fits into the thread about movies and their treatment of characters? Sorry if I'm being dense but I don't understand.
Deepest respects, naturally,
D.

 

[nice90sguy]

@Noor,
Good evening my dear colleague. Okay, I will freely admit I am now officially puzzled. Could you explain how this fits into the thread about movies and their treatment of characters? Sorry if I'm being dense but I don't understand.
Deepest respects, naturally,
D.

You should know by now that threads drift. That's a Good Thing.

 

[DeMont]

You should know by now that threads drift. That's a Good Thing.

@nice90sguy,
Drift yes, that is expected but a sudden "Crazy Ivan"??? (Ref: The Hunt for Red October)
Respectfully,
D.

 

[StillStunned]

@nice90sguy,
Drift yes, that is expected but a sudden "Crazy Ivan"??? (Ref: The Hunt for Red October)
Respectfully,
D.

Pah! That Crazy Ivan is nothing compared with this one:

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

@nice90sguy,
Drift yes, that is expected but a sudden "Crazy Ivan"??? (Ref: The Hunt for Red October)
Respectfully,
D.

a submarine can’t clear its baffles in peace anymore smh