Comments on Sharon Stone’s 90’s work; Two incredible performances from Stone here, highlighting two completely different sides to her ability to act. In Casino we see mania and chaos in the character of Ginger, a grenade thrown into every scene leading it to be a blaze of drug-fuelled insanity that is like a car crash to watch, yet impossible to turn away from. Compare this now to the stillness (apart from a few rather vigorous scenes) of Catherine Trammel in Basic Instinct, we go with Douglas the whole way and never question his infatuation, all because of Stone's incredible performance.  

Credit

My comments on Sharon Stone’s astoundingly watchable and forever enjoyable performance in my ranking of the greatest female performance of all time can only attempt to explain the enjoyability, absurdity and frank pure sex of the two films were going to talk about it. Or at least, the first film, before addressing that dreadful sequel. Let’s start with that original iconic and borderline infamous 1992 film.

 Basic Instinct (1992, Dir. Paul Verhoven)

“A brutal murder. A brilliant killer. A cop who can’t resist the danger”.

Credit

I have already gone in-depth in my article Sexy Hitchcock, “Unnatural and Lascivious” Acts & Body Doubles: The Bizarre History of the Erotic Thriller (an article I’d highly recommend reading prior this piece), all about the history surrounding this seminal sexy film, so I won’t go into much of that here, however in that article I didn’t really get into the actual film itself. A film which I do feel for the most part is majorly successful, if not insane and profane. A film that is at once terribly written and also has some wickedly smart, sexy and funny exchanges. Sold for a record $3 million, Joe Eszterhaus’s script is a bizarre amalgamation of a modern day take on Hitchcock and a sleazy sex thriller. Bar some of the many great lines and exchanges in the film, the script really could have led to one of the first films of its ilk, however there is an odd atmosphere of prestige around the film that led to it become the modern classic that it is today. From the offset we are scored by a beautiful sweeping musical composition from Jerry Goldsmith, one of the great composers of the era and one of the films two Oscar nominations (Best score and best editing for Frank J. Urioste, neither won). Immediately we are dealing with a ridiculous script but giving it the credibility of William Goldman’s next work. Our director Paul Verhoven, never was received well on his first releases, however over the years many have realised the true talent and intelligence of his many films, with Robocop and Total Recall now rightly referred to as modern classics of satire and science fiction. Showgirls, a film that certainly deserved all of its terrible reviews, has even got a small camp behind it now proclaiming it as another one of Verhoven’s satirical masterpieces. Instinct lies somewhere in-between and for me is more so a practise in elevating shoddy material to a level that it may frankly not deserve. Verhoven does direct this film excellently, with a dynamic visceral nature that defies you to look away. The film for instance has multiple excellent car chases that I feel have been long forgotten about, but why wouldn’t they be forgotten about? We don’t watch Basic Instinct for the car chases, much in the same as you don’t watch... Well you know where that joke’s going, and if you don’t, give it a minute.

Credit

You watch the film for Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell and for Michael Douglas as Nick Curran. Seen as this article comes on the heels of a Douglas retrospective, let’s start there. Douglas is off the walls in this obsessive, vulgar, maddening performance as an off-the-rails cop, dealing with multiple accidental murders, his own wife’s suicide and dealing with addictions to smoking, drinking and cocaine. To say that Curran is doing well at the start of the film would be an act of profound inspiration, but would be severely wrong, however the film does posit that Tramell is the sensational explosion that sends Curran on his current downward slide into obsession and anger and violence. Douglas is great in the film, even if a little over-the-top in scenes, but his Curran is a wickedly diabolical wild ride that you can’t help but go on. Plus, who else could have pulled off that V-Neck green sweater in that club? But then there is Catherine. A character so hard to cast that Stone was only given the role after 13 other actresses (big names) passed on the film. Catherine is a role where if you do not wholly believe that our lead detective would throw his entire life away for this woman, then the entire film doesn’t work. Stone makes you believe exactly that. So incredibly powerful and deviously sexy and cunningly Machiavellian as Catherine that every single scene she is in lights the screen ablaze. No other actress could have given us this perfect an interpretation of Catherine, as much as Stone. Stone holds every character in the palm of her hand with such precision and delicacy that every character and audience member dangles on her every whim and word. Without a doubt this is Stone’s movie and everybody else is just along for the ride. But the supporting cast is similarly excellent, or is at least intensely watchable. Everybody is playing for the back row and it seems that nobody can actually follow the script, as scene after scene passes with absurd twist and plot development built upon one another to no end. All in all it leads to a relentlessly re-watchable and forever entertaining, if also controversial and perhaps problematic in its history (read the other article), film that will never not titillate, fascinate and entertain it’s many viewers.

Then, well, there’s the sequel.

Basic Instinct 2 (2006, Dir. Michael Caton-Jones)

“Everything interesting begins in the mind”

Credit

First off, lets’ compare taglines. The first film’s tagline was slick, intriguing and dynamic. This film’s tagline barley makes sense, I mean technically it’s grammatically correct, but it just doesn’t read anywhere near close to something that anybody would actually say. And that’s the collection of words you’re gonna use to sell the return of one of the greatest characters and performances of all time? The sequel to the classic film is a different beast entirely. I found a very interesting behind the scenes feature where Stone described the first film as many things; including “fun” and “sexy” and visually intriguing. It then hard cut away from her before she could comment on this 2006 film. What can definitely be said is that I appreciate the attempt to make this its own feature, it doesn’t rely on cheap call backs, but does have its fair share that are all equally cringey. Instead of sunny and beautiful San Francisco vistas, this film places us into the world of a dirty mid 00’s London and frankly makes all of the sex and violence in this film completely filthy. Gone is the Verhoven sentiment of shooting the sex scenes with the importance and precision of his earlier action scenes, here it’s all quick cutting and brutal, and again, dirty and filthy. The films script by Henry bean and Leora Barish is similarly underwhelming, nowhere near packing the punch, wit and charm of the first films. Here everything is so blunt and brutal and foul that we can’t cling onto to anything, other than Stone who is naturally still marvellous as Tramell, but is thwarted by a script that just reeks of clichés and embarrassingly vulgar dialogue and scenes. The films greatest strength is perhaps the male lead performance of David Morrisey who really never winks and reminds us of the serious drama that Douglas brought as Curran in the first film. It is still and always will be enjoyable to watch Tramell destroy a powerful man on the edge with a few slight words and actions here and there. But again all over just lacks the punch the first film had. I also feel that one of the most bizarre choices surrounding the film is based upon a misunderstanding of the first films finale. I feel that over the years many have commented upon the first films ending as a plot twist or something to that effect, however I really have never see it that way. This film tries to top that ‘twist’ with its own making Morrissey’s detective only in the climax a match for Tramell. It’s a terrible ending to a very mediocre film with some bizarre plotting, but plenty of enjoyable performances along the way, with Stone being the undoubted standout once more.

 -

Although there is a serious drop in quality as the ‘series’ continues, what is undeniable at all points is the immense charisma, charm, skill, talent and star power of Sharon Stone, and to put it frankly it’s the exact sort of power that I feel we need to tap again. Long live Sharon Stone and long live Catherine Tramell, still and always one of the all time movie characters ever.

-       -  Thomas Carruthers