Basic Instinct-You Know Why You Went
Basic Instinct is a fun film, this can not be denied. But, let's face it, there is primarily one reason this flick pulled in well over $300 million dollars back in 1992. Pure and simple, it was one Sharon Stone and a lack of underwear. Few films truly owe their success to brief and simple flash of nudity but for Basic Instincts and that quick uncrossing of the legs, the films success squarely lies in that simple flash. This is not to take anything away from the script, director or acting, its just a simple fact. In fact, much credit must be given to the director, Paul Verhoeven, for placing Stone in a white dress thus amplifying the scenes impact. Thus, Basic Instinct was one of those rare movies that relied on its controversy and word of mouth to drive its ticket sales.
The film itself centers upon a detective, played by Michael Douglas and a novelist played by Sharon Stone, who may be a murderer. Detective Curran (Douglas) eventually gets too close to Tramell (Stone) and this interplay and intrigue are key to the film. The script, by Joe Eszterhas, is fairly fast-paced and has a interesting twist ending.
Strong acting performances by Douglas and Stone really infuse life into Eszterhas's script and lesser acting choices could have seriously impacted the film. Credit must be given to Verhoeven and all involved for their excellent casting.
A solid script and directing when combined with strong acting, a controversial flash of nudity and twist ending, all mesh. In the process Basic Instinct takes its budget of $40-$50 million dollars and nets a box-office take somewhere in the neighborhood $300 million dollars. A $40-$50 million dollar price tag for this type of film in 1992, it should be noted, was rather high, and the dollars do not necessarily end up on the screen.
However, the film is still amazingly profitable and that success is largely due to the controversy that ensued. How, calculated and contrived that controversy happened to be is a matter of debate. Also open for debate is whether or not it is ethical to fabricate a controversy to fill seats. Fabricating a controversy is, in the long term, probably a bad business strategy as eventually a audience may “wise up” and there could be a box-office backlash.
Much has changed since 1992, television shows such as South Park have desensitized audiences to much that use to be shocking. Today's audiences are more savvy about this sort of over-hype and manipulation take Snakes on a Plane, for example. The Internet has arguably had some impact in this regard as well as there is now more competition for the audience's attention. Yet, in the days before Internet and general image and information saturation, a good controversy, whether real or fabricated, was much more enticing. Today, Basic Instinct would have to work much harder to shock and awe. Regardless of whether or not Basic Instinct was a real or fabricated controversy is irrelevant to the fact that it is a fun film that truly struck a nerve with audiences.
Story B- (The story is certainly not ground breaking, but the ending is pretty entertaining and the film does have its moments.)
Acting A (Strong acting by Stone and Douglas adds some life to Basic Instinct script.)
Visuals B (Cinematography in Basic Instinct is solid enough.)
Originality/Innovation C+ (The film and the script are not that original but there are some good twists.)
Enjoyability Grade B
Home Theater/HD Factor B
Overall Grade B (Ultimately, Basic Instinct, is just a sort of turn off your brain and enjoy the ride sort of film.)
|
