Another Interpretation of Basic Instinct (1992)

 

It is odd that I never watched "Basic Instinct", despite all the exposure to its references and spoofs over the years, until I got back onto Criterion channel. Perhaps it is my deep fear or disturbance of "scary women". After watching it I can confirm that the main character Catherine, played by Sharon Stone, is indeed one of the scariest women on screen for perhaps three quarters of the movie. Near the end she switches to the manipulation mode and becomes much less scary. The last good scene is Catherine telling her lover, Nick, played by Michael Douglas, to get lost, now that she has finished her book. (Plot-wise, it is rather inconsistent, as Catherine continues to keep other murderers in her life. Why not Nick too?) 

I can understand why some critics felt that Catherine is a male character dressed up as a woman, as cited by Karina Longworth in her fascinating You Must Remember This podcast. However, I have the feeling of watching a strange international mashup on screen: a love affair between a Dutch woman and an American man. Disclaimer: I know zero Dutch person in real life. The closest I have gotten to the Dutch culture is limited to superficially meeting a couple of Flemish persons, who would be the first to point out their difference from the Dutch. Nevertheless, Dutch women have a reputation of being one of the most powerful and aggressive groups of women in the world --- Well, who am I kidding, the reputation of Dutch women is that they are the most like men. 

On the other hand, Michael Douglas derived his popularity from embodying the quintessential American white men of the Reagan era. So the power dynamic between a European woman and an American man is so potent that, now, 30 years after the fact but on my first viewing, I see this movie as an allegory of the cultural dialog between Europe and United States, or perhaps simply the Netherlands and US, as presented by Paul Verhoeven. 

Verhoeven made several hits in Hollywood in the 80s and 90s that are more or less considered satires of the American culture. Robocop is a more explicit satire about the power of corporations and privatization of everything (which proves to be prescient). Starship Troopers is a more subtle spoof of the military and patriotism propaganda. Basic Instinct transparently makes fun of the Puritanical attitude toward sex that is particular to the American culture. (This satire also proves to be prescient for the direction of Hollywood movies in the next 30 years.)

Of course, American audience automatically identifies with Douglas' character, as he is the point-of-view character, and laments his diminished power/dominance in this relationship, and their disorientation has to be soothed by the absurd but more American relationship between Nick and his psychologist Beth, played by Jean Tripplehorn. However, a closer look at Nick suggests that he does not fit the trope of heroic cop that floods American movies and TV. His history of killing not only drug dealers but innocent bystanders is repeatedly brought up and never justified. It is curious and revealing that neither the American audience nor critics ever found that to be a defining trait of the character. Again history confirms the acuity of this observation about the American culture, which echoes the excessive violence in Robocop. Nick is a violent man who is in this job for the privilege of killing people (and getting away with it, as the dialog reminds us), and he does eventually shoots dead his ex-lover (perhaps representing the moviegoing American public), while his victim's last words were "I love you" (I guess she represents American white women?). Thus, he belongs in Catherine's menagerie of blood-thirsty killers. 

The simultaneous aggression and submission of this character make it a study in the American masculinity, which can be observed generally in the concurrence of excessive violence and sexual prudishness in American movies. The hilarious "happily ever after" ending may seem stupid but is necessary to protect the audience from facing the uncomfortable death of the American Man. Nevertheless, Nick's obliviousness in that scene carries the allegory to the end.

A Wizard of the Earthsea

One night twenty years ago, I went to see Ursula Le Guin at Folger Library, where she accepted the PEN/Malamud award. It was a bit of a trek from Gaithersburg, Maryland, but I had fallen in love with her novel "The Lathe of Heaven" and her Taoist philosophy. She was a white-haired diminutive woman. At the award, she read one of her short stories about an all-female expedition that reached the South Pole and decided to keep it secret. At that time I did not understand the ending, but now I do. Even in my ignorance, by the end of the reading, tears were streaming down my face. 

Some years ago I picked up the Earth Sea trilogy but could not get past the first chapter. Yet another Arthurian fantasy about wizards and magic centered around a boy who will grow into a great man. A tiresome trope of "the chosen one", I thought. A week ago it was again recommended to me as an example of an unusual exploration of power and its use. So I started again. My first impression was entirely wrong. It both is and is not the Arthurian fairy tale. 

There is indeed a lot of worldbuilding and magic and other traditional fantasy elements, but it also subverts many of the common tropes of the genre. The novel starts with a heroic achievement by Ged as a boy, setting up an expectation that he is destined to be a great hero through a series of conquests and elevation of his talent and skills. But no. The novel is a journey of self-discovery and self-reflection. It's a psychological adventure disguised as fantasy adventure.  

Le Guin had an unparalleled talent in writing severe hardships and quiet stoicism. She is really one of the toughest writers I have read. The ordeals she routinely put her characters through are punishing and merciless. So it is all the more extraordinary that none of it is at all cynical or nihilistic. One closes her books with warmth, humility, and affirmation of life. 

The novel was written in 1967. For over half a century, the fantasy genre, the YA genre, and the YA fantasy genre all exploded in popularity. Yet still the torrent of stale tropes continues to flow, and very few works are nearly as subversive, almost revolutionary, as Le Guin's.