Sharon Stone and the secrets of "Basic instincts": an actress without underwear, a maddening crossing of legs, n-dity on set and a slap
The interrogation scene was unforgettable for a generation. And, perhaps, it holds a singular record: that of being the slowest scene in the history of VHS
There are scenes that define a movie, scenes that become the center of a story, that become unforgettable. Their impact makes us remember what went through our body at the moment we saw them for the first time, and when we see them again (we always see them again) they surprise us again, and we continue to find details and elements that we had missed. I escaped. The absence of the initial impact does not deteriorate them.
The interrogation scene in Basic Instincts was unforgettable for a generation. And, perhaps, it holds a singular record: that of being the slowest scene in VHS history. Perhaps the inventor of the frame-by-frame function had Catherine Trammell, Sharon Stone's character, in mind when she developed her technique. To fix that image, to eternalize those few seconds.
In 1992, the year that Bass Instinct was released, Sharon Stone was 34 years old and had spent a decade trying to make herself known in Hollywood. She had participated in a dozen films but without starring. She took advantage of her opportunity when she got a good role in The Avenger of the Future by Paul Verhoeven who would also direct Low Instincts.
Stone was the thirteenth candidate for the role of the sensual and dangerous Catherine Trammel. Julia Roberts, Michelle Pfeiffer, Kim Basinger, Meg Ryan, Geena Davis and Demi Moore, among others, declined the offer to star. It was a risky role, with too much exposure. When one of these superstars asked the Dutchman Verhoeven if he would shoot the script as it was written, with that high level of eroticism, he replied impassively: "No, I plan to make it much stronger still." The actresses fled.
Verhoeven had in his head a strong, shocking, highly s-xual film. One of his goals was for his to be the first mainstream movie to feature a boner. That, we know, he did not achieve. The Dutch director knew what he wanted from his female lead and he knew that in a medium like Hollywood he was going to get it.
Sharon Stone got her chance at an audition by pulling a little hoax. But at the time of doing the test before the camera, she did not save anything. She knew it was the chance of a lifetime for her. A couple of years ago, Sharon uploaded her Twitter account a minute after that. We see her in the foreground, disheveled, her, her voice, the mischievous smile, a drink and a cigarette. After that minute it was impossible not to give her the part. There is electricity and vertigo in those eyes and in that mouth.
The scene in question of the film lasts less than three minutes. Trammell, a successful writer suspected of killing a former rock star, is questioned by five investigators. She is sitting in an armchair in front of them. Five against one. The questions are meant to be tough. Relentlessness is one of the hallmarks of the homicide detective. She, however, instantly disarms them. It is she, the prey, who dominates the situation. The five men seem uncomfortable, restless. The woman is calm, confident, she overwhelms her with her confident gestures and her self-confidence.
She lights up a cigarette despite being told the building is smoke-free. It becomes a weapon that she masterfully wields. She blows smoke. She speaks to the eyes, leans forward, addresses her interlocutors with her confidence, calling them by her names. She seduces them, she plays with them. She dominates them. She enjoys the situation. She then takes off her white jacket. Her dress is the same color. Elegant and inviting. A sneaky tribute to Hitchcock's Kim Novak in Vertigo.
She leans back in the chair. She talks about sadomasochism, hands, fingers, s-x, pleasure and cocaine. Until the time comes. Little more than a second. Her legs crossed, left over right. She uncrosses them. They stay open. Detectives can see up her skirt, unopposed by her underwear. She crosses her legs again to the other side, left over right. Catherine Trammell knows that she won.
About the filming there are, as appropriate, two versions. Although both resemble each other. Until a moment of the facts the two protagonists agree.
Both Sharon Stone and Verhoeven agree that the director asked her to remove her underwear. He argued that the white of the panties could cause an annoying reflection. She accepted. And she took off the garment and, as if in a game, put it in the pocket of Verhoeven's shirt.
They rolled for long hours. The actress, the director, the cinematographer Jan de Bont (director after Twister and Full speed) and a few other members of the team. Multiple shots, different shots. Verhoeven showed Sharon the result on the monitor. She was satisfied.
Everything changed when the actress saw the first cut on the big screen. She at that moment she approached Verhoeven and turned his face with a slap. She felt exposed and little cared for by the Dutchman. He claimed that everything had been discussed and that he had even shown him the images on the set. That nothing had happened without his consent. Sharon explained that since HD did not exist at that time, what she saw on the monitor was a dark version of the scene that on film and in a movie theater, on the huge screen, acquired a definition and sharpness that she had not imagined. . That a shot like that should be shown to the actress first. She demanded that she take him out. Verhoeven listened no more. With his fingers marked on her cheek, he asked: "If you take off your underwear and the camera points at you there, what do you think she will see on the screen afterwards?"
Perhaps Sharon thought it was just a hint, that Verhoeven wouldn't go any further. Possibly the Dutch ancestry of the filmmaker and director of photography, the naturalness with which they assume n-des, the low propensity to be shocked, have created a relaxed, pressure-free climate on the set, which led Sharon to be more daring than she was. I hadn't even considered.
Sharon couldn't get the shot out of her head (after all, the same thing that would later happen to viewers around the world). She used all her charms to convince the studio managers to cut the controversial shot but she was not listened to.
After the private function, the representative insisted that this scene was going to end her career, that she would be marked forever. She was wrong. Exactly the opposite happened. That movie and that scene in particular made her a superstar. She immediately became a s-x symbol -perhaps the biggest of the 90s-, she starred in several more films and even got an Oscar nomination.
The role that a dozen stars rejected because they did not encourage n-des, because they feared violence, consecrated her.
The screenwriter for the film was Joe Eszterhas, a very high-profile and controversial character. Before him he had written, among others, Flashdance, Hearts of fire and On the edge of suspicion. By selling this script, which initially had other titles: Love Hurts and Sympathy with the devil, she broke a record. She was paid three million dollars, the maximum figure obtained by a screenwriter to date.
In her memoir, Hollywood Animal, she tells that she had several altercations with the director because on the film set she altered what he had written. However, the incredible thing about the situation is that the movie with the most expensive script in history is remembered for a scene that was not in it. It was an invention by Paul Verhoeven derived from an episode he experienced at a party. One of the girls present, glass in hand and many more already drunk, told him that she was not wearing her underwear and asked the director to observe the reaction of the men present when she sat in an armchair. The Dutchman immediately knew that at some point he would use that resource in his film.
The character was not written or intended for her but for a striptease dancer Eszterhas met, but Catherine Trammell is her actress. The looks, the abrupt changes of state, the fury that coexists with the charm, the dangerousness, the sharpest smile in Hollywood.
"Sharon Stone is Catherine Trammell without the ice pick," said Paul Verhoeven. She said that she was inspired by the sensuality of Kathleen Turner. There is something of the sinuosity of Turner or the Barbara Stanwyck of Blood Pact in Trammell, in that character in which she converges a writer, a kind of female superhero, an assassin and a dominatrix.
The choice of the main actor was also a success, although less surprising. Michael Douglas had already starred in films with some erotic content such as Fatal Attraction and was a leading figure. He also came after other names such as Richard Gere, Don Johnson, Tom Cruise or Patrick Swayze were considered.
The relationship between the protagonists was not ideal off camera. Or maybe yes. There was tension, a suspicion, an air of violence and attraction hovering over them.
Filming was not easy. It is rumored that Sharon had a hard time finding the character and that after the first day she was almost fired, while Michael Douglas was pressing for the hiring of Kim Basinger, who had already rejected the role so as not to be typecast as an erotic actress after 9 weeks. and a half.
Sharon recounted that, in some scenes, her best friend was lying on the floor next to her bed to give her strength and to make her feel protected from her. And that on some occasion she had to use an oxygen tube that was on the set because it broke down due to the intensity of the violent sequences.
The s-x scenes took more than five days to shoot. The n-ked actors spent hours in bed.
It is known that Michael Douglas never made modesty a norm. Sharon ruled out the use of semi-transparent adhesive patches that stick to the crotch and cover the woman's vagina and anus. She didn't want to use them because she had to peel them off and stick them on every time she went to the bathroom and the operation was very painful.
Having filmed the erotic scenes for so many days brought an extra benefit to the director. When the censors forced him to modify some scenes if he did not want the film to have the highest rating and thus restrict the audience that could see it, Verhoeven replaced a few shots with others shot at different angles, which only suggested or implied. There were many changes but very short. Less than 40 seconds of film were modified. Among the demands to lower the rating of the film was never, strangely enough, the interrogation scene. After those days shooting s-x scenes, Sharon reflected: "The film crew got to know me more deeply than my gynecologist."
At the time of its premiere there was not only controversy over the s-x scenes or the violence. LGBT+ groups raised protests and demonstrated in front of the theaters that showed it, considering that the film criminalized them by putting a bis-xual character as the murderer. They complained that bis-xual women were portrayed as psychopaths.
The public response was immediate. It was one of the highest grossing films of the year. However, the critical reception was neither unanimous nor friendly. Respected critic Jonathan Rosenbaum gave it zero stars. He wrote that it was a worthless film, although very dangerous because its formula would be widely copied (in this he was right). Years later he changed his opinion and vindicates it like so many others.
Paul Verhoeven from the beginning wanted to film a tribute to Hitchcock but with a lot of s-x. To this we must add the bombastic style, less elegant but more spectacular and impressive of Eszterhas. This combination led to Low Instincts becoming a role model in the 1990s. There was a wave of erotic thrillers. But none achieved the impact of this film.
That crossing of legs (and especially their uncrossing) perhaps obscures the fact that Low Instincts is a good movie, that it manages to maintain tension and that it made a genre fashionable. And that a mainstream film has been encouraged to cross certain borders respected until then in terms of s-xuality and the way of showing it. Low Instinct is part of its time and about its time. It describes and represents the nineties quite accurately. His characters and the actors who played them and several moments in the film, especially the interrogation scene, became icons of those years.
Sharon Stone agrees: "Michael Douglas and I became the Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, horizontal and n-ked, of the nineties."
