Un détective de la police violent enquête sur un meurtre brutal dans lequel pourrait être impliqué un romancier manipulateur et séducteur.Un détective de la police violent enquête sur un meurtre brutal dans lequel pourrait être impliqué un romancier manipulateur et séducteur.Un détective de la police violent enquête sur un meurtre brutal dans lequel pourrait être impliqué un romancier manipulateur et séducteur.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 2 Oscars
- 6 victoires et 23 nominations au total
- Lt. Martin Nilsen
- (as Daniel Von Bargen)
Avis à la une
For example, Catherine Tramell(Sharon Stone) is a writer whose murder plots exactly follow the murders that occur in the film. Her coolness and openness about these killings gives her a sense of being in control of Nick Curran's(Michael Douglas) destiny. In this way, she is like cinema itself spinning a predetermined plot line that the audience represented by Douglas just follows.
Throughout the film, the detective seems resigned to his lack of control, totally in awe of Catherine Tramell ready to go along with her. This is similar to the way the audience submits itself inside the cinema to the control that the screen exerts. However just as we do, Curran attempts to predetermine the plot with his own expectations. He tells Tramell that he has his own idea how it will end - "The cop survives" - The final question of "What do we do now, Nick?" is met with "F*** like minxes, raise rug rats, live happily ever after." another idealistic expectation of the cinema audience. However the ambiguous final shot reminds us that Douglas/the audience may not get the ending he wants - only cinema decides whether that ice pick under the bed will be used.
Another parallel with the cinema experience is the way Nick Curran seems to identify with Tramell. At the start he is a recovered smoker and drinker and Tramell gets him to start again. Over the course of the film his attraction to Tramell's character makes him take on more and more of her traits - aggressive sexuality, risk taking, use of her dialogue and more and more leaps into fantasy. He is almost merging with her and this is reflected in his interrogation scene being shot identically to Tramell's earlier one. Again this development mirrors the way cinema audiences identify with the film narrative. The Hollywood ideal is that the viewer leaves his/her outside of the cinema in order to temporarily identify with the fantasy characters on screen.
Another main aspect of the cinema experience touched on here is the voyeuristic process of watching itself. Curran is constantly in a spectatorial position. It is most obvious where he watches Tramell through a window that looks like a cinema screen itself. Another scene where he is trying to find out about Tramell on a computer sees him reprimanded by a colleague for "jacking off to the screen". This likens Douglas to an audience member watching the film in a similarly voyeuristic way. This is the reason why Hitchcock is such a strong influence on this film - these are classic Hitchcockian themes.
My final comparison is the bi-directional aspect of cinema touched on in the film. The interrogation scene where Tramell manipulates the audience of detectives is the only time where Tramell has point of view, reminding us that cinema watches and manipulates us as well. Also the fact that throughout Tramell knows so much about Detective Curran's past is a similar device. Tramell uses what she knows about Curran to make her murder work, just as Hollywood exploits what it knows about our desires of movies in order to sell us their product. (And those desires may have been partly contrived by Hollywood).
The female murderers (who look like old film stars) that Tramell hangs around with represent other archetypal Hollywood stories - maybe these could have been other films that Nick Curran watched before when he took up smoking before.
Is it a coincidence that the words "cinema theatre" can be found in the name Catherine Tramell and the word "audience" can be found in "Detective Nick Curran" ?
Probably.
The makers of this film tried to give it a film-noir style, perhaps even going for a Hitchcockian influence. What they did do is succeed in making a powerful, intense whodunit which keeps you guessing as to the identity of the murderess right up until the end - and even then, a final twists means that it's all still ambiguous. As well as all the sex that's going on, Verhoeven still finds the opportunity to put in some of his trademark graphic violence in the shape of a pair of icepick murders which see blood flying everywhere in an extremely grisly fashion.
Michael Douglas is well-suited for the role of the cop on the edge, with slicked-back hair to make him look younger. I know that his nudity in this film is a basis for a lot of people to make fun of him, but when I think of other male actors around at the time I can't really imagine anybody else in the role. While Douglas has the fairly straight and unexciting role, Sharon Stone on the other hand is a revelation: extruding an icy cold air and totally in control of herself and just about everybody else, her seductive siren instantly made Stone a star - and put her into the mainstream eye, away from the bit parts she had previously had in the likes of NICO: ABOVE THE LAW. It's safe to say that this film contains Stone's best performance and that she's never lived up to it since, except maybe in her believable portrayal of a drug addicted wife in Scorcese's CASINO.
In support, George Dzundza is good as a comic relief cop while Jeanne Tripplehorn also gives an excellent performance as Douglas' psychiatrist. BASIC INSTINCT is well worth a watch, and not just because of the obvious reasons. Fans of thrillers should check it out.
The film caused controversy with some of the gay crowd (who didn't like the negative press) and for the graphic sex (with bedroom violence). It became a box office winner, that made Sharon Stone a star, and yet was basically p****d on by the critics! The word is the film is better than your average B movie skin flick, only by the quality of the actors, and Verhoeven's ability. I feel the film is still not given the respect it's due.
I first saw the R-rated version, which is very good, but now you can get the even better Unrated Director's Cut, which has even more graphic content! If you don't like erotic-thrillers, then don't see it. But anyone with taste will enjoy the thrill ride of events that take place in Basic Instinct. The script by Joe Eszterhas was highly thought of in Hollywood, and if not for the graphic nudity, a top star like Michelle Pfeiffer would have taken the role made famous by Sharon stone.
Does the script go too far at times? Yes, but that's part of the films charm, and after all, the now 'classic film moment' of Sharon Stone's leg spread interrogation, likely would have been dropped in a conventional film. Still though, I wouldn't have minded seeing a few less people getting killed off, to keep even more suspense and realism.
The score is also beautiful, and fans of Hitchcock's great "Vertigo" can appreciate the homage that Paul Verhoeven has included. The film has a lot of eye candy, but Jeanne Tripplehorn deserves special mention for her impressive supporting role (sadly she hasn't done much of note since). Michael Douglas does a solid job also, but I can't help wondering if a better actor like Clint Eastwood could have brought more to the table. The dialogue is not up to the level of "Pulp Fiction", but it's still interesting and fun.
I highly recommend this film for fans of adult mystery.
Basic plotline has Stone's character, 'Catherine Tramell', accused of the vicious sex murder of a retired rock and roll star. Douglas's character has a strange attraction to her, which may not lead to good things..... Paul Verhoven has openly admitted that this film is a homage to Alfred Hitchcock's classic masterpiece 'Vertigo'. In fact, Stone wears, in sequence, the same wardrobe as Kim Novak did [which makes you wonder, was she wearing panties under her clothes]. That brings us to the interrogation scene, which is the best in the movie. Stone shamelessly flirts with the cops' libidos until the buildup of sexual tension is so great, Stone releases it by playing 'peek-a-boo' with the space in between her legs. Every male viewer cherishes that scene, simply because it is so sexy. That word can be used throughout the film, as Stone and Douglas do the mattress mumbo. At the time, the sex scenes were so realistic that the press went wild and debated whether or not viewers were witnessing un-simulated sex. The film is still quite sexually daring today and has an intriguing spider's web plot too. The plot's twists and turns manage to make the movie sexier as the viewer wonders whether Sharon is innocent or guilty..........
The film's only misstep occurs at the end, with an unsatisfactory ending that makes the whole film seem like some stupid, contrived game. But it's not. It keeps it's fascination and it's sexiness and its suspense right up till the end, which is what a good erotic thriller should. Actually, the ending for some will lead to a lot of discussion if you watch the film with someone, as the film toys with two of the film's characters innocence or guilt and does not give up all its secrets.....
The film is great Verhoeven. It has his usual, hilarious, seemingly inappropriate kinky humor and extreme sex and violence to match. The fact that Verhoeven is actually able to balance the film and make it funny and sexy is wonderful film-making. Well, have I said 'sexy' enough times? Then go rent it.........8/10
P.S. If you like this one, check out Verhoevens' Dutch film ''The Fourth Man''. It has a similar plot and even a similar character that resembles Catherine Tramell. If the ending of 'Basic Instinct' leaves you wanting, check that film out. It is even better than 'Basic' and is more 'arty'. It is also a little bit more daring erotically.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesNo body doubles were used in any of the sex scenes.
- Gaffes(at around 45 mins) When Nick calls up Hazel Dobkin's police record it states that she was released from San Quentin in 1965. San Quentin has been men only since 1934.
- Citations
Dr. McElwaine: Nick, when you recollect your childhood, are your recollections pleasing to you?
Nick: Number 1, I don't remember how often I used to jerk off, but it was a lot. Number 2, I wasn't pissed off at my dad, even when I was old enough to know what he and mom were doing in the bedroom. Number 3, I don't look in the toilet before I flush it. Number 4, I haven't wet my bed for a long time. Number 5, why don't the two of you go fuck yourselves; I'm outta here.
- Versions alternativesThe European release is much more explicit than the American release (which had to be submitted seven times to the MPAA in order to avoid an NC-17 rating). The European version is available unrated on video in the US. The US version uses alternate, less explicit takes of several scenes to tone down the sex content.
- The murder of Johnny Boz in the opening scene is more graphic; we see the killer stabbing him in his neck, stabbing him repeatedly in the chest, in the face and we see the ice-pick passing through his nose.
- The scene where Nick rapes Beth is severely cut in the US version (we see ripping off her underwear and forcing her over the couch, then there's a cut to the two of them lying in bed). In the uncut version Nick pulls down his pants, penetrates Beth from behind and he apparently has an orgasm.
- The scene where Nick and Catherine make love after going to the disco is longer much more explicit in the uncut version (Nick is seen burying his face between her legs).
- ConnexionsEdited into Destruction Finale (1999)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Basic Instinct?Alimenté par Alexa
- How long is Basic Instinct?
- What is 'Basic Instinct' about?
- Is 'Basic Instinct' based on a book?
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Bajos instintos
- Lieux de tournage
- 157 Spindrift Road, Carmel Highlands, Californie, États-Unis(Catherine Tramell's mansion)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 49 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 117 727 224 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 15 129 385 $US
- 22 mars 1992
- Montant brut mondial
- 352 927 224 $US