Basic Instinct : Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

I ask this question for a reason. I once read an interview of some actress and she was asked if she would do a nude scene. She gave the standard answer that she would if if was necessary for the plot, the character, etc., etc. I got to wondering when nudity was actually necessary for a movie. How often has there been a time that if a nude scene were removed, it would present some kind of problem for the movie.

And I happened to think about Basic Instinct. Now, I haven't seen this movie in about 20 years so I'm relying on my memory on this. While the nudity is often gratuitous here, there are two scenes that stand out: the first murder and when Nick rapes Dr. Garner. Are we supposed to compare the naked bodies of these two scenes and draw a conclusion about the real murderer?

If there's anybody with a copy of this movie who can check this?


--------
Keeping people straight since 1968. No need to thank me - I already know you're grateful.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

There is sex in the movie, so there will be nudity. I don't see your point. Please explain.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

His point was clearly explained.

It feels good to be lost in the right direction. 🌌

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

First of all... "Rape"? What?

Nudity in any film is never necessary. Removing it would never hurt a film. Adding nudity won't necessarily benefit a film.

In my personal estimation, about 95% of nudity in any film is gratuitous and there to draw people in to see boobs...sometimes under the guise of art.

That being said, I don't feel the nudity here is gratuitous...Is it necessary? No. But it was a good tool to help illustrate the themes of the script. This film is about the weaponisation of sex so the nudity here was illustrations of how sex can be weaponised by the females in the film, including and especially the infamous "crotch shot". It's unlike some films which casually show nudity...it was very intentional.

I don't see any reason to compare the nude bodies of the suspected killers. Personally, I thought both the bodies and faces of the two women (and even Roxy) looked near identical...I would have to pause frame by frame and compare tiny details to pick apart anything.

I think the intention of the nudity in film was to illustrate the weaponisation of sex (as I stated above) and also to have a good excuse for Sharon Stone to agree to flash the cameras.

___________
"That's pretty dangerous; building a road in the middle of the street."

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?


I haven't seen this movie in about 20 years so I'm relying on my memory on this. ... and when Nick rapes Dr. Garner.
I'm afraid your memory is playing tricks on you. Nick does not rape Beth; they both engage in mutually acceptable rough sex which they both seem to enjoy, though she later gets annoyed at him. It's also pretty clear they engaged in regular similar activity, during an earlier relationship with each other.🐭

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

He pushes her over the chair and she kept saying no, at that point yeah it is rape.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Yeah Sure! Stop! Stop! I love it!

Have a look at the immediate scene after between them. That is not the aftermath of a rape. Later she gets a bit shirty with him, because he didn't show more warmth towards her.🐭

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

It wasn't rape, never saw it as rape. She obviously liked it and wanted it.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Maybe she was expecting him to be like he normally was, i.e gentle. Instead he throws her over a chair and f's her from the behind. Roughly.

Or are you saying that any woman that walks into a situation thinking there might be sex and expecting her boyfriend/man she's sleeping with to be gentle like he normally is and he's actually the opposite that she brought in on herself? that it can never be rape because she walked into the situation expecting sex?

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Yeah apparently that is what they think. Believe it or not consensual sex can turn into rape. If you are having sex with someone and they start saying no and you keep going is rape.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

@paradriod21


What was she expecting to happen, wearing those sexy black lace stockings, and miniskirt, and going back to his place?

Uh,seriously? How she dressed didn't give him right to do whatever the hell he wanted with her. A women's body is not public property for a man to do whatever the hell he wants with. You obviously have that stupid outdated sexist belief that a women deserves to be assaulted simply because of how she dressed, which is total bull****. Your idea about women and sex are just plain fked up, like this sick movie--get some help.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

People act differenty to how you think I they would after sexual assault. She had feelings for him and looked out for him. He clouded her judgement.

I think you need to remember that it's not how the victim acts after rape that determines if it's rape or not it's the act itself.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

@LukeLovesFilm28 or anyone else saying it's not rape:

Once a woman says no or anything not fully giving consent, then it's rape. Just to make it all the more obvious, Beth screamed no, told Nick to stop, and never fully said anything that could be defined as "yes."

Throwback to my freshman orientation about consent where we had to watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8



My List of Movies I've Seen in Less Than Two Decades: http://www.imdb.com/list/NvSxbrwe4wQ/

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

It was rape, duh! She said no.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

As I was an early teen boy at the time of release: OH YES IT WAS;-DDD

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

The Nick and Beth "apartment" scene always seems to divide opinion as to wether or not it was rape. I think the director deliberately made the scene ambiguous and open to interpretation. Imo, it is more rape than it isn't, given, as people on this thread have already highlighted, that Beth repeatedly said no; she clearly was not consenting to the sex, and, indeed, tried earnestly to get back up when Nick had forced her over the couch and had forcefully ripped her pants off; she even yelled "Stop it!" towards the end just before Nick entered her from behind. The only reason a lot of people don't consider it rape is because they had a previous intimate relationship and she still had feelings for him. I don't think Beth would've pressed charges against Nick (I don't know how it would've stood in court without witnesses), but during the scene, strictly speaking, there was an element of rape to it, imo.

Also, it was quite disturbing that Beth seemed to panic when Nick put here over the couch. Maybe she thought Nick was going to, er, how can I put it without being too graphic or crass, give her a back door delivery? Any thoughts on this? Maybe they had this type of sex regularly in the past, only this time she was fearing it forcefully? Any thoughts?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

*beep* man, just because someone goes back to someone's apartment and wear's sexy clothes it doesn't mean they waive their right to say no to the kind of sex they don't want.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

I know, right?? People have the right to change their mind!


______________
Aloha!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?


she knew exactly what Nick was going to do with her


The whole point is that she did not know what "Nick was going to do with her." She undoubtedly expected sex - probably sex of the kind that they'd had in the past - but how could she have known her clothes would be ripped off, that she'd be thrown over the back of a sofa and so on?

I don't think this was rape, as I don't recall her saying "stop" but it was close.

---

To the OP, when you watch PG-13 films, do you ever complain about all the clothed scenes?

____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep*

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

@paradroid21


When she went into that apartment, wearing that incredibly sexy tight mini-skirt and very sexy lace hold-up stockings, she knew exactly what Nick was going to do with her, so any protesting against it on her part will be a complete waste of time.




Bull****----a women is NOT asking to be raped based on how she dresses---that's always been an excuse for men to justify fcking with a woman without taking responsibility for their own actions toward her. . Like I said, a man dosen't decide what he wants to do to a woman without her consent. Dressing a certain way and being alone with a man in an apartment does NOT give a man the right to sexually assault her, and if you actually believe that bull****, you're obviously fcked-up and need some help. Being alone with a women does not give a man some damn free all-access pass to her body, and anybody who thinks so is nothing but a fcking sexual predator. If the women wants to kick it with the man, and has told him so, then it's all cool because it's consensual. But if the guy decides he's gonna do whatever to her, and not give a damn whether she wants to or not, that's fcking rape. Nothing "sexy" at all about that s***. And even though it's been awhile since I've seen the film, I don't remember thinking that it was consensual at all---it just seemed to come out of nowhere and came off more like some shock tactic thrown into the film. I would also say you need to remember that this was only a film, not reality.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

I always thought it was necessary and it was because of the nudity that I really wanted to go see it when it was released. I was 18 at the time and of course loved to see naked women at that age. Now over the years I still love this movie but for everything besides the nudity, though for first time viewers I think it is necessary. I wouldn't change anything about this movie except for the outfit Douglas is wearing in the club scene. Looks totally out of place.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

The nudity in this film was ABSOLUTELY necessary ... for maximising profits. In terms of delivering the story, no, not necessary at all.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Well, since you have asked, yes ... I did go back and watch the movie again with a view to seeing if the body of the killer in the first scene was the same as that of any of the characters because there had been so much attention to detail, I thought even this might hold up. And, guess, what? It did.

Also, the face as glimpsed through the hair which might actually have been that blonde wig did, too. I do not believe that Beth's facial structure could have been confused with Catherine's. Roxy's clearly could have been. But I think we are really dealing with one killer, and it is pretty evident in obvious and less obvious ways who that is.

Really, if you will look at the bod on the initial killer and then the two main women as you see them later, I think you will see which one looks like the killer. So for that reason alone, yes, the nudity was very much necessary. I don't hold with nudity for its own sake, and get a kick out of early 70's movies when the sexual revolution was first taking place and people jumped into bed together in the first 40 minutes often with no real motivation. In fact, that still happens today. But in this movie, I felt the nudity and the sex were very necessary as reflective of the characters' character. In fact, not to be gross, but the nudity of the murder victim evoked for me an actual smell of sex mixed with blood. It was strong and off-putting but it really brought you into that room and the movie. To tell that movie any other way would just be to water it down, I think. I don't think the nudity was included just for the money. Of course, money was and still no doubt is one of the inevitable results. But I think the movie is a work of passion and brilliance because of the story, of which nudity is an integral part.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

The initial scene definitely sets the tone of the movie (even though I doubted it was Sharon Stone's body). The rape scene was good in portraying where Nick's mind was at, but didn't need to be so explicit; raw & aggressive, yes. But not exploitive.

I never thought about it the way you did. Maybe.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?


I got to wondering when nudity was actually necessary for a movie. How often has there been a time that if a nude scene were removed, it would present some kind of problem for the movie.


What about the violent scenes ? We don't have to see it. They can edit it out, and have a character explain what happened to another character. That way, you would be even more comfortable. Unless you don't have a problem with blood and gore, only with boobs on screen.

Are the sex scenes necessary ? To me, the question should be "aren't they ?". Because no, they aren't always, for example, if it's badly written. However, if it's well written, their existence is as justified as any other scene, even when they aren't essential to the understanding of the movie. Many scenes written mainly for character development aren't necessarily connected to the main plot, but it's not a reason to edit them out. You have to know your characters, and sex, especially when it's between two main characters, can say a lot about them. Plus, sex scenes are nice. Don't be a pussy.

___________
- Booker, are you afraid of God ?
- No. But I'm afraid of you.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

No, the nudity isn't necessary. It adds to the titillating aspects of the movie and increased the box office, though.

We made a lot of excellent movies before nudity was in them. Even before there was a censor, there wasn't absolute nudity. There were always pasties and such.

Even when showing people having sex, nudity isn't necessary. You can see that in most movies.

If you notice, even in the sex scenes, it's almost always just the female who is shown nude. That proves that nudity isn't necessary, or they'd show the male, too.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

And how are we to see people having sex without showing nudity? How can the sex scenes in basic instinct be done without nudity?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

For the last fcking time, that wasn't rape. She wanted it. Rough sex, which they were doing is NOT rape. Did she call out? Scream? Did she slap him? NO, no and no.

I think it is complete bullsh!t if you think because she regretted it afterward that it was by default rape. A lot of men in this world should be punished then.

I swear. You people probably think that any sex where a man is on top of a woman is rape. Let me guess. You also think that if a man doesn't ask permission to do every goddamn thing during the act, that's also rape.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Yes, the nudity was necessary. More necessary in this film than a lot of movies. It gets to the root of the problem.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

The root of the problem? And what problem would that be?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Why do people assume that during the legendary Nick and Beth apartment scene that he gave her a "back door delivery"? There is no way he would do it to her that way that forcefully, as he would definitely cause himself -- and her -- an injury. I think he just had normal sex with her from behind -- not in her balloon knot! Even Verhoven himself has said the scene was ambiguous, but I don't think he initially intended it to be unclear; I think Verhoven has, through time, jumped on the "back door" bandwagon with all the other wishful thinkers.

Any thoughts?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?


Either way, it is an incredibly hot and sexy scene.


Ok. That's a messed up reaction to something you consider to be anal rape.

To me, he took her and women love to be taken sometimes. BUT, she didn't scream, "No" or struggle all that much. So to me, it was rough sex and nothing more.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?


Either way, it is an incredibly hot and sexy scene.




Ok. That's a messed up reaction to something you consider to be anal rape.



It's just a movie and it was hot whether it was intended as rape or not. Some women even have fantasies of rape. I normally don't find Jeanne Tripplehorn that attractive but she was smokin' hot in that scene.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

The point of the movie was that sexual desires, our basic instincts can really fck up our judgment. You can't just come out and state, "That's what this movie is about." It has to be more ambiguous. It rests in the point of view of the audiences. And there is A LOT of incredibly sexy things in Basic Instinct. You have arguably the sexiest, most beautiful blond in 90s cinema as the ultimate seductress. And its all there for good reason. We're able to see everything through the eyes of Nick Curran.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

I'm not going to get into was it rough or rape....but Jesus Christ on a bike...did I just read comments that stated....'the way she was dressed,what did she expect ?'......seek help please.

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

What would be the point of watching this if not for the nudity?

Re: Was the nudity in this movie really necessary?

Perhaps all of the nudity wasn't necessary, but it was billed as that type of film. Films with a lot of nudity will always attract attention, that was probably the intention.

Sex sells. (and nudity!)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs
Top