BASIC INSTINCT 2

UK, 2006, 114 minutes, Colour.
Sharon Stone, David Morrissey, Charlotte Rampling, David Thewlis, Hugh Dancey, Flora Montgomery.
Directed by Michael Caton- Jones.

Well, you would hardly be expecting classic and literate drama for this sequel to the celebrated (notorious?) police thriller of 1992! In its day, it was a touch shocking with its story of an ice-cold (ice-pick wielding) novelist who seemed to be living out her plots before she wrote them, a daredevil personality with the touch of the nymphomaniac (for both sexes). It made a star of Sharon Stone and everybody talked about the scene where she crossed her legs.

This time she crosses her legs a lot, but merely as reminders of her signature gesture. But, she still has murder on her mind. She is still sexually provocative. She is still the coldest of personalities. And Sharon Stone seems to be enjoying herself posing and posturing, lying and telling the truth when it suits her. Catherine Tramell is still writing novels – and testing out her plots beforehand. Stone has made her one of the screens baddest girls (and has told the press that she would like to direct Basic Instinct 3).

Which is something of a prelude to saying that I enjoyed it very much. Of course it is high melodrama, sometimes overwrought, with a glacially vicious leading lady. But, it is a very smartly written screenplay, one of the best in terms of audiences being able to read into it what they wish because it offers plenty of clues and plenty of ambiguity. Catherine Tramell could easily have committed the murders. She had opportunity and motive. But, then, it could just as possibly have been the detective who is pursuing her obsessively, determined to get her. And, by the end, as she shrewdly draws the scenario, it could have been the psychiatrist she has been manipulating the whole film. She makes a very plausible case for this. So, depending on whom you believe and why, you have your own villain.

The setting is contemporary London, making much of the new buildings in the City of London, with the opening speeding and crash into the Thames at Canary Wharf (just near where I was watching it) and a lurid excursion into Soho at night (just near where the press previews usually screen).

Sharon Stone plays the completely amoral woman, with no conscience and no feelings except for herself. David Morrissey plays the self-confident psychiatrist who treats her but is really being ‘treated’ by her. He diagnoses her as a risk-addictive personality, prepared to be more and more daring. In some ways, he moves towards excessive risk-taking himself. David Thewliss is the relentless detective and Charlotte Rampling (who might have made an excellent Catherine Tramell in the past) is also a psychiatrist.

Pot-boiling, perhaps, but cleverly done.


1.The status of the film as a sequel? Standing alone as a drama? Audience expectations? The interest in Catherine Tramell? Criminal thriller, a sex crime thriller? A thriller of manipulation?

2.The London settings, Canary Wharf, Soho, central London and the city? The new buildings? Apartments, offices, the use of a variety of locations? The atmospheric musical score from the original film? Songs?

3.The smart screenplay: audiences being able to read into each character what they wished? Each of the three central characters capable of doing all the murders, motivations? With the screenplay indicating that each of them could have been the criminal?

4.The psychosexual aspects of the screenplay, the blend of the pop and the serious? Psychiatrist and the skills needed for psychiatry? Skills of listening, talking, eliciting information from clients? Highlighting aspects of personality? In control – or not? The role of the client? The client reversing the role and eliciting responses from the psychiatrist?

5.Sexuality in the film: implicit, suggestive, explicit scenes? The effect of each? The blackness of the explicit scenes? The psychological power of the suggestion? The language of the film, innuendo, suggestion? The blunt talk of Roy Washman and his language? Sexuality for men and women, women as the femme fatale, the vamp? In control? Love/lust/liking – or not? The power of seduction? Playing the emotional games? Sexualising issues and behaviour? Men and their psychology, love and lust? Control, power? Ethical issues? Commitment to passion? Consequences? Men and seduction and as seduced?

6.The theme of the film about risk addiction, as explained by Michael Glass in court, the danger, the edge? Always wanting more? Risk as an addiction? The explanations, the psychology? As applied to Catherine Tramell? As applied to Michael Glass himself?

7.The film as melodrama, in the tradition of film noir, a more explicit femme fatale? The man as the victim? The importance of posing and postures on the part of Catherine Tramell? Sharon Stone’s skill in presenting this kind of character? The expectations from the melodrama genre – rather than the serious psychological drama?

8.The opening, the speeding car, the drugs, the footballer, the sexual activity, the crash, Catherine’s decision, letting the footballer die, his struggles and bewilderment, her explaining to Washburn that her own life was more important? Her passionate statement?

9.Catherine Tramell and Sharon Stone, making the character her own? The impact of Basic Instinct? The idiosyncrasies (and the film referring to its predecessor, the visual imagery, the crossing of legs etc?), the passing of thirteen years? Her experience, the glacial personality? Her ability to charm, her ability to discard? Her capacity for attracting men, drawing information from them, playing with it, using it, destroying them? Her love for risk, the addiction? Her living the plots of her novels? Their coming to fulfilment? Her move to London, enjoying the city? The liaison with the footballer? The psychological assessment by Michael Glass, her decision to go to Michael, the interviews, her playing with him? Cigarettes and rules? In the court, listening to his assessment, her lawyer and the advice, Michael watching her being interviewed and filmed on television? The information about the drug dealer, his perjuring himself, her being set free?

10.David Morrissey as Michael Glass, stern and upright? A character in himself? Respectable, a professional, his hopes for the chair, his reviews of psychology books, his friendship with Milena, his meeting the professor? His work, forensic assessments, testimony in court? His friendship with Roy Washburn? The interview with Katherine, her control? Her coming to see him in his office, wanting to be client, his refusal? Taking her on? The importance of the theme of confidentiality – and as it affected his past and the killing murdering his girlfriend? His reputation, his answers in court, his dependence on Roy Washburn, on Denise? His trying to refer her to Milena?

11.Catherine and her hold on men, with Adam Towers, after the case, the interview, the revelation of the affair? His death? The liaison with Denise, her comments about Denise – true or false? The murder of Denise? The professor, his being charmed by her, her getting all the information, feeding it to him, information about Michael? Her sessions and behaviour, her moods, breaking off the interview? The psychosexual discussions and her knowledge of herself, her knowledge of him? The effect?

12.The party, Milena and meeting the professor, Catherine being pleasant? The interview with the professor, his having Catherine’s information about the past case, the threat? Milena trying to save the day? Michael going to Milena for feedback? Leaving the party with Michelle, the night, the sexual encounter – the phone call, his going to Denise, Adam’s death, his reaction, the cigarette lighter and his throwing it away, the interrogation by Washburn?

13.Washburn and his role of professional? Of the police? Harsh, language, threats, vindictive against Catherine? The assessment? In the court? Towers’ death, his investigations, Denise’s death, the suspicion on Catherine? Her story? Her feeding Michael a story about Washburn’s trying to seduce her? His corruption? His believing it? The drugs and taking him for analysis, Washburn’s explanation, the article in the magazine and the journalist explaining it was about Washburn? Towers being a threat to him? Michael and the dilemma as to whom to believe? His going to Milena’s to save her, Washburn’s arrival, the confrontation, Michael shooting him?

14.Adam Towers and his ambitions, interviewing Michael, the opposite style of personality, the issue of the past, his magazine? His being a celebrity? His sending the journalist to question Michael? His relationship with Denise? The revelation of his relationship with Katherine? The brutality of his death? Michael handling it with Denise, the lighter, the interviews with Washburn?

15.Denise and Michael’s relationship with her, the break-up, his visiting her while researching, her blaming him for the divorce? Her relationship with Towers? Its being exposed? Her ringing him in the night, the murder, the later meeting? The argument in the pub, his following her into the washroom, finding her dead? The revelation about a relationship with Katherine?

16.Milena, her relationship with Michael, talking with him, giving him feedback, the ethical issues? The introduction to the professor? Giving advice, going to the interview? Trying to save his reputation? The end, Catherine present, her siding with Catherine?

17.The Soho sequences, Michael stalking Catherine, the sleaziness of Soho, the sexual encounter with the man, his later being found dead, her drug supplier, the interrogations by Washburn?

18.The impact of his relationship with Catherine, his trying to understand himself, giving in to passion, the affair? Taking the drugs from her refrigerator? Her explanation of it being for health? Washburn’s version? Michael’s dilemmas as to whom to believe?

19.his reading the novel, his following it through, his fears for Milena, going to save her? Ringing Washburn?

20.The showdown, Milena siding with Catherine? Washburn arriving with the police, Michael shooting him? The police arresting him?

21.The ending, Michael in the wheelchair, in the institution, Catherine’s visit, her giving him the gift of the book, the inscription? Her taunting him? Giving the possibilities that he actually was the murderer and that this was a cover, she was a scapegoat? The possibility and plausibility that Catherine did the crimes, that Washburn did them, that Michael did them? His final enigmatic expression?