[Horror Queers] Boring Men and Bisexual Erasure in ‘Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction’

Each month in Horror Queers, Joe and Trace tackle a horror film with LGBTQ+ themes, a high camp quotient or both. For lifelong queer horror fans like us, there’s as much value in serious discussions about representation as there is in reading a ridiculously silly/fun horror film with a YAS KWEEN mentality. Just know that at no point will we be getting Babashook.

Be sure to check out and subscribe to the Horror Queers podcast! We’re still writing one article a month, but we release one podcast episode each week and discuss one film per episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn, or RSS.

***SPOILERS for Basic Instinct 2 to follow.***

Synopsis: Novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is once again in trouble with the law, and Scotland Yard appoints psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to evaluate her. Though, like Detective Nick Curran before him, Glass is entranced by Tramell and lured into a seductive game.

Queer Aspect: Well…Tramell was originally a bisexual in the first film, but here she’s more or less been straight-washed.

Joe

As he sat down to write his half of the latest Horror Queers column, “Joe” couldn’t help but wonder what went wrong with Basic Instinct 2. It had so much potential, but the result was a product that even the staunchest erotic thriller fan would classify as a boner killer. When he reflected on his viewing experience, all he felt was numb. Pulsing through his head, traveling down his neck, along his arms and onto the computer screen, the disappointment flowed like the copious amount of wine that he’d had to consume to get through a first watch of this film.

Trace, remember when we were young babies and we thought about how much fun it would be to program a dirty little erotic thriller for our October column? “Watch Basic Instinct 2” we said to ourselves, “It’ll be campy, and silly, and fun.” 

OH LAWD, WE WERE SO WRONG.

Alright, I’m dialling back my despair so that we can properly cue this atrocity up. Back in 1992, Basic Instinct was a cultural phenomenon: it confirmed that bankability of screenwriter Joe Eszterhas, director Paul Verhoeven and Michael Douglas, and it launched Sharon Stone as an A-list actress. It makes sense that after the film did so well that there would be talk of a sequel, though it would take until nearly 2000 to get the ball rolling. 

Like so many of the films that we’ve covered in this series – and on the podcast, particularly these last two months during our Camp marathon – Basic Instinct 2 had a very rocky route to theatres. Strangely enough it seems that the blame falls equally on all parties. It’s unclear why plans for a sequel weren’t made until 2000 (the 90s were a different time, compared to the sequelitis craze that seemingly infected every commercial property in the 00s). By the time talk of a second film got rolling, Douglas passed because he felt too old and Verhoeven ultimately also walked away, which meant that a new male star and a new director had to be found.

And therein lies the trouble (and the drama): the parade of people who were at one time considered or attached, but ultimately rejected by either Stone or the studio, meant that the film kept being delayed. It’s kind of crazy when you look over the list, which included the likes of:

• Directors: Jan De Bont, John McTiernan and David Cronenberg (who walked away after he was banned from using his usual production team).
• Actors: Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Gabriel Byrne, Javier Bardem, Benicio Del Toro, Viggo Mortensen and Aaron Eckhart, Robert Downey Jr, Kurt Russell, Bruce Greenwood, Pierce Brosnan, Rupert Everett and, of course, the producers’ pick, Benjamin Bratt.

Half of the fun is considering what the film could have been and the other half is thinking about the bad blood between Stone and producers Andrew G. Vajna and Mario Kassar, whom she filed a $100 MILLION DOLLAR (!) lawsuit against for delaying the film’s production because they couldn’t agree on the male lead.

Now if you’re wondering why I’ve spent so much time on the film’s troubled production as opposed to digging into the film…it’s a deliberate coping strategy because this Michael Caton-Jones film is just so darn boring. Honestly, all of this behind the scenes drama is far more interesting than anything that eventually showed up on the screen.

Rather than dig into the carcass of snoozedom that this film is, however, let’s tackle the reason why we selected it in the first place: its portrayal of a bisexual (potential) serial killer. If you consider the dialogue that surrounded the first film, most people likely remember the controversy about Stone’s leg (un)crossing, but the film was also defined by the protests waged against its depiction of a killer bisexual. 

In the history of this column, we’ve talked at length about problematic depictions – from our second entry on Insidious: Chapter 2 to last month’s problematique The Fan – so I was interested in checking out how, or if, Basic Instinct 2 would (re)consider its approach to threatening bisexuality in the sequel. Would 14 years of cultural progress factor in or would the film struggle to break out of the “killer gay” trope that the first film fell into?

The answer is…a complete disavowal of bisexuality! While Catherine Trammell may or may not be a complete homicidal lunatic with the uncanny ability to mastermind a frame job, in 2006 her inclination to partake in a wee bit of lady pleasure has been completely erased. Yes, folks, Catherine Trammell is now exclusively a horny hetero; her bisexual edges from the first film have been completely sawed off. So that’s…interesting (as I like to say repeatedly).

Instead of hogging the mic and speculating on this curious development, I’ll turn it over to you, Trace. What do you make of the film’s odd decision to straight-wash Trammell’s bisexuality in favour of more traditional erotic fare? Also: were any of those rejected actors or directors intriguing to you or do you think that Risk Addiction *snicker* was always doomed to be a multiple Razzie-awarding winning disaster? And, most importantly, why are Stone’s bangs cut like Gale Weathers from Scream 3?

Trace

As he lounged on his leather/upholstery combination couch to start his portion of this “analysis” of Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction, “Trace” couldn’t help but be overwhelmed with a truly annoying case of writer’s block. “What can I possibly say about this film?” he asked. So blasé he felt about the film that he couldn’t muster up the motivation to put a single word to the page. If he’s learned anything from Basic Instinct 2, however, it’s that you can write something incredibly shitty and still get paid for it. He knew he must persevere!

Joe, before I even begin to discuss Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction (because yes, this movie has a colon in its title), I have to sincerely apologize for suggesting we pick this movie! I had only seen it once before and it was when I was in college (so 2008ish). I had read most of the negative reviews and was morbidly curious about the film so I sought it out because it couldn’t possibly be that bad, could it? And goddammit I liked it on my initial viewing! I remembered it being trashy fun!

My, how time changes things. More than 10 years later and I found this sequel to be dreadfully dull and not the least bit sexy. Poor Sharon Stone (and her aforementioned bangs)! Not helping matters is that you and I watched it immediately after watching the Wachowski’s perfect film Bound; if we’re being honest, anything that we watched after that was….bound….to pale in comparison. Despite that, I fear that no viewing circumstances would make Basic Instinct 2 any more entertaining. Yes, it’s fun to take a drink every time someone says the word “cum” or “risk” (and make no mistake: that’s a lot of drinks), but ultimately this movie can’t even manage to be a fun bad movie. 

And if there’s anything worse than a bad movie, it’s a boring bad movie. 

You’ve thoroughly covered the production woes of the film so I won’t elaborate on them too much, but Jesus Christ, what a clusterfuck! It’s no wonder the film has a 7% Rotten Tomatoes score (average score of 3.04 out of 10) and only grossed $38 million worldwide (just $6 million of which was from the domestic box office). Compare this to the original’s worldwide gross of $353 million (against a $49 million budget) in 1992 and you have to wonder what went so wrong here! So many factors were in play with the downfall of this sequel, but the 14-year gap between films and the complete and utter lack of understanding of what made the original so memorable (and no, it wasn’t Stone’s snatch) is to blame here. 

The film’s biggest failing is that it doesn’t deliver on the mystery it sets up. What made the original film so enthralling (other than Verhoeven’s direction and the magnetic performances from Douglas and Stone), is the central mystery: is Catherine a murderess? Despite a 123-minute runtime, Basic Instinct flies by because it has a good grip on its pacing (with the occasional graphic sex scene thrown in for good measure), leaving you captivated until its haunting final shot. The same cannot be said for Basic Instinct 2, which drags scene after scene during its even shorter 113-minute runtime. Whatever spark there was between Stone and Douglas is missing from Stone and Morrissey, but even the resolution of the mystery is A) muddled and B) not interesting. The blame cannot solely be placed on Morrissey, however, as Stone seems utterly disinterested during all of her scenes. It’s quite depressing. Perhaps she was trying to act mysterious, but it comes across as bored. 

Moving on to the main topic at hand: I would argue that the bi-erasure for Catherine began in the discourse following the first film. It was controversial in 1992, but how often do you even hear Jeanne Tripplehorn’s (one of Catherine’s three known female lovers in the first film) character brought up when discussing Basic Instinct? It’s rare, to the point where you have to wonder if the production really did trick Stone into uncrossing her legs (because as the story goes: she didn’t know they were filming from that angle) just to give people something to talk about that wasn’t the bisexual girl-on-girl parts of the film.

The sequel doesn’t even try something similar, not only because Stone was probably more cautious around the camera but also because there’s nary a mention of Catherine’s bisexuality in the film! Why is this? It could be argued that screenwriters Leora Barish and Henry Bean hadn’t seen the first film in a while and just…forgot, but I find that hard to believe. No, timing is the important factor here. George Bush was still president in 2006 and the world was just 5 years removed from 9/11, so the country was still very much in a conservative mindset. I have no doubt that that played a part in Catherine’s sudden heterosexuality. The film was already a financial risk, so better not rustle the feathers of mainstream moviegoers by delving deeper into Catherine’s queerness

Oh! And I didn’t even answer your question about what could have been with this film. Out of the options you listed, I’d say that Cronenberg would have been my choice for director. He has mastered the erotic (Videodrome, Shivers, Crash, that staircase sex scene in A History of Violence) and is obviously skilled in the horror genre. And if you subscribe to the auteur theory, he’s just the kind director you want behind a film like Basic Instinct 2. 

As for a leading man, anyone you listed would have done a better job than David Morrissey, who admittedly isn’t given much to work with, but whose performance leaves no impression whatsoever. My pick would likely be Viggo Mortensen. Together, he and Cronenberg could have filmed it between A History of Violence (2005) and Eastern Promises (2007) so take a moment to imagine what a trifecta that would have been! (This is, of course, assuming there was a better script, though perhaps Cronenberg could have made something interesting out of this screenplay).

Joe, let’s look at the narrative of the film, specifically the ending. Can you make any sense of it? Did Michael actually kill all of these people? Or did Catherine set him up? If it’s the latter, then how? Also, did the obscene amount of cigarette smoking stand out to you? Who was Cheslav, again? Should we care?

Joe

Pouring over the words of his close friend while softly caressing the crushed velvet chaise lounge on which he reclined provocatively, “Joe” wracked his brains for some kind of revelation: Who the fuck was Cheslav?

Oh man, Cheslav! The character who is repeatedly mentioned, but is so unimportant that he is LITERALLY never glimpsed onscreen and fails to even appear on the film’s Wikipedia page! Yes, Cheslav is the McGuffin character from Dr. Glass’ past: the case that caused the doctor’s 7-year meltdown and ruined his marriage. I definitely just chuckled because the frequency with which Cheslav is reference would have you believe that he’s absolutely vital to the case, but the reality is that it’s simply a plot device intended to cast suspicion on Glass’ past.

It’s ironic that you mention drinks, Trace, because the only way I could sustain my interest in the film was to compile a list of potential drinking game rules. They include:

• Take a drink every time: someone mentions Cheslav or says the words risk and cum (as you suggested), as well each time someone (usually David Thewlis’ Washburn) calls Catherine a bitch or a cunt; we see a lighter in the form of a British monument
• Chug your drink each time: someone says Basic Instinct, there’s a sex scene, Catherine reclines on a couch
• Throw your drink when: someone (Catherine or otherwise) mentions her terrible new book, The Analyst

As for the actual plot of this film…woo boy. One gets the impression when watching this car wreck *zing* that Barish and Bean legitimately believe that they’ve scripted some kind of tense, psychological thriller that builds on the sexiness of the first film. The first main problem is that Glass is the film’s “hero” and while I won’t dispute that Morrissey is unabashedly terrible in this, the script is partially to blame for the gasping charisma vacuum at its center. Glass is clearly meant to be a morally gray doctor – in the same vein as Douglas’ Nick was a potentially unscrupulous cop – but that ambiguity and Morrissey’s lack of sexual chemistry with Stone (who is vacant in her second go at the character) simply drains the life from this whole enterprise.

So is Glass actually a killer who used the American novelist as a “smokescreen” to “get even” with his “weekend slut” ex-wife, Denise (Game of Thrones’ Indira Varma) and her “scumbag journalist” lover,  Adam Towers (an utterly wasted Hugh Dancy)? Ummm…probably not, though the climax of the film would like us to at least consider it, hence the use of desaturated murder flashbacks and the “is it drugs or is it eeeevil” look on Glass’ face. But there’s never a hint that Glass is an unreliable narrator throughout the rest of the film: instead, he’s portrayed more as an idiot who is falling in lust with a dangerous woman. 

The problem with Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction is that it thinks it’s complicated, but the truth is that this bitch is just basic. 

Circling back to the sexy stuff is vital though. There are two more factors to consider when discussing the sexual politics of the film: 1) there are hints of naughtier queer stuff in both the insinuation that Denise slept with Catherine and Towers’s S&M-themed death, which could mean that Glass (if he is the killer) stripped the man naked. And 2) apparently a M/F/F threesome with Glass, Catherine and a female friend was filmed, but it was cut from the final film. Add to this the curious creative decision to move the film’s setting from San Francisco to London (hence the odd mix & mash of American and UK actors in contention for the Glass role), which should have made the film more sexually adventurous considering how much less sexually reserved Europeans are. These elements should mean that BI2 is sleazier than it actually is…and yet.

I don’t disagree that you’ve got the Conservatism of the mid-2000s rightly pegged *heh* as at least part of the reason for the finished film’s less sexually adventurous material, but I am obsessed with the idea that there’s a more risqué film lurking somewhere inside Risk Addiction. For whatever reason, it opted to censor itself. And for what?! This is still an erotic thriller with an R-rating!

The only other excuse that I can think of is that this creative team saw the state of the subgenre in the early-to-mid-2000s and opted for a more conventional film thinking it would help the box office. After all, by this time the popularity of erotic thrillers – once all of the rage in the 90s thanks in no small part to Stone vehicles like Basic Instinct and Sliver – had waned considerably as a result of saturation from shitty direct-to-video competitors. By the 2000s the subgenre was in a complete freefall (just like slashers were in the wake of the 80s boom before Scream). Consider our brief discussion about the state of the genre, specifically about how Meg Ryan’s career imploded with the disastrous In The Cut (2003) and how the only true success story of the 2000s is Adrian Lyne’s Unfaithful (2002). Hell, not even Amanda Seyfried’s tits could help the box office of Chloe in 2009! 

So maybe we should cut BI2 some slack considering that the odds were never in its favour? I dunno, Trace, what could have been done to make this film more a) campy b) sexy or c) better? Why the hell are all of these male actors, especially Thewlis, so bad and/or bland? And what’s your take on the legacy of Risk Addiction and, more broadly, the state of the erotic thriller? Are you ready to declare the subgenre as DOA as Stone’s bangs?

Trace

Sprawled out over his king-size bed with a bag of puffy Cheetos, “Trace” casually licked the cheesy powder of his fingertips and dove back into his response. Was he so drunk on wine that he actually thought: “Yes. We should cut Basic Instinct 2 some slack”?

Joe, you know more than anyone else how forgiving I am with films. I always try to see the good in them and will almost always make excuses for the cast and crew (I do the same thing when I receive bad service at a restaurant). In the case of Basic Instinct 2, however, I’m at a loss. I do think the film is shot well (cinematographer Gyula Pados would go on to shoot action films like Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, the second and third Maze Runner films and Predators), but no one on screen is having any fun and the script is a total disaster. 

What would have made this film better? Other than taking the easy way out and saying “a new script,” the clear answer is that the film should have embraced its stupidity. This is a classic case of unintentional badness, when it should have been trying to be bad. Let Stone go over the top with this role! Would it have been a good movie? Absolutely not, but at least it would have been fun! Oh, and get David Thewlis out of this movie. He’s a great actor, but Jesus Christ, he does not belong here. 

What does belong here is sex. I’m surprised you are even contemplating the idea of a more risqué cut, Joe. Don’t you remember that we watched the unrated version of the film? I paid $19.64 for that fucking Blu-Ray (way more than this movie deserves)! We even watched the deleted scenes together! So no, I do not think there is a more risqué version of this film out there. Had this film been made today, I think we’d be telling a different story, but I do think that the erotic thriller sub-genre is dead (for now, anyway).

You are correct in that Morrissey isn’t solely to blame for Glass’ blandness. Douglas’ character was a complex and untrustworthy protagonist because not only was he bedding the prime suspect in his murder investigation (gross), but he was also in therapy after accidentally shooting two tourists while coked out during an undercover assignment(!). Glass does not have the “luxury” of such a past, so by the time he is presented as the secret villain of the film, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I understand wanting to have a different sort of protagonist, but his villain switcheroo has to make sense with whatever your endgame is. This doesn’t, unless you buy into the idea that Catherine framed him, but even that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

At this point, I feel like I’m scrambling for things to talk about in order to make my section longer, so I’m going to end with this: what is the legacy of Basic Instinct 2? It’s certainly not one of those “so bad it’s good” movies. If that were the case then it would be an excellent companion to something like Showgirls or Sliver. Unfortunately, there isn’t any column sex to save this one, though there is a lot of sex that thinks it’s a lot sexier/kinkier than it is. 

Is it possible that there is no legacy for Basic Instinct 2? It’s never brought up in conversation. It’s not a part of the discourse of erotic thrillers. It’s simply been forgotten. And maybe that’s for the best.

Next time on Horror Queers: Unfortunately, this will be the last Horror Queers article for the foreseeable future. Joe has taken on a writing gig for ScreenRant, which means that his words will be exclusive to that site. Never fear, however! The podcast will continue on a weekly basis, so you can still listen to us there.

Don’t forget to catch up on our previous Horror Queers articles here or check out our podcast page here.