BASIC INSTINCT: Missing Shot? (1 Viewer)

[GerardoHP]

I just watched my recently-purchased unrated edition of BI and thought my mind was playing tricks on me. I could have sworn there was a low-angle medium shot of Sharon Stone during the interrogation scene where she has her legs crossed man-style and one can see, well, her privates for a sustained couple of seconds. Does anyone know for sure?
I suppose if this was true someone would have already posted the comment, but I just had to ask.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[Jeff Adkins]

This is your mind playing tricks on you. Just like the people who swore that the Hannibal DVD was edited, your mind has fooled you into thinking the shot was longer than it actually was.
What's interesting to me is that people act as if that was the first time a woman's pubic hair was ever seen on film before. I don't get what was supposedly so groundbreaking about it.
Jeff

 

[Lawrence Davis]

Jeff,
For starters, on 35mm film, you see more than just pubic hair in that infamous shot. Also, Stone supposedly didn't know she was going to be photographed in such an explicit way and when it was shown to the public, she claimed she felt humiliated. Of course, today she would have to admit it helped make her famous, so I doubt she has such problems with it now. I think considering the atmosphere of the time and the atmosphere of the production itself, it lent a certain "naughtiness" to the experience of watching the film in the theater. Maybe today it wouldn't garner more than a yawn. I don't know. But back then, it was almost scandalous.

 

[david cro]

As Jeff said, your mind has fooled you into thinking the shot was longer than it actually was Gerardo, or it could be because you usually hit the freeze frame button at that point. The truth is out!

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Also, Stone supposedly didn't know she was going to be photographed in such an explicit way and when it was shown to the public, she claimed she felt humiliated.

Yeah right!
HAve you ever worked on a movie? If she didn't know, she's a moron-- the setup and lighting required to get that shot would have given it away in a second. I wouldn't be suprised if they had a pubic hair dresser (not kidding!).
I've heard her say that a few times, and laughed everytime. Trust me, it would be nearly impossible for her to "not know" how much would be seen- the cmaera placement alone would have made it quite obvious.
-Vince
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
AIM: VinceMaskeeper
Interested in moving into FRONT PROJECTION with huge 6-10 foot widescreen? Buy my whole HDTV-ready CRT based front projection system delivered, cheap! Click here

 

[GerardoHP]

I admit it! I slowed down the shot and I froze the frame repeatedly but, then again, doesn't everybody? C'mon, people, confess!
Awright, so my memory was playing tricks on me and I thought there was another, slower, clearer shot.
The shot that's there is so quick and almost CGI-like you really don't know precisely what you're looking at. Could be just a little, or a lot, or much more than a lot. So it makes your mind work, and perhaps subliminally you think you're seeing all of the above, meaning much more than just one thing. Jeff, you're right, this is the same thing that happened with HANNIBAL.
Who knows. It's a good movie at any rate and, for me, it actually gets better with each viewing.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[bill lopez]

I thought the same thing too, because I had the laserdisc and remember seeing more.

 

[Roby Adams]

All right, boys and girls. Well, mostly boys I would guess.
I went back to my original Basic Instinct Director's Cut laserdisc and painstakingly examined the scene in question.
There are two shots. One wide shot where we see all of Catherine as she uncrosses her legs. Then, immediately following a closer shot showing only her midsection as she crosses her legs. Both shots are very quick but they are centered on her crotch area, which would put them slightly below center.
I cannot compare directly with the new DVD since I don't have it. Yet.
I hope you appreciate all the hard work and rigorous research that went into this.
------------------
200 and 40 dollars worth'a puddin'
My DVDs

 

[Nathan*W]

I hope you appreciate all the hard work and rigorous research that went into this.

While the wife was at the market, I hope!

 

[Dave H]

Gerardo,
I confess - I watched the scenes frozen repeatedly.

 

[tyler O]

Personally, I think you may be confusing this scene with the infamous beaver scene from Loaded Weapon I. That one was very slow and long and you could just about count the hairs on that beaver.

-edit- arrgh. get the name of the movie right why don't ya. Kind of like Leonard, pt. 6. This had a I
------------------
Share and Enjoy - The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
[Edited last by tyler O on September 24, 2001 at 11:39 AM]

 

[Patrick Mirza]

From what I've read, Stone was A-OK on the set as Verhoeven described what he wanted to show.
Everything was OK, that is, until a screening of the final print with cast/crew/studio executives.
Apparently Stone's agent threw a fit when the "scene" came up; Sharon (who was sitting next to him) was so embarrassed that she blamed Paul Verhoeven for "the shot" and came up with her now-infamous explanation of the trickery.
------------------
webmaster davisdvd.com
International Exclusives

 

[John Stockton]

Could it be that the low angle medium shot of the crotch is not Sharon Stone?? The more I examine it the more I believe it could be a double.
------------------
[Edited last by John Stockton on September 25, 2001 at 05:06 PM]

 

[Matt_Stevens]

It's her. The cast knows it was her. She knows it was her. She knew what was going on. They had to shine lights directly between her legs to get that shot.
Once her agent and publicist found out about it, they got very angry and told her to deny, deny, deny and she has done so to this day.
My Malata N996's zoom function makes examining this scene so easy.

------------------
www.deceptions.net/superman