Basic Instinct 2: Back To the Drawing Board

One of the least anticipated sequels in cinematic history, Basic Instinct 2, opened in theaters last Friday. In three short days, it emerged as a critical and commercial failure of monumental proportions. It finished with the weekend’s eleventh-highest total gross, behind not merely Ice Age 2 but Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector and even Slither, a horror-comedy about killer slugs. What could possibly account for such a fiasco? A crowded field of film options? The ongoing box office slump? Paul Verhoeven, the director of the original Basic Instinct, has a different scapegoat in mind: George W. Bush.

Mr. Verhoeven apparently cannot conceive that a sufficiently shameful - or shameless - film may cause potential moviegoers’ self-protection instinct to override their sexual instinct. To the contrary, he offered these startling insights into the American artistic climate: “Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States. Look at the people at the top. We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends.” Ahhh, it all makes sense now. Audiences didn’t flock to partake of farcical sex and ludicrous dialogue because of the Puritanical values of the Bush regime. Soon I expect to hear that Bush bears responsibility for the extinction of the dinosaurs as well.

Of course, the freewheeling Clinton administration couldn’t save Verhoeven’s 1995 skinflick Showgirls from its own ignominious, career-destroying fate. And while Christianity and sex have had a tempestuous relationship, judging by the success of the porn industry America and sex seem to be getting along just fine. Perhaps true eroticism would draw Americans out of their bedrooms and back into theaters, but these days, lurid, voyeuristic thrills are a dime a dozen. Most adults are fully acquainted with what naked bodies look like, so for a movie to show them something they’ve never seen before, it would have to show them genuine insight into the human condition.

Religious conservatives often speak of what they perceive as the profound disconnect between Hollywood and the rest of America. They suggest that the profit motive alone cannot account for the discrepancies of taste between studios and their audience. Such commentators often exaggerate the truth, but in this instance their characterization proves totally correct.

Incidentally, Paul Verhoeven belongs to the Jesus Seminar, an organization that gained notoriety in the late ’80s and early ’90s by having its members vote to determine the authenticity of the quotes attributed to Jesus in the Bible. This group judged the vast majority of the words of Jesus as either false or dubious, and published an edited version of the New Testament reflecting its conclusions. Verhoeven’s directorial efforts and public statements do not tend to inspire confidence in his competence as a Biblical scholar, or in any organization that would employ him in that capacity. It goes to show that people should take much of popular Bible “scholarship” with a grain of salt.