The Stone Age: Sharon Stone, the last great movie star

https://aseatintheaisle.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/the-stone-age-sharon-stone-the-last-great-movie-star/

Sharon Stone is not a great actress. She can be if she has a good director (it’s no mistake that Martin Scorsese has gotten a brilliant performance out of her), but for the most part, Stone doesn’t act so much as she is. But that’s totally fine in my book. Sharon Stone is the kind of actress that would’ve been huge in the 1940s. Contrary to what false nostalgia will tell you, the Golden Age of Hollywood wasn’t necessarily staffed by more skilled thespians. In fact, many of our greatest stars of yesteryear – Humphrey Bogart, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, John Wayne – would seem incredibly mannered by today’s standards. That’s not to say that these actors weren’t good, but they didn’t act so much as bend and twist their screen persona to match whatever script was shoved at them.

Sharon Stone is like our era’s Joan Crawford. Stone doesn’t appear in a film, she struts through it, dominating the scenes with a bright, overpowering screen presence. She doesn’t awe us with an incredible skill – she’s not Meryl Streep or Jessica Lange – but she’s awesome because she burns the screen with a magnetic charisma, that is flinty and powerful.

It’s not wonder then that Stone’s filmography is so spotty (for all their legendary status, Davis and Crawford both also have some creaky credits to their names) For every Casino, she has a string of forgettable or atrocious stinkers that are only salvaged by her regal appearance.

The first film of note in Stone’s career is Basic Instinct (1992, dir. Paul Verhoeven) Essentially b-movie junk dressed up as a glossy noir, Stone’s performance is lost in the hype around the infamous interrogation scene in which she uncrosses her legs, revealing she’s not wearing underwear (Stone was not aware that the shot would be visible) It’s not a demanding role and it relies heavily on the actress’ hardened, chiseled beauty. But it made Stone a star. Before Basic Instinct, she was paying her dues, toiling away doing nothing forgettables (King Solomon’s Mines, Cold Steel, Scissors), often playing gorgeous ciphers, but never really breaking out. Basic Instinct gave her that defining, iconic role that legendary actresses want, though it’s largely memorable for that one scene than any work – no matter how estimable – that Stone does on the screen.

Basic Instinct‘s infamy and success made Sharon Stone a movie star, but she followed that film with more duds, each merely vehicles for her to stand around, be beautiful, and preen.

By 1995, she was underrated and so it came as some shock that when Casino came out, critics were impressed with her work. Playing against Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci, Stone could’ve easily wilted and disappeared. Scorsese doesn’t make movies in which women thrive – they are masculine films and the women are often victims, mothers, or wives. Stone gives her sole brilliant performance as Ginger McKenna, wife of DeNiro’s Sam Rothstein.

Stone is gifted by a screenplay (by Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi) that creates an impressive (if eventually reductive and clichéd) arc for her to play out. When we see Stone in the beginning of the film, she’s fresh-faced and beautiful, decked out in a sparkly, rhinestone-encrusted dress that came up to a dazzling, multi-coloured rainbow around her neck. Her thick blond hair was scraped back and spilled out as a luscious, golden waterfall. She’s a vision and is basically the reason why film exists.

Ginger is an unlikable character. A grifter and a hustler who moves around, finding men to exploit. She has few redeeming features as a personality. Like the men in the film, Ginger survives on sheer will and wit, getting by because life is really hard on her. Her inevitable decline is sad and terrifying, but not surprising. The script does to her what cinema has done to “unlikable women” – it’s reduced her to a screaming, keening mess, who eventually ODs and dies a pathetic disaster.

DeNiro’s performance in Casino suffers from a sense of familiarity – he’s done this before with Scorsese, and though he’s effective, it’s not affecting. Pesci is explosive, but again, it’s something we’ve seen. Even when they’re coasting, they’re masterful. But it’s Stone who leaves the major impression with a loud, extravagant performance that essentially outclasses her costars as well as the material. It’s a lightening-strikes-once performance, but it’s memorable.

Stone was nominated for a raft of awards, including an Academy Award, but lost to Susan Sarandon’s yeoman-like effort in the capital punishment drama Dead Man Walking (more on that in a bit)

So, did Sharon Stone embark on a career of prestige films after her wonderful work in Casino?