Sharon Stone is going full steam ahead with her painting career because she’s not getting the acting roles she deserves. As she just told The Guardian about Hollywood, “I want to work with the masters because I have earned my place there.” Goals. So while the film industry slowly catches on to what they’re missing (if at all, let’s be honest), Sharon is exhibiting her vibrant artwork across the globe. She has a show right now in Berlin, and another one coming up in San Francisco. To promote her work, Sharon just chatted with Dana Carvey and David Spade on their Fly on the Wall podcast, and they discussed the time in April 1992 when Sharon hosted SNL and… a lot happened:
“I came out to do the monologue live, which is super scary, and a bunch of people started storming the stage saying they were going to kill me during the opening monologue,” Stone recalled. “The security that was in there froze because they never had seen anything like that happen.”
“Lorne started screaming at [security], ‘What are you doing? Watching the f–king show?’ And Lorne started beating them up and pulling them back from the stage,” she said. “The stage manager looked at me and said, ‘Hold for five.’ So all these people were getting beat up and handcuffed in front of me as we went live.”
“If you think the monologue is scary to begin with, try doing it as people are getting handcuffed in front of you,” Stone added.
She said the protesters were mad at her “because it was the beginning of my work as an AIDS activist. No one understood at the time what was happening and they didn’t know if amfAR could be trusted or if we were against gay people. Instead of waiting for an intelligent, informative conversation they thought, ‘Oh let’s just kill her.’”
“I was so not prepared,” Stone continued. “As you remember, the audience wasn’t up like it is now. Every time we were making a change you’re really physically changing your clothes while you’re running through the audience. I was just terrified. I honestly blacked out for half of the show.”
When the conversation pivoted to some of the sketches, Carvey noted that Stone “was such a good sport” and “the comedy we did with Sharon Stone, we’d literally be arrested now. That was 1992.”
One of the more controversial segments was “Airport Security Sketch,” in which Stone played a woman who gets stopped by airport security and asked to remove one item of clothing at a time. Stone isn’t carrying anything dangerous, the security guards just want to see her take her clothes off. Carvey appeared as an Indian security guard.
“I want to apologize publicly for the security check sketch where I played an Indian man and we’re convincing Sharon, her character, or whatever — to take her clothes off to go through the security thing,” Carvey said, with Spade chiming in that it was “so offensive.”
“It’s so 1992, you know, it’s from another era,” Carvey continued.
Stone said she actually didn’t mind the sketch at all, adding: “I know the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. And I think that we were all committing misdemeanors [back then] because we didn’t think there was something wrong then. We didn’t have this sense. That was funny to me, I didn’t care. I was fine being the butt of the joke.”
Was Sharon’s character really the butt of the joke? From my 2024 vantage point I think it’s the guys in the sketch who are the jokes; they come off as giggling school boys who can’t think of anything better to do with a woman than ask her to take her clothes off. I can’t help but think of Sharon Stone doing the sketch now, and imagine her stripping, proud and secure in her presence, knowing full well the men are completely in over their heads. It was only right for Dana and David to apologize for the sketch as a whole, and especially for Dana to acknowledge how inappropriate it was for him to play an Indian character. I was intrigued with Sharon’s misdemeanor vs felony analogy, but at the same time I wonder, what is the statute of limitations on the “it was another era” defense?
Also, Lorne Michaels snapping at the too-stunned-to-act security guards had me laughing out loud. “What are you doing? Watching the f–king show?” Nailed it.
photos credit: Jeffrey Mayer / Avalon and via Instagram and screenshots from YouTube
As a Gen X mom with still young kids, so much of what we accepted as “normal” back then just floors my kids now. They laugh uncomfortably at things then give me a side look that says, “This explains soooo much!”
Yes! Gen Xer with teens and tweens who DO NOT understand my nostalgic love for things like Sixteen Candles or really most of the teen or romance movies back then. They are horribly offensive and pretty disturbing. You “give” your passed out drunk girlfriend to some random freshman because he talked to you about the girl that you know likes you? It’s so crazy! But I watched that movie at least 200 times and can quote it verbatim. So it isn’t so much that we are excusing these things with “it was a different era” but the truth is that nobody really thought to call it out at the time. Although as I got older and into college I started seeing things through a more feminist lens and by the early 90s I was beginning to understand how offensive they all were.
I finally reached the point where I can’t even laugh at Sixteen Candles but I loved it in my time. I still laugh at Fawlty Towers because Basil is acknowledged to be such an ass. I may get past that humor too eventually.
My mother hates it when I point out how media from the past is very sexist, racist, etc…… She always says, ” well, you can’t change the past.” I try explaining that by pointing things like this out people are trying to change the future.
By recognizing the issues of the past we are trying to change the future is an excellent way to frame that. I’ll be using that.
And let me amplify:
By recognizing the issues of the past we are trying to avoid hurting people now and in the future.
And then one can clarify: Promoting stereotypes may be funny in the moment but it makes it easier for people to discriminate (in education, in hiring, on social media), and that has real hurtful consequences.
She’s not wrong; the past cannot be amended. But for good people like your mom, give her a bye to keep enjoying that stuff but say we can fix things going forward so women don’t remain pathetic jokes and ethnicities aren’t punchlines for not being White on media. Give her the space to get there.
Of course if I misread you and your mom is a stubborn turkey on this issue, I’m sorry.
@smegmoria Ty for sharing. Gen x here and boomer parents, and that’s what my parents said when I tried to have a convo with them as an adult about my traumatic childhood. “You can’t change the past”
@betsy love your rejoinder and I wish I would have said that “and how can we change things going forwards”
Instead it’s 9 years no contact and wondering if it will stay that way.
I realized a while back being mad about the sexist and racist art of the past is wasted energy and too often self congratulatory. People give themselves a Pat on the back for recognizing the racism of the past. What’s a much better exercise is to recognize that reasonable people thought this was OK and what in my life am I letting past today. What are the children of the next generation going to look at in horror when they watch our films and TV shows. I’m guessing jet travel and plastics as well as things that are completely normal to us.
Waiting on her public apology to her Filipino nanny.
While I can appreciate Stone’s misdemeanor/felony distinction, it’s important to point out that minority voices have always been raised about the “something wrong(s)”. A crucial issue though is that the people with the power to change the status quo didn’t pay attention, didn’t listen, and didn’t want to change. Or maybe they just didn’t want to make the effort to change, and didn’t want to take on the responsibilities and ownership that changing might have required.
Present conversation aside, I must say that Sharon Stone is aging fabulously. I love her non-manipulated face.