Indecent Proposal

David and Diana Murphy are married high school sweethearts living in California. Diana is working as a real estate agent, while David hopes to establish himself as an architect by designing their dream home. The couple invest everything they have in David's project, purchasing beachfront property in Santa Monica, California and beginning construction, but the recession leaves Diana without houses to sell and David without a job. In desperate need of $50,000 to save their land from being repossessed, they travel to Las Vegas to gamble with the last of their savings.

At a casino, Diana catches the eye of high roller John Gage, while David wins over $25,000 at craps. Reveling in their winnings, Diana assures David that she loves him regardless of the money. The next day, they lose everything at roulette; leaving the casino, they notice a crowd gathered to watch Gage play baccarat. Gage asks Diana to join him for good luck, and she makes a winning craps roll on his $1 million bet. As thanks, Gage insists on paying for the Murphys' stay, giving them a lavish hotel suite and a dress he saw Diana admire. After an enjoyable evening together, Gage offers the couple $1 million to allow him to spend a night with Diana, with David flatly refusing.

Later, Diana convinces David to agree to Gage's proposal. David contacts his lawyer, who prepares a contract for the arrangement. Leaving Diana with Gage, David has a change of heart and races to stop them but arrives just as they depart by helicopter. Gage flies Diana to his private yacht and offers her a chance to void their deal and return to her husband if he loses a toss of his lucky coin. He wins the toss, and Diana spends the night with him.

Agreeing to forget the incident, the Murphys return home to discover that the bank had already foreclosed on and sold their land. Overcome with anger and jealousy, David accuses Diana of continuing to see Gage after finding his business card in her wallet, which she denies knowing about. Discovering that it was Gage who bought out their land, Diana angrily confronts him and rejects his attempts to pursue her. When she informs David, their tension reaches a breaking point, and they separate; Diana allows David to keep the $1 million.

Weeks later, Gage visits Diana at work and renews his advances. Initially resistant, she eventually consents to spending time with him, and a romance develops between them. David, meanwhile, turns to alcohol and eventually hits rock bottom, leading to a public confrontation with Gage and Diana. He pulls his life back together and finds a teaching position, and Diana files for divorce. Finding her at a zoo benefit with Gage, David donates the entire $1 million in a charity auction bid, then makes his peace with Diana and signs their divorce papers.

Realizing that Diana will never love him the way she loves David, Gage lies to her that she is merely the latest member of his "million-dollar club" of women. Seeing through his deception, she gratefully ends their relationship; before parting ways, he gives her his lucky coin, which she realizes is double headed. Diana returns to the pier where David proposed to her seven years earlier, finding him there. Repeating their unique declaration of love, they join hands.

{{div col|colwidth=30em}}

• Robert Redford as John Gage
• Demi Moore as Diana Murphy
• Woody Harrelson as David Murphy
• Seymour Cassel as Mr. Shackleford, Gage's chauffeur
• Oliver Platt as Jeremy Green
• Billy Bob Thornton as Day Tripper
• Rip Taylor as Mr. Langford
• Billy Connolly as auction MC
• Pamela Holt as David's girlfriend
• Tommy Bush as Mr. Murphy
• Sheena Easton as herself
• Herbie Hancock as himself

{{div col end}}

Paramount Pictures bought the rights to Jack Engelhard's 1988 novel Indecent Proposal for $120,000.{{cite news |last1=Welkos |first1=Robert W. |title=Another Flap Over a Movie's Net Profits |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-09-12-ca-44986-story.html |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=Los Angeles Times |date=1995-09-12 |archive-date=June 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230614144358/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-09-12-ca-44986-story.html |url-status=live }} Adrian Lyne signed on to direct, reuniting with producer Sherry Lansing, with whom he had worked on Fatal Attraction. Lyne had a falling out with past collaborator Stanley Jaffe, who wanted the film to be released by Christmas season of 1992 and thus allotted for limited post-production time.

The film was originally planned as a vehicle for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, with Warren Beatty as John Gage.{{cite news |last1=Wuntch |first1=Philip |title=Lyne Surprised by Response to 'Proposal' |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-04-15-9304150348-story.html |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=Dallas Morning News |via=Chicago Tribune |date=April 15, 1993 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230610074412/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-04-15-9304150348-story.html |archive-date=June 10, 2023}} Kidman and Isabelle Adjani screen tested for the role of Diana.{{cite web |title=Indecent Proposal (1993) |url=https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/67156 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190831010452/https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/67156 |archive-date=2019-08-31 |access-date=15 June 2023 |website=AFI Catalog of Feature Films}} Cruise backed out amidst speculation that the film's morals conflicted with his new involvement in the Church of Scientology. Robert Redford accepted the part of Gage on the condition that his character be adjusted to be less of a villain. He turned down the $4 million salary initially offered to him in exchange for gross profit participation from the film's box office.

Johnny Depp, Tim Robbins, and William Baldwin{{cite news |date=April 17, 1992 |title=Baldwin In Line For 'Indecent Proposal' |work=Orlando Sentinel |url=https://www.orlandosentinel.com/1992/04/17/baldwin-in-line-for-indecent-proposal/ |url-status=live |access-date=2010-10-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120908043608/http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-04-17/entertainment/9204160160_1_william-baldwin-indecent-proposal-terry-gilliam |archive-date=2012-09-08}} were among the actors considered for the role of David Murphy. Woody Harrelson dropped out of the film Benny & Joon to commit to the role, resulting in a lawsuit from MGM-Pathe Entertainment that was settled out of court.{{Cite web |last=Brew |first=Simon |date=2015-11-03 |title=9 Actors Who Were Sued for Quitting Movies |url=https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/9-actors-who-were-sued-for-quitting-movies/ |access-date=2023-06-15 |website=Den of Geek |language=en-US |archive-date=September 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924113448/https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/9-actors-who-were-sued-for-quitting-movies/ |url-status=live }}

Of the script, screenwriter Amy Holden Jones said there were multiple third-act changes to the script, made primarily by men.{{cite news |last1=Stewart |first1=Sara |title=The truth behind the sexy scenes of '90s thriller 'Indecent Proposal' |url=https://nypost.com/2023/04/05/indecent-proposal-popular-1990s-erotic-thriller-turns-30/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=New York Post |date=April 5, 2023 |archive-date=August 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230805100056/https://nypost.com/2023/04/05/indecent-proposal-popular-1990s-erotic-thriller-turns-30/ |url-status=live }} Jones initially wrote the ending with Diana leaving Gage of her own accord, without prompting from Gage.{{Cite news |last=Kempley |first=Rita |date=April 18, 1993 |title=Selling Women Short |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1993/04/18/selling-women-short/c98de2f9-4c9b-472a-87dd-d68ce34d8671/ |access-date=June 15, 2023 |archive-date=November 6, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171106193216/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1993/04/18/selling-women-short/c98de2f9-4c9b-472a-87dd-d68ce34d8671/ |url-status=live }}

Jones said: "I always had a lot of trouble with the movie after [David and Diana] split up. The men in charge, and particularly Redford, decided to make [Gage] very sympathetic. In the original script, it was a clear journey where she came to realize that she was his next acquisition. There were four or five people that Redford cycled through to work on his character. In my draft, what she said to him was that you can’t buy love, and then she left him. He had that changed, because Robert Redford couldn’t be left."

Jones added: "I thought [Diana] should leave both men at the end. I brought it up several times [in studio meetings], including once the movie was greenlit. And that was basically laughed at. No one would consider it, really."

William Goldman says he was brought in to work on the script after John Cusack had turned it down. "They couldn’t get anyone to do it," he said. "I wrote a draft and I don’t think they changed anything. I don’t know why the actors decided to do it or didn’t do it, but it was an enormous success so that’s good for me."{{cite book|last=Cleese|first= John|title=Professor at Large: the Cornell Years|publisher=Cornell University Press|year= 2018|chapter=Screenwriting Seminar: John Cleese and Bill Goldman October 14, 2000}}

Filming began in Las Vegas in June 1992.{{cite news |title=Looking back at Robert Redford's made-in-Las Vegas movies |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/entertainment-columns/christopher-lawrence/looking-back-at-robert-redfords-made-in-las-vegas-movies/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=Review Journal |date=October 18, 2018 |archive-date=May 28, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230528134006/https://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/entertainment-columns/christopher-lawrence/looking-back-at-robert-redfords-made-in-las-vegas-movies/ |url-status=live }} The casino scenes were filmed at the Westgate Las Vegas. After a month in Las Vegas, the production moved to southern California, where locations included the Echo Park neighborhood and a Santa Barbara mansion that stood in for Gage’s home.

Lyne decided to feature the novel Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women in a scene because author Susan Faludi had notably criticized Lyne’s film Fatal Attraction.{{cite news |last1=James |first1=Caryn |title=FILM; 'Backlash' Pops Up As Prop du Jour |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/20/arts/film-backlash-pops-up-as-prop-du-jour.html |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=June 20, 1993 |archive-date=June 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220629155029/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/20/arts/film-backlash-pops-up-as-prop-du-jour.html |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=de Vries |first1=Hilary |title=Adrian Lyne, the 'Indecent' Pro |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/04/17/adrian-lyne-the-indecent-pro/5664ad9b-a37d-4e20-9895-f05a178d43bf/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=April 17, 1993 |archive-date=December 12, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211212010025/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/04/17/adrian-lyne-the-indecent-pro/5664ad9b-a37d-4e20-9895-f05a178d43bf/ |url-status=live }}

Lyne completed post-production work on the film roughly two weeks before its opening in April 1993.

Engelhard's novel contained cultural friction that the screenwriter left out of the movie: the main character, named Joshua, is Jewish, and his billionaire foil is Arab.{{cite news |last1=Brett |first1=Anthony |date=4 November 2021 |title=Misogynistic nightmare or sexy escapism? The uncomfortable legacy of Indecent Proposal |work=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/misogynistic-nightmare-sexy-escapism-uncomfortable-legacy-indecent/ |url-status=live |access-date=15 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211104081838/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/misogynistic-nightmare-sexy-escapism-uncomfortable-legacy-indecent/ |archive-date=2021-11-04}} In a review of the novel, The New York Times summarized its themes as "the sanctity of marriage versus the love of money, the Jew versus significant non-Jews such as shiksas and sheiks, skill versus luck, materialism versus spirituality, Israel versus the Arab countries, the past versus the future, and the religious world versus the secular one."{{cite book|url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0967407419/ |title=From the Author |date=September 2001 |publisher=ComteQ |isbn=9780967407418 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210628011509/https://www.amazon.com/dp/0967407419 |archive-date=2021-06-28 |via=Amazon.com |access-date=2010-07-23 |url-status=live}}

Indecent Proposal was a box office success, grossing $106,614,059 in the US and Canada and $159,985,941 internationally for a worldwide total of $266,600,000.{{cite web |title=Indecent Proposal |url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indecent-Proposal-(1993) |website=The Numbers |access-date=15 June 2023 |archive-date=August 4, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230804204003/https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indecent-Proposal-(1993) |url-status=live }}{{cite web | url = https://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=indecentproposal.htm | title = Indecent Proposal | website = Box Office Mojo | access-date = 2010-05-29 | archive-date = 2010-06-20 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100620164933/http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=indecentproposal.htm | url-status = live }}

The film opened on 1,694 screens in the United States and Canada on April 7, 1993, and grossed $18,387,632 in its opening weekend to top the US box office, the biggest opening at the time for an April release. It was number one for four weeks and became the sixth highest-grossing film of 1993.{{Cite web |title=Domestic Box Office For 1993 |url=https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1993/?grossesOption |access-date=June 15, 2023 |website=Box Office Mojo}} Some journalists attributed the audience turnout to Paramount’s strong marketing campaign, as well as the film's sensational premise that made for heated debates.{{cite news|title=Here's a Critic-Proof 'Proposal'|last=Wells|first=Jeffrey|work=Los Angeles Times|date=1993-04-13|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-13-ca-22312-story.html|access-date=2010-10-24|archive-date=2012-11-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103040652/http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-13/entertainment/ca-22312_1_indecent-proposal|url-status=live}}{{cite news |last1=Reid |first1=Joe |title=An 'Indecent Proposal' Remake Could Never Recapture How Scandalous The Original Was |url=https://decider.com/2018/08/06/indecent-proposal-90s-cultural-controversy/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=Decider |date=August 6, 2018 |archive-date=May 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230531025251/https://decider.com/2018/08/06/indecent-proposal-90s-cultural-controversy/ |url-status=live }}

It entered international release on April 23, 1993, previewing on 66 screens in Australia for the weekend. Despite only playing for three days, it topped the Australian box office for the week with a three-day gross of $0.8 million (A$1.16 million).{{cite magazine|magazine=Screen International|date=7 May 1993|page=47|title=Indecent Down-under}}{{cite magazine|magazine=Variety|page=34|date=3 May 1993|title=International box office|quote=$825,883; $A1=$0.71}} It officially opened in Australia on April 29 and remained at number one for four more weeks.{{cite magazine|magazine=Variety|page=32|date=7 June 1993|title=International box office}} In the UK, it also benefited from previews in topping the UK box office with an opening weekend gross of $2.4 million (£1.5 million) including previews.{{cite magazine|magazine=Screen International|date=21 May 1993|page=25|title=Indecent gross}}{{cite magazine|magazine=Variety|page=39|date=24 May 1993|title=European box office|quote=£1=$1.57}} It remained number one in the UK for three weeks.{{cite magazine|magazine=Variety|page=43|date=14 June 1993|title=European box office}} In Italy, it was Paramount/United International Pictures' second biggest ever opening with an opening weekend gross of $1.6 million.

The film received negative reviews from critics, who cited the contrivances of the film's script and its underdeveloped characters.{{cite news |last1=Ansen |first1=David |author-link=David Ansen |title=Hook, Lyne And Stinker |url=https://www.newsweek.com/hook-lyne-and-stinker-191816 |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=Newsweek |date=1993-04-18 |archive-date=November 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221126162902/https://www.newsweek.com/hook-lyne-and-stinker-191816 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Howe |first1=Desson |author1-link=Desson Howe |title='Indecent Proposal' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/indecentproposalrhowe_a0afaf.htm |access-date=15 June 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=April 9, 1993 |archive-date=June 3, 2020 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200603034449/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/indecentproposalrhowe_a0afaf.htm |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Kempley |first1=Rita |title=Movies |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/04/07/movies/185db740-fee2-49a6-99a5-262b73fd63d6/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=1993-04-07}}{{cite news |last1=Turan |first1=Kenneth |author1-link=Kenneth Turan |title=MOVIE REVIEWS : A Laughably Implausible 'Proposal' |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-07-ca-19978-story.html |access-date=15 June 2023 |date=April 7, 1993 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230610075317/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-07-ca-19978-story.html |archive-date=2023-06-10 |url-status=live}} Critics noted that the film was the latest of a string of movies that involved women being treated as property, such as Pretty Woman, Honeymoon in Vegas, and Mad Dog and Glory.{{cite magazine |last1=Gleiberman |first1=Owen |author-link=Owen Gleiberman |title=Indecent Proposal |url=https://ew.com/article/1993/04/16/indecent-proposal-2/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |magazine=Entertainment Weekly |date=April 16, 1993 |archive-date=June 23, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230623185011/https://ew.com/article/1993/04/16/indecent-proposal-2/ |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Adler |first1=Jerry |author1-link=Jerry Adler (journalist) |title=How Much Is That Demi In The Window? |url=https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-demi-window-191876 |access-date=24 June 2023 |work=Newsweek |date=1993-04-18 |archive-date=June 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230624052423/https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-demi-window-191876 |url-status=live }} A major criticism was that the film did not fully explore its potentially enticing premise. Janet Maslin of The New York Times wrote: "For all its ostensible daring, Indecent Proposal is much too cautious. None of the three principals really change as a consequence of the story. None of the frankness that might make matters interesting is allowed to sully the romantic mood. None of the characters have lives outside the confines of the story, although the lonely Gage, when celebrating a big gambling win, suddenly gives a party for 200 anonymous, soigne-looking friends."{{cite news |last1=Maslin |first1=Janet |author1-link=Janet Maslin |title=Review/Film: Indecent Proposal; Who'd Have to Be Paid $1 Million To Spend a Night With Redford? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/07/movies/review-film-indecent-proposal-who-d-have-be-paid-1-million-spend-night-with.html |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=April 7, 1993 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220201042646/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/07/movies/review-film-indecent-proposal-who-d-have-be-paid-1-million-spend-night-with.html |archive-date=2022-02-01 |url-status=live}}

In The Telegraph, Anthony Brett said that despite its packaging as a steamy thriller, "Indecent Proposal is in fact a largely distasteful and bizarrely plodding romantic drama, one that gently pokes at lofty ideas about power and marriage and the American dream but scurries away before it hits on anything too dicey." In Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman wrote: "Indecent Proposal starts out kinky and turns into a languid — and shockingly banal — domestic soap opera. Like 9 1/2 Weeks, the movie is all tease, all come-on. Next time Lyne should try for something a little more indecent."

Critics generally praised Redford's performance, but some lamented that the character of John Gage was given too much of a sympathetic edge, and that the role was merely a chance for Redford to once again play Jay Gatsby. Gleiberman wrote: "Like Michael Douglas' Gordon Gekko, he has that aura of money that’s almost tactile — even in his dark suit, he glows — and he speaks with the dry enticement of someone who has had too much of what he wants and now gets his kicks by testing people, living through their experiences."

Of Moore, Maslin wrote, she "pours all of her effort into going through such motions smolderingly, and none into whatever sense may lie behind them. That's fine for the role; she falters only when the screenplay turns mute or turns up howlers." Todd McCarthy wrote: "What emotional legitimacy the film does possess stems from Moore's performance, which is lively, heartfelt and believable until the script ceases to permit it."{{cite news |last1=McCarthy |first1=Todd |author-link=Todd McCarthy |title=Indecent Proposal |url=https://variety.com/1993/film/reviews/indecent-proposal-2-1200432059/ |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=Variety |date=April 7, 1993 |archive-date=August 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220810123914/https://variety.com/1993/film/reviews/indecent-proposal-2-1200432059/ |url-status=live }} Several critics found Harrelson to be the weak link of the cast, with McCarthy writing the actor is not given much to do except display "puppydog love in the first section and standard-issue jealousy in the second".{{cite news |last1=Lane |first1=Anthony |author1-link=Anthony Lane |title='Nobody's Perfect' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/books/chapters/nobodys-perfect.html |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=April 26, 1993 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703044734/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/books/chapters/nobodys-perfect.html |archive-date=2017-07-03 |url-status=live}}{{cite news |last1=James |first1=Caryn |author1-link=Caryn James |title=FILM VIEW; Women: Swap 'Em Or Sell 'Em |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/11/movies/film-view-women-swap-em-or-sell-em.html |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=The New York Times |date=April 11, 1993 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130622075823/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/11/movies/film-view-women-swap-em-or-sell-em.html |archive-date=2013-06-22 |url-status=live}} However, multiple critics were complimentary of the film's supporting cast, particularly Oliver Platt as the Murphys' wisecracking, sleazy lawyer.

Multiple critics opined that the film loses its narrative steam after the climactic deal takes place. In a 2014 review, Nathan Rabin wrote: "Indecent Proposal suffers from a distinct lack of stakes. The second [Diana returns from her night with Gage], the million dollars that just moments ago was going to change her and her husband's lives ceases to matter. Diana doesn’t want it. David doesn’t want it...Money ultimately doesn’t matter in the sleazy fairy-tale world of Indecent Proposal, only love, and when money threatens to soil that love, then it must be openly rejected."{{cite web |last1=Rabin |first1=Nathan |author1-link=Nathan Rabin |url=https://thedissolve.com/features/forgotbusters/708-in-1993-indecent-proposal-made-sleazy-sex-look-bor/ |title=In 1993 Indecent Proposal made sleazy sex look boring |website=The Dissolve |access-date=15 June 2023 |date=August 15, 2014 |archive-date=September 27, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230927183403/https://thedissolve.com/features/forgotbusters/708-in-1993-indecent-proposal-made-sleazy-sex-look-bor/ |url-status=live }}

The film also sparked significant backlash from feminists and critics for its depiction of a woman bartering with her body for the benefit of her husband.{{Cite news |last=Kaye |first=Elizabeth |date=1993-04-18 |title=THE SEXES; This Proposal Is for Status Quo |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/18/style/the-sexes-this-proposal-is-for-status-quo.html |access-date=2023-06-24 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=June 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230624052423/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/18/style/the-sexes-this-proposal-is-for-status-quo.html |url-status=live }} Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called the film "sexist propaganda."{{Cite magazine |last=Travers |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Travers |date=April 7, 1993 |title=Indecent Proposal |magazine=Rolling Stone |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/indecent-proposal-88192/ |url-status=dead |access-date=2023-06-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230513130750/https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/indecent-proposal-88192/ |archive-date=2023-05-13}} Activist Betty Friedan and filmmaker Callie Khouri argued the film promotes the idea of prostitution, with Friedan saying, "What does it say? Thirteen-year-old girls will see that movie and be told you don’t need to bother to do your homework or to get an MBA, all you need to do is diet enough to be anorexic, get some silicone and look for that lonely billionaire." Feminist writer Susan Faludi likened Gage's actions in the film to "essentially...raping a woman with money."{{cite news|title=MOVIES : A flurry of...|work=Los Angeles Times|date=1993-04-18|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-18-ca-24113-story.html|access-date=2010-10-24|first=Patrick|last=Goldstein|author-link=Patrick Goldstein|archive-date=2020-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107223141/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-18-ca-24113-story.html|url-status=live}} Producer Denise Di Novi suggested the film could be characterized as a women in prison film, because it has a woman in a "submissive, controlled situation." Camille Paglia dissented, saying "What is it about this picture that moviegoers are in sync with? (Is it) women’s sexuality in ways feminist rhetoric is unable to define?"

Amy Holden Jones wrote a defense of the film in the Los Angeles Times, arguing that Diana had agency in her choice and that much of the criticism levied against the film came from male critics.{{Cite news |last=Jones |first=Amy Holden |author-link=Amy Holden Jones |date=April 19, 1993 |title=A 'Proposal' Intended for People, Not for Critics : A Movie's Defense: Audiences Love It |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-19-ca-24718-story.html |url-status=live |access-date=June 15, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230610075620/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-19-ca-24718-story.html |archive-date=June 10, 2023}} Jones later said: "When the film was released, it caused a great deal of controversy, because, you know, how could I write this thing about a woman spending the night with this guy for a million dollars? The idea that a woman should not be tempted by any of those things, or she should be so pure that you can’t make a movie about her feeling that way — I mean, go watch some French cinema! It's more complicated than that. I’m as big a feminist as you’ll find, but part of feminism for me is that women can be portrayed not as visions of perfection on-screen, but as whole human beings with choices."

Among the few critics to review the film positively was Roger Ebert.{{cite news |last=Ebert |first=Roger |title=Moviegoers take pleasure in fantasy |author-link=Roger Ebert |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/moviegoers-take-pleasure-in-fantasy |work=Chicago Sun-Times |date=1993-04-25 |access-date=2023-06-15 |archive-date=June 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602184237/https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/moviegoers-take-pleasure-in-fantasy |url-status=live }} Ebert gave the film a thumbs up on Siskel & Ebert, while his colleague Gene Siskel gave it a thumbs down.{{cite episode |title=Indecent Proposal |url=https://siskelebert.org/?p=8323 |series=Siskel & Ebert |date=April 10, 1993 |season=7 |number=30 |network=ABC |access-date=2023-06-15 |archive-date=March 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230324023416/https://siskelebert.org/?p=8323 |url-status=live }} In his print review, Ebert admitted there "are large challenges to logic" and the plot is "manipulative", but said "there is a genuine romantic spirit at work here", concluding that a necessary suspension of disbelief is "why we line up at the ticket window: We want to leave the real world, for a couple of hours, anyway".{{cite news |title=Indecent Proposal |first=Roger |last=Ebert |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/indecent-proposal-1993 |work=Chicago Sun-Times |date=1993-04-07 |access-date=2008-07-20 |archive-date=2008-12-22 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081222143901/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19930407%2FREVIEWS%2F304070301%2F1023 |url-status=live}} He also described the film's decision to keep the actual night of adultery offscreen as wise.

Caryn James of The New York Times also gave a positive review, writing that while Honeymoon in Vegas and Mad Dog and Glory "dance around the issue of buying and bartering people, Indecent Proposal embraces it. It isn't aways a good film; it employs lazy voice-overs to express sappy sentiments about the Murphys' eternal love. But it turns an inflammatory plot into a surprisingly honest and entertaining movie." Her colleague Janet Maslin gave a similarly mixed response, saying the film "calls for grudging admiration. Working with a ridiculous premise and...[a] badly underwritten script...the director of Flashdance and Fatal Attraction has still come up with the sort of sexy pop parable that is his specialty. Mr. Lyne's films may not cast any new light on the human condition, but they do keep you glued to the screen."

On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, Indecent Proposal has a 34% "rotten" rating based on 47 reviews, with an average rating of 4.8/10. The consensus reads: "Lurid but acted with gusto, Indecent Proposal has difficulty keeping it up beyond its initial titillating premise."{{cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indecent_proposal|title=Indecent Proposal (1993)|website=Rotten Tomatoes|publisher=Fandango|access-date=January 15, 2022|archive-date=May 6, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506182525/https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indecent_proposal|url-status=live}} Audience response was less negative, with those polled by CinemaScore giving an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale.{{Cite web|date=2018-12-20|title=Cinemascore : Movie Title Search|url=https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181220122629/https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/|url-status=dead|archive-date=2018-12-20|access-date=2020-07-28}} The film is listed in Golden Raspberry Award founder John Wilson's book The Official Razzie Movie Guide as one of the "100 most enjoyably worst movies ever made".{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=John|title=The Official Razzie Movie Guide: Enjoying the Best of Hollywood's Worst |year=2005|publisher=Grand Central Publishing|isbn=0-446-69334-0}}

The soundtrack was released on April 6, 1993, by MCA Records. "In All the Right Places" by Lisa Stansfield was released as the album's lead single on May 24, 1993, and is the film's theme song. Sheena Easton makes a cameo appearance in the movie performing "The Nearness of You" at a pivotal part of the movie. The length of the soundtrack is 60 minutes and 37 seconds.{{Cite web |title=Indecent Proposal [Original Soundtrack] |url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/indecent-proposal-original-soundtrack--mw0000618612 |access-date=2023-06-15 |website=AllMusic |archive-date=December 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211211185424/https://www.allmusic.com/album/indecent-proposal-original-soundtrack--mw0000618612 |url-status=live }} "No Ordinary Love" by English band Sade was also prominently featured in the film, though it was not included on its soundtrack album.

In 2015, Intrada Records released an album of John Barry's score.{{Cite web |title=Indecent Proposal |url=https://www.soundtrack.net/album/indecent-proposal-intrada/ |access-date=2023-06-15 |website=SoundTrack.net |archive-date=September 5, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905232336/http://www.soundtrack.net/album/indecent-proposal-intrada/ |url-status=live }}

{{Track listing

| extra_column = Producer(s)

| headline = Indecent Proposal: Music from the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack

| title1 = I'm Not in Love

| note1 = The Pretenders

| writer1 = Graham Gouldman, Eric Stewart

| extra1 = Trevor Horn

| length1 = 3:50

| title2 = What Do You Want the Girl to Do

| note2 = Vince Gill featuring Little Feat

| writer2 = Allen Toussaint

| extra2 = Tony Brown

| length2 = 5:07

| title3 = If I'm Not in Love With You

| note3 = Dawn Thomas

| writer3 = Thomas

| extra3 = Scott Sheriff

| length3 = 3:38

| title4 = Out of the Window

| note4 = Seal

| writer4 = Seal

| extra4 = Horn

| length4 = 5:35

| title5 = Will You Love Me Tomorrow

| note5 = Bryan Ferry

| writer5 = Gerry Goffin, Carole King

| extra5 = Robin Trower

| length5 = 4:15

| title6 = The Nearness of You

| note6 = Sheena Easton

| writer6 = Hoagy Carmichael, Ned Washington

| extra6 = Patrice Rushen

| length6 = 3:16

| title7 = In All the Right Places

| note7 = Lisa Stansfield

| writer7 = John Barry, Stansfield, Ian Devaney, Andy Morris

| extra7 = Devaney

| length7 = 5:42

| title8 = Instrumental Suite from Indecent Proposal

| note8 =

| writer8 = Barry

| extra8 = Barry

| length8 = 25:20

| title9 = A Love So Beautiful

| note9 = Roy Orbison

| writer9 = Jeff Lynne, Orbison

| extra9 = Lynne

| length9 = 3:31

}}

On July 30, 2018, Paramount Players announced that a remake of the film was in development, with the screenplay being written by Erin Cressida Wilson.{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/entertainment/indecent-remake-249876|title=Indecent remake|newspaper=The Telegraph India|date=August 3, 2018|access-date=August 3, 2018|archive-date=August 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180804075818/https://www.telegraphindia.com/entertainment/indecent-remake-249876|url-status=dead}}{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/russespinoza/2018/07/30/indecent-proposal-remake-in-development-by-paramount-players/#ade947766763|title='Indecent Proposal' Remake In Development By Paramount Players|work=Forbes|date=30 July 2018|access-date=5 March 2018|archive-date=31 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180731014402/https://www.forbes.com/sites/russespinoza/2018/07/30/indecent-proposal-remake-in-development-by-paramount-players/#ade947766763|url-status=live}}

The animation series The Simpsons's 2002 episode "Half-Decent Proposal" parodies the movie's premise.{{cite news |title=Halfway-decent proposals: 7 TV episodes that reference the 1993 blockbuster |url=https://www.avclub.com/halfway-decent-proposals-7-tv-episodes-that-reference-1824274597 |access-date=15 June 2023 |work=The A.V. Club |date=April 4, 2018 |archive-date=June 23, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230623181105/https://www.avclub.com/halfway-decent-proposals-7-tv-episodes-that-reference-1824274597 |url-status=live }}

In the television series Mad About You episode, "A Pair of Hearts", during the end credits, the married couple Paul and Jamie Buchman are approached by a man who offers a million dollars to sleep with Jamie. They immediately reply "Sure!", and, after a quick smooch, Jamie leaves with the man (to the laughter of the audience).

The TV series Impractical Jokers featured a punishment inspired by Indecent Proposal in the Season 7 episode of the same name where Sal Vulcano is forced to ask couples while working as a dance instructor's assistant if they would be willing to meet him in a more passionate setting in exchange for money.

• Lecherous millionaire
• List of films set in Las Vegas

{{Reflist|2}}

• {{IMDb title}}
• {{Mojo title}}
• {{Metacritic film}}
• {{Rotten Tomatoes}}

{{S-start}} {{S-ach|aw}}

{{Succession box

| title=Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture

| years=14th Golden Raspberry Awards

| before=Shining Through

| after=Color of Night

}}

{{end}}

{{Adrian Lyne}}

{{Navboxes

|title = Awards for Indecent Proposal

|list =

{{Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture}}

{{Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay}}

{{Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor}}

}}

Category:1993 films

Category:1993 romantic drama films

Category:1990s American films

Category:1990s English-language films

Category:American films about gambling

Category:American romantic drama films

Category:Films about adultery in the United States

Category:Films about architects

Category:Films about businesspeople

Category:Films about roulette

Category:Films directed by Adrian Lyne

Category:Films scored by John Barry (composer)

Category:Films set in Los Angeles

Category:Films set in the Las Vegas Valley

Category:Films shot in Los Angeles

Category:Films shot in the Las Vegas Valley

Category:Films with screenplays by Amy Holden Jones

Category:Golden Raspberry Award–winning films

Category:Paramount Pictures films

Category:English-language romantic drama films