Page 17 - Alternative Europe Eurotrash and Exploitation Cinema Since 1945

AGAINST THE 'HIGH WHITE TRADITION'
A crucial embedded belief about European cinema, described by Richard Dyer and Ginette
Vincendeau, is that it is prone to a 'high white tradition', one that is interested more in highbrow
canons than in popular entertainment, exploitation or the underground.3 The twelve films Jill Forbes
and Sarah Street discuss form a neat example of that canon, moving from pre-war discussions of
censorship and propaganda, over post-war realist movements, into an array of new waves, to conclude
with a double focus on film economics (the G A T T agreement) and ideological and postmodern
challenges to it (unfortunately, challenges which are all too easy recuperated within the canon). 4
Another example of this is to be found in the writings collected in Catherine Fowlers European
Cinema Reader, which (one or two exceptions notwithstanding) concentrate exclusively on canonical
discussions.5
It is this tradition that Alternative Europe wishes to challenge. We frankly wonder how it is still
possible to restrict European cinema to a modernist taste-economy if, at the same time, it is recognised
as a constantly shifting site aesthetically, ideologically and politically. True, in the last years efforts
have been made to address this imbalance, and in particular we would want to acknowledge the
already-noted work by Richard Dyer and Ginette Vincendeau as a source of inspiration here, which
offered an original overview of many relevant traditions of mass-cultural entertainment previously
ignored by the academy.6 But these efforts, as other works by Elizabeth Ezra, Dimitris Eletheriotis,
and Diana Holmes and Alison Smith show,7 often consider only the popular as an alternative to the
highbrow canon - still ignoring nasty and trashy European cinema (a notable exception being Dyers
later analysis of popular Italian cycles such as the peplum).8 Our intention here is to extend the scope
further into the extremes of exploitation and underground cinema.

ALTERNATIVE EUROPE: EXPLOITATION AND THE UNDERGROUND AS EXTREMES

By looking at the two extreme corners of exploitation and underground film it becomes clear that
something that could rightfully be labelled Alternative Europe', does emerge. In the one corner, there
is that part of readily and unquestionably accepted European cinema (for whatever reason) that feels
odd, that somehow seems to be out of place while still being celebrated. The works of Jean Cocteau,
Chris Marker or Werner Herzog come ready to mind — heavily canonised, aesthetically challenging
and representative of certain sensitivities but still too edgy or fanatic to be placed amongst the bulk of
films. In the other corner, there is that part of European cinema many film scholars do not know exists
(or consciously ignore) because it escapes scrutiny or because it is an unworthy object of study, often
because it does not even set itself up as legitimate film at all. Italian cop films, German serial porn or
Video nasty' co-productions are but some examples.
The first corner is often referred to as 'underground', designating a series of texts that in a sense
belong to the established repertoire, but only as antipodes consolidating the mainstream - they want
to be alternative, but are often prevented of becoming obscure through their continuous canonisation.
The second corner is often referred to as 'exploitation', designating a series of texts that do not belong
to the recognised repertoire, mostly because they are not deemed worthy enough. This latter category
3