Page 83 - Alternative Europe Eurotrash and Exploitation Cinema Since 1945

reviews went as far as to suggest that these features did not necessarily make a good film, or even
refusing to pass any judgement on it. The most recurrent key words were 'brutal', 'tough', 'reckless',
'distasteful' and 'violent', without too much explanation.7 According to several critics, the continuous
and explicit emphasis on abuse, humiliation and resistance of and by S. was too dominant to allow any
psychological motivations and/or social contexts to be addressed. Henderickx was apparently unable
(perhaps too eager) to explain the relevance of his approach in interviews, and the interviewers refused
to use his comments in interpreting S. as a critique of the 'Belgian disease'. Instead, they adopted a
traditional critical approach, looking for connections between the film and the nation's film legacy
(failing to find many), and focusing on trivial stories around the film. It is symptomatic that one such
ancillary story, on how the debuting lead actress, Natali Broods, had been expelled from acting school
by her then teacher Dora van der Groen, who plays her grandmother in the film, gained more ptess
coverage and prominence than the cultural implications of the narrative.
It is by no means exceptional that a film's reception fails to address some of its cultural implications.
And within the context of Belgian film discourses, it is even part of a well-established tradition. Belgian
film critics have always tried to exclude social commentary from their interpretations, focusing instead
on film as film, and trying to draw aesthetic comparisons instead of cultural ones, even if this implies
a retreat from a position as public intellectual. It is an attitude typically occurring at moments when
criticism fails to find a suitable frame of reference to place a cultural representation in. In this case, it is
indicative of the fact that many critics, at the time, were not able (or willing) to see the cultural frame
of the Affaire which S. was addressing.
This inability is all the more striking when the international reception of S. is taken into account.
Although S. did not do well internationally, and was only screened at festivals, and although
international critics have more difficulty tapping into Belgian cultural frameworks (which have
hardly any relevance for their local readership), the connection was more visible than in its national
reception. As a case in point, Dennis Harvey's review in Variety mentions Henderickx's intention
to make 'a sombre social statement about apathy and collapsed morals, inspired by recent Belgian
paedophile crimes'.8 Similarly, the brief mention of S. on the Hollywood.com website cites 'a Belgium
reeling from the discovery of a paedophile murderer'9 as essential background of the story. Finally,
screenings of S. at specialist Gay and Lesbian festivals (San Francisco Lesbian and Gay Film Festival,
Inside Out in Toronto) also imply a cultural framing of the film. The near-explicit mentioning of the
Affaire in the international reception, and the willingness to put S. in a cultural frame of reference
distinguishes the international critics' reception from their Belgian counterparts (who have ready
access to the context but decline to make the connection).

THE DUALITY OF BELGIAN FILM CULTURE

Strangely, the duality between S.'s intentions and its teception makes it symptomatic for Belgian
film culture. Like many controversial films before it, S. positions itself on the threshold between
two dominant frames of reference of Belgian cinema: an auteurist framework of state-supported,
aesthetically accomplished cultural heritage cinema, and an alternative framework of commercial,
experimental and exploitation films (whether porn, genre efforts, avant-gatde or controversial

69