Page 88 - Alternative Europe Eurotrash and Exploitation Cinema Since 1945

and Mary Douglas, pointed to the possibility to see the link between the emphasis on the bodily
characteristics of the human subject, and the ugly, indecent and immoral aspects of human bodies,
as a critique of social order." Literally, abjection means degradation, a low or downcast state, but the
term also references disgust and subordination, even up to the point of wilful humiliation.
For Kristeva, abjection is a synonym for the activity of the self-effacing body, submissive to a
system, model or order that presents itself as perfect. Emphasising the less desirable elements of that
body then becomes an act of criticism against that order. In this meaning, abjection has been used by
filmmakers and critics as the concept that links the subversion of the mostly male-dominated modern
world to the resisting feminised body.
Critics like Laura Mulvey put it pretty simply: the current social order, on which a capital-
intensive creative industry like film is highly dependent, is patriarchal and is represented by the active,
mature, robust, ascetic, male body. 1 ' That order is threatened by the female body, which is reduced
to a passive object in most films, as well as by any imperfect body (children, freaks, clowns, cyborgs,
visible wounds) and bodies out of control (maniacs, orgasms, rages, hysteria). But at the same time,
according to Mulvey, female bodies constitute a source of viewing pleasure, voyeuristic and appealing
to instinctive reactions. They are harmless as long as they can be contained. Likewise, abject bodies
in general have always been sites for the reinforcement of cultural order (in circuses, road shows, in
the media) - as long as they did not become a real threat. Since Mulvey and Kristeva, it has become a
tradition in film studies to try to identify such moments of threat.
In Belgian cinema culture, the first time such a threat became remotely visible was when the link
between social order and the human body deviating from the norm became a pressing issue with the
release of Man Bites Dog. The rape scene that dramatically changes the mood in the film (and the
viewer) from innocent social satire to a registration of a diseased cultural identity was widely praised
as relevant and impressive. As writers such as Frank Lafond have argued, in this moment, Man Bites
Dog became a sign of the times, symptomatic for the decay of Belgian society.13 In Man Bites Dog,
the threat is ultimately contained by an external explanation: it is the media that are to blame for the
overexposure of abject bodies. The style of the film, with its mimicking of cinema vérité patterns,
explicitly refers to reality television. The inclusion of such media in the narrative, suggested that it was
not so much Belgian culture, but rather the symbolic representation of that society through media,
that was being criticised. So, while making an important statement on the mass-mediated means of
representing reality, Man Bites Dog, and its critics, ignored its address of abjection.
Despite this critical invisibility, S. resolutely addresses abjection. Humiliation, degradation,
disgust and the revolt of the female body against a social order which it sees as threatening and
chaotic are central to the narrative and style, and are put much more directly than in Man Bites Dog.
Moreover, the film does not look for an external explanation for its presentation of abject bodies; the
rest of the world is simply ignored. The mass media from Man Bites Dog are replaced by home video
equipment. In S. the media are not identified as the scapegoat for the destruction of social order, S.'s
tapes are merely registering her resistance to it. In fact, S. does not attempt to give any explanation
outside the direct confrontation of S.'s body with specific aspects of a cultural order in crisis. It forces
viewers to acknowledge the issue of abjection, both as a threat to order and as a resistance to the
excesses of that order.

74