J103-Reading Analysis-9/10: The Aesthetics and Politics of Melodrama; 14th Nov 2006

In this essay Jostein Gripsrud discusses a different way of looking at the popular press. He sets out his argument in a framework that sets him in a position that is both unbiased and rational. He suggests that there is “futile moralism frequently present in critiques of it [the popular press].” He says that this serves no useful purpose because whatever is said, the popularity of this kind of journalism keeps growing year on year and there must be a reason for this “in their form-and-content”.
The first section of the essay is nothing new. It states the tactics used by the tabloid press: the ‘emotionalisation’, “sensationalism and personalisation.” He reiterates the “focusing on any traces of shocking or personal aspects of the material in question.” He uses an example (eluding to Mrs. Thatcher’s resignation speech) that “the popular press will typically focus more on the speaker’s emotional state than on what is actually said” and that this “may provide the starting-point for a commercially successful series of stories during the following days or weeks.” He touches upon the stylistic aspects of popular journalism before launching into his major point.
Gripsrud starts by explaining “the valuable work done by the literary critic Peter Brooks (1984).” He was interested in the reasons for the rise of melodramatic theatre during the nineteenth century. Gripsrud explains Brooks’ conclusions by saying that “Melodrama was a textual machine designed to cope with the threatening black hole God left after Him when He returned to His Heaven”. In other words it was there to replace the teachings of God by making Good and Evil absolutely unquestionable. Gripsrud links this back to the melodrama of the tabloid press by saying that popular newspapers teach “what the world (the news) is really about, is emotions, fundamental and strong: love, hate, grief, joy, lust and disgust.” This is where Gripsrud loses me, this statement is true, but to me is no longer a good enough excuse.
Gripsrud announces that “Peter Brooks calls melodrama ‘democratic art’” and explains that this was because it was a replacement for religion and that because it represented “‘the struggle of a morally and emotionally emancipated bourgeois consciousness against the remnants of feudalism’ (Elsaesser, 1986: 281). Melodrama had an ideological side to it. It proclaimed a ‘moral law’ that was the same for everyone”. This is very noble and true in theory, but in practice serves as little use. For, in reality, the popular press’ main concern is not that of equality amongst the people, but the bottom line. In the capitalist world that we find ourselves in, such theory can only be just that: a theory. If the public didn’t buy their newspaper then they would have no further use in the world.
In the remaining six pages of this essay Gripsrud goes about explaining why limited views and consequent criticisms of the popular press are inaccurate. His conclusions reflect this by preaching nothing more than a more holistic view of the usefulness of the popular press.
In all, his arguments are sound and show a frustration within him towards the ‘left-wingers’ and ‘intellectuals’. His criticism should be felt on both sides and shows to me that which I already knew: that dialogue between these two, seemingly disparate factions of society is the key to understanding how their differences can be put aside and used to move forward, not under banners of social status or class but under a united cause of progress.