Rethinking the family melodrama: Thomas Elsaesser, Mildred Pierce and the business of family
Year: 2022
Type: article
Abstract: What do Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), Fei Mu’s Spring in a Small Town (1948), Mark Robson’s The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954), Jay Roach’s Meet the Parents (2000), Stephen Gaghan’s Syriana (2005) and James Wan’s Insidious (2010) all have in common? According to recent critics, they are all examples of the ‘family melodrama’, the genre that since the 1970s has dominated much of the conversation about melodrama in film studies and beyond.1 First coined by Thomas Elsaesser in 1972, the phrase ‘family melodrama’ quickly became a staple of melodrama scholarship, and by the 1980s the notion that there was a specific form of melodrama whose ‘speciality is generational and gender conflict’ had been firmly established in the work of critics like Laura Mulvey, Chuck Kleinhans and Thomas Schatz.2 For these scholars the family melodrama became ‘the ultimate form of film melodrama’, the single most important site for theorizing melodrama itself.3 And as the importance of the concept grew, films beyond just the canonical 1950s melodramas began to be discussed under this rubric. What once seemed a small subset of melodrama now looks to many critics like one of Hollywood cinema’s ‘dominant genre[s]’.4 When one starts looking closely at the many critical accounts of the ‘family melodrama’, however, it is not at all clear that they are talking about the same thing – or even that there is a coherent genre there to discuss. While Jackie Byars argues that ‘during the 1950s, a distinctly family-oriented melodramatic form developed, a form focused on conflict indigenous to the family’, Nina C. Leibman counters that ‘the family melodrama was not a newfound creation of the 1950s, but was in fact a genre that was nearly 200 years old’.5 E. Ann Kaplan discusses the family melodrama as ‘a genre geared specifically to women’, while Mulvey explicitly contrasts the woman’s melodrama with ‘the “masculine” or family melodrama’.6 Ellen Seiter claims that ‘family melodramas have always tended to deal with an environment, a set of characters and a narrative dilemma unquestionably identified as middle class’, yet not a single one of the films in Claire Perkins’s recent list of classic family melodramas – Written on the Wind (Douglas Sirk, 1956), Giant (George Stevens, 1956), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Richard Brooks, 1958) and Home from the Hill (Vincente Minnelli, 1960) – is focused on the middle class.7 And while one would at the very least expect that the ‘family melodrama’ is defined by the fact that it always ‘focuses upon the nuclear family’, as countless critics have suggested, Schatz’s widely cited chapter on the ‘family melodrama’ in Hollywood Genres surprisingly declares that ‘the history of the family melodrama genre’ proves that after the 1950s a focus on social issues like racism and feminism ‘would shortly displace the nuclear family as the genre’s main focus’.8 At this point, then, we should surely be questioning whether the ‘family melodrama’ is even a meaningful category for analysis. When Robert Lang declares that ‘the family melodrama, as I use the term, is meant to comprehend four generally distinguished types of melodrama of passion: the “woman’s film”, the romantic melodrama, the family and/or small-town melodrama, and the Gothic melodrama’, we might wonder how ‘family melodrama’ can be a subset of itself, and indeed why Lang even uses ‘the family melodrama’ as his overarching category here rather than his other term, ‘melodrama of passion’.9 And when Leibman argues for redefining ‘previously classified “comedies”’ of the 1950s like Leave it to Beaver (1957–63) and Father Knows Best (1954–60) ‘as seminal examples of a newer postwar type of family melodrama’, she is certainly right that these shows qualify as ‘family melodramas’ if all that the term means is ‘a narrative concerned with domestic problems and celebrations, in which social dilemmas are reconfigured into familial ones’.10 Yet one wonders if this focus on ‘familial strife and reconciliation’ is really specific enough to define a particular genre of melodrama, and if Leave It to Beaver and Written on the Wind are really similar enough for them both to exemplify it.11 What is it, then, that actually distinguishes the ‘family melodrama’, and is this genre really as theoretically significant as the critics of the 1970s claimed? Is there any truth to the idea that the genre is, as Lang puts it, ‘particularly self-reflexive’; that, more than other forms of melodrama, the family melodrama not only represents but actually reflects on ‘what melodrama [is] really all about’?12 I contend that there is: the family melodrama is a unique and uniquely important form of melodrama, and the key to what defines the genre has been right in front of all For the to the family melodrama in has a much more the films most as family melodramas are actually about family Perkins’s list of classic family melodramas – Written on the Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Home from the Hill – a family that or a fact that in on the and that and these films at to family with and While the of the of the genre in the 1970s and the if only in that at the of these are and and the of Elsaesser that the examples of the family melodrama are Written on the Wind in film and and on – all about this not Yet the ‘family melodrama’ was of as an explicitly the of family to the genre has been have always that these – and the in which they – are while the truth of the genre in and gender to that that the of family in these melodramas is not to the genre but to the of the genre many of the more examples of the ‘family melodrama’ – in the of The Hot the 1960) and in the – and explicitly family ‘the postwar of the family melodrama’ be by the fact that these as Elsaesser puts it, the For Written on the Wind is not only about the nuclear family but about what ‘the family’, and the years that Elsaesser as the genre’s in which to in the very Written on the in was that ‘the was a thing that be in a of social that would as important for as for the And this history for while the has been to the family melodrama as a genre that social and into the of the what is about the genre is that it the I here that what actually defines the family melodrama is the that the of the family are like the and of the a film like The the a into a family’, the ‘family melodramas’ the into a what should be of to that are and nearly the genre in his that ‘the has from the family and has the family to a and that very same the of what might be the of the and the genre in of focus on the a that is at once more – that the genre is not to and gender conflict or even to the of – and more specific – that not melodrama a family is a ‘family Yet the genre in these a of not just the family melodrama but the melodramatic melodrama scholars it has been for that, to than any other melodrama with one of the and with the and if melodrama these scholars have suggested, this is only melodrama represents a and to that what an I however, this a of in which an be the of is that defines not melodrama but one of the form of melodrama as the The ‘family melodrama’ on the that there is of – that the notion of the by the by is a While the on melodrama since seminal The is that it into to the of in which single of is any of as the there is in fact a of that – – and is this more than in the ‘family this into a of about melodrama – not as the for an of the as but rather as the for an in which has to that very When Elsaesser his on the family melodrama’ in 1972, was the for a of and as set the for the critical with the Yet the fact that is here to the of melodrama rather than to the ‘family melodrama’ in particular the problems of that While is as one that the Hollywood family melodrama’, that is a particular of melodrama with family most of his are and have been to to melodrama as a this I to a more of in to how many of the critical about the ‘family melodrama’ are the of most and what it that is not really about the ‘family melodrama’ as was it to When Elsaesser his on the of declares that to an in the of what one might the melodramatic forms and in and for and in one one particular Hollywood family melodrama and however, is not much one in as it is a history of melodrama and an of ‘the The to the of the and cited in is actually in what it about when to the in into the ‘the melodramatic Elsaesser on the that ‘the to a form of social to a of melodrama that with social when Elsaesser the and the of and is the of melodrama that the melodrama that to and in a what to the history of melodrama is not but the for forms that in in The in not to this is his of ‘the which a of Hollywood and it is that now by as a of melodrama, was just one of of ‘the And in his of the as rather than or Elsaesser about whether the form of is is unique to melodrama or is a of all Hollywood are an that for is to the as a a and on a the actually the melodrama and and the Elsaesser to that Hollywood is When for about his particular in ‘a type of on the is to by means of of is at this not talking about melodrama but about ‘the Hollywood in then, the family melodrama to even to the that it in his very It it is the these melodrama as an melodrama as a of in for Elsaesser the family melodrama represents the of these as a of both the most of the has and the history of form of melodrama’ that can social The fact that in these however, means that Elsaesser is the family melodrama not on but in to both the history of melodrama, and the and of the that for and in one one particular Hollywood family melodrama and the for it an into a single genre Hollywood family with an into the of film The genre and here the fact that, is not really theorizing ‘the family melodrama’ as much as it is theorizing a form of – one in the family melodrama but important to ‘the Hollywood this one can why is not as an on ‘the family melodrama’ in as one on the film melodrama of the While one of the to has been that Elsaesser melodrama to just ‘family melodrama’, his use of like melodrama’, ‘family melodrama’, melodrama’ and melodrama’ that not focus enough on the of on the family melodrama’ are at the of the the of ‘the family At one might that the family melodrama means what Elsaesser films with and and an of a specifically about ‘the of the family melodrama’, however, Elsaesser as an a film which has the the of the in that Elsaesser in as Sirk, and not defined by then, one would that surely ‘the family melodrama’ to melodramas that on a which is certainly the in Yet this is not for in a Elsaesser the of a film that has family and is in fact an of the when Elsaesser that the ‘melodrama in and as it in the and 1950s, is the most of that the has a in his that to the very of this of the of Elsaesser on a from to what of the melodramas of the and are that the family melodrama is by – or at least by – the 1950s and just has his now to ‘the family melodrama of the and while the of examples of the melodrama from films of the 1950s and Elsaesser in the to the ‘melodrama in and in the and the fact that there melodramas in both and in the that the films that most to are the and films of the 1950s and and by Sirk, and Minnelli, why is Elsaesser on this of the to his about how this into his this in a recent in which that the fact that Elsaesser the Hollywood family melodrama and only the years to a category that ‘the family melodrama’, a that is from more in ‘the more family melodramas of the 1950s and these examples the and domestic as the of the family melodrama on the an family in which the family ‘as a of and in the And if the 1950s and family melodrama is by films like Written on the Wind and Home from the the in films like Meet in (Vincente Minnelli, and films that to the of by a of in which domestic a the of however, of these family films in the are to on the domestic in the which is not an of the ‘family melodrama’ but rather an of domestic by as a to the under and the domestic melodrama is a and form of melodrama, one which to an of domestic and ‘a of the the and the both forms focus on the however, domestic and family melodrama are Robert for argues that the domestic melodrama is a specific form that with the of and of ‘a specific form of melodrama – the domestic or family melodrama of the Leibman to the domestic melodrama’, the ‘family melodrama’, and the family melodrama’, while Elsaesser his focus as the and family and these films ‘the family melodramas’ and ‘the domestic and to of these same has them as about the ‘family melodrama’ is for these domestic melodramas are from the family melodrama in these as they do for the a to in Meet in they are in of the and there are family in the they do in the ‘family than the here by but other that we should the term as a for that family and domestic the melodrama’ really And years after the domestic melodrama in of a – or a in a woman’s a and work and the and a What is is that these are to of ‘family which do not have a single are critical rather than of and an that is but The with however, is that it the concept from ‘family melodrama’ to melodrama’, that the rather than the should be term that family and domestic is the to at the films Elsaesser discusses do not how this has the but are of a genre What we now is a of and the family and domestic to is with of a film cited by critics as an of domestic melodrama but in focus on what as a family looks to the family melodrama in the years to The film the and domestic of and a – and the – on family have a for the importance of with a film on a of and domestic Yet here is specifically a and the to the domestic from the set the is is the film from into domestic it is only this most domestic and of the family into the of that the of the domestic from that is a fact that the of the that the of the film And this of in the of the for when and they actually in the with here the is the while argues that this the and the ‘the of that is to domestic should really be for the family melodrama fact is in the has from in to as a as a in a At the of the we at the the to a to the and in the of the they have been for and they have a the we to the from the and the to a of the as a to for his and a At the when is his however, she and a at she at the to is a the I like this only for both has been as and is The and in of While it is generally that, as of to domestic the of this a that a from domestic to family this is certainly in with the of and which the as puts it, there is why to the melodramatic in this there is in then, this with and on of the and a For one the as if these are not family but in a – even has – is the for a in which a is as an It is more than that, however, for this of familial a specifically a in the ‘family melodrama’ the domestic melodrama to for the of the in the family melodrama on the to what and And if the in domestic is the the in the family melodrama is actually the – the It is the – and the more of familial melodrama in a – that in ‘family melodrama’ about the of a a key about into the is after the at has been for to and after the other the a while the on a has most of the talking to a very of but his had a – not that has is a and starts as looking into the is but quickly the just a she is to and is to has been all but in on the and on there is not much to about it, the with which they both the of this of melodrama is actually had we from a of the of them on of the to a she puts both of on the – a very for she them fact the importance of on the at this to be by a at the of the is the with both but when we to the are not on the but in on with in be a or it have been in the it to significant and from a in the is to to on the why she do The is very to the for the only while that Yet is not an to can it be as just a of to to do the fact that it is not a is the one thing we can be for the that in this should be the and on a the was to to why it from what the the after would be why the film the focus from a more form of to a specifically one and with the The I is that this and a specifically is of the of family While the in this is from the the has in the and are and after of his on of however, are in the which is the and the in that should be and one of the most in all of – the of an and – but here the film any that the is meaningful by with the at the when she reflects on that the that a might with one that ‘the I in the in which the would we have or this the of the film and And it is not to that we in the film – as to that what we as as – they are just of to to what she When to actually these with of I not be about It is a then, to that was not at the of the for the film is a of not to critics have a of ‘the family melodrama’ as from the domestic melodrama, however, they have how to to for argues that is more than a domestic melodrama’ the film the in to the which argues is that the focus specifically from the melodrama in of melodrama’, that the film as a woman’s film but as a Yet the to be a or melodrama’ is of the point, and has that the of the melodrama and the from to What she not is that represents not just the of one but the of the of the family critics have discussed film in the same that they about any of the examples of the When for that of the in the film are she is the same about that Byars about of ‘the of and the And when of and that it ‘the family and the the of familial in this is what critics have about Yet the of a concept of ‘family melodrama’ as from melodrama’ has these critics to film as a of that while melodrama is with the of and the upon of the and the in it is as this has The we really to about is not as an melodrama’ but as an ‘family the family of the very that domestic melodrama – and and and on – is even in the a which is not in the James to she or while the with a of the with a into an not of but of the to work with his we are a domestic melodrama, this is rather one would expect the to with a of the as a of to the if Yet for the family melodrama this is not at the to a that are not just family but to be and the we to the we in a clear of the however, here is not for family but to to the for of domestic from the there is domestic in the of the to which she be this of and both for when in the film to after a to is with a to an not of but of The of this is when one of the at to as she into at the they are at the one might expect to like but the as it is not in the is actually much more in with the of the the to the that for are this to that is more of a family in the in which the film family and one as a for the For when in the film is a for she on to of his in has been for is more than to with but in a rather as When for the that be in to to the deal for the in with how about when and are talking on the the to familial once the particular in as family and family as as of the not in the Yet the of this is as the with or even of the of this family melodrama there is or to be in particular to the of and while not the of but a from the the film the problems with and – that to from and it – but very much a to ‘as if and the same And if uses to the same but from the to in a that on – what in a that the of the that has the of a family for by to be with his for this when a why she to from and that of It is that we the most melodramatic in the which not is on the and by I The is indeed melodrama, with melodramatic in on a a for melodramatic as Elsaesser it is family melodrama, for the which has been only by of under the of here a as the is is, not only to be a When starts to that have been at – and and – she to the of however, one to his recent with at and to from the film very the as if is a rather than with a significant other While this yet of the genre’s to in a very it when a in the a to at the to both the family and in an to to in a to that if is to to have his of – more that is a in how much of a in the his When one she to the – one with in of both the film and the family melodrama itself, the in which family is to to a and a and are and a family – and – is it is that the film of as on the the is and the family an fact this on and a staple of the for what Elsaesser to in as ‘the of is actually one of the family most the canonical examples like Home from the Written on the Wind and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof all this but a focus on the from what to on beyond just the and examples of the 1950s and in like The and films like The While critics to the ‘family as if the are the family in these that it is not at all to we are to with Elsaesser that there is ‘the family melodrama as the or the of the it has to do with domestic or the of ‘the with than with the idea that, as about The familial have now years after an one that to the of Hollywood and that of as a And in small to the of the very notion of ‘the family melodrama’ from a critical to a critical concept in than a while the term was actually for film or as by was ‘the family melodrama’ the of the the and the as one of Yet in a this a category whose was from of the ‘family melodrama’ to use the term with melodrama’, melodrama’ and melodrama’, and the to and melodrama accounts of the genre’s by the of the the genre had been firmly established in film this at the of any or set of beyond the ‘a melodrama a a argues that it was a to an for the of a genre’ in the for of family melodramas’ and not and for the of a And it is that Elsaesser the of the in and and same of in the When looking on his years Elsaesser that ‘the that I was by as to an as and that and and ‘a of family – Yet it is from this list how these would the genre from other forms of in this same that the ‘family melodrama’ is from the melodrama’, Elsaesser in his list of ‘family melodramas’ the film – the key of the a of ‘the family melodrama’ was really the of and these I that Elsaesser was right to the family melodrama a and that key in can be to a of that of the is that family melodramas and the films that they are as a What is in is that not on the most of this the of the family canonical examples of the like Cat on a Hot Tin the of to and of to not be more to as I was a not a and other all and a and but Yet this particular is not to the Elsaesser would single as both and – shows on the very as critics have that the characters to a and that the – both the and the – are one critical that melodrama is a and these that an actually the very thing of which Elsaesser and his are melodrama with only one of For the that melodrama only one of the with the and melodrama to only domestic the family melodrama, as I have to is on the of a from the of The one of this family and one that is not only about The but about the from to that are important to the family melodrama At a into the and the of the the family from in the At the of this however, is not a of the family but rather the of a from the And while only family and in the here the family just one in to to the is in the as What this really to be then, is the family than the a and more a The family has now the What be more of the genre than
Source: Screen
Author: Joseph Bitney
Language: English
Topic: Cinema History and Criticism
Subfield: Visual Arts and Performing Arts
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,260
OpenAlex ID: W4296910979