Opining on House of Cards
Apr. 2nd, 2014 06:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyApproximately a million internet years ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
radiumhead asked for a post about House of Cards, which I said I'd write once I'd finished the second season of the American one. It turns out I have Thoughts! Many Thoughts.
So, for those of you who have somehow missed this weird bit of popular culture, there are two House of Cards TV shows. One is a BBC series from I think the 90s starring Ian Richardson, the other is Netflix's interesting experiment with the binge-watching model, starring Kevin Spacey. They're both based on novels by Michael Dobbs, which I haven't read (anyone? should I bother?) and follow the adventures of the amoral whip of the party in power (Tories in the BBC version, Democrats in the Netflix one, more on that in a bit) who gets passed over for promotion and, in revenge, destroys everyone until he's on top.
When the Netflix series came out, PopeJohn tried to get me to watch it, and I was kind of like, "ummm, don't really like American political dramas," thinking that it would be like The West Wing. This may surprise some of you but I find American politics duller than the politics of practically any other country. It's not like there's a lot of variation in the political discourse of, say, Canadian politics, but it's still a greater scope than is allowed in American politics. Then he told me that the first scene is Kevin Spacey killing a dog and I decided to give it a chance.
(Because I love manipulative amoral protagonists more than cake, okay? Don't judge me. My formative years were in the grimdark 90s and I can't help it.)
I thought the first Netflix series was quite good. PopeJohn then told me that in the BBC one, they kill Thatcher, so I watched it assuming that it would be better. It was. (I mean, are you surprised? I like the non-American versions of most things better than the American versions.)
So there are two main distinctions I'd make beyond the obvious things (production values, length, etc.). The first is the political-cultural—how America's essentially optimistic and homogeneous political culture works against the cynicism of the show; the second is the difference between the British television tradition and the American one.
The latter is a simpler thing to tackle, so I'll start there. It's a distinction I know about courtesy of The TARDIS Eruditorum (which is a great blog if you're into Doctor Who, by the way), which had a whole long post about how America is all about the method acting and Britain is all about the theatrical tradition, which largely amounts to television that's essentially ugly middle-aged dudes talking at each other. Richardson is so obviously a Shakespearean stage actor that I didn't need to look that up (but I did need to look up his name). The structure of the show is theatrical. Urquhart's asides—which do show up in the Netflix version, but come off as much weirder there—suggest the stage rather than the box. When I watch the Netflix version, I see Spacey playing Underwood brilliantly. When I watch the BBC version, I see Urquhart, which is why I had to look up who played him.
I can't say that the ugly middle-aged dudes talking at each other works for all formats—note that newer BBC shows aren't like that for the most part—but it works for political drama. The BBC House of Cards is over-the-top stylized, which renders the mundane political discussions poetic. The political scenes in the Netflix version had me yawning; many of Underwood's manipulations were lost on me because I stopped paying attention.
A segue here, I think, is to point out (as others before me have) that Urquhart is substantially more evil than Underwood. It's a factor of both the stylization—a Shakespearean tragedy can afford to have a completely evil, unsympathetic protagonist, and the differing political contexts. Spacey's Underwood is sympathetic, and the narrative has you rooting for him most of the time. Despite the POV bias (which I think I discussed that time I did a post about Breaking Bad), I don't think you are ever supposed to root for Urquhart. He's a monster and completely irredeemable, something that you can't do in American drama that is actually supposed to be serious.
Obviously this is somewhat related to the politics, as Urquhart is an evil Tory doing these things mainly for kicks and because he's trying to preserve the status quo against upstarts like Thatcher and those grimy Labour types, and Underwood is a nasty bugger but he's a Democrat, so the alternative is always slightly worse. I'm not sure that America can do pessimistic politics in the way that the British do; even in dystopian fiction, Katniss Everdeen kinda triumphs whereas poor Winston ends up loving Big Brother. And it's that underlying optimism that makes for compelling drama but also made me far more impressed by the BBC version, which pulls exactly zero punches.
Which is weird, because you actually can have a scrappy underdog in British politics, whereas you can't in American politics. Underwood may be less of a rich fuck than some of the Republicans, but there is no politician in that series who is not a rich fuck. At least in the 90s, you could have these sons of coalminers in the Labour Party that were kind of cool. (By the way, see A Very British Coup, which is about one of those scrappy underdogs winning, at least for a bit.)
In the original, the second series is a power struggle between Urquhart, who having gotten himself as high up as he can in the political structure, gets bored and decides to get into it with a socially progressive king. They obviously can't do a thing like that in the American series, so it becomes a power struggle between Underwood and a billionaire and a sleazy rich lawyer, and this is just not as much fun as a situation where the narrative forces you to root against the main character. Also, the politics just aren't as interesting, though I loved the internal scenes within the Democratic party as the right-wing, represented by Underwood's forces, got into conflict with the slightly less right-wing.
The other difference that I noticed is how uncomfortable American fiction, in general, is around class. You can't have debonaire villains in America. It's not that there isn't hereditary class privilege—there of course is—but it's disguised under this rugged individualist aesthetic. Urquhart gets to kill a dog too, but the class and narrative ramifications are different. Underwood snaps the dog's neck in a mercy killing, out of necessity, with his own hands, and this is a brilliant establishing moment that shows him as both pragmatic and admirable (he could call someone else to do it, but he does his own dirty work, dammit). Whereas Urquhart's killing is at a distance, with a hunting rifle—that symbol of upper class twatitude—and is all about power and the reestablishment of the old order. This is also a narrative distance that echoes the stylization of the series and reminds you that however much you're about to cheer at the scene that immediately follows (because you are; I did) you are never invited to sympathize or identify with this guy.
Anyway! Let's talk about what the Netflix series has going for it. Robin Wright. God, she is amazing. She is by far the best thing about the show, and far better than her equivalent in the BBC one. I could watch that woman all day. Also Molly Parker. I will watch Molly Parker in anything. In general, I like the gender representation in the American one much better; the BBC version had its badass ladies, but they weren't given as much focus. The drawn-out timeline works better too—the side characters are compelling enough, and one gets the sense of an actual universe rather than a claustrophobic stage.
I also love that there's a positive depiction of polyamorous, bisexual people. I mean, they're evil, but their relationships aren't. I haven't seen much like that lately outside of Lost Girl.
However, the BBC version kills off Thatcher in a brilliant sequence that I won't describe here other than it made me fall off the couch laughing, so it wins in my heart forever.
P.S.bcholmes, it is now time for me to start watching Hannibal.
radiumhead asked for a post about House of Cards, which I said I'd write once I'd finished the second season of the American one. It turns out I have Thoughts! Many Thoughts.So, for those of you who have somehow missed this weird bit of popular culture, there are two House of Cards TV shows. One is a BBC series from I think the 90s starring Ian Richardson, the other is Netflix's interesting experiment with the binge-watching model, starring Kevin Spacey. They're both based on novels by Michael Dobbs, which I haven't read (anyone? should I bother?) and follow the adventures of the amoral whip of the party in power (Tories in the BBC version, Democrats in the Netflix one, more on that in a bit) who gets passed over for promotion and, in revenge, destroys everyone until he's on top.
When the Netflix series came out, PopeJohn tried to get me to watch it, and I was kind of like, "ummm, don't really like American political dramas," thinking that it would be like The West Wing. This may surprise some of you but I find American politics duller than the politics of practically any other country. It's not like there's a lot of variation in the political discourse of, say, Canadian politics, but it's still a greater scope than is allowed in American politics. Then he told me that the first scene is Kevin Spacey killing a dog and I decided to give it a chance.
(Because I love manipulative amoral protagonists more than cake, okay? Don't judge me. My formative years were in the grimdark 90s and I can't help it.)
I thought the first Netflix series was quite good. PopeJohn then told me that in the BBC one, they kill Thatcher, so I watched it assuming that it would be better. It was. (I mean, are you surprised? I like the non-American versions of most things better than the American versions.)
So there are two main distinctions I'd make beyond the obvious things (production values, length, etc.). The first is the political-cultural—how America's essentially optimistic and homogeneous political culture works against the cynicism of the show; the second is the difference between the British television tradition and the American one.
The latter is a simpler thing to tackle, so I'll start there. It's a distinction I know about courtesy of The TARDIS Eruditorum (which is a great blog if you're into Doctor Who, by the way), which had a whole long post about how America is all about the method acting and Britain is all about the theatrical tradition, which largely amounts to television that's essentially ugly middle-aged dudes talking at each other. Richardson is so obviously a Shakespearean stage actor that I didn't need to look that up (but I did need to look up his name). The structure of the show is theatrical. Urquhart's asides—which do show up in the Netflix version, but come off as much weirder there—suggest the stage rather than the box. When I watch the Netflix version, I see Spacey playing Underwood brilliantly. When I watch the BBC version, I see Urquhart, which is why I had to look up who played him.
I can't say that the ugly middle-aged dudes talking at each other works for all formats—note that newer BBC shows aren't like that for the most part—but it works for political drama. The BBC House of Cards is over-the-top stylized, which renders the mundane political discussions poetic. The political scenes in the Netflix version had me yawning; many of Underwood's manipulations were lost on me because I stopped paying attention.
A segue here, I think, is to point out (as others before me have) that Urquhart is substantially more evil than Underwood. It's a factor of both the stylization—a Shakespearean tragedy can afford to have a completely evil, unsympathetic protagonist, and the differing political contexts. Spacey's Underwood is sympathetic, and the narrative has you rooting for him most of the time. Despite the POV bias (which I think I discussed that time I did a post about Breaking Bad), I don't think you are ever supposed to root for Urquhart. He's a monster and completely irredeemable, something that you can't do in American drama that is actually supposed to be serious.
Obviously this is somewhat related to the politics, as Urquhart is an evil Tory doing these things mainly for kicks and because he's trying to preserve the status quo against upstarts like Thatcher and those grimy Labour types, and Underwood is a nasty bugger but he's a Democrat, so the alternative is always slightly worse. I'm not sure that America can do pessimistic politics in the way that the British do; even in dystopian fiction, Katniss Everdeen kinda triumphs whereas poor Winston ends up loving Big Brother. And it's that underlying optimism that makes for compelling drama but also made me far more impressed by the BBC version, which pulls exactly zero punches.
Which is weird, because you actually can have a scrappy underdog in British politics, whereas you can't in American politics. Underwood may be less of a rich fuck than some of the Republicans, but there is no politician in that series who is not a rich fuck. At least in the 90s, you could have these sons of coalminers in the Labour Party that were kind of cool. (By the way, see A Very British Coup, which is about one of those scrappy underdogs winning, at least for a bit.)
In the original, the second series is a power struggle between Urquhart, who having gotten himself as high up as he can in the political structure, gets bored and decides to get into it with a socially progressive king. They obviously can't do a thing like that in the American series, so it becomes a power struggle between Underwood and a billionaire and a sleazy rich lawyer, and this is just not as much fun as a situation where the narrative forces you to root against the main character. Also, the politics just aren't as interesting, though I loved the internal scenes within the Democratic party as the right-wing, represented by Underwood's forces, got into conflict with the slightly less right-wing.
The other difference that I noticed is how uncomfortable American fiction, in general, is around class. You can't have debonaire villains in America. It's not that there isn't hereditary class privilege—there of course is—but it's disguised under this rugged individualist aesthetic. Urquhart gets to kill a dog too, but the class and narrative ramifications are different. Underwood snaps the dog's neck in a mercy killing, out of necessity, with his own hands, and this is a brilliant establishing moment that shows him as both pragmatic and admirable (he could call someone else to do it, but he does his own dirty work, dammit). Whereas Urquhart's killing is at a distance, with a hunting rifle—that symbol of upper class twatitude—and is all about power and the reestablishment of the old order. This is also a narrative distance that echoes the stylization of the series and reminds you that however much you're about to cheer at the scene that immediately follows (because you are; I did) you are never invited to sympathize or identify with this guy.
Anyway! Let's talk about what the Netflix series has going for it. Robin Wright. God, she is amazing. She is by far the best thing about the show, and far better than her equivalent in the BBC one. I could watch that woman all day. Also Molly Parker. I will watch Molly Parker in anything. In general, I like the gender representation in the American one much better; the BBC version had its badass ladies, but they weren't given as much focus. The drawn-out timeline works better too—the side characters are compelling enough, and one gets the sense of an actual universe rather than a claustrophobic stage.
I also love that there's a positive depiction of polyamorous, bisexual people. I mean, they're evil, but their relationships aren't. I haven't seen much like that lately outside of Lost Girl.
However, the BBC version kills off Thatcher in a brilliant sequence that I won't describe here other than it made me fall off the couch laughing, so it wins in my heart forever.
P.S.
bcholmes, it is now time for me to start watching Hannibal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-04-03 01:34 am (UTC)Well that's just a really good point right there. Americans of course are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of class. Despite (actually probably because of) Underwood's power and wealth, his everyman image has to be continually propped back up: doing the killings by his own hands, eating bbq, having a line of descent from a humble Confederate soldier, the relationship with Meechum. Without those things thrown in to make him "middle class", it would be impossible for an American audience to have any sympathy or appreciation.
P.S. bcholmes, it is now time for me to start watching Hannibal.
Hannibal is okay. The premise of the first season got old really fast. I didn't like it. But once they've worn that premise to death, they switch gears, and the second season is actually quite good.
I wrote a longish thing about Hannibal. Maybe I'll post it here. It has nothing to do with class, though that angle would also be interesting to explore.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-03 02:20 am (UTC)Lies! Hannibal is incredible.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-03 02:46 am (UTC)I used to be more impressed by the character when I was a young man. Now I just think, "He's rich. He can do that because he's rich."
no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:41 pm (UTC)I'm also quite amazed by just how disturbing the show manages to be, given that it's a network show. The premise of episode 2 disturbed me a great deal. Then I saw the opening episode of season 2, and disturbed went to a whole new level.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 11:43 pm (UTC)I mean, even the sound effects that accompany Will's "I'm going to replay this crime scene in my head" are fascinating. I love that buzzing noise when the yellow lights sweep by, and the tick-tick-tick noise as he's mentally rewinding the scene to the beginning.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-05 12:57 am (UTC)I just finished the second one. I'm really tired but I think I'll watch the third before I pass out, just so I can have NIGHTMARE FOR-FUCKING-EVER.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-05 03:29 pm (UTC)But all the "water trickling" sounds that the episode threw at the view were incredibly immersive.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-06 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:32 pm (UTC)Which is funny, because for me, it was kind of jarring, especially in contrast with the BBC one, because "humble Southerner" doesn't quite jive with the Magnificent Bastard archetype that I think they were going for. (The closet I can think of to an American thuggish type being a compelling Magnificent Bastard is Al Swearengen, which is cheating as the actor is British.)
So I haven't finished watching the first episode of Hannibal, but I've seen the movies and read the books. I gather he's not, strictly speaking, the protagonist, but he seems to be quite popular on the intertubes. And is presumably an unapologetically rich bastard. I'm curious as to how that plays in terms of the above.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-05 01:27 am (UTC)The other thing that annoyed me for maybe the first 3/4 of the first season was that they weren't adding anything new to the character of Hannibal. It made sense in a way. How do you do a dark, edgy reboot of Hannibal? You give him a full windsor knot, apparently. And some admittedly gorgeous suits. But at least twice an episode, I explicitly had the thought, "This character is rich. He can do these things because he's rich. Can you give me anything besides the fact that he's rich?"
Meanwhile, every single scene with that actor, every line delivered, is being turned into tumblr gifs by fingers that are slippery from being plunged into swampy cunts. It just makes me want to slap people for not having critical distance. Or washing their hands. (Yeah, there's more than a little Hannibal in me.)
I don't know how far you are into it, so I don't want to spoil anything for you, but they do start to unfold some new dimensions with that character. I loved the scenes with him and Gillian Anderson. She's great in this show, despite her limited on-screen time. (And if you haven't seen The Fall yet, fuck Hannibal, go watch that, it's really great TV.) And now the second season has me genuinely interested, because it's a little more than just a rich guy who kills people.
Why do people like Hannibal despite him being a bit of a snooty prick? I don't know. Why do people like vampires? It's kind of a similar thing. Isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2014-04-05 11:51 am (UTC)Three episodes in, I am admittedly finding this hilarious. I mean. Non-neurotypical, gigantic dewy eyes, everyone treats him like he's going to fall apart at any second, and his flaw is that he has too much empathy. He collects stray dogs ffs. (I hope nothing happens to the dogs.) The guy was made to be Photoshopped wearing a flower crown. I really don't remember the Red Dragon version of Will Graham being such an uberwoobie, but it's been awhile since I read/watched that.
This said, I have hormones same as anyone else and I get it.
Gillian Anderson is for sure something to look forward to. I haven't seen her in anything in forever and she's awesome.
I wonder if it's not that Americans can't deal with an upper-class psychopath as a main character so much as they can't deal with a cast full of completely unsympathetic characters. I can think of British shows where every single character is terrible—mainly comedy, but drama as well—but even Game of Thrones had to soften up some of the characters to make it palatable. So you can have evil snooty leads, but the supporting case has to be relatable.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-05 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-06 12:49 pm (UTC)Wait, no, I remember this. His family dies and he becomes an alcoholic wreck, right?
no subject
Date: 2014-04-06 08:32 pm (UTC)(He doesn't, but it's a little like that.)
no subject
Date: 2014-04-03 02:37 am (UTC)I found it quite the opposite. I watched the BBC series on PBS as a kid and I was rooting for Urquhart until he killed someone. Watching the US version having already seen the BBC version, I was not sympathetic to Underwood. I am decidedly Team Rachel.
But we do agree that Robin Wright is the best!!!!!!
no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:36 pm (UTC)Team Rachel, definitely. I cheered when she did the thing at the end of the second season. And also when she picked up a girl at church, because that is the greatest.
Well, the greatest after Robin Wright because I love her even though she's kinda evil.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-03 07:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:38 pm (UTC)The American one is really good; I don't mean to slag it at all. It's just a very different animal with a very different context.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-03 09:04 am (UTC)Also, for me, Spacey didnt really turn into a villain until that thing he did on the train platform in season 2, which was just fucking ridiculous.
Btw-good movie with Spacey & Wright working together-"Hurlyburly."
no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:42 pm (UTC)It's weird because I will watch all the British political dramas and comedies, all the time, and find it entertaining. (One I've been watching, The New Statesman, is only interesting when they're doing political bits; it loses me whenever sex happens.) And obviously I follow Canadian politics very closely. But as much as I slag the lack of difference between various political parties, it's nothing like the States. In order for politics to be interesting, you have to kind of be able to tell the parties apart.
I'll check out Hurlyburly; both of those actors rock and they have great chemistry.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-03 04:11 pm (UTC)Lianne and I still quote, "You may very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment" at each other.
We binge-watched the first season of the Netflix one and are looking forward to the second but I did not find it near as engaging.
+5 points for mentioning A Very British Coup, one of my favourites!
no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 10:44 pm (UTC)I loved A Very British Coup, and have no idea why it's not insanely popular with everyone I know.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-04 11:27 pm (UTC)Very British Coup is insanely popular with me! I can quote whole scenes from it. The novel is OK to read but not that exciting.
You asked about the House of Cards novels which are written by Michael Dobbs - I haven't been able to find them but he has written a lot of political thrillers that don't look all that thrilling. Don't know if you know this, but Dobbs used to be a senior advisor to Thatcher.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-05 12:58 am (UTC)Yeah, but he wasn't in combat, was he?
Also, and especially given the bit in S2, I think it was more than a suggestion. ;)
I did know that about Dobbs, which I find fascinating. I mean, the Tories come off as very evil in the series.
Re: A Very British Coup, I really wanted to rip the PM right out of the fabric of fiction and make him our actual PM. He was so cool.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-05 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-06 12:51 pm (UTC)