What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby brekin » Sun May 11, 2014 5:55 pm

Nordic » Sun May 11, 2014 3:48 pm wrote:
brekin » Sun May 11, 2014 12:48 pm wrote:I admit HofC is a guilt pleasure of mine. I don't see anything redeeming in it though. It is basically dictator porn. The viewer identifies with a politician who in ascending to the presidency without election, exploits, jails and murders the innocent. It is like "Pinochet: The Wonder Years".

Dexter, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, etc are just America's pretty and clever affirmations to itself to rationalize the evil it does. Was it better when America just had Davey Crocket and Leave it to Beaver? Probably not. I'm just hoping for a balance coming to the force is all.

Image



Well, I would disagree that the viewer identifies with Underwood. It's more of a horror story, like watching a viper stalk its prey and then devouring it. You almost can't help but admire the sheer predatory, opportunistic instincts that the creature has. Like watching the famous "Honey Badger" video on Youtube.
I've never seen anything quite like it. I mean, I just thought of "Scarface," but the guy in Scarface actually has a conscience that leads to his downfall.
Frank Underwood and his wife? No conscience whatsoever.
I like how it shows the government as irredeemably corrupt. Which is accurate. And the acting is just fantastic. All the characters, even the ones with fairly small but recurring roles, are so great.
The one bit of casting that I don't like that much is the President. But I suppose casting someone who seems like such a milquetoast lackey was deliberate.


I agree the acting is fantastic across the board. But the whole show privileges Frank's viewpoint. He even talks and confides directly to the viewer. The whole show is a later day Machiavelli espousing his philosophy to us. The viewer is the position of Frank's pupil. When Frank is riding high the viewer is, when he is threatened we are to. Almost 90% of all the plot lines deal with him, and his wife's quest for power and why they deserve it. We spend hours coming to understand Frank, and as they say ultimately, to understand is to forgive. Those who behave in noble ways, the reporter whose gf dies and tries to expose Frank, the activist hacker who the fbi has under their thumb, the troubled congressman who decides to go against the system, etc are all shown to be disposable serfs who are dumb enough to challenge the system. But because Frank confides in us, we think we are on the inside and with him. Scarface is a good analogy because just as everyday garden variety thug has a mentor now every garden variety Machiavelli has one to.

Agree with the casting of the president. If he was likable then Frank's crimes would be seen as unforgivable, which they are.

Image
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Hunter » Sun May 11, 2014 8:12 pm

Man Gunsmoke is a damned good show, watch some more, good stuff. House of Cards is good to, I concur with Brekin et al. Same feelings, Spacey kills it though, good character acting.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Hunter » Sun May 11, 2014 8:18 pm

brekin » Sun May 11, 2014 5:55 pm wrote:
Nordic » Sun May 11, 2014 3:48 pm wrote:
brekin » Sun May 11, 2014 12:48 pm wrote:I admit HofC is a guilt pleasure of mine. I don't see anything redeeming in it though. It is basically dictator porn. The viewer identifies with a politician who in ascending to the presidency without election, exploits, jails and murders the innocent. It is like "Pinochet: The Wonder Years".

Dexter, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, etc are just America's pretty and clever affirmations to itself to rationalize the evil it does. Was it better when America just had Davey Crocket and Leave it to Beaver? Probably not. I'm just hoping for a balance coming to the force is all.

Image



Well, I would disagree that the viewer identifies with Underwood. It's more of a horror story, like watching a viper stalk its prey and then devouring it. You almost can't help but admire the sheer predatory, opportunistic instincts that the creature has. Like watching the famous "Honey Badger" video on Youtube.
I've never seen anything quite like it. I mean, I just thought of "Scarface," but the guy in Scarface actually has a conscience that leads to his downfall.
Frank Underwood and his wife? No conscience whatsoever.
I like how it shows the government as irredeemably corrupt. Which is accurate. And the acting is just fantastic. All the characters, even the ones with fairly small but recurring roles, are so great.
The one bit of casting that I don't like that much is the President. But I suppose casting someone who seems like such a milquetoast lackey was deliberate.


I agree the acting is fantastic across the board. But the whole show privileges Frank's viewpoint. He even talks and confides directly to the viewer. The whole show is a later day Machiavelli espousing his philosophy to us. The viewer is the position of Frank's pupil. When Frank is riding high the viewer is, when he is threatened we are to. Almost 90% of all the plot lines deal with him, and his wife's quest for power and why they deserve it. We spend hours coming to understand Frank, and as they say ultimately, to understand is to forgive. Those who behave in noble ways, the reporter whose gf dies and tries to expose Frank, the activist hacker who the fbi has under their thumb, the troubled congressman who decides to go against the system, etc are all shown to be disposable serfs who are dumb enough to challenge the system. But because Frank confides in us, we think we are on the inside and with him. Scarface is a good analogy because just as everyday garden variety thug has a mentor now every garden variety Machiavelli has one to.

Agree with the casting of the president. If he was likable then Frank's crimes would be seen as unforgivable, which they are.

Image

What gets me is how much we, and I say WE as in ALL OF US, all people (I would assume) hate politics because this is exactly what it is, yet people watch this show and even I am guilty of it and are like, "Man that Underwood is a badass!!" (I have even found myself rooting for the fucker at times, wtf is that about?) He really isnt, he is a disgusting self absorbed sociopath with no conscience to speak of, but I guess it does make good TV viewing, it is just sad that is not ALL IT IS, this isnt just "Hollywood," this is probably more real than we all really understand.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby divideandconquer » Mon May 12, 2014 1:22 am

I can't help but sometimes think that there is an agenda to normalize socio/psychopathic behavior considering the prevalence of morally corrupt, yet lovable, to-root-for protagonists in some of the best TV shows over the last 15 years. And as much as I hate to admit it, I love far too many of these shows--Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, House of Cards, etc. Although, I refuse to watch Dexter, which seems to encourage the acceptance of psychopathic serial killers as long as they stick to the dregs of humanity
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby 82_28 » Mon May 12, 2014 2:09 am

There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Hunter » Mon May 12, 2014 8:23 pm

divideandconquer » Mon May 12, 2014 1:22 am wrote:I can't help but sometimes think that there is an agenda to normalize socio/psychopathic behavior considering the prevalence of morally corrupt, yet lovable, to-root-for protagonists in some of the best TV shows over the last 15 years. And as much as I hate to admit it, I love far too many of these shows--Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, House of Cards, etc. Although, I refuse to watch Dexter, which seems to encourage the acceptance of psychopathic serial killers as long as they stick to the dregs of humanity

Exactly, we love Tony, Walt, Underwood, what the fuck is that all about, Everything about them is exactly what I hate and cannot stand with real people who are in my life who are like that, yet put it on TV and you root for them. Someone needs to do a study, write a book about this incredible disconnect that is going on in the minds of TV and movie viewers.

None of us would like these people in real life, we would loath them.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Nordic » Mon May 12, 2014 10:54 pm

I think the only reason anyone might root for them is because the people they're up against are just as bad or even far worse. Like the rapist General, or Raymond Tusk, or that Chinese oligarch.

Worked that way in The Sopranos, too. The psychology of it. Although Tony Soprano was actually in therapy and trying to figure things out, a reluctant bad guy. Frank Underwood is pure smarmy evil genius. No remorse, no conscience.

Another thing -- I feel that this works similar to a horror/slasher movie in which the people who actually aren't nastier than the killer/hero still deserve to get killed or destroyed because they're too stupid to realize that the killer is THAT bad. So we kinda like it when they get it.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 13, 2014 12:37 am

It's protagonist bias.

Like think of all the Hollywood movies about a professional assassin who wants out of his criminal set. We root for this person as he fights it out with a bunch of other murderers although all of them are essentially of the same kind of sociopathic useless parasitic motherfuckers. When our protagonist has murdered all of his antagonists and acquired the suitcase with the couple of million dollars, the other suitcase with the MacGuffin (a secret weapon, a formula, a bunch of coke) as well as the girl, the fresh passports and the tropical island real estate, why do we consider it a "happy ending"? Why did we root for this person? Because the camera was on him for most of the time. It's really that simple. You get involved in the story that's told.

I watched the Netflix House of Cards addictively, as part of an orgy of TV-watching that's been my drug of choice for current depressions. It's entertaining TV, well-acted, all that crap. (Up to a point. I didn't bother to go back on episodes if I'd fallen asleep in the middle; didn't seem to matter very much.)

As sociological, political, historical analysis: it's shite. The categories of the Shakespearean monarchical power-struggle/melodrama transposed to present day, and having very little to say about it that's actually insightful. Everyone at every level depicted is in it for themselves except for the nice trapped prostitute. Politics, class, ideology, social psychology, deep state, etc. etc. - omitted.

Note also that Frank Underwood is shown breaking the Washington "gridlock." It's sort of like, what a shame that he's not putting these great talents as a macher to more noble ends. Hooray for the realists and compromisers!

Whatever.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Hunter » Tue May 13, 2014 2:21 pm

True. good points both. It is true that Tony, Walt, and even Underwood I suppose are sort of fighting the "establishment," and I think that is the source of my enjoyment in their success, it just is, like you say, they really arent using the talents to replace the evil with anything noble, its just more evil, even if it is the lesser of the two.

The lesser of two evils, seems to be everything in our lives now, from food to politics to TV characters is all about choosing the lesser of the two evils, there is no choice for the good anymore. But maybe it would bore us if there were.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby brekin » Tue May 13, 2014 6:51 pm

JackRiddler » Mon May 12, 2014 11:37 pm wrote:It's protagonist bias.

Like think of all the Hollywood movies about a professional assassin who wants out of his criminal set. We root for this person as he fights it out with a bunch of other murderers although all of them are essentially of the same kind of sociopathic useless parasitic motherfuckers. When our protagonist has murdered all of his antagonists and acquired the suitcase with the couple of million dollars, the other suitcase with the MacGuffin (a secret weapon, a formula, a bunch of coke) as well as the girl, the fresh passports and the tropical island real estate, why do we consider it a "happy ending"? Why did we root for this person? Because the camera was on him for most of the time. It's really that simple. You get involved in the story that's told.
I watched the Netflix House of Cards addictively, as part of an orgy of TV-watching that's been my drug of choice for current depressions. It's entertaining TV, well-acted, all that crap. (Up to a point. I didn't bother to go back on episodes if I'd fallen asleep in the middle; didn't seem to matter very much.)

As sociological, political, historical analysis: it's shite. The categories of the Shakespearean monarchical power-struggle/melodrama transposed to present day, and having very little to say about it that's actually insightful. Everyone at every level depicted is in it for themselves except for the nice trapped prostitute. Politics, class, ideology, social psychology, deep state, etc. etc. - omitted.
Note also that Frank Underwood is shown breaking the Washington "gridlock." It's sort of like, what a shame that he's not putting these great talents as a macher to more noble ends. Hooray for the realists and compromisers!
Whatever.


Agreed. Boal concluded awhile back in his Theatre of the Oppressed that the single protagonist breaking from the chorus inherently games sympathy towards that person as more worthy of attention and sympathy. Usually that person is by default or design a member or soon to be member of the aristocratic class. Their philosophies and predilections are seen to be the best and as the world should be run because they are given the most time and justification. (Aristocracy = rule by the best). Frank Underwood is a perfect example. He is seen as the best operator in Washington who gets things done and so he should be the supreme ruler. Spacey is obviously lifting some of his work from Richard III, but even if the protagonist is from humble origins, privileging their viewpoint elevates them to a higher class. Attention is power. The common trope of middle class/ blue collar slob husband as the king of his house, who gets to riddle the masses with his pet philosophies, is an aristocrat. I would guess a more broad ensemble balanced with a diversity of point of views is the counterpoint to this, like The Wire.

Its really almost impossible not to start to sympathize with a main character who you repeatedly see the world through with their eyes and is nice to you. Families, governments and religions of all stripes are examples of this. As Hunter said, in real life we loathe these people, but that's because more often than not we don't have their monologue running through our head as they relax our brainwaves into the delta waves of tv viewing. Nefarious seducers and hypnotists aside. It is funny because one of the criticisms of HofC is that the Underwoods really don't have anyone of equal stature challenging them, so there is not as much tension as there could be. If there was though, wouldn't we empathize even more with the Underwoods then we already do because they are in even more dire straits?

Obama, as has been mentioned before in threads, is a fan of course:

Here's some proof that basically everyone watches "House of Cards" and "Scandal."
President Obama made an appearance on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" on Wednesday, March 19, and, of course, Ellen asked about his presidential television preferences. Obama revealed that he does watch "House of Cards," but that despite some high praise from his wife, he has yet to try out "Scandal."

The hit Netflix and ABC shows display two very different sides of the same White House coin, so it's only fitting that they get some screen time in the president's home. Apparently, "House of Cards" and "Scandal" are as much escapes for the President and First Lady as they are for any other viewer, though. "I have to tell you, life in Washington is a little more boring than displayed on the screen," he said, noting that the majority of his days are spent in meetings discussing issues that "wouldn't make very good television."


Wouldn't make very good television? I don't know. I'd sure like to hear some of Obama's phone calls with the Clintons and Bushes.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 13, 2014 7:08 pm

He's right though. 98% of the real life doesn't make for good TV, at least not as we've been trained and encouraged to consume and desire TV. This is one of the reasons why so many of the smarter-than-average and even more sensitive-empathic people can more easily analyze the meaning of the Sopranos or chart the plotting of The Wire than they can dissect most of the actual political issues of the day, why they know the latter from platitudes and fall tired when there's too much talk of it, why they know the history in Mad Men better than primary source material (in speeches & documents of the time, say) or any scholarly history of the 1960s or even (if they're old enough) their own memories.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby brekin » Tue May 13, 2014 9:54 pm

JackRiddler wrote:He's right though. 98% of the real life doesn't make for good TV, at least not as we've been trained and encouraged to consume and desire TV. This is one of the reasons why so many of the smarter-than-average and even more sensitive-empathic people can more easily analyze the meaning of the Sopranos or chart the plotting of The Wire than they can dissect most of the actual political issues of the day, why they know the latter from platitudes and fall tired when there's too much talk of it, why they know the history in Mad Men better than primary source material (in speeches & documents of the time, say) or any scholarly history of the 1960s or even (if they're old enough) their own memories.


Yup. Ralph Nader said roughly once, "The really important things are usually boring, that is why we have to pay attention to them." Since Ralph Nader's orientation to the average television viewer's is probably akin to Abraham Lincoln's now, it shows how far we've moved away from sustained thought, let alone action. I think it is also why when contemporary media makes the slightest nod to anything slightly non-conforming to mainstream political, or other realms, the modern viewer feels via viewership proxy like they are on the barricades of some revolution. When in reality television/film by its very medium always bastardizes what usually requires a series of Russian novels to approach some verisimilitude. Really, media is so derivative and unoriginal today, while 98% of real life doesn't make for good TV, 98% of TV doesn't really make for good TV.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Hunter » Tue May 13, 2014 10:09 pm

JackRiddler » Tue May 13, 2014 7:08 pm wrote:He's right though. 98% of the real life doesn't make for good TV, at least not as we've been trained and encouraged to consume and desire TV. This is one of the reasons why so many of the smarter-than-average and even more sensitive-empathic people can more easily analyze the meaning of the Sopranos or chart the plotting of The Wire than they can dissect most of the actual political issues of the day, why they know the latter from platitudes and fall tired when there's too much talk of it, why they know the history in Mad Men better than primary source material (in speeches & documents of the time, say) or any scholarly history of the 1960s or even (if they're old enough) their own memories.

Indeed, none of the professions are anywhere near as romantic as they are on TV, ask any lawyer, doctor, cop, etc. And that is mostly because as you say, we are only seeing 2% of that lifestyle not the other 98% of everyday grind and monotony.

There is no doubt a lot of corruption in DC but I doubt it is planned and plotted as much as we see on TV, I think the system is just set up in such a way that them going about their everyday business is all it really takes. But sure, there are backroom deals and handshakes and very likely murders in some cases.

I think the real planning and plotting is probably done by the ones trying to do some good, do things right, they are the ones who have to play outside the rules when you think about it. Read Bernie Sanders recent AMA on Reddit for some insight on the efforts he has to put in to try and avoid being corrupt. Seems it doesnt take much effort to be corrupt anymore, the effort is in trying not to be. That is just sad.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:01 pm

brekin » Sun May 11, 2014 12:48 pm wrote:I admit HofC is a guilt pleasure of mine. I don't see anything redeeming in it though. It is basically dictator porn. The viewer identifies with a politician who in ascending to the presidency without election, exploits, jails and murders the innocent. It is like "Pinochet: The Wonder Years".

Dexter, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, etc are just America's pretty and clever affirmations to itself to rationalize the evil it does.


This reminds me that Tywin Lannister is by far my favourite character in Game of Thrones.

EDIT: And my next favourite is Littlefinger. :?


Guilty pleasures, yes, for sure - but guilty reassurances too.

Because - when you think about it - good people, normal people, (like us, of course, old chap) can feel a bit better about themselves when their opponents are portrayed in fiction as untouchably smart and powerful Machiavellian operators.

It lets us off the hook. How can we be expected to oppose them effectively, when they're so amazingly cold and clever and strong and invulnerable? How can we defeat them when the whole system is ineffably corrupt, and was designed by them (or their ilk) in the first place? It's not our fault that we gave up fighting them, really. Is it? It was the rational thing to do. We could never win anyway.

"Well, of course they won the elections - they're evil liars."

Thus, much of the left (and me, too) have justified and exonerated our own unforgiveable weakness for decades now. It's far less shameful to feel that you've been defeated by a Tywin Lannister or a Francis Urquhart (or Frank Underwood), than to admit to yourself that you were actually outplayed in terms of policy commitments and electioneering by dreadful little brainless hobgoblins like Michael Gove (or, I don't know, Karl Rove?). So we lap it up.

But that's the reality. We keep losing ground to highly fallible idiots - not demi-Gods or monsters. We need to face it.

Btw, sorry for being a smartass Nordic, i couldn't resist that one. :wink

Like Jack suggested, the UK version of House of Cards is heavily influenced by Shakespeare - to a ridiculous degree in the second series, where Francis and his wife basically become Lady Macbeth and her King. Their chief assassin even shares a name with one of Macbeth's ill-gotten Thaneships. By the third series, Francis Urquhart was basically Frankenstein's monster (Mary Shelley's version, with extreme high intelligence and not much empathy):



I bet there were folk back in Shakespeare's day who identified primarily with Macbeth. Hell, there are countries where Iago is still considered the hero of Othello!

They're the main characters after all. When I watch Oliver Stone's Nixon, sorry to say, I'm not just on Nixon's side - I'm Nixon. But that doesn't mean Oliver Stone is a right winger. Nor me neither.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:58 pm

.

Finally got around to catching this -- just started Season 2 and am admittedly enjoying it, agreeing with much of the sentiments above.
Seems we're increasingly being desensitized towards --- or perhaps even conditioned to accept -- psychopathic/sociopathic behavior as a necessity in Authority/Power structures. Power corrupts, naturally.

Came across the below related article, a glimpse into how media (and other) entities will be (have been) increasingly utilizing data mining and subsequent analytics from said data mining to tweak product.

Myriad applications/implications.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_net ... o_puppets/


Image

I hit the pause button roughly one-third of the way through the first episode of “House of Cards,” the political drama premiering on Netflix Feb. 1. By doing so, I created what is known in the world of Big Data as an “event” — a discrete action that could be logged, recorded and analyzed. Every single day, Netflix, by far the largest provider of commercial streaming video programming in the United States, registers hundreds of millions of such events. As a consequence, the company knows more about our viewing habits than many of us realize. Netflix doesn’t know merely what we’re watching, but when, where and with what kind of device we’re watching. It keeps a record of every time we pause the action — or rewind, or fast-forward — and how many of us abandon a show entirely after watching for a few minutes.

Netflix might not know exactly why I personally hit the pause button — I was checking on my sick son, home from school with the flu — but if enough people pause or rewind or fast-forward at the same place during the same show, the data crunchers can start to make some inferences. Perhaps the action slowed down too much to hold viewer interest — bored now! — or maybe the plot became too convoluted. Or maybe that sex scene was just so hot it had to be watched again. If enough of us never end up restarting the show after taking a break, the inference could be even stronger: maybe the show just sucked.

In 2012, for the first time ever, Americans watched more movies legally delivered via the Internet than on physical formats like Blu-Ray discs or DVDs. The shift signified more than a simple switch in formats; it also marked a major difference in how much information the providers of online programming can gather about our viewing habits. Netflix is at the forefront of this sea change, a pioneer straddling the intersection where Big Data and entertainment media intersect. With “House of Cards,” we’re getting our first real glimpse at what this new world will look like.

For at least a year, Netflix has been explicit about its plans to exploit its Big Data capabilities to influence its programming choices. “House of Cards” is one of the first major test cases of this Big Data-driven creative strategy. For almost a year, Netflix executives have told us that their detailed knowledge of Netflix subscriber viewing preferences clinched their decision to license a remake of the popular and critically well regarded 1990 BBC miniseries. Netflix’s data indicated that the same subscribers who loved the original BBC production also gobbled down movies starring Kevin Spacey or directed by David Fincher. Therefore, concluded Netflix executives, a remake of the BBC drama with Spacey and Fincher attached was a no-brainer, to the point that the company committed $100 million for two 13-episode seasons.

“We know what people watch on Netflix and we’re able with a high degree of confidence to understand how big a likely audience is for a given show based on people’s viewing habits,” Netflix communications director Jonathan Friedland told Wired in November. “We want to continue to have something for everybody. But as time goes on, we get better at selecting what that something for everybody is that gets high engagement.”

The strategy has advantages that go beyond the assumption of built-in popularity. Netflix also believes it can save big on marketing costs because Netflix’s recommendation engine will do all the heavy lifting. Already, Netflix claims that 75 percent of its subscribers are influenced by what Netflix suggests to subscribers that they will like.

“We don’t have to spend millions to get people to tune into this,” Steve Swasey, Netflix’s V.P. of corporate communications, told GigaOm last March. “Through our algorithms we can determine who might be interested in Kevin Spacey or political drama and say to them, ‘You might want to watch this.’”

And maybe we will. Early reviews for “House of Cards” are promising. It will be fascinating to find out how many people gorge themselves on all 13 episodes this upcoming weekend. (Netflix data shows that’s how we like to consume our TV series now — in great gulps and marathons — so that’s how it will give them to us.) But one does end up wondering: What will the Big Data approach mean for the creative process? If Netflix perfects the job of giving us exactly what we want, when and how will we be exposed to things that are new and different, the movies and TV shows we would never imagine we might like unless given the chance? Can the auteur survive in an age when computer algorithms are the ultimate focus group? And just how many political dramas starring Kevin Spacey can we stand, anyway?

The scope of the data collected by Netflix from its 29 million streaming video subscribers is staggering. Every search you make, every positive or negative rating you give to what you just watched, is piped in along with ratings data from third-party providers like Nielsen. Location data, device data, social media references, bookmarks. Every time a viewer logs on he or she needs to be authenticated. Every movie or TV show also has its own associated licensing data. The logistics involved with handling every bit of information generated by Netflix viewers — and making sense of it — are pure geek wizardry.

Netflix doesn’t just know that you are more likely to be watching a thriller on Saturday night than on Monday afternoon, but it also knows what you are more likely to be watching on your tablet as compared to your phone or laptop; or what people in a particular ZIP code like to watch on their tablets on a Sunday afternoon. Netflix even tracks how many people start tuning out when the credits start to roll.

Correlating the raw numbers of Kevin Spacey fans who also like David Fincher and have a fondness for British political dramas is just the beginning. Netflix knows enough about what you are watching to judge specific aspects of content as well. Last summer senior data scientist Mohammad Sabah reported at a conference that Netflix was capturing specific screen shots to analyze in-the-moment viewing habits, and the company was “looking to take into account other characteristics.”

What could those characteristics be? GigaOm’s report of the Sabah presentation speculated that “it could make a lot of sense to consider things such as volume, colors and scenery that might give valuable signals about what viewers like.”

Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos has said that all that data means that Netflix has a very “addressable audience.” Unlike the traditional broadcast networks or cable companies, Netflix doesn’t have to rely on shoveling content out into the wild and finding out after the fact what audiences want or don’t want. They believe they already know.

Of course, data-centric decisions don’t guarantee hit-making success. Kevin Spacey’s participation isn’t bulletproof (see “Fred Claus”) and even David Fincher can’t claim a perfect record. (“Alien 3,” anyone?) Netflix’s ambition to challenge HBO as a destination for quality original programming will require fabulous craftsmanship to go along with the Big Data filters. All the Big Data in the world can’t rule out, once and for all, the possibility of a bomb.

But that goes without saying. The interesting and potentially troubling question is how a reliance on Big Data might funnel craftsmanship in particular directions. What happens when directors approach the editing room armed with the knowledge that a certain subset of subscribers are opposed to jump cuts or get off on gruesome torture scenes or just want to see blow jobs. Is that all we’ll be offered? We’ve seen what happens when news publications specialize in just delivering online content that maximizes page views. It isn’t always the most edifying spectacle. Do we really want creative decisions about how a show looks and feels to be made according to an algorithm counting how many times we’ve bailed out of other shows?

For years Netflix has been analyzing what we watched last night to suggest movies or TV shows that we might like to watch tomorrow. Now it is using the same formula to prefabricate its own programming to fit what it thinks we will like. Isn’t the inevitable result of this that the creative impulse gets channeled into a pre-built canal?

It’s certainly possible to overstate the case here. One could argue that Netflix’s strategy is only a slightly more sophisticated version of what’s already been in place for, well, forever. We wouldn’t be seeing teenage vampires or zombies every time we turn on the TV if the money that bankrolls the content creation business hadn’t already decided that’s what we want to see. Actors who have the fortune to appear in hit movies or TV show get more parts to play. So what else is new?

But there’s a level of specificity made possible by Big Data that suggests we’re headed into new territory. “House of Cards” is just one symptom of a society-wide shift. The Obama campaign used the same kind of number crunching to target voters with more accuracy than any political campaign had ever accomplished before. Online advertisers are also gathering vast amounts of detailed information about us from our smartphones, our Facebook likes and our Google searches.

The sheer amount of data available to crunch is already phenomenal and is growing at an extraordinary rate. Last summer, at a panel discussion that included several significant players in the emerging Big Data universe, Michael Karasick, a V.P. at IBM Research, estimated that there is “a thousand exabytes of data on the planet anywhere.” An exabyte is one quintillion bytes, or one billion gigabytes. That’s a lot of ones and zeroes all by itself, but the mind-boggling part of the equation is that Karasick predicted that just two years from now there will be 9,000-10,000 exabytes of data on the planet.

The companies that figure out how to generate intelligence from that data will know more about us than we know ourselves, and will be able to craft techniques that push us toward where they want us to go, rather than where we would go by ourselves if left to our own devices. I’m guessing this will be good for Netflix’s bottom line, but at what point do we go from being happy subscribers, to mindless puppets?
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests