What, no "House of Cards" thread??

[Gashweir]

With regards to people rooting for monstrous TV characters, I think there is an attraction to watching someone like Frank Underwood who is single minded and completely ruthless, qualities most normal people occasionally fantasize about having, but mostly lack. In that regard he is similar to Jimmy Savile, except that FU lusts after power with every waking breath instead of teenage (and younger) flesh.

I think this is part of the reason certain UK government figures and members of the Royal family were so apparently fond of Jimmy Savile: he was so ruthless in pursuit of his pleasures, so devoid of even the tiniest trace of a conscience or any other positive human feeling, and so skillful in constructing a public persona which simultaneously protected him from media inquiry and law enforcement action and provided him access to his victims, that even skilled political operators like Margaret Thatcher admired him. While I think Margaret Thatcher (and some other like her) was very used to ignoring her vestigial and underdeveloped conscience, I think she had one and I think it bothered her from time to time. Jimmy Savile was a living example of how successful you can be when you don't have any conscience at all, and rather than revile him as an example of someone who was horrible and evil, I think they saw in him a personal ideal: someone who was totally and completely driven by self- interest, unrestrained by even a trace of a conscience, and completely untouchable. And it is this fact, that he was untouchable, which amazes me most. His predatory nature was so well known within media/entertainment circles, and yet he was able abuse kids with impunity for decades. It was only after he died that this all come out in the open, which seems to me a clear demonstration of how powerful he was.

[Hunter]

Good post, makes good sense. I just finished up another season good grief he is indeed a psychopath.

[Rory]

House of Cards is to parapolitical discussion, what the Kardashians are to the field of anthropology.

[RocketMan]

Well, seems like I don't have to watch the third season at all... Just as well, the deluge of interesting tv series these days is so overwhelming some culling is needed.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03 ... s-m02.html

The first two seasons presented a story that was half Macbeth, half Richard III. The show’s dramatic success depended on Underwood’s sangfroid, ruthlessness, cynicism and lack of sentimentality, which made for a believable character. At the same time, there were human, and even sometimes humane elements to Underwood that gave his character a certain complexity and richness.

A viewer watching season three will proceed through the first few episodes waiting for the shoe to drop, asking: When will the narrative resume? But at some point, he or she will realize that the third season bears no significant relationship to the first two. The characters are the same, the cinematography similar, but any trace of political criticism has been entirely removed, and the direction and purpose of the show have changed. The whole thing unfolds as one big bait and switch.

The political content of the show ends up supporting and justifying various pressing policy interests of the America ruling class. In dealing with international geopolitics, all the tropes of American foreign policy are parroted uncritically. The Russian state is painted as a totalitarian autocracy, clamping down on gay rights and political dissent, while the US seeks to counter Russian “aggression” while working for stability and peace in the Middle East.

Members of the pro-US, anti-Russian protest group Pussy Riot make a cameo when they are invited to a state dinner at the White House with Russian President Victor Petrov (a stand-in for Vladimir Putin). And after a jailed American political dissident in Russia commits suicide, Claire Underwood throws caution aside and does the “right thing,” denouncing the authoritarianism of the Russian state in a press conference. The irony of a First Lady of a country whose policy is torture and extrajudicial murder denouncing Russia for authoritarianism is not even considered.

Underwood’s ordering of assassinations—a reference to the unconstitutional drone murder program of the Obama administration—is presented in uncritical fashion and largely in passing. To the extent that the moral or constitutional questions involved are even considered, it is to justify these crimes.

A scene in which the Supreme Court hears testimony from the civilian survivor of a drone strike is counterpoised to a scene of Arlington National Cemetery, perpetuating the lie that drone murders are necessary to save American lives. The viewer is meant to draw the conclusion that, though drone assassination and the dozens of civilian casualties each one entails may be somewhat distasteful, they are ultimately necessary, and the real victims are the politicians and soldiers who have to carry out the killings.

Underwood’s main piece of domestic legislation, a proposal aimed at eliminating the “entitlement programs” of Social Security and Medicare, is presented as visionary, aimed at cutting through the “gridlock” of Washington and finally “getting something done.” The makers of the show seem to assume that this measure would be broadly popular, and rule out the possibility that it would evoke social opposition from the tens of millions of people who would find themselves cut off from their only source of income.

In the original 1990 British television show House of Cards, Francis Urquhart, on whose character Underwood is based, is ultimately undone both by his own crimes and the social forces he has unleashed. But in the third season of the American show, there is no consideration of any broader social forces outside of Washington.

Instead, Underwood and his wife, who once threatened to let an unborn child “wither and die” inside a woman who crossed her, are recast in the mold of affluent middle-class professionals. The action might as well have taken place in the home of a high-powered husband and wife team of proctologists.

The show’s executive producer, Beau Willimon, basically said as much in an interview with Variety magazine, declaring, “All we’re trying to do is tell the story of Frank and Claire Underwood. They happen to be politicians. Their story of ambition and power hungriness is a story you could have told on Wall Street or in a law firm or in a lot of different worlds. I don’t think House of Cards is about politics at all.”

This conception, that the broader social and political context is irrelevant to understanding the personal actions of anyone, much less of politicians, is stupid and childish, and applying it to House of Cards results in a show that resembles a daytime soap opera with desaturated colors.

[Searcher08]

Thanks for that RocketMan - an extraordinary transformation into something utterly anodyne and opposition to what is being done in America's name framed as part of a hand-wringing burden that her leaders care enough to shoulder. Yeck!

[elfismiles]

Yeah, we're just 3 eps into season 3 and so far ... MEH.

[gnosticheresy_2]

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

"greed is good"

[Nordic]

Pretty disappointed with Season 3. Don't want to give any spoilers, but there is a lot of international intrigue. And it's pretty lame, taken right from the MSM headlines, with stereotypical caricatures and stock situations. Pretty amateurish. I don't understand why they went so much into this. This show wasn't a Tom Clancy type of story, it's about the people who have the power and who use it to get what they want, using every sociopathic tool at their disposal. Along with their strange petty perversions and whatnot. There is some of that in here, but not enough, and not nearly as much as the first two seasons.

The parts that are good, though, are pretty good. And I'm still watching it, and will to the end.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Thanks for making me feel less crazy.

I'm surrounded by people excited about S3, but it seems to me like they replaced the entire writing staff with former The West Wing interns who were chosen on the basis of having never actually seen an episode of House of Cards.

Made it to Episode 5, which they pretentiously give a "Chapter" number to.

Personally, I'm always grateful when timesucks start simply sucking.

I see myself spending most of 2015 watching French movies without subtitles.

[JackRiddler]

Spoilers, if you care about it...



















IT REALLY SUCKS!

However, I wasted little time. Watched the first, read episode summaries of two more, then stopped bothering with even that and skipped straight to the last. Felt like I missed nothing whatsoever in between.

Really disgusting stuff. The arduous hero quest of a man determined to destroy everything in his way so that he can cruelly murder an innocent woman whose life he already ruined with earlier acts of violence. All she wants is to stay away from him, assume a nobody existence and pose no threat, so thoroughly has he terrorized her. He finally succeeds, so he can be Chief of Staff to the supposedly bigger psychopath on the throne. Oh, but it's such a nuanced and deep look into their minds. (So fucking boring and repetitive and that's just the two episodes). Stamper battles his conscience right up until the moment he buries Rachel's corpse in the desert. You're supposed to root for the Evil Prez so the series can go on forever dispensing its wisdom to you. Absolutely no understanding of real politics or economics, and pernicious because it pretends to be a deep critique of it all. All humans depicted are worthless scum lacking in empathy, because that supposedly is the human condition. But President Spacey gets things done. He will stem the entitlement problem (the only actual political view offered, basically uncontested). Also, it's supposed to be dramatic enough for a season-ending cliff-hanger that the psychopath's psychopathic wife left him at a decisive moment. Nothing to distinguish these scenes from daily soap operas, and the dialogue is no better.

Once people get sold on such a product they convince themselves it's not masochism to keep watching religiously. It becomes a matter of self-image to find things to like, because they liked it earlier.

[JackRiddler]

House of Cards is to parapolitical discussion, what the Kardashians are to the field of anthropology.

Say it again!

[norton ash]

Ay, chihuahua, it really did go straight to hell, didn't it? Harrumpf. I suppose I'll just have to watch the Lady MacBeth Show until November/16 instead, I guess.

[Nordic]

It has its moments.

Which Mr Shakespeare would have known if he had actually watched the show instead of skipping to the end and them dumping all the spoilers into his above post. Nice scorched earth policy there pal.

It's not as good as the first 2 seasons but I still mostly enjoyed watching it. Spacey and Wright are in top form for most of it if you can make it past all the insufferable Russian crap.

[zangtang]

then i guess y'all 'better watch Saul'......
which i will miss, not doing the subscription thing.
prolly get a friend to steal it.
no, i cant justify that.
but its prolly what'll happen.

[MinM]

Although it's going on 25 the original seemed much more cutting edge and even more relevant to today's issues.

viewtopic.php?p=498394#p498394