Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Review: House of Cards




I've just finished season 1 of House of Cards. I feel a bit numb inside. These two facts are related.

House of Cards, if you haven't heard about it (shame on you), is a political drama about a House Majority Whip that is not given what he was promised. Passed over for the Secretary of State position, Frank Underwood, a ruthless, calculating, and demanding politician, begins to exact his revenge on those who wronged him.

From the first five minutes of episode 1, I was hooked. Within those five minutes, you are introduced to everything you need to know about Frank. A dog is struck by a car and Frank, getting ready for a black tie event, comes out of his home to comfort the dog. Or so it seems. Frank then directly addresses the audience, staring straight into the camera and issues a few lines on what he calls the two sorts of pain. The first sort makes you strong. The second is only suffering. He despises this type of pain. Then he kills the dog.

These breakaway speeches occur throughout the series, lending narratorial insight into events and Frank's thought process behind a certain action. Plus, every line is expertly crafted to emulate with ruthlessness and is incredibly quotable. The cutaways are profound and leave viewers questioning the integrity and honor of Frank as a politician. The portrayal of Frank as such a controlling legislator who is drawn between his own ambitions and those of his constituents (a company named SanCorp) is much different than the conventional textbook definition of a legislator.

House of Cards is jarring. The phenomenal casting and acting for the show continues to surprise. Frank is joined by his wife, Claire, owner of the non-profit Clean Water Initiative, Zoe Barnes,a reporter looking for a break, Peter Russo, a US Representative battling alcoholism and drug addiction, and a multitude of other similarly ambitious or morally tainted characters. The interplay between characters, and mostly their manipulation by Frank, is creative and at times left me wondering what was about to happen.

Frank Underwood is just another character in the growing list of modern anti-heroes we all want to hate but come away sympathizing. When Frank is passed over for the Secretary of State position, I sympathizes with him; yet, he didn't want my sympathy. He immediately began scheming. He blatantly explains the weaknesses of sympathy. Frank is a man consumed and motivated only by power. Nothing else matters. Cleverly, throughout the first season, until the last two episodes, what exactly Frank is scheming for never becomes apparent. Instead wings of this house of cards topple, one by one, until nothing stands in the way of Frank and what he wants.

I easily finished this series in a week and cannot wait for the second season. This is the best show I have seen in a very long time. House of Cards has blown open a (fictional?) view of Washington that we can only hope is not true. House of Cards is riveting, jarring and at times uncomfortable. House of Cards will challenge you to figure out the mystery of Frank's ambitions. House of Cards will tempt you, asking if you can truly trust the narrator.

If you do only one thing today: watch House of Cards.

1 comment:

  1. I'm really interested in the lineage of morally ambiguous, borderline or outright unlikable protagonists a la Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc. Jon Hamm and Bryan Cranston were somewhat established, but relative unknowns before they broke big with Don Draper and Walter White, respectively, but Spacey's a different story. He's been iconic in The Usual Suspects, Seven, American Beauty, etc. So although you mention Frank Underwood's ascendance to this pantheon of anti-heroes, I wonder to what extent Spacey's stardom affects—or otherwise prevents—his character's joining of this guard?

    ReplyDelete