Skip to main content

Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power. In this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes.


House of Cards
Season One

(SPOILERS) Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that David Fincher’s US adaptation of House of Cards is so full-blooded; this is Netflix’s prestigious inaugural production, and they understandably want to make an impression. As such, there are no qualms over the depiction of sex, violence and substance abuse (all present and correct in Andrew Davies’ BBC version of Michael Dobbs’ novel). More than that, it’s a seductive, sumptuous production. David Fincher helmed the first two episodes, and his meticulous craftsmanship sets the tone for next eleven.

There are a few missteps along the way, but the series gets far more very right than it trips up on. The West Wing may be acclaimed as a bastion of intelligent US political drama, but I could never stomach the lack of cynicism of its characters and their genuineness towards the moral conundrums they faced. An Oval Office awash with moral earnestness was an arse-backwards, antithetical approach to the corridors of power. So, while there’s little argument that Beau Willimon (who wrote the play Farragut North, adapted by George Clooney as The Ides of March) doesn’t have Aaron Sorkin’s way with dialogue, the series is already ahead of its most obvious contender by taking “power corrupts absolutely” as its starting point.

There are both benefits and drawbacks in expanding the four-hour BBC serial to three times that length. The world of Washington is given a chance to breathe, and characters achieve greater dimensionality and depth; the most obvious in this regard is Claire Underwood (Robin Wright), whose role in the original develops deliciously (as such, I expect Fincher and Willimon will follow that outline), but here we get to see a clear mirroring of Francis Underwood’s (Kevin Spacey) ruthlessness in the way Claire deals with her own business interests. The greatest success of the series is the depiction, and casting, of Frank and Claire.

The cold clarity of their slow burning Faustian pact echoes Macbeth, but at this point with none of the intrusive guilt to undermine it; they are rock solid when it comes to ambitions. Which means that sometimes the dramatic hiccups introduced feel a little contrived; Frank continually putting his own interests above those of Claire is reason enough for her to undermine his plans through a deal with Remy (the lobbyist for a natural gas company). But her on-off affair (surely the most instructive element of the Underwoods’ relationship is the practicality with which each accepts the other’s infidelities) with British artist Adam Galloway (Ben Daniels. rumoured twelfth Doctor Who) is dramatically stagnant. So too, the menopausal Claire’s reflection on a (possibly) lost chance at motherhood perhaps humanises her too much; she moves a bit too close to a predictable character with predictable feelings, Willimon should never lose sight of the satirical backbone of Dobbs and Davies’ original. The further development of her ice queen puppeteer qualities might have been more engaging; she’s the only one who knows how to control Frank, so her behaviour ought to be even more calculating and shrewd than his. Claire should come into her own if they follow the gist of the sequels, but either way Wright is a revelation in the role. Not because we didn’t know she’s a great actress but because she really has a chance to show it, and consistently.

Frank is objectively the juicier part, and Spacey seizes it with all the malevolent relish you’d expect. But Wright is his unquestionable equal in every scene, both in terms of the characters and her ability to hold the attention. Spacey’s Southern accent is distracting for maybe 10 minutes, but in every other respect he’s the equal to Ian Richardson’s Urquhart. This is his first big starring role in nearly a decade (theatre has distracted him) and his every moment is a delight. One wonders if the producers had the conversation about whether or not to address camera (as some viewers will doubtless find such fourth wall breaking distracting, and the novel is not in the first person), but this is an essential part of the make-up of the series. It lends the proceedings a Shakespearian elegance; we are the confidantes of the confident Underwood, and we relish his corruption all the more because he is so personable and intimate with us. His splenetic aside, “I’m not going to lie – I despise children” after one causes him to scald his hand is both shocking and caustically funny. The key is to make us root for him despite his attitudes and behaviour, and Spacey delivers that completely. When the wind is knocked out of his sails during a TV debate, we feel the pain of his embarrassment and, when his political opponents score points off him, we root for their downfall.

It will be interesting to see how and if the pangs of guilt begin to afflict him in future seasons. In the original, Urquhart pushes journalist Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker) off a building. The essentials of Underwood’s relationship with journo Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) are intact, but the decision to keep her alive seems like a bit of a cop-out at first glance. True, To Play the Kingintroduces a semi-replacement, so it might be argued the producers are avoiding an obvious repetition, but it’s difficult to see Underwood being hit by regret for killing Russo (Corey Stoll). It was killing Mattie, not O’Neill (Russo’s equivalent) that stirred up Urquhart.

I have to admit that, good actress as she is, I don’t find Mara as compelling as Harker in the original. The chemistry between Richardson and Harker isn’t there between Spacey and Mara; instead, it crackles between Spacey and Wright. Allowing Zoe to live also affects the tension of the final episode of the season. There needed to be a gut-punch, but what we get is sub-All the President’s Men whispering on stairwells. I’m unsure if we’re supposed to see this as a bit silly on their part (as we know the limits of the conspiracy), but there’s little drama in seeing the intrepid journalists unearth the very information we’ve been watching all season. Constance Zimmer has a stronger presence than Mara, as journalist colleague Janine, but the attempts to flesh out the characters elsewhere lead to rote subplots (Zoe’s relationship with Lucas).

The BBC original ended on a double-whammy (Urquhart accedes to Number 10, Mattie is murdered but a telltale tape lives on); here we only have Underwood being offered the Vice-Presidency. The realisation by the journalists of his plans at the same time that they reach fulfillment just doesn’t have much impact. On the other hand, it makes good sense for Underwood not to claim the presidency yet. To Play the King sees him engaged in an adversarial game with the new regent. There’s no obvious contender for that role in the US political landscape, so I’d assume the President himself will be the antagonist (with Underwood becoming President for Season Three?)

The seeds for other developments to follow the original have been planted; one can quite see the loyal Doug Stamper (Michael Kelly, outstanding and far better served here than in Person of Interest) becoming increasingly uneasy with the toxic stew being brewed up by Frank. I suspect that the visit to Frank’s old military school will be revisited as it plants the seeds for a chink in his armour (a youthful passion with Tim Corbet’s character). But as broadcast it is perilously closer to a filler episode, and backstory that has (as with Claire) a bit too much of “We need to humanise Frank”; he should be a monster and, as noted, there are times when the satire is subdued in favour of more traditional dynamics. Given the Frank (it appears) did not see actual military service, at least one of the plot threads of The Final Cutwill presumably not come into play.

Corey Stoll is a close third to Spacey and Wright for outstanding performance of the season. Peter Russo is tragically damaged goods, and even his apparent victories are deluded ones; he feels too much to succeed at the power game. Speaking of which, the influence of the lobbyists is a particularly strong addition to this iteration of the series, with any given proposal subject to their approval. Sakina Jaffrey’s Chief of Staff is also very strong.

Technically, the series is flawless; you'd expect nothing less from Fincher. The production design and cinematography are as elegantly refined as Jeff Beal's deceptively simple theme (the Washington time-lapse opening credits perfectly complement the composition and together they become a touchstone to look forward to, rather than fast-forward).

So far House of Cards is an outstanding example of the right way to adapt/remake material. It takes the skeleton, but isn’t beholden to its source, and the opportunities offered for a fresh interpretation (by the differences between the UK and US political systems and the two decades-plus since it was produced) grant it a legitimate claim to be completely its own beast.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism