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.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.