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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.