Skip to main content

And the butchery begins.

House of Cards
Season Two

(SPOILERS) The expansion of House of Cards from its serial BBC origins brings with it both positives and negatives. There, Ian Richardson’s Francis Urquhart had full reign, and those around him snapped into place like the pieces in a jigsaw. With the luxury of three times the length for each season, there is more time to bed in characters and plots down. When this works, as with the Washington intrigue involving Tusk this time round, it is something to be marvelled at. But when it is less compelling, as happens with the Claire Underwood and Doug Stamper plots, you can feel the storytelling dragging its heels. It shouldn’t be the case that you’re willing the makers to get back to Frank; we should be diverted by each detour sufficiently, and it’s the one consistent failing in a second outing that otherwise trumps the first in all other respects.


Certainly, everything involving Capitol Hill is a step up and, while the original version progressively weakened in its follow-ups, I can quite foresee the finale being the best of the lot. The Peter Russo plotline last season seems almost so-so next to the machinations here. The duelling for the heart and mind of President Walker (Michael Gill) between Kevin Spacey’s Frank Underwood and Gerald McRaney’s big businessman Raymond Tusk is riveting. The latter gets so close to putting Frank on the ropes on numerous occasions, only for Frank to trump him, that those who suggest Underwood doesn’t have a worthy adversary in all this seems to have missed the part where Tusk is. The scene in Chapter 21, where an inwardly fuming Frank, usurped in his attempt to bring casino man Lanagin (Gil Birmingham) on board, throws a steak into the swimming pool after which the Tusk dog leaps, is a beautiful tiny tantrum in coming out fighting when his back’s against the wall; “Dogs are so predictable, aren’t they?


Gill gives a fine performance as a weak President who can be pushed, through careful doublethink, in whosever chooses’ direction. Anyone else, and you’d wonder how a man could be so foolish, but we’ve seen Frank’s clever plays repeatedly, picking a fight with Walker (“Dismiss me, or keep swinging Mr President”) and buying him a punch bag to make up. When Walker finally sees the truth of Frank’s manipulations, and exiles him, we think that must be that. And, while Frank’s gambit is a clever one (offering a “false” confession to win the President’s trust), one can’t help conclude that even Walker wouldn’t fall for that one.


Likewise, some of the developments, such as the threat of impeachment, seem like weak sauce next to a real life counterpart like the Lewinsky Affair. But then, this is a series well aware that the major crimes go undiscovered while minor nothings are leapt upon as if they represent a serious impairment of function (the President must go not because he took some medication, but because he is fool enough to be swayed). Was Frank’s confession actually in the letter Walker throws on the fire? Walker would have been a fool to let him have it back, but then he is a fool. Occasionally too, Frank’s schemes are so obvious that they wouldn’t look out of place on Yes, Minister (the appointment of a Special Prosecutor)


Spacey really hasn’t been in anything this good in years, and he really is unparalleled in his approach to direct addresses (he cites Richard III as his inspiration, but he would). Richardson had silky cold refinement; Spacey has good old boy steel. Letting Zoe Barnes survive the first season wrong-footed me, so when she suffers the fate of Mattie Barnes, albeit in front of a subway train rather than plummeting from a tall building, it’s a jaw-dropping turn of events at the end of the opener. In part it’s a relief to have the rather annoying Mara out of the picture, but the icing on the cake is that it’s followed up by Frank’s first audience address of the season (“Did you think I’d forgotten you? Perhaps you hoped I had”). For one so coolly unphased, Frank’s genuine feelings sometimes sit a little uncomfortably (i.e. he has actual liberal views, such as his friendship with Freddy proves he’s neither racist nor truly elitist – “I wont leave one of my own bleeding in the field” – and he’s genuinely enraged on discovering he has to pin a medal on his wife’s rapist); while these are good moments, one can’t help feel there should have been no need to nudge the audience that Frank has some good qualities. We’d think no more (so to speak) of him if he didn’t have some positives because his key is Mephistoclean charisma. Some of the other elements, such as the battle re-enactments, show that even Frank can have some dull moments.


Of course, this series is no more really about politics than The West Wing; it may get the power for power’s sake vibe, but if politics is about power, power does not reduce to politics, and those involved would readily admit that it’s merely a backdrop for more Shakespearean obsessions. There are legions of publicists and facilitators, but there’s no interest in dissecting the more intricate and conspiratorial tentacles of power. Perhaps the most direct scene in this regard is the ménage-a-trois between Frank, Claire and Meechum (Nathan Darrow). We could see the latter’s devotion to Claire a mile off, and the sudden turn from tipsy tete-a-tete to passionate clinches when Frank tends to his protector’s cut palm probably shouldn’t come as a surprise (certainly given Frank’s remembrance of times past last year, and Meechum finding him watching porn an episode earlier) but it does; for Frank sexuality is just another string to his bow of power plays, and for his wife – with whom he is sexually distant at other times – it is a release from her new guarded prison. The next morning it’s business as usual (“It’s a beautiful day!”) and if this couple’s eccentrically calculated relationship had been clearly spotlighted throughout the season it is now displayed with a whole greater clarity.


Claire is both better developed as a character and more variably served this season. There’s something rather slack about the rape plotline, as it feels wholly as if the writers were casting about for something dramatic for her. As a result, the development of putting a bill through the house (even given the issue surrounding military jurisdiction is a topical one) comes across as reductive to her character (this is the woman’s plotline). She is actually far better served in terms of mettle when shown reinforcing her husband’s career, because it lends her a Lady Macbeth mettle. From her casual manipulations of the First Lady (Joanna Going) to her discarding of her ex-lover (Ben Daniels) when Tusk tries to stir the pot (the slight smile Wright gives when Frank puts Adam in his place is a sight), to her decision to climb down for the most productive result in response to Jackie Sharp and most revealingly (which almost, but not quite pays off its use as a rather clumsy plot thread) her decision to drop the bill for political gain. The danger comes with a series that plays it this broad that, if the decision is then made to try to instil emotional depth (Claire breaking down on after betraying Megan) it doesn’t really carry. The series isn’t working on that level, and it shows the makers aren’t always certain of the line they are treading.


James Foley directs half the season, and it looks as classy as ever. We don’t need Fincher dribbling contemplatively over every shot. Also in the chair are Jodie Foster and Robin Wright. Foley notes how House of Cards was originally intended as a handheld show, but then did a 180 degree to fixed camera. The result is luxuriant decadence and invokes a necessary sense of scale. It’s true that at times the show does not feel quite as densely populated with politicos as it should, but those who do appear are always made good use of. Particularly well served in Season Two is Mahershala Ali as Tusk’s spin merchant Remy Danton. His relationship with newcomer Jackie Sharp (Molly Parker) occasionally hits clichés of business and pleasure but both performers are superb, and Parker is a particularly welcome addition to the cast.


Less certain is the Doug Stamper storyline. Michael Kelly is great in everything, but Stamper’s obsession with Rachel (Rachel Brosnahan) is banal and repetitive (her own arc is no more interesting) Derek Cecil’s wily operative quickly scoops Stamper’s place without even trying. Elsewhere, the attempts of Lucas (Sebastian Arcelus) to get justice for Zoe don’t really convince, nor does Arcelus as a supposed senior political editor (do they just throw those titles around at papers?) There’s a horribly obvious scene where he has to have cyber crime explained to him, and then there’s the mythical cyberhacker, played with aplomb by Jimmi Simpson; there’s the feeling this subplot was written by someone who did research by watching The Net. I wanted to see more of Boris McGiver as washed-up Herald Chief Editor Hammerschmidt, since his interview with Francis is great stuff, and there’s a thrill from McGiver and Spacey sparking off each other. Hopefully he’ll be back in the final run.


That’s assuming the third is the last. It would be the sensible move, not just because of the original but because it creates a neatly symmetrical rise and fall as the house of cards collapses. And Spacey, for all the kudos, surely won’t want to be tied down too long. There are certainly plenty of means for dirty and worse secrets to reveal themselves, it’s just that none of those plot lines are especially engrossing right now. The best way to describe House of Cards is probably smooth. It’s not deep and, at times, it’s not clever, but it has a seductive veneer that papers over the cracks in plotting; everything about the show is so well upholstered and presented, and it knows just when it needs to turn the screws. I don’t doubt it will be just as good next time out, but it also has room to improve some more.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

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…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.