- How to stream ‘Power’ season 6, episode 4 6 Years Ago
- How to stream WWE’s Clash of Champions 2019 Saturday 8:00 PM
- How ‘F*ck off Scotland’ became a Scottish rallying cry amid Brexit madness Saturday 6:28 PM
- A Missouri officer resigned after his Islamophobic Facebook posts surfaced Saturday 5:08 PM
- Adding ‘Triggered’ to stock photos of white men creates Netflix comedy special thumbnails Saturday 3:10 PM
- New restaurant in New York has a seriously unfortunate name: ‘Qanoon’ Saturday 1:38 PM
- These are the 10 best ‘Star Wars’ ships Saturday 12:41 PM
- Google Maps helped solve a decades-old missing persons case Saturday 12:27 PM
- Teen who plotted deadly swatting prank over Call of Duty argument gets prison time Saturday 11:58 AM
- RIP to the real star of ‘Stranger Things’: Steve Harrington’s mullet Saturday 11:04 AM
- People are sharing their wholesome stories with #Hey19YearOldMe Saturday 9:20 AM
- Review: The Joule is a pricey, sleek, easy-to-use entry into sous vide Saturday 8:00 AM
- How to stream Saints vs. Rams in NFL Week 2 action Saturday 8:00 AM
- How to stream Cowboys vs. Redskins in Week 2 action Saturday 7:30 AM
- How to stream Steelers vs. Seahawks in Week 2 NFL action Saturday 7:30 AM
Where ‘House of Cards’ falls short
Kevin Spacey’s Frank Underwood is still standing.
When Netflix decided to premiere its Mitt Romney campaign documentary, Mitt, three weeks ago, it probably thought it was doing House of Cards a favor. It would provide an apt lead-in to the second season of their flagship drama series while at the same time showcasing Netflix’s burgeoning output across both fact and fiction.
But the scheduling has done House of Cards a disservice. Watched in tandem, the stumble-bum campaigning of Romney immediately makes Frank Underwood’s (Kevin Spacey) journey appear ludicrous. Whereas Romney’s political strategy seemed to mostly involve arguing about lighting in front of disinterested teamsters and praying with his never-ending family, Underwood’s path included a body count.
This is intentional, of course, but misguided. House of Cards trades in the mythology of the American political Machiavel, an indication that its producers have never envisioned it as just another political drama. It is meant to be thrilling and shocking—and it succeeds at both. But originally it also had certain, grand pretensions, most evident through Underwood’s frequent addressing of the audience that has been perceived by some as an allusion to Richard III.
The intention may well have been Shakespearean, but in practice this method became increasingly banal in Season 1—the cold classical language employed for his confessionals (“I cannot abide falling back to square one”) jarring horribly with puerile lines like “Aren’t you going to wish me a happy Father’s Day?” while performing fellatio. It also served a decidedly non-Richard III purpose: lazy narrative elucidation rather than the audience manipulation the Bard used to garner sympathy in Richard.
Season 2 suggests that these failings were noticed and the aforementioned pretensions have been reined in. House of Cards can no longer paint itself as a timeless parable told in our time, but at least it no longer thinks that it is better than it is. Streamlined into a decidedly more traditional show, it is less about revenge and more focused on capturing Underwood’s irrepressible ascent to power. Underwood continues to shock, but we are submitted to fewer of his interjections and are presented with more of his involvement in the machinations of government.
There still exists much of the clumsy symbolism that provided no service to Season 1 other than to allow slower viewers the satisfaction of noticing it. The boat theme, some sort of yardstick of the Underwood’s shifting relationship, has thankfully gone the way of the broken ergometer, yet it has been replaced with a running metaphor. In the season’s opening scene, we find the Underwoods jogging, stopping mid-stride, looking at each other and with no obvious causation, nodding to the other. It is labored and, perhaps being spoilt by the opaque stylings of Mad Men, it is obvious.
Despite these fluctuations, Spacey’s performance continues to be remarkable. Even with some particularly duff lines and at times ridiculous plotting, he makes Underwood if not exactly believable, at least enjoyable. He is so central to the show that the development of other characters surely suffers. Structurally this could be seen as a problem, as no other major series is as reliant on a single core narrative as House of Cards. Indeed it means that Underwood himself continues to have hands-on involvement in matters that common-sense suggests he would be able, and prudent, to distance himself from.
This fault can be explained away as entertainment, but the show’s complete reliance on Spacey leads into its other structural defect, namely its potential pointlessness if the seemingly inevitable occurred and Underwood reached his ultimate goal.
From the outset, the role of president has very much been Underwood’s endgame, and beyond that it doesn’t seem like this program would have a future, as we have been conditioned only to be interested in his trajectory, not his landing. It is possibly an unnecessary concern, but it would be shame to cut short Spacey’s stint in this role.
Screengrab via House of Cards/Netflix
Tom Harrington is an entertainment reporter whose work for the Daily Dot focused on webseries and streaming entertainment. He's reviewed series on YouTube and Netflix, and he was approximately four years ahead of the curve on comedian Joe Pera.