The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

House of Cards: Bewitched by Power

Fair
is foul, and foul is fair. Hover through the fog and filthy air.
– The Three
Witches. The Tragedy of Macbeth, by
Williams Shakespeare.*

Paraphrasing
Macbeth, the American and British versions of “House
of Cards” exist in the “borrowed robes” of the play itself. As I
indicated in “House of Cards: An American Macbeth,”
the American version is an overlay of the original British version, but both
owe their plots and principal characters to Shakespeare’s tragedy, even down to
Lady
Macbeth and the three witches. The three works invite comparison.

It
should also be noted that all three works owe their plots to Greek tragedy, but
that topic, while tempting to explore, is beyond the scope of this column. And,
a warning: Plot spoilers ahead.

It
might be fair to claim that “House of Cards” bears a closer
resemblance to Shakespeare’s The Tragedy
of King Richard the Third
than to Macbeth.
But in Richard the Third, while Richard
was as ruthless in murdering his way to the English throne as Macbeth was to
the Scottish throne, major elements and parallels are missing but which are
present in Macbeth and “House of
Cards.”

For
one thing, Richard murders the legitimate heirs to the English throne and their
relations, while Macbeth flails about murdering anyone or having them murdered
– fellow soldiers, their families, guards – who might incriminate him for the
murder of Duncan, the king of Scotland. For another, Richard plotted his
murders alone, while Macbeth is encouraged in his murders by the witches, by his
wife, Lady Macbeth, and by the praising flattery of his colleagues.

For
another, Richard the Third is not seeking vengeance against the king for having
reneged on a promise. He’s merely feeling neglected and shunned and bored with
the new peace. Macbeth, on the other hand, has a bug planted in his head by the
three witches who prophesize that he will be the king. It acts as a kind of
Stuxnet virus that compels him to fulfill a destructive, deterministic fate. It
is the witches who kindle his ambition, and that ambition is further abetted by
his wife.

In
“House of Cards” (the umbrella name for the British series, of which
there were three parts, between 1990 and 1995) Urqhart
(Ian Richardson) seeks vengeance on the newly elected prime minister who had
promised him a seat in the cabinet, while Underwood
(Kevin Spacey) seeks vengeance on the newly elected president who had promised
him the Secretary of State post.

In
“House of Cards,” there are two Lady Macbeths and a number of witches
or warlocks. In the British version, Francis Urqhart’s wife Elizabeth (Diane
Fletcher) eggs him on his pursuit of the prime ministership, especially when he
exhibits doubt, and frequently suggests strategies. In the American version,
Claire, Francis Underwood’s wife (Robin Wright), urges her husband on, as well,
and suggests solutions to their problems. In both versions, the marriages are
explicitly acknowledged by the parties as partnerships in the pursuit of power
and influence.

The
witches? In the British version, they are represented by two other women in
Urqhart’s life, a journalist, Mattie Storin (played by Susannah Harker), and
Sarah Harding (played by Kitty Aldridge), Urqhart’s hired idea-developer and
sounding-board. Both become his lovers, and both are murdered, after they
display their untrustworthiness – “trust” is stressed by the
protagonist-villains in both versions – when they learn of Urqhart’s crimes.
Both inspire Urqhart to pursue his machinations and aid him in his actions –
and pay a price in the end.

Another
witch is Claire Carlsen (Isla Blair), with whom Urqhart does not begin an
extramarital affair, but who, as his private secretary, encourages him to
vanquish his enemies, and at the same time urges Urqhart’s chief nemesis, a
Secretary of State who does resign from the cabinet, to vanquish Urqhart. Still
another witch is the divorced wife of the King, the Lady (Erika Hoffman), who
secretly advises Urqhart to oppose her ex-husband (we are left wondering why
she and the King are divorced, and about her motive for wanting Urqhart to
oppose him).

In
the American version, the witch is Zoe Barnes, a journalist in pursuit of the
“big time” in her trade. I described her previously as a pushy,
ambitious, obnoxious little vixen. She also becomes Underwood’s lover, although
the “love” in their relationship is mutually acerbic and mercenary.
Zoe, as portrayed by Kate Mara, is oddly sexless and strikes one as too much
like a teenager working for a high school newspaper. One almost expects she will
appear in the next scene in a cheerleader’s outfit waving pom-poms. Mara is
very effective in the role, but only in the sense that she and Underwood,
played by Kevin Spacey, are convincingly black-hearted enough to be drawn to
each other in a reciprocal contempt for each other and for their professions. But,
then, that is the nature of the relationships between the Urqharts and the
Underwoods, as well.

The
warlocks? These are Roger O’Neill (Miles Anderson), a publicist for Urqhart,
and Peter Russo (Corey Stoll), a Pennsylvania congressman. While they aid
Urqhart and Underwood (willingly or unknowingly) in their respective plots, both
are addicted to dope and liquor, and become loose cannons who cannot be trusted
by Urqhart and Underwood to stay in tow. Urqhart disposes of O’Neil by mixing
rat poison in his cocaine; Underwood gets Russo drunk and disposes of him with
carbon monoxide in a locked garage. They were more like Macbeth’s protégé
Banquo than advisors or prophesiers. And they, too, get killed.

Lady
Macbeth explains to her husband the method he must employ to disarm his future
victim, King Duncan, a method mastered by Underwood and Urqhart:

Your face, my
thane, is as a book where men
May read strange
matters. To beguile the time,
Look like the
time; bear welcome in your eye,
Your hand, your
tongue; look like the innocent flower,
But be the
serpent under’t. He that’s coming
Must be provided
for; and you shall put
This night’s
great business into my dispatch,
Which shall to
all our nights and days to come
Give solely
sovereign sway and masterdom.**

Macbeth,
already primed to do something to fulfill the witches’ prophesies, but still reluctant
to discuss it, simply replies, “We will speak further.” He is
“bewitched” by the idea that he could become king. Later, in another soliloquy,
he agonizes over the necessity of needing to commit the murder, and, after
having committed it, about its possible consequences.

Here
we leave Macbeth behind. There are
similarities in the material between the two versions of “House of
Cards” that help to define the characters of the protagonist-villains. Frank
Underwood, in the opening scene of the first episode, breaks the neck of a dog
injured by a hit-and-run driver, and delivers a brief soliloquy on the uselessness
of pain. He emphasizes that his was not a mercy killing, but something he
enjoyed doing. He lies to the owner, saying that the dog was killed by the
driver. In his basement retreat, he plays violent video games to
“relax.” Throughout the rest of the series, he comments to the
audience about putting useless people out of his way or out of their misery. Urqhart,
on the other hand, shoots birds on his estate, shoots one of his dogs that has
become too old to participate in the hunt, and delivers an aside to the
audience about uselessness.

In
another telling scene in the American version, Underwood comes out of a government
office building and sees that the police have handcuffed a mad man to a pole. The
police tell him that the man, a disheveled maniac who is still yelling, that he
tried to enter the building while taking his ragged clothes off. Underwood goes
up to the man, stoops down, and tells him that “no one is listening,”
implying that it was useless to protest any perceived injustice. His purpose in
saying that to the man was not to calm him down, but to kill him. The maniac is
left speechless.

In
their sexual relations – I hesitate to call them “romantic,” for they
are anything but that – Underwood and Urqhart adopt unhealthy views of their
lovers, that is, faux incestuous
views. Urqhart, about forty years her senior and childless, insists that Mattie
call him “Daddy.” Underwood, about twenty-five years her senior, at
one point regards Zoe as a daughter, and in an aside while Zoe is calling her
father for Father’s Day, with a smirk emphasizes that point to the audience. Zoe
seems to sense that this is the root of their sexual relationship, and, whore that
she is, doesn’t seem to mind it.

Other
than a few pecks on the cheek and lips, and an occasional comforting touch, we
see no passion between the Underwoods and the Urqharts. When they are smiling together,
it is not an affirmation of the happiness of their marriages, but a celebration
that they are getting away with something that they’ve pulled on everyone.

There
is a significant difference between Macbeth
and “House of Cards.” Macbeth, before and after he has murdered King
Duncan, expresses qualms about the act. Lady Macbeth chides him for having
second thoughts, before and after the crime. Urqhart is sometimes bothered by
his having thrown Mattie off the roof garden of the Houses of Parliament, but
right until the end of the trilogy is unrepentant. Underwood isn’t bothered at
all, and, as Urqhart does, he speaks to the audience as though it were an
accomplice to the crimes.

In
Macbeth, Lady Macbeth goes mad and
dies in remorse. Not so Claire and Elizabeth. They’re committed. As Barton Keyes
put it about a pair of murderers in Double
Indemnity
:

Whether it’s
love or hate doesn’t matter; they can’t keep away from each other. They may
think it’s twice as safe because there’s two of them, but it isn’t twice as
safe. It’s ten times twice as dangerous. They’ve committed a *murder*! And it’s
not like taking a trolley ride together where they can get off at different
stops. They’re stuck with each other and they got to ride all the way to the
end of the line and it’s a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery.

The
American version of the Netflix series is literally “how to” do
precisely what Chris Horner, in an Accuracy
in Media
interview, describes in the way of private email accounts and
secret messaging and code names and the like. It is a revealing interview about
Obama’s “transparent” administration, from the private emails of the
EPA to Fast and Furious to the Benghazi cover-up. If nothing else, “House
of Cards” is an education in corruption and power-grabbing.

Although
both series share the same premises in the way of how to game the political
establishment, the British version relies less on technology than does the
American. The villains and characters in the British version rely more on
acting and direction than on technology, whereas much of the plot of Kevin
Spacey’s version is driven by instant access to people and information and
humungous databases. For example, there are few scenes in which Zoe isn’t
staring at her Android or Ipad, communicating frantically with her thumbs (I couldn’t
catch the brand name of her devices). Mac Laptops are prominently displayed
throughout the Spacey “House of Cards.” So much for “non-commercial”
promotions.

The
Spacey version is a capital lesson in non-transparency. You can see the serpents
lurking beneath the orchids. As General Sternwood remarked about orchids in Raymond
Chandler’s The Big Sleep, in literary agreement with
the quotation that precedes this column:

Nasty things.
That flesh is too much like the flesh of men. Their perfume has a rotten
sweetness of corruption.

Only
there is no sweetness in “House of Cards.” Only smiling serpents
slithering in the foul fog of power politics.  

 

*Act
1, Scene 1. William Shakespeare: The
Complete Works
. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1988. Eds. Stanley Wells and
Gary Taylor.
**Act 1, Scene 5,
ibid.

Previous

Gun Shy Amazon

Next

Journalism’s Jihad Against Journalists

5 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    Bravo, Ed! Excellent comparison of the three versions of this morality play.

    House of Cards deserves an Emmy. If it receives one, it should be presented by Moochelle Antoinette.

  2. Edward Cline

    Grant: I didn't watch the Oscars, and am glad I didn't. When the Creature from the Mooch Lagoon appeared, I might have put my shoe through the screen.

  3. Ace

    Underwood's assistant, Stamper, and the lobbyist Danton would be two more warlocks, supporting, encouraging and enabling Underwood's manipulations.

    I found House of Cards to be an interesting social commentary. At the same time, the actions of nearly everyone in the show were so repulsive that I could taste the bile in the back of my throat after each episode.

    I guess there's something about watching an inevitable train wreck in motion, particularly when the writing and acting on the show is good as it was here. I can't really call it entertainment, though.

  4. Edward Cline

    Ace: I wanted to mention the two Stampers (Doug in the American version, Tim in the British, and also Danton), but I had to limit the length of the column. I've watched both series twice, which I agree are superbly done, with the same morbid fascination as I'd watch a literal train-wreck in slow motion. It will be interesting to see what Spacey and Company do in the second season. If they follow the general outline and plot of the British series, then Zoe is history, and Francis Underwood has bought himself a bullet.

  5. Edward Cline

    There's much more I could have mentioned in either of the House of Cards columns. Namely:

    That Tom Hammerschmidt, the managing editor of the Washington Herald, was a collateral casualty of Underwood's.

    That the Washington Herald is a doppelganger of the Washington Post, except that it's "right-wing."

    That Margaret Tilden, owner of the Herald, is a knock-off of Katherine Graham, late owner of the Post.

    I also thought it interesting, in lieu of Hagel's confirmation as Secretary of Defense, that the Michael Kern character, nominated for Secretary of State and then shot down by Underwood, was accused of saying that Israel had "illegally" occupied parts of Israel. Hagel is in the pocket of Iran and mindlessly anti-Israel. Sometimes life doesn’t copy fiction.

    Douglas Stamper might be the "Corder," the "fixer" in the British "House of Cards," just as Tim Stamper, Urqhart's "fixer" and "under-whip." Or he might be one of Underwood's victims in the second season, because he knows so much about Underwood. Notice that Underwood often asks Stamper to "fix" or arrange something, but doesn't want to know about it (I'm referring here to the prostitute that Russo was with during the traffic stop; in the last episode, after meeting with Zoe, she says to Stamper that she wishes she weren’t involved . Stamper rather ominously tells her that she needn’t worry about it anymore. So I think in the second season she'll wind up dead.

    One thing that confused me for a while was the cell phone picture taken of Underwood looking over Zoe when she arrives at the concert hall in Chapter 2. I stopped the movie to examine the email that Zoe receives of Underwood looking her over (with the g-string remark below the picture) and saw that it was taken by some entity called "Photogangsta," connected with the Herald. Who took the picture of Underwood and Zoe is never explained. Who was the person who was planning on linking Underwood and Zoe? That hasn't been explained yet, and is one of the few plot gaps I've noticed. Underwood and Zoe getting together is principal driving force behind the whole series, but it's up in the air about who wanted them to meet.

    There's much more, but that will do for now.
    Ed

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén