Almost twenty-five years on, House of Cards stands up well today. Thatcher has just left the government (which coincidentally happened just after episode 1 was screened) and likable if bland Henry Collingridge (David Lyon) has won the coveted Prime Minister job. Waiting in the wings is Chief Whip (the person who informs all the MP's of the party's policy and what vote they should cast on key issues) Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson). Though Urquhart seems old-fashioned and mild-mannered, like Iago he follows his master to serve his turn upon him. But Urquhart holds all the cards, knowing everything and everyone. He plots his ascent to the Prime Minister.
Although it looks a bit stuffy and dated, this is thrilling stuff. The two-facedness of politics rings true today, as does the scandal (for example, one MP claims expenses for his coke habit). As others have noted, it has a Shakespearean tone to it. Urquhart is a modern day Richard III.
The parallel is reflected in the affair Urquhart embarks on with ambitious young journalist/modern-day Lady Anne Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker, immediately recognisable to Pride and Prejudice fans as Jane Bennett). Mattie yearns to know what's going on behind closed doors and Urquhart realises that it would be handy to have a journalist on board. They begin a partnership that soon turns into...well, a partnership. The audience collectively gasp in horror at Mattie's fetish for him (as with Richard III, Urquhart is relatively unbothered by her- though even he is shocked at Mattie's overt Electra complex).
Mattie may seem terribly weak to modern viewers as she repeatedly fails to see Urquhart's involvement in the scandals but she is blinded by her love of power. Urquhart fulfils both her fetish and desire for power. Also, as an intelligent man who would probably do a good job of ruling the country if he wasn't such a snake-in-the-grass, Mattie sees him as the last bit of hope for the government. It's a tough role but Harker bravely takes it on, showing Mattie as both strong and naive. Such complexities are what make interesting female characters.
Of course as the actor with the plum role, Richardson is the star. He craftily does Shakespearean asides to the audience, which draws us into his scheming. Without these little winks, it just becomes the tale of a very unpleasant man. Richardson brings out the seductive appeal of Urquhart; an unlikely seductive figure as he looks about sixty and how we expect 'old boy' politicians to look. What is perversely seductive about Urquhart is his amorality and his power. Mattie is a necessary character because she serves to emphasise the aphrodisiacal nature of power. Though the male characters don't see it quite as an aphrodisiac, they let their guard down around it.
I have not watched the U.S House of Cards yet but the original is the perfect length: four sixty-minute episodes. It's long enough for us to get a taste of Urquhart's evil without having to explain anything. Of course, with any show that relies upon evil plotting, suspension of disbelief is required. Richardson's ability to play Urquhart as 'normal' with an insidious desire for evil makes him more plausible than playing Urquhart as being Mr Lovely to the outside world and Mr Villain to the audience. We can believe such vile people exist in the government, confirming our distrust of politics.
Where I worry about the U.S version is in its length. The longer you show us an evil figure, the more you have to explain things. We can enjoy four hours of someone being vile and despicable but to spend thirteen hours in their company, there's going to need to be a reason why they're like this. As soon as you start getting into character background, you remove the mystery- hence why at the end of Othello, Shakesspeare chooses to have Iago refuse to say another word (and keep to his promise) once he is confronted about his crimes.
House of Cards is a pacy political thriller that feels like a sneaky backstage look into parliament and its workings. There's enough politics for it to be believable but not so much that it overwhelms the viewer. Mainly this is a tale of power and why people are so enthralled by it.
Although it looks a bit stuffy and dated, this is thrilling stuff. The two-facedness of politics rings true today, as does the scandal (for example, one MP claims expenses for his coke habit). As others have noted, it has a Shakespearean tone to it. Urquhart is a modern day Richard III.
The parallel is reflected in the affair Urquhart embarks on with ambitious young journalist/modern-day Lady Anne Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker, immediately recognisable to Pride and Prejudice fans as Jane Bennett). Mattie yearns to know what's going on behind closed doors and Urquhart realises that it would be handy to have a journalist on board. They begin a partnership that soon turns into...well, a partnership. The audience collectively gasp in horror at Mattie's fetish for him (as with Richard III, Urquhart is relatively unbothered by her- though even he is shocked at Mattie's overt Electra complex).
Mattie may seem terribly weak to modern viewers as she repeatedly fails to see Urquhart's involvement in the scandals but she is blinded by her love of power. Urquhart fulfils both her fetish and desire for power. Also, as an intelligent man who would probably do a good job of ruling the country if he wasn't such a snake-in-the-grass, Mattie sees him as the last bit of hope for the government. It's a tough role but Harker bravely takes it on, showing Mattie as both strong and naive. Such complexities are what make interesting female characters.
Of course as the actor with the plum role, Richardson is the star. He craftily does Shakespearean asides to the audience, which draws us into his scheming. Without these little winks, it just becomes the tale of a very unpleasant man. Richardson brings out the seductive appeal of Urquhart; an unlikely seductive figure as he looks about sixty and how we expect 'old boy' politicians to look. What is perversely seductive about Urquhart is his amorality and his power. Mattie is a necessary character because she serves to emphasise the aphrodisiacal nature of power. Though the male characters don't see it quite as an aphrodisiac, they let their guard down around it.
I have not watched the U.S House of Cards yet but the original is the perfect length: four sixty-minute episodes. It's long enough for us to get a taste of Urquhart's evil without having to explain anything. Of course, with any show that relies upon evil plotting, suspension of disbelief is required. Richardson's ability to play Urquhart as 'normal' with an insidious desire for evil makes him more plausible than playing Urquhart as being Mr Lovely to the outside world and Mr Villain to the audience. We can believe such vile people exist in the government, confirming our distrust of politics.
Where I worry about the U.S version is in its length. The longer you show us an evil figure, the more you have to explain things. We can enjoy four hours of someone being vile and despicable but to spend thirteen hours in their company, there's going to need to be a reason why they're like this. As soon as you start getting into character background, you remove the mystery- hence why at the end of Othello, Shakesspeare chooses to have Iago refuse to say another word (and keep to his promise) once he is confronted about his crimes.
House of Cards is a pacy political thriller that feels like a sneaky backstage look into parliament and its workings. There's enough politics for it to be believable but not so much that it overwhelms the viewer. Mainly this is a tale of power and why people are so enthralled by it.