House of Cunts Season 3

Lucas Versantvoort / 19 Aug 2015

After binge-watching the third season of House of Cards, I thought I'd expand upon my earlier essay on the series. Season 3 is a strange one to me, because while it reaches new heights, it also descends to new lows.

Let's start with the positives: Petrov and Claire; not them together, mind you. With Petrov, the President of Russia, the show has finally given us an opponent who's on the same level as Frank. The past two seasons constantly presented challenges and adversaries that seemed insurmountable and yet were resolved at the last minute in Frank's favor. This got annoying real fast, because things always went in Frank's favor in the end. Petrov, however, is the first character who not only truly challenges Frank, but wins out in the end by forcing Frank to make Claire retire as UN Ambassador. To finally see Frank outsmarted and brought to his knees was a breath of fresh air. 

Next is Claire who finally sees the light and leaves Frank, hopefully for good. We've had three seasons of teasing, of Claire ever so slowly realizing what a miserable life she and Frank have been leading, and now she finally does something about it. Usually, the show would tease us with situations where Claire apparently has some epiphany or feels something that makes us expect she'll turn those feelings into action...but she never did. The show would back off and rationalize about how Frank and Claire's bond is oh-so strong and so on. Well, you can't keep teasing a break-up without eventually making good on it and Claire finally leaving Frank was a high point. 

And now the bad. My main grievance with the series is one that's always prevented me from taking it all completely seriously. The show is obviously molded after Shakespeare's Richard III in which a hunchbacked lunatic schemes and murders his way to the top and is eventually killed. The entire concept is of course entirely ridiculous, but that's part of the fun. House of Cards is the same: we watch a ruthless Congressman and his wife scheme and murder their way to the top. However...the show isn't content with just emulating Richard III and mocking American politics. Oh no, House of Cards believes it's got something 'real' to say, about psychology, politics, etc. Now, when the series is poking fun at politicians and so on, it's effective, but when the show attempts to honestly address a serious topic, the dramatic potency is hampered by the show's inherently ridiculous concept. 

Season 3 sheds new light on this point, particularly the episode when Petrov (who's obviously meant to symbolize Putin) visits the White House to discuss peace. Petrov is revealed to be quite the scoundrel and, when Claire and Cathy present an alternative, Frank rejects Petrov's demands and holds a press conference, stating that peace in the Middle East will be achieved without Russia if necessary: "Peace should not have to be bought," Frank says. "Peace should be its own reward." The credits roll with the band Pussy Riot playing in the background. While the episode itself is a lot of fun, this ending is so misjudged it boggles the mind. After several seasons of Frank manipulating people non-stop, and enjoying it, the show does an about-face and presents Frank as a hero by having him reject Petrov/Putin. As Pussy Riot plays, I thought all that was missing was a post-credit message from the writers. If this was a series like Borgen, this kind political message would work, but this is House of Cards, where a Congressman casually throws a young journalist in front of a subway train and now we're suddenly supposed to accept his rejection of Petrov as heroic, as the act of a patriotic American who's vile but not so vile as to collide with Petrov!? Sorry, that's not how it works. From the get-go, House of Cards showed that its aim is to cynically parody American politics. Such a foundation makes it nigh impossible to really pull off any serious drama and political commentary, because such a serious attitude directly contradicts your previous mocking cynicism. You can't have the main character toss a young journalist in front of a subway train because she'd 'outlived her usefulness' and then have him contemplate life at the Roosevelt Memorial. Imagine if Kubrick added a serious epilogue at the end of Dr. Strangelove that was obviously aimed at the American government. It wouldn´t work. The same goes for House of Cards. It wants to be both this over-the-top, cynical, Shakespearean examination of politics and a subtle, character study, but they just don't gel. 

In short, I feel the show is losing sight of its roots, of what it's supposed to be. When Richard III becomes king, we don't see him struggling to maintain order and bring peace to England. We see his despotism and his downfall. I'm sure Frank will fall in the end as well, brought to his knees by his own machinations and those once close to him, but the show needs to stop thinking it's The West Wing.