Let me preface this with saying that I overall enjoyed the first season of House of Cards and will be tuning in to watch the second season, whenever that comes out. Also, this review will contain spoilers for anybody who hasn't watched the show.
This show is frustrating to me, because I look at how well-shot it is and I see how well-acted it is across the board, and yet I find myself not enamored with the show. Something is missing. Something that isn't obvious with shows this well-acted and well-shot. The answer is the writing. Creator Beau Williamson is not that great a writer.
It snuck up on me, but the things that are seen on the surface hide the very mediocre writing. And almost nothing on this show is surprising, with the exception of the big twist, which I hated (more on that later).
Here's an interesting point to think about: Frank Underwood, even if you have no knowledge he was derailing the presidency, is a terrible VP candidate. He is in charge of a major education bill, which causes a month-long strike. The bill eventually gets passed, but that wasn't kind of a failure? He was supposed to keep both sides happy.
Also, he is basically the driving force behind Peter Russo's nomination, which also ends in a huge failure. And lastly, he helps Russo develop a bill to obtain jobs, which also fails when the votes don't come his way. In what world is Kevin Spacey's character even remotely considered? I'll tell you. The lazy writing of Williamson and staff.
Everything about the newspaper storyline was extremely outdated. New journalism vs. old journalism. I figured that would be dead by now. Williamson's about five years too late with that. I'm pretty certain any credible newspaper has adapted to the online format by now and editors have accepted it. It's only logical.
Also, it's not great that the two female journalists we know most both apparently slept with guys to get stories to further their careers. Uh, that's not good and kind of sexist from the writers' perspective.
Lastly, here's the biggest failure: the big twist of Frank killing Peter. I'm going to ignore the fact that Peter was in the passenger seat, which should, theoretically, set off a huge alarm that he didn't kill himself. No, that wasn't a big issue for me.
Peter is literally the only likable character on this show that I rooted for. And now he's gone. I suppose his girlfriend is likable, but there's really nothing to root for in her storyline. All of her actions are related to Peter, and I guess we should now root for her in season 2. Root for what exactly?
This seems like a death where the creative team was like: "Ok, so we need to do something drastic and kill off a likable character. Then we'll get credit for being willing to kill off major characters." Oddly, I'm usually a person who would support the killing of a major character, cause then it makes it seem like anybody could die.
However, Russo really didn't have to die. I realize he's become a liability at this point, but he could have resigned his position as a candidate and then he's no longer a concern for Frank. Frank's motivation for killing him is kind of unclear so using the fourth-wall, he could have explained why he needed to kill Russo. It's just odd that a show that uses a fourth-wall doesn't explain a major event like that.
Now that Russo is gone, we, the viewers, are left with nothing. Does anybody really like Claire? Firing half her staff, then firing the person she fired half her staff for just because they disagree with her is really endearing. Does anybody like Zoe? If you say yes, I'm thinking you're letting Kate Mara's attractiveness overlook her general terribleness as a person. Don't worry, I suffered that as well for a while.
Speaking of Zoe, her character development was poor. At first, she's willing to get ahead, screw ethics. Then out of nowhere, she just wants the truth, because her time as an unethical reporter had come and they needed a new storyline. There was no transitional phase. What's odd is they could have easily just had her want to destroy Frank and still remain true to character. But it appears she wants the truth all of a sudden after not really caring as long as she went up in the world.
Does anybody like Stamper, Underwood's right-hand man? Oh gee, helping that prostitute get a new life and then using her to destroy Russo makes him likable. Then the only reason to like Underwood is because Kevin Spacey is playing him.
Man, and I haven't even gotten into the fact that there is no indication Spacey was willing to kill a guy for political gain in the first ten episodes. He doesn't seem like a guy who would kill a guy and no hints are dropped that he's willing to. Then after he kills the guy, it's like it didn't happen. Underwood is not deterred. Remorse or taking the killing harshly would have achieved character consistency with a man who acted in a moment of weakness.
The plan to get Russo to self-destruct and then have the VP quit being the VP to run for governor is just a terrible plan and Frank was pretty lucky that it worked out. I mean that hasn't happened in 200 years, it'd be pretty foolish to think he could pull that off. I realize he did, but that's because the writer made it happen. (At least, they made it clear early on that the VP was not happy being the VP)
I realize this review is almost exclusively on plot, but the acting and the camera work and everything that is usually a problem with a TV show were done beautifully. The plot is the biggest weakness of this show in my opinion.
After all that, will anyone really believe me when I say I mostly enjoyed the show? Season 2 might go a long way towards resolving some of these issues, but I was actively rooting for Peter Russo to succeed and then he died and now I have nobody to root for. The Sopranos had good writers who made you root for Tony despite his awfulness as a person. House of Cards just doesn't have the writing to make you care too strongly for Frank Underwood to succeed.
Grade: B
No comments:
Post a Comment