House of Cards

I consider myself a rational person who also dislikes rushing, so I let myself be controlled by emotions only exceptionally - usually when something heavy or sharp falls on my foot. I reject love at first sight, yet after just a few minutes of the first episode, I felt a strong connection between me and the series forming - it simply perfectly hit my mood and my taste. Satire is counted among comedic genres, usually associated with exaggeration and absurdity, with grotesque and black humor. We expect bursts of laughter from it. At one point in the past, I was surprised that the morbid novel "The Child Buyer," which evoked completely different emotions in me, is also referred to as satire by reviewers. Under the label of political satire, we probably imagine series like Yes, Minister, or the more outspoken The Thick of It. House of Cards appears more serious at first glance, focusing on credibility and not attempting to evoke bursts of laughter. It initially follows the formula of social dramas. An ambitious man who has tied his future to a presidential candidate expects a substantial reward after winning the elections. However, the feast for the privileged is forbidden to him, with the condition that he must have supervision over the cafeteria, which undeniably has quality and no one is hungry there. However, the cafeteria food cannot satisfy Francis's appetite for power, so as an experienced chef, he begins to mix ingredients in a way that would upset the head chef and cause a stir in the kitchen. Francis is a perfect power technologist, a manipulator, and a skillful negotiator, who is knowledgeable about human psychology and the functioning of state institutions. Francis's detachment, ironic glosses, and comments that he directs at the viewer reveal that we are truly in the realm of satire, despite the objectivity and the effort to have an analytical view. House of Cards paints an unflattering picture of American high politics manipulated by lobbyists, disintegrated by personal ambitions and intrigues. Noble ideals here too often succumb to cynical pragmatism and manipulation. The charm of the series lies in the virtuosity with which Francis goes through the story and directs the course of events. Even the best ancient orators would have to pay tribute for his performance in the church, where he masterfully managed to break the spikes of hatred and gain the sympathy of those present. ------ Whether I like it or not, I have to return to my review after some time. Making mistakes is human, and I repentantly confess to my mistake. Some series quickly lose steam, the screenwriter runs out of ideas, or the story falls flat. Here, I get the feeling that the screenwriter and I completely diverged at some point. I wanted to see something in House of Cards that it is objectively not and does not want to be. The sexual affair between Frank and the ambitious young journalist should have warned me because honestly, it did not fit his character and ambitions at all. Frank would not just throw himself at someone who can offer him so little. However, the real blow came with the first murder. Innocents, of course, do not move in high politics, but for several centuries, it has been customary that the dirty work is entrusted to someone who can be removed or thrown overboard if necessary. Ideally, someone whom it is difficult to connect to the client. Here, Frank comes across more as an unpredictable psychopath than a big player. After the second murder, I definitively gave up on the series. The cast is great, but what the screenwriter is doing kills the promising potential. Overall impression: from the originally lofty heights, I have fallen very deeply in the second season, so my overall impression of 60% is a compromise in its own way - also with the knowledge that I would go down by a few percentage points with each subsequent episode. (02/08/2016) (less) (more)