The road to power is paved with hypocrisy, and casualties. Never regret.
The show chronicles power couple Frank and Claire Underwood’s quest for power and the presidency at any cost. One could easily link the popularity of House of Cards to our increasing cynicism about the current state of American Politics. However, many American political dramas are either uncritical of the system or offer us a morally righteous character who triumphs against the adversity of broken government.
In the end, we’re always offered redemption. If the system is temporarily broken, it at least pertains to a mechanism for good triumph over evil. Despite this, the show isn’t about the mechanism said above. Rather, the question that drives House of Cards seems to be:
Is there more to politics than pure spectacle?
PART ONE: AESTHETICS, THEATRE, AND POLITICS
In the cynical world of House of Cards, characters are always maintaining an image, both public and private. For the careful viewer, it becomes abundantly apparent that the show’s creators are obsessed with aesthetics, that is art and beauty within the show. Important dealings are often done while reflecting on art.
Claire’s appearance is carefully manicured with her wardrobe not only the subject of frequent dialogue but real-life fashion listicles. But once you peel away the pretty aesthetics and art references what lies behind the world of House of Cards is…
Well,
Nothing.
We’ll get to that.
House of Card’s preoccupation with aesthetics, also manifests itself in the show’s frequent tribute to theatre and, more specifically, William Shakespeare. Frank often uses soliloquies and asides, a theatrical device used heavily by Shakespeare wherein a character’s inner thoughts are explicated to the audience.
Theatre is just one facet of the political philosophy in House of Cards. It all points to the more fundamental concept that appearance drives politics. Politics is theatre, or, at the very least, its own kind of performance.
The realm of appearances is the realm of politics. The idea of stripping away appearances to get at the core of things is pointless because they’re the same. If we can’t hate Frank Underwood, it’s because there is no stable identity to hate.
He’s a sometimes-good husband to Claire,
a manipulative murderer to Zoe,
a kind boss and one-time lover to Meachum,
a supportive friend to Freddy,
and a two-timing liar to…
well, everybody else.
PART TWO : POLITICS AS SPECTACLE
It might seem strange that a show about America’s political system is suspiciously lacking its central tenet: Democracy.
Public opinion is important, but only as a variable to be manipulated. At other times, public opinion is something that can be simply turned off. Even the media, which our Constitution specifically protects as integral to our democracy, is just part of a larger political game.
While lots of people argue that deception masks an inner reality, French philosopher Jean Baudrillard argues that there is no truth behind lies. For Baudrillard, to have a lie concealing a truth is child’s play compared to our modern media nightmare. As if to prove the integrity and depth are relegated to the dustbin of history.
CONCLUSION
If we, too, are seduced by Frank Underwood, what does that say about our political system? Do we enjoy the performance? Are we doomed to fall in love with the real Frank Underwoods of the world? If House of Cards is so good, it’s because it has so many incredible layers to it. It’s ultimately a show about the politics of appearance, whether through art or theatre.
Whether or not that’s a bad thing is up for debate
but so far,
it’s looking pretty bad.
