House of Cards Season 3 Thread

[wufwugy]

pretty sure psycho and socio are used virtually interchangeably by professionals

[MadMojoMonkey]

Neither psychopathy nor sociopathy is recognized by the DSM V.

As such, they are not industry terms used by psychologists (anymore).

Psychologists created the words, then stopped using them, so I suppose their meaning is left to colloquial usage.

[wufwugy]

up to ep 8

Spoiler: Show

it's like the writers are trying to make frank likeable. that's some bullshit. he's enticing because he's only likeable to people who don't know him. we know him and he's a cunt. i want to see him be the bad guy, not some do-gooder fighting for the people. i want him to fuck the people. he shouldnt care about helping others, he should care about his own power and his own ego. we need a show about a president who doesn't give a flying fuck about his constituents. god they've turned such a great show into a standard show with above average cinematography

[rong]

Agreed. It's sad.

[rong]

I don't see the caring side you refer to.

[wufwugy]

I don't see the caring side you refer to.

I'm up to ep10 now. There are a few eps up to this point that focus on humanizing frank and making him seem altruistic.

[rong]

I'm 2 behind. I've not really felt that from watching. If anything he seems desperate and lost.

[wufwugy]

i think he's that too

i suspect it's all building up to him getting major unexpected wins in the end

[BooG690]

Spoiler: Show

Mickey Doyle!

[givememyleg]

ep4

Spoiler: Show

was this the first time a character has acknowledged underwood talking to the camera? what was that about?

also agree with the consensus, ep3 was my least favorite thus far.

stamper def one of my fav characters, i was happy when he was alive, but expected him to be dead.

liking it so far. miss not having responsibility and of course the lag created by having to watch it all with my wife, or i'd be done already.

[wufwugy]

Finished the season.

Spoiler: Show

Excellent ending. Excellent monologue. Excellent editing of killing Rachel.

Claire sucks. Irrational fool.

I dislike that Stamper lived and Rachel died. Every great show needs main characters dying and tangential characters living.

The season was pretty weak in the middle, but it picked up for sure.

[wufwugy]

I agree with JKDS and Baud.

[BooG690]

Episode 7

Spoiler: Show

Heh. Frank is the little spoon. The power is shifting Claire's way (or, it kind of always was) and I'm not liking it.

[baudib]

I agree with JKDS and Baud.

that's odd because I think you liked it more than we did

Why/when did Claire become such an idealist instead of cold-blooded pragmatist?

[rong]

I'm on 9. I miss our psycho friends.

[spoonitnow]

They should rename the show "Claire is a Fuck-Up" because that's what she's done every single season: massively fuck up over and over and over again. It's typical bullshit feminist propaganda to try to make her out to be this big, strong, independent woman who's just held down by her terrible, terrible husband and the patriarchy. In reality, she's an irrational idiot.

[Renton]

Entire season spoilers.

Spoiler: Show

I didn't particularly enjoy seasons 1 and 2, mainly because I'm not interested in a story where the main character doesn't encounter real obstacles or real conflict. I enjoyed many aspects of of those seasons, primarily the Russo and Stamper plots. This season, I felt was in many ways the best season because Underwood at least has formidable enemies for once, and seems to encounter genuine conflict. But there is a lot of crappy things about this season too. Not a lot actually happens, there's a lot of waiting for the other shoe to drop only to find that there was never a shoe to begin with.

My other issues with this show are the same as they ever were. An extreme lack of subtlety. The dialogue is always a character saying something nice and subtextual, then the show ruins that by explaining exactly what the character meant, either immediately or in the following scene. The editing sucks. Something will happen to a character (i.e. Claire flinching when Frank touches her shoulder for the photo), then a follow up scene that addresses that will be the very next scene. There should be interceding time to give the audience a chance to chew on shit before you spill the beans and spoon feed the correct interpretation to them.

This show is a third tier show at best, and I think I may be done with it after this season.

[wufwugy]

They should rename the show "Claire is a Fuck-Up" because that's what she's done every single season: massively fuck up over and over and over again. It's typical bullshit feminist propaganda to try to make her out to be this big, strong, independent woman who's just held down by her terrible, terrible husband and the patriarchy. In reality, she's an irrational idiot.

Spoiler: Show

For reals. If my goal was to write a shitty, weak, stupid woman, I would write Claire

Hollywood has yet to figure out what being a strong woman means. They're still stuck in the rut of believing that a woman not in the optical position of power is a subordinate, and that her feelings and irrationality are of the utmost importance and it must be assumed problems she causes are not her fault

[wufwugy]

that's odd because I think you liked it more than we did

Probably, but it dropped a lot. The things I said I liked are snippets of the whole.

Why/when did Claire become such an idealist instead of cold-blooded pragmatist?

Since the writers forgot why the show was special and instead started running common tropes. This could still work if the plan is a long arc, where s4 is Act 4. I doubt it though

[givememyleg]

fuck i hate how im stuck on episode 4 right now. at this rate ill finish the season in 2 weeks.

[JKDS]

I had to watch The Newsroom like that, gmml. It freaking blows

[baudib]

I thought The Newsroom was awful, and I work in media and I'm a huge Olivia Munn fan.

[a500lbgorilla]

I thought The Newsroom was awful, and I work in media and I'm a huge Olivia Munn fan.

Here's a gun

Spoiler: Show

Kill yourself

[!Luck]

Loved the first 2 seasons.

Season 3 spoiler.

Spoiler: Show

I thought this was awful. Had to be different writers, or they just checked out.

The show tried to bring humanity to fundamentally inhumane characters and it turned out awkward.

The show failed to make the prize worth while. Re election seems like a small goal compared to becoming a VP then President. My hope was that this would show his fall from grace, that would be the only show that makes sense.

Claire sat too close to power and it fucked her brain and it was pitiful to watch. I would rather she hanged herself in that cell, cause after that she was dead to me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ep 5

Spoiler: Show

So far, the show is letting me down. Frank's insatiable, ruthless accumulation of power has turned into a soft appeal for historical significance. He feels like he's suddenly making shit up as he goes instead of enacting a grand scheme to control all the things.

I don't like that the audience is being led to side with the Underwoods so far this season. The audience is not supposed to like or be like them, the audience is witness to either a train wreck or the sculpting of the David... not sure which, but a spectator, not a participant.

I don't want to like Frank. That was the point of the earlier seasons. He's the epitome of selfish greed - an Ayn Randian figure without all the preaching. I want him to look at me and smirk in that smug way that says, "You think you know what I accomplished there, don't you? Plebe."

At least Freddie made a cameo at the end of the show in the jobs line. I am with dhubs on wanting to see more of that character.

What's happening to the ruthless Claire? This season she has turned into a damsel in a dress.

[a500lbgorilla]

Done

Spoiler: Show

Power-hungry people lose direction when they attain the power. Very well done, imo

I'm higher on season 3 than 1 than 2.

[wufwugy]

Rilla, that result was only a symptom. If it had been a theme and had been set up within the characters' personalities, it would have been incredible.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...u-lost-me.html

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't see a problem. It was set up within the character's personalities.

Spoiler: Show

They were power hungry. Once they had all the power and the game became about launching Claire and re-election to sustain their place as well as building a legacy to justify their gains plus using the power as is mandated, they floundered. I liked it.

The even floundered internally. Power is seductive. Once you have it... maybe it's like how they say never meet your Heroes.

[a500lbgorilla]

PS

"Even more disappointing is the devolution of First Lady Claire Underwood (Robin Wright) from a ruthless operator who puts Agrippina the Younger to shame into a latter-day Lady Macbeth"

This is why you shouldn't study English/Literature.

edit:





"What’s going on here might be called the “Archie Bunker Effect,” and it’s no prettier than when All in the Family’s protagonist would belch loudly after chugging a beer while sitting in his favorite living room chair. When All in the Family started in the early 1970s, its protagonist was supposed to hold up a mirror to America and depict the petty and base racism, sexism, you-name-it-ism of the working class. Bless their hearts, Hollywood big shots such as creator Norman Lear just wanted to ennoble the little people."

[a500lbgorilla]

Man, I was just looking for a good Simpsons quote to color my point but I found this instead.

Power, she's a burden, a sword of Damocles, as they say

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/01/jfk-...mocles-speech/

I really enjoyed this season. Every time I go to justify it in reality, I seem to come up with something based in real leaders.

[wufwugy]

Rilla

Spoiler: Show

We didn't see a struggle with power though. We saw Frank behave as if he never wanted power in the first place and instead just wanted to help people or have a legacy of such. We saw with Claire a messy smorgasbord of spontaneous conscience and contradictory actions.

I would have loved this season if their obstacles were created by their power. Instead the obstacles were manufactured trope. Power didn't break them. The writers broke them without proper illustration.

[a500lbgorilla]

What happens when goal oriented people achieve their goal and can't find an equal or better goal to next rally to?

When you're goal oriented, you sacrifice to achieve it. What happens when you've climbed that mountain and have a chance to look down, look back and wonder why you're there?

These are open ended philosophical questions without spoilers.

[wufwugy]

Spoiler: Show

One of the things that happens is what you said happens. Which I agree with. I just don't think that's how the writers constructed this season. The way they wrote this was as if the Underwoods changed off camera and that their dilemmas weren't created by an actualization of power but instead with some unaired laundry that we had always been told was aired

Claire went from being a heartless manipulator to a bumbling doofus without any actual struggle that took her from point A to point B.

[a500lbgorilla]

I liked how I saw it. Isn't that one of the few lessons English can teach? It doesn't matter what you intended in your writing, only what the readers found

Spoiler: Show

I found an enjoyable meditation on how those that hunger for power deal with getting their fill. As well as a nice side story about some guy whose back bone might be made of titanium and his blood titanium oxide.

[a500lbgorilla]

Thinking back on Claire

Spoiler: Show

She talks to that heartless nobody and sees heartlessness (read ruthlessness) with no aim. That's her without a man who promises her never a boring moment. And her reaction is to attack her man for who he is and then disconnect. She's got some soul searching to do.

So good.

[wufwugy]

You're such an optimist.

[a500lbgorilla]

I was asked a few nights back for the last time I was truly happy and I said talking with you meaning the people I had just met. Life is a good place to be and these drama shows add nice color to it. :P

[wufwugy]

that response is quick-witted and endearing in a way that they'll remember

[a500lbgorilla]

No wit now though. I'd like to think I meant it.

[spoonitnow]

Spoiler: Show

One of the things that happens is what you said happens. Which I agree with. I just don't think that's how the writers constructed this season. The way they wrote this was as if the Underwoods changed off camera and that their dilemmas weren't created by an actualization of power but instead with some unaired laundry that we had always been told was aired

Claire went from being a heartless manipulator to a bumbling doofus without any actual struggle that took her from point A to point B.

Spoiler: Show

Claire was always a bumbling doofus from S1E1.

[spoonitnow]

What really happened:

Spoiler: Show

Claire tested her husband to see if he actually wielded the power he represented, even to her. He bent to her, and she lost respect for him because of it. She comments several times throughout the season how she wished he would have done [not coddling her] instead of [coddling her]. I mean she walks in on him crying for fuck's sake.

[!Luck]

Spoiler: Show

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...u-lost-me.html

[wufwugy]

What really happened:

Spoiler: Show

Claire tested her husband to see if he actually wielded the power he represented, even to her. He bent to her, and she lost respect for him because of it. She comments several times throughout the season how she wished he would have done [not coddling her] instead of [coddling her]. I mean she walks in on him crying for fuck's sake.

Spoiler: Show

See I was thinking about that. There's plenty of construction and subtext for it, but nothing declarative near the end of the arc. During the monologue where he chokes her, I thought for sure she was going to love it, that it was what she had been asking from him all that time. But since she hated it and tried to get away, I figured something else was going on. Granted, she could have made up her mind already while acting like she hadn't.

TBH I don't want to believe your interpretation because that's very savvy writing. Not in that I think it works well for the story but in that it's a realistic and insightful way to represent the behavior of a woman who never confronts her problems head on, who assumes her husband can read her mind, and who makes decisions internally yet acts like they're still open to change.

The other thing I didn't like about that potential meaning is that I don't think it fits Frank's character. It was fucking stupid when he didn't fuck her like she wanted and even said stupid shit about how he wouldn't mistreat her like that. The s1/s2 Underwoods already explored that nature of their sexuality to the fullest extent, even if we never saw it on screen.

If the arc is her displeasure of his weakness, I think the writers added several contrivances to get there.

[spoonitnow]

In reply to that:

Spoiler: Show

The scene in the Oval Office where he chokes her turns her off even more because she had to provoke him into doing it instead of him just doing it because that was his nature. He didn't do that from a position of strength. Instead, he did it from a position of weakness because he was still bending to her will.

[wufwugy]

In reply to that:

Spoiler: Show

The scene in the Oval Office where he chokes her turns her off even more because she had to provoke him into doing it instead of him just doing it because that was his nature. He didn't do that from a position of strength. Instead, he did it from a position of weakness because he was still bending to her will.

Spoiler: Show

I like your interpretation, but I do not think it's all to the story. The subtext agrees with your interpretation a lot, but the actual text, what Claire actually says her views and motivations are, point to her dissatisfaction with her subordinate power role.

So I guess my explanation is the writing is schizophrenic. Half of her behavior and statements point to one motivation while the other half point to another.

However, I think her attempted solution to her dissatisfaction (leaving Frank) aligns more with the stated problem than the subtextual one. If she lost respect for him and thinks he's weak, she's still gonna stick by since he's the fucking president and she gains immensely by sticking it out for the time being. Her leaving over the stated reason, that she wants to no longer be subordinate to him, makes more sense even though it too is stupid.

[spoonitnow]

Spoiler: Show

I like your interpretation, but I do not think it's all to the story. The subtext agrees with your interpretation a lot, but the actual text, what Claire actually says her views and motivations are, point to her dissatisfaction with her subordinate power role.

So I guess my explanation is the writing is schizophrenic. Half of her behavior and statements point to one motivation while the other half point to another.

However, I think her attempted solution to her dissatisfaction (leaving Frank) aligns more with the stated problem than the subtextual one. If she lost respect for him and thinks he's weak, she's still gonna stick by since he's the fucking president and she gains immensely by sticking it out for the time being. Her leaving over the stated reason, that she wants to no longer be subordinate to him, makes more sense even though it too is stupid.

Spoiler: Show

She doesn't want to be subordinate to him anymore because he has put her up on the pedestal that he said he never would. No woman wants to be with a man who acts as if he is beneath her, and that's exactly what he started doing in Season 3.

[wufwugy]

I agree there is a ton in the subtext to support that motivation. I think the writing has been schizophrenic on the issue, as there is subtext as well as explicit behaviors that point in the other direction as well. I'm not saying I think you're wrong. Your position is substantive. My issue is that from the whole, the writers could have made that case much better if that's truly what they intended.

My guess is that they intended that to be a part of it, but didn't do the legwork on avoiding contrivances or ambiguities. It's almost like throwing darts blindfolded and hoping one hits the bullseye.

[spoonitnow]

I'm pretty sure it's just going to turn Claire into omfg I'm a strong, young, educated, independent black woman who don't need no man.

[boost]

I'm pretty sure it's just going to turn Claire into omfg I'm a strong, young, educated, independent black woman who don't need no man.

I just read through the whole thread to arrive with this as the last post. Fucking awesome.

[JKDS]

Spoon and Rilla make some good points. Season3 was better than I originally thought.

Spoiler: Show

Now Frank just needs to stop being such a bitch and start setting the world on fire.

[wufwugy]

About that

Spoiler: Show

Their relationship was on the outs at the beginning of s3. Frank wasn't broken by power but just had some momentary weird frustration that isn't that explainable. Claire didn't get broken by power; instead she felt like she didn't have power. We weren't shown the struggle so much as we were told to assume it.

It would have been really cool if the writers had written a story about how power breaks you. I'm not convinced this story is that. Granted the writers didn't create any coherent theme, so that makes it a little more open to interpretation, I guess.

[dhubermex]

Spoiler: Show

I put an 8/10 rating in the original post of this thread b/c I didn't want to spoil it for anyone. That said, I didn't like Season 3. Perhaps it can be saved by a great S4, but the main problem I had was Frank & Claire's transformations into different characters altogether. That was completely unexpected and boring as hell to watch imo. It's wasn't like the gradual "Breaking Bad" character transformation of Walter White that was leading to an expected conclusion... the HoC transformations of the main characters was off-kilter and bad TV from this viewer's perspective... about as difficult to watch as the Underwood/Meechum steam in S2, which was interesting and already in-character (S1 library episode).

[rong]

Finally finished. I liked the ending. I hate doug. He's a dick who has a pathetic sense of desperation to serve which is a quality I find almost embarrassing.

Reading rilla 's and spoon' s thoughts give a perspective that helps me accept certain behaviours that I found out if character. Any way I look at it I can't deny I'm intrigued to see how underwood deals with the situation he's left with.