Big shoes to fill
But few would deny that Commander Richardson's finest work (he was given a CBE but, outrageously, never knighted) was on TV. His performance as Bill Haydon in the original Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy stood out as perhaps the best of an impressive roster of performances from some of the best actors in the UK at the time, and his portrayal of Dr Joseph Bell, the real life inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, in Murder Rooms in the early 2000s nicely bridged the gap between the demise of Jeremy Brett and the arrival on the scene of Benedict Cumberbatch, silly hair notwithstanding (although it was not the silliest hair he ever sported on screen, see here and here for definitive proof).
Even these performances, however, pale next to the performance he will always be remembered for, that of the diabolically machiavellian politician Francis Urquhart ("FU" for short) in House of Cards, one of the greatest political shows ever made. The show would doubtless have become a classic whenever it was shown, but the first episode happened to screen just days after Margaret Thatcher was toppled from power after 11 years in Number 10, back in 1990. Given that the makers could not possibly have known this when filming it, there is no doubt that they got lucky - witness this opening scene!
The remake
When I heard that they were remaking the show for US audiences, in spite of my fascination with US politics (hell, my first official date with the lovely lady who is now my wife was spent watching the November midterm elections back in 2006), my heart sank. Why the US feels the need constantly to remake great shows from abroad I have no idea, but isn't it slightly insulting to their intelligence to assume that US audiences won't watch the original versions just because they might, for example, be in a foreign language? (I'm actually talking more about things like The Killing now...whilst I do occasionally have problems making myself understood across the pond, I acknowledge that we do share a common language with our American cousins, and any communication problems which may arise mainly stem from my being incredibly mumbly and incoherent!)
After my initial feelings of "oh Lord, why don't they just leave it alone" had subsided, I set to thinking about how they would remake the show if they were going to do it properly. Of course the key thing to get right is the casting of the central character. That was what worried me most. After having a long think about who could possibly fill Ian Richardson's sizeable shoes, I managed to come up with a measly 2 names. And as Vincent Price is even "deader" than Richardson, my conclusion was that "if they can't get Spacey, they're stuffed". Having now attended a Q&A about the show, it transpires that the producers and David Fincher were thinking exactly the same thing.
Luckily, they did get him, and a stuffing was narrowly avoided. In fact, the more I heard online about the show, the more I started to reconsider my original feelings of scepticism, and by the time I was alerted to the fact that tickets were on sale to a world premiere screening of the first two episodes in the Odeon, Leicester Square (seeing Lester Burnham in Leicester Square, no less) followed by a Q&A with stars Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright and Kate Mara, director David Fincher (sadly he only directed these two episodes), writer Beau Willimon (who is a genius, but looks about 12) and writer of the original novel, Lord Michael Dobbs - I was downright excited, and snapped them up!
After all, it was my first premiere and thus my first opportunity to strut the red carpet like an overexcited peacock, although my companions and I were stalled by some beefy security guards in mid strut...for some reason the big stars didn't want us to invade their photo opportunities - to which all I can say is ha (please note that "me" is not me at all but my wife!):
I know that it looks as though Spacey is coming over to pull the red rug from under us by the way, but sadly we did not get a chance to have a chat with him, friendly or otherwise!
I know that it looks as though Spacey is coming over to pull the red rug from under us by the way, but sadly we did not get a chance to have a chat with him, friendly or otherwise!
Musings on political drama generally
Essentially political dramas fall into four distinct categories:
1) Politicians are brilliant, super intelligent, hard working public servants with a nice line in very fast, witty banter - e.g. The West Wing.
2) Politicians are decent people who generally try to do the right thing, but politics is hard, there are no easy answers, and they often get it wrong and have to make messy compromises - e.g. Danish TV series Borgen.
3) Politicians are generally self serving and a bit crap, and are constantly being manipulated by their civil servants - e.g. Yes Minister, the Thick of It.
4) Politicians are TOTAL BASTARDS.
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between (2) and (3), but why let truth get in the way of a good story? And in any event, which political shows work, and which ones don't, tends to depend on the political culture of the country in which they are shown. House of Cards, needless to say, nestles comfortably into the fourth category, and my impression is that the US public, increasingly frustrated by the relentless partisanship of Washington politics, is ready for a show of this nature. In fact my suspicion (guided mainly, as is so often the case, by "what my wife says") is that the one the US would struggle with is category (3), not category (4).
In contrast, coming from the UK I can confidently say that a West Wing equivalent wouldn't work over here - the idea of British politicians being that brilliant would make us all laugh (having said that, there is a strong West Wing following in the UK, even though the majority of the show was on during the era of Bush 43, a president not known for his razor sharp intellect, so we are obviously more willing to give overseas politicians the benefit of the doubt).
Review of the Show
So now, dear readers, that you have scrolled down past all that semi-tangential nonsense, what you are all waiting to hear is the answer to the key question "IS IT ANY GOOD?" Well, I have three answers for you - the short answer, the long answer, and the evasive answer.
Evasive Answer
You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Short Answer
Actually I could comment, in fact doing so was originally the whole point of this post, and the answer is yes.
Long Answer
They get it. They really do. I am already so hooked that I am going to have to get myself Netflix now, just so that I can download all 13 episodes of the first season and watch them over the course of a weekend. And I must have seen the original series five or six times, which means that I have a better idea of how it is likely to pan out than most people do (I am hoping that they might throw a few surprises in, but, without wanting to give away too many spoilers, I am also hoping they use the ending from the UK TV series, and not the book ending, which I suspect even Michael Dobbs would now admit is a bit of a cop out).
The basic outline of the plot so far is very similar to the UK series. New Prime Minister/President has just been elected. Crafty Chief Whip/House Majority Whip Francis Urquhart/Frank Underwood is passed over for the job he wants in the new administration (in the new version he is denied the job of Secretary of State) and vows revenge, egged on by his even more ruthless wife, and starts undermining the administration and turning its members against each other whilst appearing scrupulously loyal to his boss. These episodes are focussing on the confirmation process of the new administration, so although the timing is not as impeccable as that of the original series was, President Obama's recent difficulties in this regard do make it at least somewhat timely.
Meanwhile, of course, lots of people are having sex with each other, mostly extramarital. Episode 2 contains probably the worst declaration of love I have ever heard one person give another - you will enjoy it if your sense of humour is sufficiently scatological!
Most of the rest of the cast are essentially pawns in Urquhart/Underwood's cunning plan, including an idealistic and ambitious young female journalist (Samantha Harker as "Mattie Storin" in the original version, Kate Mara as "Zoe Barnes" in this version) and a loose cannon PR consultant/Congressman with problems with drugs and (in common with most of the characters) keeping his trousers fastened whilst in other people's bedrooms (Miles Anderson as "Roger O'Neill" in the original version, Corey Stoll as "Peter Russo" in this version). Having 26 episodes to really flesh things out will really help - the original ran for only 12 episodes in total, including the two inferior but still very watchable sequels To Play the King and The Final Cut (they won't be able to remake To Play The King, of course, one of the many unfortunate unintended consequences of our American cousins getting rid of the monarchy was that they have now senselessly deprived themselves of some damn good TV!)
So turning to the differences, then - it is already clear that Frank Underwood is a slightly different breed of monster than Richardson's Francis Urquhart was. Whilst Urquhart was smooth and serpentine, Spacey's Frank Underwood is slightly more of a brutish alligator. Whilst Urquhart was a superciluous "posh Scot", Underwood has a lovely South Carolina drawl, and is a bit more down to earth. For example he likes to get up and eat a rack of ribs at 7:30 in the morning, and he works out on a rowing machine (albeit after much henpecking from Mrs Underwood) - neither of which Francis Urquhart would have been seen dead doing. Sadly there is a shortage of the Shakespearian ad-libbing that Ian Richardson did so well (so far, at least), which is a shame, as Spacey, like Richardson, is an accomplished Shakespearian actor. I had the pleasure of seeing him as Richard III at the Old Vic in 2011 and it was one of the best performances I have ever seen, period.
The politics are also very different. Whilst Urquhart was a traditional right wing conservative, Underwood is actually a Democrat this time round. This surprised me...in Hollywood, aren't Republicans always the bad guys? One wonders whether Spacey, himself a well known Democrat supporter, took the producers aside at one point and said "Look, I don't mind the blackmail, the adultery, the murder and suchlike fun and games, but I draw the line at playing a Republican!"
From what I have seen so far, as far as Underwood appears to have any ideological beliefs at all, he seems to a be fairly centrist moderate, and is certainly contemptuous of the impractical left wing of the party, but even there, his contempt seems to spring from the fact that he knows what they are trying to do can't actually be done, rather than from anything more ideological. You get the impression that he doesn't really believe in anything at all except that he should be in charge.
In my view this is actually a good choice. The problems I had with the two "sequels" to the British version was that the makers, no doubt riding the anti-Tory wave of sentiment in the mid nineties, seemed to be giving the impression that Urquhart was actually a bad Prime Minister as well as a bad man, whereas what made the first series so interesting was that although he was clearly a "bad egg", he was clearly so much more capable (and charming) than his peers, and patently the best man for the job. By taking the character's ideology out of the equation, the US version will hopefully be able to avoid alienating its likely audience and can potentially push the "evil guy but great politician" angle more easily (I don't know if that is the road they will go down, but I do hope so).
Having said that, the essence of the character is, of course, the same: both incarnations are clever, ruthless, charming and willing to do absolutely anything and screw over anyone on their path to power. The asides to the camera are still in place - we, the audience, are his co-conspirators, and whilst we are appalled by his actions, once again we find ourselves enjoying the consequences of those actions at the same time and "rooting for the bad guy".
In this version, even more than in the original, whilst Underwood is clearly a villain, there are no real heroes. The President and the members of his administration are so obviously shallow and out of their depth that we find ourselves enjoying their discomfort even though objectively they are not really bad enough to deserve to suffer the way they do.
Even journalist Zoe Barnes, played brilliantly by Kate Mara, who is the nearest the show has to a heroine is, quite frankly, a bit of a bitch (she casually tells a fellow journalist who is lusting after her at one point that "If I wanted to f*** you, you'd know!") Interestingly enough, she already has enough information after the two episodes I saw to know what Underwood is up to (although he is still shamelessly manipulating her). This is quite a big shift from the original, where Mattie Storin was unaware of Urquhart's true nature until the very end - it will be interesting to see how that pans out and what she finds out in subsequent episodes (and when).
Robin Wright as Claire Underwood is a revelation. While Diane Fletcher was great as her equivalent number in the original version, she was very much a background figure - Wright is getting more of a chance to really shine. Let's just say that she is no Princess Buttercup here, but a full blown Lady Macbeth - put in charge of a charity! With predictably scary consequences. Another interesting thing about the show is that while Mrs Urquhart/Underwood is clearly Lady Macbeth, her husband is not Macbeth at all, he's Richard III. Which makes much more sense as a pairing, if you think about it... no wonder Lady M went mad, being married to a man who needs half an hour of soliloquising even to psych himself up into committing a straightforward murder! As I mentioned above, Spacey has recently played Richard III, and, like Richardson, he clearly understands the parallels between the two characters, as there were some striking similarities between his two performances (in particular his wry looks of frustration at the audience every once in a while).
The script is really excellent. The famous line "You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment" does feature in both episodes - I can't say I was overwhelmed by Spacey's delivery of that particular line, but to be honest that's because Ian Richardson so owns the line that anyone else saying it just feels wrong (just as Alan Rickman is a marvellous actor, but it just felt wrong to cast him as Marvin the Paranoid Android in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie simply because he wasn't original Marvin Stephen Moore!) But who cares, when there are plenty of other fabulous lines peppered throughout the script that Spacey really relishes (did I mention how fantastic his South Carolina drawl is?), for example "I love my wife more than a shark loves blood!" Or, more accurately: "bluuuurd"! Having heard Spacey pronounce the "h" in the word "whale" I will never again say the word any other way!
The Q&A
Sadly the wider audience were not allowed to ask questions - Michael Dobbs himself acted as David Dimbleby, but he carried it off with aplomb and much (well deserved) backslapping all round. Spacey was dominant, of course, and in his element - very interesting but very sweary, dropping the f bomb as if there was no tomorrow (so much so that I was half expecting him to conclude his opening speech with "You might think that but I don't give a f***" rather than quoting the actual line).
Robin Wright announced that she was "not really political" (meaning that being married to the ultimate political windbag Sean Penn must have been even more appalling for her than I had previously supposed)! Comparative newcomer Kate Mara was very sweet and seemed a little overwhelmed by the proceedings. And Sir George Young, the real Chief Whip (Urquhart's job in the original series), turned out to be in the audience, and briefly muscled in on the Q&A, protesting that the Whips are really a very mild mannered bunch of tea-totallers who would blanch at dropping the "drat" bomb, let alone anything stronger. This probably explains why the current government keeps getting itself into so much trouble!
No spoilers were dished out about the remainder of the series (apart from the obvious revelation that the relationship with Underwood and Zoe Barnes was unlikely to remain strictly platonic for long). But in less than 2 weeks, Netflix will have all the answers. Can't wait!
No comments:
Post a Comment