House of Cards

But just about anyone in the show that comes into contact with Frank or Claire and allows them to worm their way into their lives seems to ultimately get used and discarded down the line.

Click to expand...

Gee, which DC power couple does this bring to mind???

I watched some of the series. Left me sick and sad. I don't really see this as entertainment, although most people do. Knowing something about psychopathy in high places makes it sickening to watch.

I've been watching Mr Robot. There are a number of disturbing themes in the show, including the psychopathy in high places.

diligence said:

It could be that without some way to relate to the character the show might become more boring, too, in addition to the creators wanting to add redemptive value, since otherwise why should it hold our interest? The interesting journeys are the path of the hero defending virtue, of the sensitive person developing into his or her self, or of others with redeeming value. Writers may, consciously or unconsciously, decide over time that a story about a psychopath is usually better written as a story about psychopathic traits; however it is possible for a story about a pure psychopath to be done well if it is informative.

I apologize if any of that wasn't too clear. I think your interpretations are excellent and I do not have very much to add.

Click to expand...

I like that paragraph especially. Also, I see better what you were saying. Yes, in concluding Tony was this unredeemable psychopath there was more a judgment on his unconscionable acts, as opposed to the more nuanced dimension of his character, which made him more engaging, and seemingly redeemable.

The position of the Sopranos therapist is perhaps where I am right now in writing this novel since she is being seduced -- or in my case, manipulated by my own creation -- and it's difficult to draw that line finally, the one she finally feels she has to draw, since it's to say that there are some among us that are truly hopeless cases.

So, this is interesting. Tony, and most of the fictional psychopaths we're discussing, are probably only interesting to us because they are not entirely gone. There is some manner of conscience, still. So, right there, they aren't technically psychopaths, it seems.

diligence said:

Edited to add: Your novel sure does sound interesting!

Click to expand...

Thanks! It actually started as a tale of horror (which began as a screenplay I was going to do). But really it's the horror of what we are all living through right now. You open the paper, or go online, and it's that same horror. So, horror is just this vehicle that allows me, in this case, to look at what we are all being presented with. And then there are these internal struggles, as well, as per what I was mentioning earlier.

Anyway, it's slow as molasses, my moving along with this thing. I'm hoping once I do the iodine protocol I can work and read more speedily. Reading, especially, I have a hard time focusing on when I'm feeling scattered. Whereas writing usually tends to focus me, no matter what I'm suffering. I think that's why I write. It really has saved me over the years. But there comes a time when you need to replenish your knowledge base, and that slows me down given this scattered problem. So, hopefully I'll get on top of this. (finally!)

Heather said:

I like that paragraph especially. Also, I see better what you were saying. Yes, in concluding Tony was this unredeemable psychopath there was more a judgment on his unconscionable acts, as opposed to the more nuanced dimension of his character, which made him more engaging, and seemingly redeemable.

Click to expand...

It's not too important, as my thoughts are a bit transient/inconsistent, but for me I didn't really like Tony and did not think he was redeemable per se. But, significantly, he felt through crises, things affected him emotionally, though perhaps unconsciously (speaking to him via his body, or through depression). To be blunt, to me he came across less psychopathic and more... stupid. For one reason or another he grew on me, it could be that I grew attached to the story, it could be the person Gandolfini, independent of his character. Ian Richardson, of House of Cards, comes across quite interesting, despite his character.

So, this is interesting. Tony, and most of the fictional psychopaths we're discussing, are probably only interesting to us because they are not entirely gone. There is some manner of conscience, still. So, right there, they aren't technically psychopaths, it seems.

Click to expand...

It may be the case for most people. When someone tried to sell Dexter to me, for instance, they told me 'but he's not all bad - he only kills other bad people.' Perhaps when we cannot find any way to excuse a character we lose interest, but I was just thinking that when a character has illustrative traits of any sort we could gain interest (whether or not we become *too* attached). It could make us face our own shadow, expose a truth previously unacknowledged, or connect with the creative process in that we observe the same things as the creators do, finally having an outlet for what we see in the world. That's why I've had no problem with House of Cards for as far as I had watched it.

Thanks! It actually started as a tale of horror (which began as a screenplay I was going to do). But really it's the horror of what we are all living through right now. You open the paper, or go online, and it's that same horror. So, horror is just this vehicle that allows me, in this case, to look at what we are all being presented with. And then there are these internal struggles, as well, as per what I was mentioning earlier.

Anyway, it's slow as molasses, my moving along with this thing. I'm hoping once I do the iodine protocol I can work and read more speedily. Reading, especially, I have a hard time focusing on when I'm feeling scattered. Whereas writing usually tends to focus me, no matter what I'm suffering. I think that's why I write. It really has saved me over the years. But there comes a time when you need to replenish your knowledge base, and that slows me down given this scattered problem. So, hopefully I'll get on top of this. (finally!)

Click to expand...

I hope that goes well for you. I know someone who's been writing one book for six years, and as for myself I remember having all sorts of difficulties writing, to what little extent I did, only ameliorated when I finally had some time in between to read and get other things done. You ask many interesting questions.

diligence said:

Heather said:

I like that paragraph especially. Also, I see better what you were saying. Yes, in concluding Tony was this unredeemable psychopath there was more a judgment on his unconscionable acts, as opposed to the more nuanced dimension of his character, which made him more engaging, and seemingly redeemable.

Click to expand...

It's not too important, as my thoughts are a bit transient/inconsistent, but for me I didn't really like Tony and did not think he was redeemable per se. But, significantly, he felt through crises, things affected him emotionally, though perhaps unconsciously (speaking to him via his body, or through depression). To be blunt, to me he came across less psychopathic and more... stupid. For one reason or another he grew on me, it could be that I grew attached to the story, it could be the person Gandolfini, independent of his character. Ian Richardson, of House of Cards, comes across quite interesting, despite his character.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's been a while since I've seen the show, and so I don't recall too many details. I recall the Proustian "madeleine" episode, when Tony's therapist connects Tony's blackouts to childhood trauma. Also, the emotionally dangerous affair Tony has with another of his therapist's patients that unearthed the "black hole" that was Tony's mother. As to whether we "feel" for Tony in such instances? Not sure. Maybe it's that we have greater insight. Of course, there were also plot elements that would have had the viewer in a sense rooting for Tony -- when other mob characters were encroaching, etc. But, you may be correct that mostly one is admiring Galdofini himself in the role… even if the character he's playing is sometimes just plain stupid!

Another note on the writing though -- and why I think, overall, the Sopranos remains one of the best shows out there, and really did get this higher level of cable t.v series going -- but it has to do with the writers' (fairly subtle at times) connecting the mob world Tony thrives in to the capitalist world it's housed in. In that it's a sophisticated critique of the larger culture. Tony knows he can't kick ass on Wall Street, since he has no inside connections, etc. But what he's doing in his sphere is entirely tied to Wall Street, and the "psychopathic" mentality pervading the culture. The writers were always discovering new ways of exposing this, and in doing so unveiling what's really going on under the facade of legitimacy. (The contradictions housed in the wife character, Carmella, is another fascinating study related to this idea.)

So, this is interesting. Tony, and most of the fictional psychopaths we're discussing, are probably only interesting to us because they are not entirely gone. There is some manner of conscience, still. So, right there, they aren't technically psychopaths, it seems.

Click to expand...

It may be the case for most people. When someone tried to sell Dexter to me, for instance, they told me 'but he's not all bad - he only kills other bad people.' Perhaps when we cannot find any way to excuse a character we lose interest, but I was just thinking that when a character has illustrative traits of any sort we could gain interest (whether or not we become *too* attached). It could make us face our own shadow, expose a truth previously unacknowledged, or connect with the creative process in that we observe the same things as the creators do, finally having an outlet for what we see in the world. That's why I've had no problem with House of Cards for as far as I had watched it. [/quote]

Actually, a Dutch film I saw recently just occurred to me concerning this. It's called Borgman. It came out in 2013, its writer/director Alex van Warmerdam. It's an entirely unsentimental look at these issues that I found disturbingly compelling. It's set up as a fable of sorts, or an allegory. But why it held my interest is that it never settles into "oh, I get it, this is an allegory for this" type of thing, which can then seem boring and didactic. Instead it subtly draws to it all manner of implication. Or at least it did for me.

My one line critique of the film is that "there is no protection without when there is no protection within." The film demonstrates how the "devil" finds his material in all the ways that we fool ourselves and in so doing leave ourselves unprotected. Even more disturbingly, it unflinchingly reflects back to us how it is we invite the danger in.

.. and once things are set on their perilous course there is just no stopping it.

Thanks! It actually started as a tale of horror (which began as a screenplay I was going to do). But really it's the horror of what we are all living through right now. You open the paper, or go online, and it's that same horror. So, horror is just this vehicle that allows me, in this case, to look at what we are all being presented with. And then there are these internal struggles, as well, as per what I was mentioning earlier.

Anyway, it's slow as molasses, my moving along with this thing. I'm hoping once I do the iodine protocol I can work and read more speedily. Reading, especially, I have a hard time focusing on when I'm feeling scattered. Whereas writing usually tends to focus me, no matter what I'm suffering. I think that's why I write. It really has saved me over the years. But there comes a time when you need to replenish your knowledge base, and that slows me down given this scattered problem. So, hopefully I'll get on top of this. (finally!)

Click to expand...

I hope that goes well for you. I know someone who's been writing one book for six years, and as for myself I remember having all sorts of difficulties writing, to what little extent I did, only ameliorated when I finally had some time in between to read and get other things done. You ask many interesting questions.
[/quote]

Thanks for the well wishes, diligence.

.. as to the questions I was asking earlier, perhaps I'll re-post them on a new thread devoted to those sorts of questions. They aren't rhetorical questions, I really would like to learn more through asking them here at this forum. I'm thinking of titling the thread "Writing a Novel" since that could bring up a lot of interesting things to talk about.. especially since I'm really trying to allow my unconscious write the novel. I've noticed that whenever I think I know what I'm doing with it it no longer interests me. It's far more interesting when I'm just barely keeping my head above this quagmire of sorts!

Heather said:

Another note on the writing though -- and why I think, overall, the Sopranos remains one of the best shows out there, and really did get this higher level of cable t.v series going -- but it has to do with the writers' (fairly subtle at times) connecting the mob world Tony thrives in to the capitalist world it's housed in. In that it's a sophisticated critique of the larger culture. Tony knows he can't kick ass on Wall Street, since he has no inside connections, etc. But what he's doing in his sphere is entirely tied to Wall Street, and the "psychopathic" mentality pervading the culture. The writers were always discovering new ways of exposing this, and in doing so unveiling what's really going on under the facade of legitimacy. (The contradictions housed in the wife character, Carmella, is another fascinating study related to this idea.)

Click to expand...

That's intriguing. It has also been a little while for me and I don't recall having considered the ties to Wall Street specifically. I read a few interpretations online that sometimes delved into class and economics, but family tended to be the big idea. Interesting line of thinking.

.. as to the questions I was asking earlier, perhaps I'll re-post them on a new thread devoted to those sorts of questions. They aren't rhetorical questions, I really would like to learn more through asking them here at this forum. I'm thinking of titling the thread "Writing a Novel" since that could bring up a lot of interesting things to talk about..

Click to expand...

Probably a good idea, in a thread devoted to one show it may be harder to get to such conversations. I had the idea of beginning to answer them but couldn't form anything clear/direct enough, for my part.

diligence said:

Heather said:

Another note on the writing though -- and why I think, overall, the Sopranos remains one of the best shows out there, and really did get this higher level of cable t.v series going -- but it has to do with the writers' (fairly subtle at times) connecting the mob world Tony thrives in to the capitalist world it's housed in. In that it's a sophisticated critique of the larger culture. Tony knows he can't kick ass on Wall Street, since he has no inside connections, etc. But what he's doing in his sphere is entirely tied to Wall Street, and the "psychopathic" mentality pervading the culture. The writers were always discovering new ways of exposing this, and in doing so unveiling what's really going on under the facade of legitimacy. (The contradictions housed in the wife character, Carmella, is another fascinating study related to this idea.)

Click to expand...

That's intriguing. It has also been a little while for me and I don't recall having considered the ties to Wall Street specifically. I read a few interpretations online that sometimes delved into class and economics, but family tended to be the big idea. Interesting line of thinking.

Click to expand...

Tony had some lines specifically conveying what I said about Wall Street, but I'm also thinking of Wall Street as symbolic of our psychopathic culture and its mask of legitimacy.

This has only become more true since the series was made, with economic terrorism (as through the IMF and WTO, etc.) no doubt responsible for more misery and fatalities worldwide than that exacted through war and other types of violence. And yet this is paraded around as legitimate, just as austerity measures are.

.. I just re-watched Roman Polanski's Chinatown, and Jack Nicholson's Gittes character gets into a shouting match with a banker at the barber shop as he's getting a shave. The banker is looking down on how Gittes makes his living -- as a private detective mainly involved with marital infidelity cases. But Gittes comes back with some very choice lines, such as "how many families have you foreclosed on this week?" This is similar to what I mean about the Sopranos. There's this "mask of legitimacy" looking down its nose at the Jersey mobster who is really small potatoes when compared to the lives destroyed via these economic instruments that many of his neighbors or other characters in the series are in some manner representing. This is not to let Tony off the hook so much as broaden the critique.

.. of course, there is also the overlapping of these worlds, since the mob is traditionally an appendage of power. I remember there being an episode or even several where Tony gets involved with a corrupt politician, HUD, and crack houses. But, for the most part, I think of Tony as paralleling the "legitimate" goings on in this [currently imploding] culture of ours.

Keit said:

Ben said:

Above all he is portrayed as an arrogant, crass and heartless individual. It IS blatant propaganda and threatening to ruin, for me, an excellent series. Frank is also becoming much less believable as a character, less clearly psychopathic and much more complex - but it just doesn't work given his track record. Basically series 3 is a disappointment but mainly because the bar was set so high by the first two.

Click to expand...

What a shame. I was waiting for the next season, especially after the second one was also good in portraying Frank's and his wife's psychopathy.

Click to expand...

Then i will skip the third season most probably and go straight to the 4th season, i heard that the 4th season is more or less at the same level as the first 2 seasons, i almost forgot about this show but what reminded me of it was this article from Sott:

http://www.sott.net/article/315316-We-make-the-terror-Fourth-season-of-popular-House-of-Cards-lets-the-cat-out-of-the-bag said:

[...]
Intriguingly, this season has taken a different turn. To be blunt, House of Cards strongly suggests that the US government sponsors radical Islamist terrorism to keep a lid on domestic crises, spies on the American population for political gain and conspires to go to war, while claiming high ideals, for purely Machiavellian ends.

There are certainly elements to criticize, from the simplistic and very limited presentation of geopolitics and class relations to an overly personalist presentation of political life, centered around the tyrannical impulses of President Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey), who is tellingly presented by one of his political opponents as the cancer at the center of the Democratic Party and the source of all corruption in the state.

However, House of Cards' dramatic limitations, some inherent in its chosen format, some resulting from the creators' social and political outlook, fade away to a considerable extent in the face of what the show gets right: a chilling portrait of something "rotten in the state" of America.

Click to expand...

So i will give it a try..

Theseus said:

I also didn't like the way HoC false-flag plots were only hinted to be orchestrated by the Russians <groan>: In the original UK version these were well executed and presented a far more realistic Modus Operandi of how politicians create events for political gain.

Click to expand...

We need to remember that although the UK original House of Cards was released in 1990, it was set in the cold war period. The Netflix production just updated everything, and conveniently enough for them the Russian bogyman had been recently revived.

Keit said:

Spacey does an amazing and chilling work (which makes me wonder sometimes how he is able to do such a brilliant job when it comes to his roles as psychos)...

Click to expand...

Maybe it was already mentioned somewhere else, but Kevin Spacey appears to be good buddies with Clinton and others from the pedo-bunch, as described in this article. Now, Spacey is known for keeping his private life private, and one could say that he maybe visited those "plane trips" for character development and research. But still, it says a lot. And kind of explains why he plays psychos so realistically well.

Keit said:

Keit said:

Spacey does an amazing and chilling work (which makes me wonder sometimes how he is able to do such a brilliant job when it comes to his roles as psychos)...

Click to expand...

Maybe it was already mentioned somewhere else, but Kevin Spacey appears to be good buddies with Clinton and others from the pedo-bunch, as described in this article. Now, Spacey is known for keeping his private life private, and one could say that he maybe visited those "plane trips" for character development and research. But still, it says a lot. And kind of explains why he plays psychos so realistically well.

Click to expand...

Yes Keit, he does an excellent job in his HoC role - as you would expect of a psychopath essentially playing himself. I would guess that an essential human would find it very difficult to play this role seamlessly since there is so little to relate to (at the personal level).

And we know that Hollywood power/prestige is very attractive to the psychopath - for those essentials that are functional enough to achieve it. And then there is this statement from Elijah Wood on child sex abuse in Hollywood:

https://www.sott.net/article/318817-Lord-of-the-Rings-star-Elijah-Wood-Hollywood-is-in-the-grip-of-powerful-pedophiles

Keit said:

Keit said:

Spacey does an amazing and chilling work (which makes me wonder sometimes how he is able to do such a brilliant job when it comes to his roles as psychos)...

Click to expand...

Maybe it was already mentioned somewhere else, but Kevin Spacey appears to be good buddies with Clinton and others from the pedo-bunch, as described in this article. Now, Spacey is known for keeping his private life private, and one could say that he maybe visited those "plane trips" for character development and research. But still, it says a lot. And kind of explains why he plays psychos so realistically well.

Click to expand...

Interesting about his friendship with Clinton. It seems to me that the Underwoods are somewhat based on the Clintons.

Renaissance said:

Interesting about his friendship with Clinton. It seems to me that the Underwoods are somewhat based on the Clintons.

Click to expand...

Yep. Here's from wiki:

In September 2006, Spacey said that he intends to take up British citizenship when it becomes available to him.[48][49] He is a Democrat and a friend of Bill Clinton, having met the former U.S. President before his presidency began. He described Clinton as "one of the shining lights" of the political process.[10] According to Federal Election Commission data, as of 2006, Spacey had contributed $42,000 to Democratic candidates and committees.[50] He additionally made a cameo appearance in the short film President Clinton: Final Days, a light-hearted political satire produced by the Clinton administration for the White House Correspondents Dinner.[51]

Click to expand...

Don't know if it was already posted elsewhere, but apparently Kevin Spacey has been in the news recently, with a scandal that puts the final nail in his "just being such a damn good actor" coffin.

How Kevin Spacey’s ‘Coming Out’ Grossly Conflates Pedophilia and Homosexuality

Actor Anthony Rapp accused Oscar winner Kevin Spacey of forcing himself on him when he was 14. Spacey responded by coming out of the closet. The timing couldn’t have been worse...

Spacey, who has dodged rumors that he’s gay for years—and even made a public mockery of coming out at this year’s Tony Awards—responded to the allegations by saying if he did do what Rapp alleges, then he apologizes for his “deeply inappropriate drunken behavior.” He then used his statement to come out of the closet, saying that he “chooses” to “live as a gay man.”

Who knew that the only thing worse than Spacey’s years of remaining in a glass closet would be his actual coming out?...

...Spacey choosing now to come out, in order to spin Rapp’s sexual assault allegation, is underhanded behavior worthy of his character Frank Underwood on House of Cards.

Rapp described one of those incidents, a party Spacey invited him to at his Manhattan apartment, to BuzzFeed’s Adam Vary: “My memory was that I thought, Oh, everybody’s gone. Well, yeah, I should probably go home. [Spacey] sort of stood in the doorway, kind of swaying. My impression when he came in the room was that he was drunk. He picked me up like a groom picks up the bride over the threshold. But I don’t, like, squirm away initially, because I’m like, ‘What’s going on?’ And then he lays down on top of me. He was trying to seduce me. I don’t know if I would have used that language. But I was aware that he was trying to get with me sexually.” Rapp says he was able to “squirm” away eventually and talk his way out of the apartment...

Click to expand...

Keit said:

Don't know if it was already posted elsewhere, but apparently Kevin Spacey has been in the news recently, with a scandal that puts the final nail in his "just being such a damn good actor" coffin.

How Kevin Spacey’s ‘Coming Out’ Grossly Conflates Pedophilia and Homosexuality

Actor Anthony Rapp accused Oscar winner Kevin Spacey of forcing himself on him when he was 14. Spacey responded by coming out of the closet. The timing couldn’t have been worse...

Spacey, who has dodged rumors that he’s gay for years—and even made a public mockery of coming out at this year’s Tony Awards—responded to the allegations by saying if he did do what Rapp alleges, then he apologizes for his “deeply inappropriate drunken behavior.” He then used his statement to come out of the closet, saying that he “chooses” to “live as a gay man.”

Who knew that the only thing worse than Spacey’s years of remaining in a glass closet would be his actual coming out?...

...Spacey choosing now to come out, in order to spin Rapp’s sexual assault allegation, is underhanded behavior worthy of his character Frank Underwood on House of Cards.

Rapp described one of those incidents, a party Spacey invited him to at his Manhattan apartment, to BuzzFeed’s Adam Vary: “My memory was that I thought, Oh, everybody’s gone. Well, yeah, I should probably go home. [Spacey] sort of stood in the doorway, kind of swaying. My impression when he came in the room was that he was drunk. He picked me up like a groom picks up the bride over the threshold. But I don’t, like, squirm away initially, because I’m like, ‘What’s going on?’ And then he lays down on top of me. He was trying to seduce me. I don’t know if I would have used that language. But I was aware that he was trying to get with me sexually.” Rapp says he was able to “squirm” away eventually and talk his way out of the apartment...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think he's an excellent actor, but this really is a shame. As if we didn't get accused enough of all being pedos, now he chooses to come out of the closet while responding to these allegations? As if it somehow excuses his behavior and protects him with a magic rainbow shield?

Word just got in that Netflix has decided to terminate House of Cards after the upcoming sixth season:

_http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-house-of-cards-to-end-with-upcoming-1509392365-htmlstory.html