House of Cards

Propaganda Alert!!

Just to say that there's a THIRD season of this. Dunno why though. I've watched 10 episodes (I think) and anyone who can stomach a third helping please check out the anti-Putin/Russian propaganda. I can't fully describe it as its barely believable (and I'm pushed for time right now, might give examples later) but it's the fist six episodes. Also, the shows actually less pathological because Frank is the president with Claire the first lady & ambassador to the UN. I meant to post this days ago & I saw a snippet on RT a day or two as well - depicting the anti-Russian consensus embedded in current popular tv shows. No, not new but the noise is getting noisier. And "Putin" in house of cards is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE PUTIN no matter how they depict the character. There's still ponerology-in-action it's just less than the first two seasons because "the president makes decisions/democracy" narrative is being told IOW, accountability. I was/am quite incensed by it. :mad:
 
Ascien said:
Propaganda Alert!!

Just to say that there's a THIRD season of this. Dunno why though. I've watched 10 episodes (I think) and anyone who can stomach a third helping please check out the anti-Putin/Russian propaganda. I can't fully describe it as its barely believable (and I'm pushed for time right now, might give examples later) but it's the fist six episodes. Also, the shows actually less pathological because Frank is the president with Claire the first lady & ambassador to the UN. I meant to post this days ago & I saw a snippet on RT a day or two as well - depicting the anti-Russian consensus embedded in current popular tv shows. No, not new but the noise is getting noisier. And "Putin" in house of cards is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE PUTIN no matter how they depict the character. There's still ponerology-in-action it's just less than the first two seasons because "the president makes decisions/democracy" narrative is being told IOW, accountability. I was/am quite incensed by it. :mad:

I also watched the first two seasons. A couple days after the new third season came out, I started watching the beginning of episode 1 where Frank visits his fathers's grave. That's as far as I got. I just found it so disgusting that I didn't want to continue watching. But now that you mentioned that it contains anti Putin/Russian propaganda, I might just continue watching it. So I guess Netflix is also being used as another propaganda machine... not surprising actually.
 
The man chosen to play 'Putin' (Russian president 'Viktor Petrov') does bear a superficial resemblence to the man himself, enough to consider it deliberate in my opinion. There are several references to propaganda points associated with Putin - that he has crushed dissent and opposition, that he likes photo opportunities to appeal to the Russian youth etc.

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.
 
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.

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. The ending moment of the season was chilling. Here it is in the video. And now to hear this...what a disappointment.

It is similar to the disappointment I felt when heard about Muse's Matt Bellamy saying that he no longer believes that 9/11 was an inside job. To have such an extended repertoire about exposing the truth, but then suddenly after playing at the Olympics to make such a drastic u-turn. As Caesar said, "humans are fickle and self-centered for the most part". So it shouldn't be that surprising at all. It's show-business after all! :cool2:

 
Ascien said:
It seems that most people who've watched it (I'm assuming they're unaware of psychopathy & psychopathology) think that Frank's machinations are thoroughly unrealistic.

I actually think they're somewhat unrealistic: in real life I bet it's even worst. I only watched the first season, though.
 
SPOILER ALERT :

(doesn't really matter, if you watch it you're likely to agree)



Okay so I'm going from memory of the (most relevant) episodes I've seen, it's kinda fuzzy as I wasn't paying that much attention to the episodes. Claire is forced through as a UN ambassador by Frank even after the Senate rejects her. Dodgy. The republicans aren't happy. He wants to "leave a legacy" since he's only an interim president (wasn't voted in) & thinks that creating a jobs program (beginning in Washington hoping that it will garner support by the republicans thus rolled out across the country, paving the way for an election that he wants to win) will stop the public thinking he's a "lame duck." One mainstream interviewer gets stuck into him on his political show - why Frank agrees to this, & doesn't try to retaliate behind the scenes isn't explained - which seems to have been a catalyst for his legacy idea. He wants 10 million jobs created (I think it's 10, it's a ridiculous amount to be created so quickly anyway) & how does he intend to fund this? Why, by plundering the coffers of FEMA. Specifically the disaster relief fund or whatever it's called. During tornado season no less. He's warned against this (the amount is several billions) & is told that that's the basic fund, they would need several more billions to rebuild whole areas etc. Of course he couldn't give a hoot, his legacy is top priority.

Then there's the Israel-Palestinian dichotomy that somehow involves the Russian leader (as a supposed ally) to
send troops, along with the UN ("peace-keeping missions") to the Jordan valley. Don't ask & I won't tell you. Because your guess (If you haven't seen the 3rd season) is as good as mine, even though I WAS paying attention to those parts that involved the over-the-top & thoroughly false characterization of Putin. There's a state dinner where the Russian leader is invited by Frank (serves a dual purpose as the democrats give him a no-confidence vote & ask him to not run for office, they'd then agree to some concessions on support for his thoroughly unrealistic jobs bill so he tries to separate "the herd") & it's all smiles until.... the evil dictator starts to make unpleasant comments, "forces" everyone to get drunk on Russian vodka (I think) then has the audacity to publicly... snog Claire. It's literally like those movies where the leader of some gang tries to show the power he has over his adversary by "interfering" with his girlfriend/wife. OSIT.

I could barely believe it. The actor is tall & skinny unlike Putin, but they made the character sit with his legs wide open (during some photo-op with Frank) to hammer home just who the character was meant to be. It's the semi-contemptuous way he was sitting & looking that first made me raise an eyebrow. Basically he's a pis*-taking manipulative thug. Then there was the cringy "pussy riot" trio that were also invited.... who proceeded to embarrass him at the dinner. Sigh. Later episodes basically say that the Russian leader did a false-flag attack (can't remember where, probably in Jordan) as he didn't want to be seen bowing down to US demands along with the UN/NATO or some crap. Wasn't really paying attention by this point cuz the behaviour & attitude of the false Putin character was doing my head in. I'm probably making it sound worse than it was/is but I'm trying to remember my feelings at the time as the only thing I can remember saying, when the guy was being obnoxious was "f_*k off!" And shaking my head.

And then there's a gay dude (narcissistic & admits to it) who for some reason goes to Russia to protest about fake Putin/Russia's "barbaric" laws about homosexuality. He leaves his husband in the US (it's explained that he behaves pathologically toward him) who's beside him self wondering if the evil Russian empire is gonna kill him. Again, wasn't paying that much attention to half this stuff cuz it's interspersed with a lot of tedious other stuff with "Doug" (can't remember his job title from previous seasons, but he "fixed" things for Frank though) & some military legal woman who's like "a dog with a bone" with the whole truth (justice & the American way) telling thing & the throwing of her "hat in the ring." (she announces that she's running for office after she learns Frank tried to make her a judge or something, to take her out of the running for the democratic nominee - which involved manipulating an old judge with Alzheimer's who she's pals with, unbeknownst to Frank)

Speaking of which, it's either the above woman, or someone else (or even a couple) who stops just short of calling him a psychopath... if I remember correctly. It might be some Pulitzer prize-winning journo from.. wherever (she replaces a former colleague, former asked right questions, press Secretary didn't like it, cuz Frank didn't... So they got her the sack) who's also like "a dog with a bone." Which also reminds me.... Frank's legacy fantasy indulgence leads him to hire some big time author (wasn't paying attention) to write his memoirs. Which is a classic psychopathic narrative (Frank when speaking to the author, admits it to camera later down the line about a cock-and-bull story depicting his younger self swimming a length said to be impossible or whatever, "he knows it's not true but that won't stop him, he knows it's about a powerful message of hope &" blah blah it's the legacy nonsense related to the "America Works" jobs program) about hopes & dreams. Basically real life political rhetoric guff. Yawn.

Then there's a drone strike on some innocent civilians to kill one "terrorist" in a foreign land. The military/joint chiefs or whoever did their usual "time is of the essence" "Saddam's gonna nuke is in 45 minutes if you don't give the order to strike NOW!" thing during a meeting. Which is where the show really got me wondering just what the hell is going on with the writing. Because he starts behaving in a contradictory manner (even before the above, I think) as if he's conflicted about harming a small few, to benefit a large majority. In the name of "justice" or some such crap. WTF?! Don't get me started on the ambassador trip Claire takes to free the gay guy from a Russian prison. And the subsequent derailing of some bullcrap trade negotiation between the two heads of state regarding the middle east & a prepared statement the gay guy had to read ("I was wrong Russians are great, their laws are great the president is great, thanks fir releasing me!) which Claire went off-script - literally - to embarrass the Russian leader publicly. "Shame on you Mr president, your laws &..." etc. Which leads to Frank & Claire's potential split. Which is a good thing.


You know, writing this makes me wonder how much I've missed cuz I wasn't really aware I'd missed so much, of course it doesn't seem like that to anyone reading this based on the length of the post, but describing it face-to-face would take only a minute! But yeah many bits went in one ear & out the other, it was the anti-Russia/Putin thing that made me pay any real attention cuz this season, is TEDIOUS. It's not a complaint as I wasn't even aware that a third season was brewing. The pathology is scaled down considerably (again not complaining but the visual reference to a male & FEMALE psychopath.. as a couple... already in positions of authority is a very useful aid) & most annoyingly, Frank & Claire's blatant pathological nature is being presented in a way that suggests "simple" ponerology; as if all of their actions were based on getting high enough in authority to create positive change. Ugh. Interestingly, I've just read some reviews & random comments dotted around the web, & it seems that the majority of viewers can barely tolerate it to. And they might do ANOTHER season! Wasn't the British original about the ("love" of the) fight to ascend into higher authority?
 
Wow. I felt sick just reading everybody's reactions to this series.

I will absolutely not be watching this thing. It sounds utterly revolting.

-That being said, it also sounds like it might be a useful series to learn from if you have the stones for it.

I sure don't, and I'm not embarrassed to admit it. For the same reason, I avoid, "Game of Thrones".

I get *more* than enough psychopathy on the SOTT main page over breakfast each morning, on the news and coloring every scrap of media, advertising and general culture I encounter throughout the day.

I do not need Kevin Spacey scuttling around in my head on top of all that, thanks. Brr.
 
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.

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. The ending moment of the season was chilling. Here it is in the video. And now to hear this...what a disappointment.

It is similar to the disappointment I felt when heard about Muse's Matt Bellamy saying that he no longer believes that 9/11 was an inside job. To have such an extended repertoire about exposing the truth, but then suddenly after playing at the Olympics to make such a drastic u-turn. As Caesar said, "humans are fickle and self-centered for the most part". So it shouldn't be that surprising at all. It's show-business after all! :cool2:


I've finished the series now and, anti Russian propaganda aside, I think it is still worth watching. Frank is still very much the same character but in his position as president he is much less able to freely scheme and manipulate behind the scenes. His motivations have become more difficult to pin down, but he is very much the ruthless and psychopathic type. So basically I'm trying to say - it's still worth watching.
 
I am in the middle of the second season and although I watch it with the knowledge about psychopathic behaviour , it makes me sick and angry.
I have to stop watching it now and again to breathe!
As others have said before, it is a good lesson to see how this couple works on other people to get what they want.
I intend to finish watching the second season though.
 
I confess I did get a little hooked on watching this show :( As others have said, the third season is tedious and full of propaganda. I picked up on the irritating subtle propaganda. For instance the way Tor and the dark web were introduced in such a way as to incite viewers to have a go themselves. What really annoyed me was the way the movie Contagion was introduced in passing as a really great film to watch. It isn't at all! In fact Contagion is the most appalling propaganda-laden films I've seen: Full of microchip everyone for your own good, alternative news journalists are evil and trust the Government shtick. 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.

Edit for clarity and added a <groan>.
 
Theseus said:
I confess I did get a little hooked on watching this show :( As others have said, the third season is tedious and full of propaganda. I picked up on the irritating subtle propaganda. For instance the way Tor and the dark web were introduced in such a way as to incite viewers to have a go themselves. What really annoyed me was the way the movie Contagion was introduced in passing as a really great film to watch. It isn't at all! In fact Contagion is the most appalling propaganda-laden films I've seen: Full of microchip everyone for your own good, alternative news journalists are evil and trust the Government shtick. 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.

As someone else who's watched the show, I agree with Theseus, this is pretty right on. It's well done, dramatically, but full of propaganda. The way they worked in the band Pussy Riot and their "controversy" was appalling (They really are an awful band, not musically inclined, disrespectful, and not worth anyone's time).

Anyhow, if you're looking for a show to watch, I'd say check it out, but there are also other, better alternatives. Speaking of which, I thought "Lie to Me" was particularly good, but it got cut short in the 3rd season...
 
Keit said:
It is similar to the disappointment I felt when heard about Muse's Matt Bellamy saying that he no longer believes that 9/11 was an inside job. To have such an extended repertoire about exposing the truth, but then suddenly after playing at the Olympics to make such a drastic u-turn. As Caesar said, "humans are fickle and self-centered for the most part". So it shouldn't be that surprising at all. It's show-business after all! :cool2:
A little off topic, but fwiw Keit you may be interested in listening to Muse's recent song The Handler. I think Bellamy's use of lyrics can explain the situation he was probably faced with.


You (you, you)
Were my oppressor
And I (I, I)
I have been programmed to obey

And now (now, now)
You are my handler
And I (I, I)
I will execute your demands

Leave me alone
I must disassociate from you

Behold (hold, hold)
My trance formation
And you (you, you)
Are empowered to do as you please

My mind (mind, mind)
Was lost in translation
And my heart (heart, heart)
Has become a cold and impassive machine

Leave me alone
I must disassociate from you

I won't let you control my feelings anymore
And I will no longer do as I am told
And I am no longer afraid to walk alone
Let me go
Let me be
I'm escaping from your grip
You will never own me again
 
How disappointing. I watched the old BBC series and the first season of the new one. I found out about the propaganda here, as I was wondering whether to continue watching or spend my time doing something more productive personally (i.e. reading). Looks like I win out.

It was a pretty fine show; I found it more 'exact' than Dexter or the Sopranos for example. It seems like Dexter's writers didn't know what a psychopath was (or how to write a show, but that is personal opinion), and the Sopranos' writers didn't understand the difference between a psychopath and a secondary psychopath (though they are great writers).

A few links
Here is the new show's creator discussing his meeting with Pussy Riot members, how he thought of the Russian arc before many synchronous events had happened yet, and the differences he sees between Petrov and Putin (nothing except Petrov is 'taller'): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/28/house-of-cards-vladimir-putin-villain-creator-beau-willimon-on-the-show-s-russian-arc.html

Here are a few differences noted by the moscow times, including Putin being more reserved and respectful: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-vs-petrov-fact-and-fiction-in-house-of-cards/517111.html
 
I saved the following as a draft some time ago, and intended it for a thread called "Psychopathic characters in literature." But given this discussion I thought I'd put this here:

Speaking of Shakespeare -- and his famous villain, Iago -- I wanted to strongly recommend watching the 1990 BBC series House of Cards, with its brilliantly acted Iago-esque chief whip character played by Ian Richardson (the original novel is set in British Parliament) in a production that I believe to be far superior to the Netflix produced Americanized version, starring Kevin Spacey (although I admit I only watched the very beginning of the American series, which to me paled in comparison, so it's for you to judge for yourself).

Richardson's chief whip, Francis Urquhart -- whose pet name is "FU," appropriately enough -- has as his partner in crime, as it were, a wife who is something of a Lady Macbeth. The series is based on the eponymous novel written by Michael Dobbs who, interestingly enough, was a former chief of staff at the Conservative Party headquarters. I believe I read somewhere that he'd been sacked, and so there was no doubt some bitterness fueling his frontal attack on the nefarious goings on, which as an insider he would have witnessed first hand. Of course, it doesn't hurt that this writer knows his Shakespeare. Actually, having just looked it up on Wikipedia, it seems Dobbs bases his cunning protagonist on Shakespeare's Richard III, not Iago, and yet to me Iago can't help but come to mind. Especially Ian Richardson's asides to camera, which is never an easy thing to accomplish in film/t.v. productions, but which is done by Richardson with an acuity and effortlessness that would be essential to any good performance of Shakespeare's Iago especially.

[/url]

As to Richard III, it's a character I want to explore at some point. I enjoyed Al Pacino's 1996 documentary, Looking for Richard, which I think makes for a good introduction to the subject. Now that I know its connection to the BBC House of Cards, I'll have that in mind as well.

[End: draft excerpt]

I wanted to add that I agree there is a danger in being seduced by a psychopath's charm as through film and literature, although there is that same danger in life itself. One thing about the role of FU in the above series is that even though he represents policies that are harmful to average citizens he is nonetheless firm in his convictions and willing to see them through to the bitter end, which is also to say he is not a coward.

The idea of "uses of adversity" (a phrase I know from a book I have on runes, but which maybe has a source outside of that), comes to mind. As for FU and people like him, what good qualities, such as the ones I just cited, can we actually take from them?

I'm writing a novel right now, and in some ways I'm in an absolute mess with it. One of my key protagonists is in "hell," and I'm grappling with his potential for good as well as evil.

--actually, objectively speaking, what is "goodness" in the context of a bad soul? I think it's too reductive to simply talk about hypocrisy, which exists, of course, but it's fairly one dimensional. On the other hand, it seems to me that the most interesting characters have within them deep seated contradictions. They may know their own goodness, even, and yet within them it's darkness that gets the best of them.

.. can this be translated into this choice by either persons with or without souls as concerns STS or STO orientation?

.. could a person without a soul choose an STO orientation, while a person with a soul winds up choosing STS?

If that's true, then this soul/soulless divide is fairly tricky then. Just what is it purporting? Just that the universe needs this polarity for balance? (But then what decides who gets what in the soul department?)

As for the true psychopath, how does that play out in terms of this soul/soulless distinction? Could the psychopath be either?

[just some questions that have been rolling around in my head for some time]

one more question:

My novel also has the theme of mind control, which certainly plays havoc with the idea of free will. How is one "permitting" this sort of manipulation to happen? Or are the manipulators breaking some sort of right of free will?

(Is there any material specifically on this?)


diligence said:
How disappointing. I watched the old BBC series and the first season of the new one. I found out about the propaganda here, as I was wondering whether to continue watching or spend my time doing something more productive personally (i.e. reading). Looks like I win out.

It was a pretty fine show; I found it more 'exact' than Dexter or the Sopranos for example. It seems like Dexter's writers didn't know what a psychopath was (or how to write a show, but that is personal opinion), and the Sopranos' writers didn't understand the difference between a psychopath and a secondary psychopath (though they are great writers).

diligence, I thought Sopranos had great writers, as well. It's been a long time since I saw the show, but I thought that when the therapist finally decides Tony is untreatable it's that she's stating that the psychopath is untreatable, since they are always manipulating the therapist, etc. How does the secondary psychopath play into this? Isn't Tony an actual psychopath? If he's a secondary psychopath is that more treatable? Where is it in the series that you feel the writers got this distinction wrong?

Generally speaking, I think there are pitfalls in writing such characters since, as a writer, you start getting seduced as well. A part of you is rooting for some kind of redemption, and yet the reality of the true psychopath isn't something redeemable. I think that's difficult to accept sometimes. Maybe that's why in film/fiction there is this purporting of a psychopath through his/her actions, say, and yet the writer is bringing more empathy to the situation given he/she has been seduced by his/her own creation!

.. and so we see characters that are maybe a bit too human to be doing these inhuman things.
 
Heather said:
diligence, I thought Sopranos had great writers, as well. It's been a long time since I saw the show, but I thought that when the therapist finally decides Tony is untreatable it's that she's stating that the psychopath is untreatable, since they are always manipulating the therapist, etc. How does the secondary psychopath play into this? Isn't Tony an actual psychopath? If he's a secondary psychopath is that more treatable? Where is it in the series that you feel the writers got this distinction wrong?

Generally speaking, I think there are pitfalls in writing such characters since, as a writer, you start getting seduced as well. A part of you is rooting for some kind of redemption, and yet the reality of the true psychopath isn't something redeemable. I think that's difficult to accept sometimes. Maybe that's why in film/fiction there is this purporting of a psychopath through his/her actions, say, and yet the writer is bringing more empathy to the situation given he/she has been seduced by his/her own creation!

.. and so we see characters that are maybe a bit too human to be doing these inhuman things.
All true. I was referring to what you mention, when the therapist decided Tony Soprano was a psychopath in the sixth season, and that is where I had thought they got it wrong. However, considering it from the therapist's point of view, it makes perfect sense for her to come to that conclusion, as Tony's character is more or less 'incorrigible,' and the writers of the Sopranos as well as Breaking Bad hoped to make that clear in some way. That is an important statement for them to make, as the characters' actions are indefensible.

Watching the show I was reminded of research into mafias and other gangs, wherein most people can be described as 'sociopaths,' their minds and interactions highly influenced by the psychopaths in their groups but still retaining values like loyalty, and perhaps some selective empathy, which could easily be progressively eroded.

I can think of three or four non-psychopathic examples. Sometime early in the show Tony takes a stand against perversion for the sake of his daughter. There are some more 'metaphysical' directions the show takes later on, in which without spoiling too much for others, Tony would yell "I get it!" to the world, or forays into his past which suggest that his upbringing has caused his anxieties and physical problems. There was a sense of him needing to 'escape' the negative ways of dealing with the world passed down from father to son (and, earlier in the show, from mother to son), though then I could be projecting that. It could be interpreted as him having inherited all of his father's problems, and there is nothing to be done anymore. Tony's relationship with his own son is the continuation of Tony's dynamic with his father, and the son at least at first seems to retain some humanity.

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.

Edited to add: Your novel sure does sound interesting!
 
Back
Top Bottom