|
precision posted:I honestly think this may be the case, as I said earlier. Zoe was all about power, it seemed, especially in retrospect. Ahh, I missed you talking about it. It would also explain why Claire wasn't bothered by him screwing Zoey because she knew it meant nothing to him, just another thing that he did to further their cause. Ah well, I like Meechum if only because as much as you want to hate the Underwoods, maybe they deserve a little happiness. Or we deserve a hint of them being human. Well, except for that look Claire had as she was watching Meechum and Frank, that was kind of terrifying.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
I wouldn't mind a House of Cards prequel season, showing how Frank and Claire met, how they formed their diabolic pact and came to care so much about each other, etc. If they cast the right actors... Don't know who could pull off "young Kevin Spacey" but I'm sure the right guy is out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
I'm doing a season 1 re-watch right now to pick up on nuances that I missed the first time around, and I've just made it to the scene where the homeless man gives Claire the origami money. Was there any discussion in the season 1 thread about possible symbolism? I remember thinking "this has to mean something, but what?" when I first saw it. Does anyone have a link to the season 1 thread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Doltos posted:His whole thing with Zoe was pretty creepily like that. I don't think he was ever intimidated by her like regular guys would be. He saw this gorgeous smart college grad and just narrowed his eyes thinking "fish in a barrell". Then there were all the pictures and that whole scene where she talked to her dad on the phone while he was eating her out. That scene is somewhat reminiscent, perhaps as a nod to, the entire relationship with Mattie (Zoe's UK counterpart) and Urquhart (Underwood's UK counterpart), where "Daddy" is a thematic and plot-related memetic between them. It should also be noted that in the UK version the equivalent to Claire, Urquhart's wife, actually suggests and encourages him to have an affair with her, with he unsaid implication that it would make her easy to control. Urquhart uses sex several times throughout the show as a means of controlling somebody, and somehow manages to never avoid letting it blow back on him. He is, however, also deeply haunted by the murders he commits, which Underwood does not seem to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Didn't Claire say she had 3 abortions? One was supposedly from General McRapey. Was at least one of the others from Frank? If it was addressed I must have missed that detail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
She said she was reckless in her teenage years and one was with Frank when his campaign was starting up. The one with the general was a lie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
I figure it's all downhill from here for Frank. He damaged a lot of people to get to that desk, but now that he has it, how long will he keep it? He's got more enemies than friends, and even if there are a few people relieved to have him out of their hair, pretty much no one is actually happy he's running the country. Frank had his moment with the ribs guy, and Claire had her moment with the rape victim--both of them had to swallow a harsh reminder of the too-high price to win. Now that the Christmas present is open and Frank/Claire achieved the goal, how much does that power actually get them? They're not magically safe because of the presidency. They can't keep savagely chewing their way through opponents forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
I don't think Frank is exclusively gay nor is his marriage to Claire merely one of convenience. There was a scene in Season 1 where after a victory of some sort Frank ignores Zoe's late night hookup text and takes Claire by the hand to presumably gently caress her. Then when he does find out about the General, his reaction is one of genuine rage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't think Frank is exclusively gay nor is his marriage to Claire merely one of convenience. There was a scene in Season 1 where after a victory of some sort Frank ignores Zoe's late night hookup text and takes Claire by the hand to presumably gently caress her. Then when he does find out about the General, his reaction is one of genuine rage. Yeah, the rage for the general is genuine. It's the reaction most husbands would have if they found out someone raped their wife. He genuinely does care about Claire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:Yeah, the rage for the general is genuine. It's the reaction most husbands would have if they found out someone raped their wife. He genuinely does care about Claire. A guy would also get really loving enraged if you keyed their car, though, so...  (I actually think he loves his wife. Their relationship just is not traditionally physically intimate, in my opinion, although there is still intimacy, and sex)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Their relationship just is not traditionally physically intimate This is actually incredibly common among those in long lasting relationships because of the slow transition from sexual to intimate love
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:This is actually incredibly common among those in long lasting relationships because of the slow transition from sexual to intimate love It does serve the storytelling aspect. Frank and Claire only directly interact with each other when they're pulling in the same direction. Because they don't cuddle or kiss very much, seeing them share a cigarette seems like a powerful moment of intimacy between them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:This is actually incredibly common among those in long lasting relationships because of the slow transition from sexual to intimate love Or you just say that many old people lose their sex drive. But my comment was more to the fact that their intimacy is less sex and more other, when other people tend to expect it to be the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
I'm not talking about old people necessarily. I'm talking about people in their 20s and 30s too, as long as they're in multi-year relationships. It's a thing in psychology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:I'm not talking about old people necessarily. I'm talking about people in their 20s and 30s too, as long as they're in multi-year relationships. It's a thing in psychology. Too bad for them. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't think Frank is exclusively gay nor is his marriage to Claire merely one of convenience. There was a scene in Season 1 where after a victory of some sort Frank ignores Zoe's late night hookup text and takes Claire by the hand to presumably gently caress her. Then when he does find out about the General, his reaction is one of genuine rage. Claire and Frank's sex life always seems to revolve around personal success. If someone really amazing happens for their career path, then they bump uglies. The way I rationalized his feelings towards the General was rage, but not because of his love for Claire. I always saw Claire as his, like his property. It seemed like it was a personal affront to Frank that General McRapey raped Claire, not that what he did was a detestable awful act. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not but Kevin Spacey is really playing Underwood like a sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
I read the scene as reinforcing that, for whatever reason (and it does bother me that we'll possibly never find out), Frank feels like he and Claire are connected by a bond that goes beyond anything he could ever possibly feel for anyone else. Claire is the one person he would never betray (I think/hope) and she seems to feel the same way. I don't think it's a protection born of a feeling of ownership. But I also admit the show hasn't definitively shown us one way or the other. Maybe it's because, to paraphrase Hartley, "There's hope for everyone... even [Frank]."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
precision posted:I read the scene as reinforcing that, for whatever reason (and it does bother me that we'll possibly never find out), Frank feels like he and Claire are connected by a bond that goes beyond anything he could ever possibly feel for anyone else. Claire is the one person he would never betray (I think/hope) and she seems to feel the same way. I don't think it's a protection born of a feeling of ownership. But I also admit the show hasn't definitively shown us one way or the other. He's awfully quick to disregard her life goals for his own. sure he'll get back to her, but he comes first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
precision posted:I read the scene as reinforcing that, for whatever reason (and it does bother me that we'll possibly never find out), Frank feels like he and Claire are connected by a bond that goes beyond anything he could ever possibly feel for anyone else. Claire is the one person he would never betray (I think/hope) and she seems to feel the same way. I don't think it's a protection born of a feeling of ownership. But I also admit the show hasn't definitively shown us one way or the other. I think there's going to be some point in time next season where he has to either stand behind his wife when the swords going through her or abandon her, and I believe the writers are going to make Frank abandon her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I think there's going to be some point in time next season where he has to either stand behind his wife when the swords going through her or abandon her, and I believe the writers are going to make Frank abandon her. I think you're probably right, and it makes me sad. Then again, if they're telegraphing it so hard, it may be a fake-out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
precision posted:I think you're probably right, and it makes me sad. Then again, if they're telegraphing it so hard, it may be a fake-out. I can't think of a fake out example on the show. It's all been pretty cut and dried.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I can't think of a fake out example on the show. It's all been pretty cut and dried. Gavin's turn around, I suppose. Also Tusk going down with the ship instead of jumping. Other then that yeah, they've made all the characters pretty much stick to their predictable paths, not that that's a bad thing of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I think there's going to be some point in time next season where he has to either stand behind his wife when the swords going through her or abandon her, and I believe the writers are going to make Frank abandon her. I think you're right, too, but that'll be the point of no return for him and spell out his end. The stuff with Claire is more complicated than "he owns her," I think. I watched their interactions in the episode where she told him about the rape a couple of times trying to figure it out. They're good enough actors to communicate a lot of unspoken things intentionally. My read on it is that she is his closest and most respected ally, and that he considers an attack on her an attack on him. He wants to murder that general for the same reasons he unleashed fury on his party for betraying him at the start of season 1. He really does love her, for whatever his love is worth, but he loved the guy with the ribs joint too. He just loves power more. I suspect Claire is very similar to him in every respect, but she ranks their marriage/alliance just a shade higher than the things she loves. Frank puts power above both of those things. The nuance is that Frank is actually more of an asset to Claire than she is to him. He can use her as a stepping stone to get up to the highest places. She can only get up there if he pulls her up with him. Her loyalty to him is tied into power, whereas for him it'll ultimately come down to a choice where he gains more by disconnecting from her than holding onto her. Ooh, but man it'd be fun to see Claire try to take him down. Glass ceiling keeps her from getting to the top, but it sure doesn't stop her from tearing anyone down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Pixelante posted:I think you're right, too, but that'll be the point of no return for him and spell out his end. This is all correct to me. Frank is an rear end in a top hat in a lot of ways, but he does love Claire. I just see it as a more platonic and intellectual love than a marriage usually is. He isn't often physically intimate, and maybe would be gay in another context. But Claire is his partner, whatever their dynamic, and she isn't some object he owns or controls. The scene where Frank shuts down Adam Galloway is, I think, fairly genuine: Adam is a mostly insignificant speedbump in their marriage and shouldn't even try to pretend he was something more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Pixelante posted:My read on it is that she is his closest and most respected ally, and that he considers an attack on her an attack on him. Yep, this is 100% my take on their relationship as well. They see themselves as being essentially one person. Even down to the line about how it's no fun to smoke cigarettes alone. I just wish we knew exactly how they got to that place, because it's not something we can really piece together at the moment without lots of conjecture that would read more like fanfiction (like, my personal pet theory is that Claire was the first person Frank came out to).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
The two of them scheming together is always the best part of the show. Frank and Claire can suffer individually, especially Claire--on her own, she's just Cruella De Ville, and so obscenely evil it defies logic. I don't even understand how/why she screwed over Adam like that. Was it really necessary to make him look like an idiot and humiliate, possibly even discredit and damage his reputation forever? Was it really necessary to threaten to kill a child so she can keep her utterly uselessly charity? What is the point of her charity anyway? Is it just to provide a nest egg for them in retirement? Claire's character is so vastly expanded from the UK version, there really isn't a clear parallel to draw for her motivations, but she doesn't really seem to DO anything, despite demanding she be taken seriously all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
The Clean Water Initiative is just another piece of the Underwood legacy that they fought hard to grow and protect. As soon as the Presidency was within reach however, Claire didn't hesitate to let it all go and that's why she made the offer that she did to Gillian so long as she didn't continue with a lawsuit that could damage her/Frank's political standing. She didn't need it anymore and the lawsuit was just dragging her and Frank down when she needed to concentrate on the long con of President and Mrs. Walker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Was it really necessary to make him look like an idiot and humiliate, possibly even discredit and damage his reputation forever? Necessary? No. Vengeful, yes. She didn't get mean until he was all MY FIANCEE who I want to marry because MY FIANCEE. He nipped at her, so she bit his head off, because that's what Underwoods do. I suspect she was doubly ruthless to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that her loyalty utterly belongs to Frank. Which is depressing because I also thinks she really did love that guy. She just cared about other things more. quote:Was it really necessary to threaten to kill a child so she can keep her utterly uselessly charity? Yes. Because she knew there was no way that woman was going to actually let the baby die. She brought a gun to a knife fight, because that's what Underwoods do... at least once they're pretty sure there won't be any blow back from it. quote:What is the point of her charity anyway? Is it just to provide a nest egg for them in retirement? Claire's character is so vastly expanded from the UK version, there really isn't a clear parallel to draw for her motivations, but she doesn't really seem to DO anything, despite demanding she be taken seriously all the time. There's a kind of power in seeming virtuous and charitable. It's instant credibility. When my lovely ex was aiming for council, he was utterly shameless about throwing my non-profit work into any conversation about community involvement, and he's way dumber than Frank. It happens at all levels, though. I'm up for a board position with our Sexual Assault Centre, and one of the other women applying for it wouldn't shut the gently caress up about running for city council. Charity work is armour for politicians. It makes them look balanced, caring, and committed. Claire's doing clean water, which is about as non-controversial as it gets. I'm guessing they went with an international project rather than an American one to avoid later complications. She cares about things, like her NPO and the sexual assault bill, but she will sacrifice them for Team Frank, which is kind of terrifying. The ability to kill what you love for ambition is... well, literally a Jack Donaghy quote from 30 Rock. Pixelante fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:The two of them scheming together is always the best part of the show. Frank and Claire can suffer individually, especially Claire--on her own, she's just Cruella De Ville, and so obscenely evil it defies logic. I don't even understand how/why she screwed over Adam like that. Was it really necessary to make him look like an idiot and humiliate, possibly even discredit and damage his reputation forever? Was it really necessary to threaten to kill a child so she can keep her utterly uselessly charity? Claire isn't evil, per se. She does evil things but she's completely aware of what she's doing. It's killing her inside. Robin Wright is a fantastic actress and she knows exactly what she's trying to convey during her emotional breakdown scenes. She's completely conflicted between rising to the top and the means to get to there. That's what happens when you have a competitive, highly self-driven individual who doesn't have that evil spark to make her excel in the world of power. I don't think she was going to kill that girls child just over the charity. I think she realized that the quickest way to end a really nasty court case was to threaten the girl with the worst thing she could think of, then give her an amazing opportunity that seemed completely unreasonable to turn down. It worked. The point of the charity was to give her something to do, to make her a powerful woman in the political sphere, to develop relationships with other powerful people. Ultimately, it was to showcase that Claire is actually a pretty decent person. They don't need a nest egg.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
It seems to me that Claire probably has more policy ideology than Frank, and that perhaps that is what she gets out of their partnership - Francis is aimless and she gives a direction to his ambition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Pixelante posted:She cares about things, like her NPO and the sexual assault bill, but she will sacrifice them for Team Frank, which is kind of terrifying. The ability to kill what you love for ambition is... well, literally a Jack Donaghy quote from 30 Rock. But didn't she gently caress Frank over in S1 when she told those two guys to abstain from the vote and it ended up that the bill failed? I guess it obviously worked out in the end but wasn't her purpose there entirely self-serving (her NPO)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:But didn't she gently caress Frank over in S1 when she told those two guys to abstain from the vote and it ended up that the bill failed? I guess it obviously worked out in the end but wasn't her purpose there entirely self-serving (her NPO)? I'd have to re-watch to confirm, but I think that had something to do with Frank exploiting her position/NPO or knowingly hurting her goals without her consent. She's a partner or nothing, and probably has to remind him of that sometimes to keep from getting walked on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Pixelante posted:I'd have to re-watch to confirm, but I think that had something to do with Frank exploiting her position/NPO or knowingly hurting her goals without her consent. She's a partner or nothing, and probably has to remind him of that sometimes to keep from getting walked on. He didn't exploit her position, he didn't want her accepting money from one of his old donors who he didn't want to be under the thumb of. He even told her he'd try to get her the money in some other fashion. She wanted the money to accomplish her project NOW, not at a later date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
You know come to think about it that Jack Donaghy quote is so apt that now I can't picture Frank as anyone but a democratic version of the guy. It's going to be hard to take him seriously now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Drifter posted:She wanted the money to accomplish her project NOW, not at a later date. Oh yeah. I still interpreted that as more of a power play between her and Frank than love for her agency, but she probably does care about it. She definitely cared about that poor girl who got raped, though. Cared and still effectively shoved her in front of a train. ...the caring was a little surprising, actually. That girl was so fragile and so weak that I thought Claire would be disgusted by her, rather than heartbroken. I guess it makes sense that Megan (?) represents the girl Claire killed in herself to keep the assault from affecting her. So, think Frank has one of these in his office?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Pixelante posted:Oh yeah. I still interpreted that as more of a power play between her and Frank than love for her agency, but she probably does care about it. She definitely cared about that poor girl who got raped, though. Cared and still effectively shoved her in front of a train. She CARED about Megan? That's...an interesting way to look at the situation. I certainly thought Megan had it spot on when she told Claire point blank that she didn't care at all, except for making a political move with this latest play. The whole reason the rape came out was to avoid people finding out that she's actually had three abortions and her womb is poisonous to all life because she just can't stop killing babies. If Claire has any humanity at all in season 1, it is flat out GONE in season 2. I don't think she feels even remotely guilty--she had a few moments in the first season, but that's just it--she's too far gone, she's too far lost her soul to even remotely allow any moral disputes to affect her judgment for longer than a day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:She CARED about Megan? That's...an interesting way to look at the situation. I certainly thought Megan had it spot on when she told Claire point blank that she didn't care at all, except for making a political move with this latest play. The whole reason the rape came out was to avoid people finding out that she's actually had three abortions and her womb is poisonous to all life because she just can't stop killing babies. She cared in the same way that Frank cared about Freddie. I.e. she cared until she didn't. Assholish in the end, your opinion about the validity of the original sentiment may vary. Claire is a fascinating character in this season. I adore her. I absolutely love the circumstances of the Episode 4 interview. Having abortions, not being emotionally affected by them, lying about the causes, and, best of all, escaping from the situation unscathed by the narrative? She's perfect, and I salute her. There are far too few female antiheroes and villains like her. I also love that it was she who was being the final push, reminding Frank that "I've done what I have to do. Now you do what you have to do." It's not like the previous season, when he used her - this time, she's motivating him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
meristem posted:She cared in the same way that Frank cared about Freddie. I.e. she cared until she didn't. Assholish in the end, your opinion about the validity of the original sentiment may vary. I'd be curious to see what you think of her UK equivalent, especially in regards to the last bit of that post. They make for an interesting comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Well, that's a part of the post that I forgot to include - I was wondering whether she was portrayed in a similar way in the UK show. I think that, like Frank, Claire is a good wish fulfillment, which all the best antiheroes/villains are. For the times when you wish you could be that individualist libertarian Ayn Rand sociopath CEO without the burden of a conscience - and that you would win. It's funny how, for a woman, wish fulfillment includes essentially saying "yes, I did have an abortion, yes, I did it for my career, and yes, I'm going to lie about it now and turn it against those who would judge me", though. I was actually surprised how strongly she resonated with me at this moment - even though I know she's a lovely person, I couldn't help but feel viscerally goodwhen she did that. Meanwhile, I usually watch Frank's shenanigans with at most... amusement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
spronk posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUWYFu_lHjU In a bit of almost meta comedy: http://www.deadline.com/2014/02/house-of-cards-production-delay-season-3-maryland-tax-incentives/ These tax breaks are pretty much how this show exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 12:04
|
|
