|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. One of the few breakdowns we ever see Claire have is over what she did to Megan. She's never been remorseless, she's just rarely regretful, and she's assertive about stepping around the wrecks she caused. Betraying Megan's interests for political gain was her doubling-down, to validate all the bad things that came before it. She might have made a different choice at the start of Season 1. In the scene in the office where Megan yelled at her, I was actually thinking, "oh, you silly little girl. Of course this is how things work..." then I realized that she's the last voice of sanity whimpering in the dark. The stuff Claire and Frank do, which we calibrate to as "the way things are," are completely and utterly a contrived mess. They play an (awfully bloody) game. Megan isn't playing. M: You know how this will go. Everyone will say, "great, we did something," which is really nothing. They'll pat themselves on the back and then forget about it. C: We put this on the radar. M: I thought we were doing something real. Changing people's lives. How naive, right? But at least I didn't want to give up. Maybe Jackie Sharp is right. You are a loving coward. C: *scoffs* I'm the one that pulled you out from under the covers. You were hiding, you and your pills. So you tell yourself whatever you need to. *moves behind desk and sighs* I'm sorry. There were political realities we couldn't ignore. M: Do you ever wonder why so many people hate Washington? It's because of people like you using phrases like that. So yeah. It's an interesting scene because it's the strongest we've seen Megan (immediately before she goes and attempts suicide) and one of the few times Claire snaps at someone in a way that seems genuinely frustrated, rather than manipulative. In terms of political ambition, Megan is real. She cares about something and wants to make change. Claire isn't real, and hasn't been for a very long time. She wants power, but is willing to get go of things she cares about to get it. I think Claire sees that in the moment when she leaves Megan shaking and broken after the suicide attempt. But she lets herself cry in private, gets back up, and tells Frank to go loving justify the poo poo she's done. In both this show and Scandal, I always end up wondering why the hell people want to be president so badly. It's not like the job comes with a magic wand that lets you fix all the policy issues you cared about when you started the fight. I guess it'd give Claire more clout to wield, but they're still going to be spinning plates to stay in office. (Frank really only cares about the high of wielding power, though.) e: (Over-thinking brought to you by unemployment, and binge-watching HoC and Scandal back to back.) Pixelante fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Is Scandal any good, or is it relationship dramamama sex stuff? It's low-tar compared to HoC, but worth it. A few of the characters play with HoC-level stakes, but often in a less believable way. It has some great scenes, and I really appreciate how it subverts itself. First two seasons were a lot of fun. Current season is flat out ridiculous, but sort of amusing. The relationship dramamama stuff is there, but it's got a dark turn, and the show spends more time on people manipulating their image. The relationshit is by far the weakest part of the show.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
surf rock posted:Megan's trauma certainly gave her a good reason to be unreasonable, but ultimately she was being childish by disregarding reality in favor of "if we just TRY hard enough, we'll magically have enough votes for it!" fantasizing. A little childish, but mostly just uninformed. Claire didn't include her in those discussions or decisions. She just went from coaxing Megan into sticking her neck out to telling her, "nope, not gonna happen." Megan was told she was represented, and deciding to trust Claire was more a testament to Claire's skill at manipulation than Megan's naivety. The political reality is what it is (and in this case, probably pretty similar to the real world) but I maintain that it's a total perversion that actual commitment to a cause is a weakness in that context. I don't know that it can be any other way, but it's lovely that it's how things shake out in the end. Megan was naive, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to trust your friends? Because Claire didn't implore Megan based on politics, she implored Megan as a fellow survivor, then flipped the switch to politician.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
I suspect Claire is going to get sacrificed by Frank sooner or later, however, which is going to invalidate all the reasons she had for making the sacrifices she did. And that's going to turn her into something either completely monstrous or completely broken. My money is on monstrous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I suspect just the opposite. I think Frank will get sacrificed by Claire. Oh man, I hope so. That's so much better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Meechum is a prime example. The shooting incident that got him in trouble is a manifestation of incompetence, but Frank cared less about that than the fact that it made for another stray dog he could bring in from the cold who would be totally loyal to him and that he'd have leverage over, having gotten him the job when his career was otherwise maybe over. Frank was also the one who engineered Meechum's failure, so it wasn't pure incompetence. Frank then recognized that Meecham is both desperate for redemption, and desperately grateful Frank's giving him the chance. His career would have been toast without the Underwoods interceding, rather than letting him fall. He has no idea they set him up. But the next question is if Meechum would spill blood for Frank, or spill blood for Claire. I think if the two were pulling him in different directions, he's a little more likely to back Claire. Dude seems sort of chivalrous, that way. Which means he'll probably die horribly or become an unspeakable monster.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Yeah, Urquhart (UK) feels more villainous than Underwood (US). Jesus, how? Does he start off with just murdering someone's pet outright, rather than just smugly putting it out of it's misery?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Regy Rusty posted:Because people are extremely bad at it. And once you have a rule it has to be moderated. Not to mention that threads filled with black bars are a pain to read. The no spoiler tag policy is the best way to handle it. This, and not everyone reads the OP to jump in. It'd be real nice to humour everyone who wants to go HOLY poo poo at ep 5 without tripping over a spoiler for ep 8, but it's just so much micromanagement, PLUS it would be running one thread different than the established status quo for Netflix season-dumps. We'd get snowed under in probations and you'd still hit spoilers all the time before they got cleaned up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 23:05
|
|