What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:50 pm

Nordic » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:22 am wrote:It has its moments.

Which Mr Shakespeare would have known if he had actually watched the show instead of skipping to the end and them dumping all the spoilers into his above post. Nice scorched earth policy there pal.

It's not as good as the first 2 seasons but I still mostly enjoyed watching it. Spacey and Wright are in top form for most of it if you can make it past all the insufferable Russian crap.


Apparently, Mr No-Dick, you can write the word "spoilers," so I'm thinking your battery-operated skull calculator can probably also master the task of mouth-reading it. "Spoilers" was the first word in my post, the one that you're complaining about because it contains... spoilers! The word "Spoilers" was followed by many skipped lines. And yet, you didn't resist. You didn't scroll over it. You went ahead and read the labeled spoiler and then complained that it's a... spoiler. And then you start impugning characters and calling names. (Can you spell impugning?) Why? I skipped over your shit. You could return the courtesy and skip over Master Shakespeare's. I certainly do not make my rare visits here to engage with the likes of you. There's even a function that skips my posts automatically.

Of course, I'm playing obtuse. It's very easy to understand why I would skip your shit, whereas you would have to read mine. I mean, there's a tiny chance it might have something about you in it. And there's a guaranteed chance it will have something that will allow you to feel intimidated, and to lash out irrationally. Does it feel good? Your perpetually wounded little 1950s Man imago can't just simmer in its cave. If I've walked in, it has to turn its carcass and stagger it on over from the bar to force a fight on Bruce Lee, because he said words that are too big for you. Your lack of reasoning and monotone self-righteousness are indicative of why this board engages at a lower level than once, and why I spend little time here any more. You will win this fight again, of course. I have a door, you mop the floor.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:26 pm

Impugning, isn't that how they get squished-in faces on those little dogs they call Pugs?
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:58 pm

The Impugnic Wars ended badly for Carthage.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:01 pm

Nordic » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:22 am wrote:It has its moments.

(...)

It's not as good as the first 2 seasons but I still mostly enjoyed watching it. Spacey and Wright are in top form for most of it if you can make it past all the insufferable Russian crap


"Once people get sold on such a product they convince themselves it's not masochism to keep watching religiously. It becomes a matter of self-image to find things to like, because they liked it earlier."

That's what must have provoked you, no? I mean, besides your inferiority complex about me being Master Shakespeare and you being No-Dick?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby brekin » Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:07 am

SPOILERS:

Yes, yes the show has gone a little ape shit bombastic of late. And I agree that its always walked a fine line between showcasing elite sociopathic behavior and romanticizing it, way back I called it "dictator porn" and sometimes it veers erratically from softcore to hardcore for seemingly no good reason. The whole get rid of Social Security narrative plank is just plain fruitcake that seems to be appealing to some Objectivist/Tea Bagger viewership I guess. (The movie Dave I guess used it before.) And I still don't know how the show was able to pull off someone who lost family members and was paralyzed by a ill chosen drone strike ordered by Underwood comes off shabby in a face to face with Underwood while it provides him another chance to play noble patriot. However, this little nugget was dropped on Air Force One when they are returning from Russia:

Claire: Francis, we are murderers.
Francis: No we are not. We are survivors.


Doesn't that just cut to the quick of the whole show and the attractive ethos it holds for so many? The whole, better to be a hammer than a nail deal? Watching House of Cards there is a definite stealth agenda at times in portraying Claire and Frank of, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Image

Even many brutal dictators to serial murderers believe they are just trying to survive the best way they can "in the system". Often this is the system they feel that is imposed on them and they have no control, no choice in, to act any other way then they do. The system is often external but again they can be a slave to some internal system they feel at the mercy of. Over time one internalizes the external system for the most part so the lines get blurred in time anyways.

Anyhow, because House of Cards is like a genetically modified Machiavelli on steroids in a distorted West Wing house of mirrors it can get away with some truths that nobody else wants to touch. But like after Bill and Hilary felt compelled to publicly role play being The Sopranos, I feel at times, you know, that in the end perhaps House of Cards is tapping something that we can only interface with in a fiction.

If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby RocketMan » Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:19 am

brekin » Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:07 am wrote:SPOILERS:

Yes, yes the show has gone a little ape shit bombastic of late. And I agree that its always walked a fine line between showcasing elite sociopathic behavior and romanticizing it, way back I called it "dictator porn" and sometimes it veers erratically from softcore to hardcore for seemingly no good reason. The whole get rid of Social Security narrative plank is just plain fruitcake that seems to be appealing to some Objectivist/Tea Bagger viewership I guess. (The movie Dave I guess used it before.) And I still don't know how the show was able to pull off someone who lost family members and was paralyzed by a ill chosen drone strike ordered by Underwood comes off shabby in a face to face with Underwood while it provides him another chance to play noble patriot. However, this little nugget was dropped on Air Force One when they are returning from Russia:

Claire: Francis, we are murderers.
Francis: No we are not. We are survivors.


Doesn't that just cut to the quick of the whole show and the attractive ethos it holds for so many? The whole, better to be a hammer than a nail deal? Watching House of Cards there is a definite stealth agenda at times in portraying Claire and Frank of, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Image

Even many brutal dictators to serial murderers believe they are just trying to survive the best way they can "in the system". Often this is the system they feel that is imposed on them and they have no control, no choice in, to act any other way then they do. The system is often external but again they can be a slave to some internal system they feel at the mercy of. Over time one internalizes the external system for the most part so the lines get blurred in time anyways.

Anyhow, because House of Cards is like a genetically modified Machiavelli on steroids in a distorted West Wing house of mirrors it can get away with some truths that nobody else wants to touch. But like after Bill and Hilary felt compelled to publicly role play being The Sopranos, I feel at times, you know, that in the end perhaps House of Cards is tapping something that we can only interface with in a fiction.



Oliver Stone's Nixon touched on the same theme, by the way.

-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Laodicean » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:44 pm

brekin » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:07 am wrote:And I still don't know how the show was able to pull off someone who lost family members and was paralyzed by a ill chosen drone strike ordered by Underwood comes off shabby in a face to face with Underwood while it provides him another chance to play noble patriot.


The drone strike you are referring to was ordered by Walker, before Underwood took over.
User avatar
Laodicean
 
Posts: 3339
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (16)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby brekin » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:40 pm

Laodicean » Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:44 pm wrote:
brekin » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:07 am wrote:And I still don't know how the show was able to pull off someone who lost family members and was paralyzed by a ill chosen drone strike ordered by Underwood comes off shabby in a face to face with Underwood while it provides him another chance to play noble patriot.


The drone strike you are referring to was ordered by Walker, before Underwood took over.


My bad. I confused it with the one that Underwood ordered an episode or two earlier. I think the premise still stands roughly, though. :shrug:
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby brekin » Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:15 pm

You have to view the video to appreciate this. I'm no lighting expert but while the color scheme is no doubt closely controlled to give the series a uniform tone, I don't know if I completely buy the "blue up front, yellow in back" is always, or even mostly, so carefully orchestrated position wise and could just be happening by default. It seems light sources usually come from doors, windows, lamps, & lights which are usually in the background anyways because they are the boundaries of a given scene. How often are you going to put a light source (door, window, lamps, and other lights) in front of your characters? Intriguingly, isn't that the m.o. in film noir where the front lighting throws most everything else behind in shadows? I think that helps gives noir its sense of corruption and menacing world view. If House of Cards is doing the opposite, in a calculated way, maybe that is another track they are using to normalize (color balance) corruption and make it seem ubiquitous. (Again I'm no lighting expert, and just a freelance color theorist.) What I've noticed a few times in H.O.Cs color scheme though is the drabness of colors and love of grey the series has (maybe suggesting there is no black and white but just "50" shades of grey morality wise?). I don't know, interesting food for thought how far the use of color and the lighting scheme of H.O.Cs is tied to trying to convey a certain theme. And whether it is successful or not.

Every Shot on House of Cards Looks the Same
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/vid ... ition.html

How to compose a House of Cards shot: blue up front, yellow in back.
By Chris Wade

To be clear, House of Cards has excellent cinematography. Every shot is composed with precision and austere elegance, all emphasizing the cold, calculating world of Frank Underwood. In this podcast interview, the series cinematographer Igor Martinovik elaborates on how the show uses its visual style to emphasize its story; for instance, the camera never pans and tilts at the same time, helping create a sense of stillness.

But, that consistent excellence includes one trait so consistent it becomes baffling. Almost every single frame of this show is composed to place a pale blue object in the foreground with a pale yellow light in the background. Now, sometimes the foreground object is more black than blue, sometimes the background veers toward a sickly green, sometimes they're outside and the background is necessarily blue or black sky, but once you begin noticing this particular habit of the House of Cards color pallete, it is hard to unsee. I became so obsessed with this quirk I had to make a video demonstrating it. I chose three episodes from seasons one and two, scrubbed randomly through them, and excerpted a shot from the scenes I landed on. Every scene I found contained this color combination. Check it out above.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Nordic » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:18 pm

brekin » Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:15 pm wrote:You have to view the video to appreciate this. I'm no lighting expert but while the color scheme is no doubt closely controlled to give the series a uniform tone, I don't know if I completely buy the "blue up front, yellow in back" is always, or even mostly, so carefully orchestrated position wise and could just be happening by default. It seems light sources usually come from doors, windows, lamps, & lights which are usually in the background anyways because they are the boundaries of a given scene. How often are you going to put a light source (door, window, lamps, and other lights) in front of your characters? Intriguingly, isn't that the m.o. in film noir where the front lighting throws most everything else behind in shadows? I think that helps gives noir its sense of corruption and menacing world view. If House of Cards is doing the opposite, in a calculated way, maybe that is another track they are using to normalize (color balance) corruption and make it seem ubiquitous. (Again I'm no lighting expert, and just a freelance color theorist.) What I've noticed a few times in H.O.Cs color scheme though is the drabness of colors and love of grey the series has (maybe suggesting there is no black and white but just "50" shades of grey morality wise?). I don't know, interesting food for thought how far the use of color and the lighting scheme of H.O.Cs is tied to trying to convey a certain theme. And whether it is successful or not.

Every Shot on House of Cards Looks the Same
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/vid ... ition.html

How to compose a House of Cards shot: blue up front, yellow in back.
By Chris Wade

To be clear, House of Cards has excellent cinematography. Every shot is composed with precision and austere elegance, all emphasizing the cold, calculating world of Frank Underwood. In this podcast interview, the series cinematographer Igor Martinovik elaborates on how the show uses its visual style to emphasize its story; for instance, the camera never pans and tilts at the same time, helping create a sense of stillness.

But, that consistent excellence includes one trait so consistent it becomes baffling. Almost every single frame of this show is composed to place a pale blue object in the foreground with a pale yellow light in the background. Now, sometimes the foreground object is more black than blue, sometimes the background veers toward a sickly green, sometimes they're outside and the background is necessarily blue or black sky, but once you begin noticing this particular habit of the House of Cards color pallete, it is hard to unsee. I became so obsessed with this quirk I had to make a video demonstrating it. I chose three episodes from seasons one and two, scrubbed randomly through them, and excerpted a shot from the scenes I landed on. Every scene I found contained this color combination. Check it out above.


Yeah, that's a combination of basic production design and the wardrobe, and the lighting. Most of the "yellow" you see is from practical lamps, "practical" meaning the light sources that are actually in the shot. They usually don't act as sources for the actors, although more and more they do, with the sensitivity and the latitude of modern digital cameras. Usually when they also appear to be lighting an actor, the light hitting the actor is actually from a different light offscreen, that gives the illusion that it's coming from that lamp.

But yes, often the ambient light on the set in this show is blue, with the practical lamps giving a yellowish glow. They're in the background because that's usually where you see them, rarely would a practical lamp be in the foreground, at least not in this show.

Traditionally, and in real life, blue in the background is used to convey depth. This is because outdoors, atmospheric scattering and haze both give a bluish tinge to the air in the distance, then things up closer have less of it and seem relatively warmer. This is why sometimes atmosphere is deliberately added to lend a look of depth. If you're shooting in a place with almost zero atmospheric density, say the mountains of Colorado on a clear day, or the desert, distances can be quite deceptive, because our brains are accustomed to seeing this bluish haze getting thicker toward the horizon so that our minds can judge the distance. So in movies this is added, indoors at least, as "smoke". There are smoke and haze machines that can create it. You can then backlight it with bluish lights and viola it's blue. Outdoors this is much more difficult, but if the air is still and you have the right equipment you can create a hell of a lot of smoke even there, too. If the wind is strong it usually blows it away.

Anyway, remember this is a David Fincher production, and he directed the pilot (and possibly the first few episodes, I really can't remember) and this is very much his style. Look at "The Social Network" for a similar lighting style, although that was more overwhelmingly yellow and kind of brown-colored. Fincher is very hands-on with his cinematography. When he started using Claudio Miranda for his movies, Fincher reportedly wouldn't let Miranda bring his own lighting people, he had to use Fincher's. That's highly unusual.

I think in the case of HOC they wanted a very cold look to the people, and their clothing, and the ambient light in which they live. Without the complement of the arm light from the practicals, the whole thing would look blue, or maybe even wrong, like there was some mistake. The complementary colors emphasize each other.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby brekin » Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:55 pm

Nordic » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:18 pm wrote:
brekin » Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:15 pm wrote:You have to view the video to appreciate this. I'm no lighting expert but while the color scheme is no doubt closely controlled to give the series a uniform tone, I don't know if I completely buy the "blue up front, yellow in back" is always, or even mostly, so carefully orchestrated position wise and could just be happening by default. It seems light sources usually come from doors, windows, lamps, & lights which are usually in the background anyways because they are the boundaries of a given scene. How often are you going to put a light source (door, window, lamps, and other lights) in front of your characters? Intriguingly, isn't that the m.o. in film noir where the front lighting throws most everything else behind in shadows? I think that helps gives noir its sense of corruption and menacing world view. If House of Cards is doing the opposite, in a calculated way, maybe that is another track they are using to normalize (color balance) corruption and make it seem ubiquitous. (Again I'm no lighting expert, and just a freelance color theorist.) What I've noticed a few times in H.O.Cs color scheme though is the drabness of colors and love of grey the series has (maybe suggesting there is no black and white but just "50" shades of grey morality wise?). I don't know, interesting food for thought how far the use of color and the lighting scheme of H.O.Cs is tied to trying to convey a certain theme. And whether it is successful or not.

Every Shot on House of Cards Looks the Same
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/vid ... ition.html

How to compose a House of Cards shot: blue up front, yellow in back.
By Chris Wade

To be clear, House of Cards has excellent cinematography. Every shot is composed with precision and austere elegance, all emphasizing the cold, calculating world of Frank Underwood. In this podcast interview, the series cinematographer Igor Martinovik elaborates on how the show uses its visual style to emphasize its story; for instance, the camera never pans and tilts at the same time, helping create a sense of stillness.

But, that consistent excellence includes one trait so consistent it becomes baffling. Almost every single frame of this show is composed to place a pale blue object in the foreground with a pale yellow light in the background. Now, sometimes the foreground object is more black than blue, sometimes the background veers toward a sickly green, sometimes they're outside and the background is necessarily blue or black sky, but once you begin noticing this particular habit of the House of Cards color pallete, it is hard to unsee. I became so obsessed with this quirk I had to make a video demonstrating it. I chose three episodes from seasons one and two, scrubbed randomly through them, and excerpted a shot from the scenes I landed on. Every scene I found contained this color combination. Check it out above.


Yeah, that's a combination of basic production design and the wardrobe, and the lighting. Most of the "yellow" you see is from practical lamps, "practical" meaning the light sources that are actually in the shot. They usually don't act as sources for the actors, although more and more they do, with the sensitivity and the latitude of modern digital cameras. Usually when they also appear to be lighting an actor, the light hitting the actor is actually from a different light offscreen, that gives the illusion that it's coming from that lamp.

But yes, often the ambient light on the set in this show is blue, with the practical lamps giving a yellowish glow. They're in the background because that's usually where you see them, rarely would a practical lamp be in the foreground, at least not in this show.

Traditionally, and in real life, blue in the background is used to convey depth. This is because outdoors, atmospheric scattering and haze both give a bluish tinge to the air in the distance, then things up closer have less of it and seem relatively warmer. This is why sometimes atmosphere is deliberately added to lend a look of depth. If you're shooting in a place with almost zero atmospheric density, say the mountains of Colorado on a clear day, or the desert, distances can be quite deceptive, because our brains are accustomed to seeing this bluish haze getting thicker toward the horizon so that our minds can judge the distance. So in movies this is added, indoors at least, as "smoke". There are smoke and haze machines that can create it. You can then backlight it with bluish lights and viola it's blue. Outdoors this is much more difficult, but if the air is still and you have the right equipment you can create a hell of a lot of smoke even there, too. If the wind is strong it usually blows it away.

Anyway, remember this is a David Fincher production, and he directed the pilot (and possibly the first few episodes, I really can't remember) and this is very much his style. Look at "The Social Network" for a similar lighting style, although that was more overwhelmingly yellow and kind of brown-colored. Fincher is very hands-on with his cinematography. When he started using Claudio Miranda for his movies, Fincher reportedly wouldn't let Miranda bring his own lighting people, he had to use Fincher's. That's highly unusual.

I think in the case of HOC they wanted a very cold look to the people, and their clothing, and the ambient light in which they live. Without the complement of the arm light from the practicals, the whole thing would look blue, or maybe even wrong, like there was some mistake. The complementary colors emphasize each other.


Mmh, very interesting and thanks for the expert level insight. It made me think of the use of background depth, and the intentional cold look to the characters and wardrobe combined with stillness of the cinematography adds a statuesque quality to a lot of scenes and the overall show. Most people are very jerky and twitchy in real life and for a high stress pressure cooker environment like Washington people seem very laconic in word and gesture then I imagine the pace would demand. Kind of appropriate how many people on the show don't seem so concerned about their immediate existence but just their legacy. Even the power they wield seems to be in service to getting their names and figures on and in front of buildings. When Underwood visited the Roosevelt memorial it was a pretty telling scene. Statues looking at statues.

Image
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Nordic » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:39 pm

Im glad somebody is looking into this. The whole "entitlements" meme is total bullshit, and while it was presented by a sociopathic murderer in the show it went completely unchallenged and nobody mentioned the total lie about the percentage of the budget that these things take up and no mention of war weapons funding.



http://youtu.be/8Hc6OcYk7y8
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby Nordic » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:48 pm

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/real- ... flix-house

Will post the text of this is a while, right now it's sending my mobile into a tail spin. This is the article Lee Camp is probably talking about.

And now I want to know who the consultant was for that phony Russian bullshit.


on edit: Back at my desktop where I can actually and paste.

Real-Life Frank Underwoods: Netflix, ‘House Of Cards’ And Third Way

By Richard RJ Eskow

3/03/15 12:00pm

Frank Underwood is known for deceiving people into acting against their own best interests. (We’ll miss you, President Walker.) Now we learn that this trait may extend to the series that features him.

The greatest betrayals on “House of Cards” can be found in the misleading arguments, presented as “truth,” that suggest that cutting “entitlements” is a necessity and raising taxes isn’t even an option.

The fact that Netflix has insisted upon heavy tax breaks for filming the show in Maryland may be merely coincidental. Here’s what’s not: We have learned that the series hired a leading “new Democrat” (read, “corporate Democrat”) as a consultant for the show’s most misleading episode.

The audience loves watching Frank Underwood deceive other characters. It’s less likely to appreciate being deceived itself, especially as some real-life Frank Underwoods are launching an attack against the party’s populist wing.

The Spoiler
If you’re like me, “House of Cards” has been a binge-watching guilty pleasure, a chance to set aside the burden of idealism for a dark but engaging worldview that is half Machiavelli and half telenovela.

But who knew that the show itself – not the characters, but the show – had a hidden agenda? It’s already taken on teachers. Now comes the anti-“entitlement” tirade from Frank Underwood in Episode One of the new season. Frank, despite his evil ways and means, has an ambitious dream, which is introduced during a lengthy scene in which he lectures his staff, and the audience, on some highly misleading “facts.”

How did that happen? How did the “AmericaWorks” fictional plot point come to be built on real-world lies?

Here’s a clue: Episode One’s credits list Jim Kessler as a consultant. Kessler is, as his IMDB biography notes, the co-founder of Third Way. That’s a Wall Street-funded, so-called “centrist” Democratic organization with a mission: to promote neoliberal economics and make the world safe (at least financially) for its wealthy patrons.

Third Way has consistently misrepresented the financial condition of Social Security, misdirected the public debate about Medicare, and generally promoted the socially liberal but fiscally conservative worldview of its patrons.

Kessler and co-founder Jon Cowan carefully tiptoed their way through the minefield of public opinion for years, pretending to be technocrats rather than de facto lobbyists for powerful interests. They finally lost their balance last year. When confronted with the rise of Elizabeth Warren and the populist wing of the Democratic Party, they lashed out at Sen. Warren with an intemperate Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Frank’s Spin – and the Show’s

Frank’s a Democrat, like all Third Way members, and his rant is filled with exactly the kind of misinformation and manipulation that we’ve come to expect from that corporatist crowd. “Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, every entitlement program that is sucking us dry,” says Underwood in his rant, “I want it on the table.”

“Sucking us dry”? That’s economic gibberish.

“We obviously have to get back to some basics,” Underwood says in his rant, “remind ourselves of some of the facts that are before us …” (emphasis ours.)

Underwood continues: “This (the number $32,781, displayed on a flip chart) is what the average senior gets in one year from entitlements …This money is a job we could be giving to a single mother or a student just out of school. Now at the moment, 44 cents of every tax dollar goes to pay for these programs. By 2030, it’ll be over half, 62 cents.”

“Entitlements are bankrupting us,” he concludes.

Except that they’re not. Social Security accounts for 24 percent of the federal budget, but it is forbidden by law from adding to the overall deficit. What’s more, its trust fund is currently holding $2.8 trillion dollars in reserves. The statement is meaningless.

Straw (Man) Polls
Then Frank says his chief of staff has conducted a poll in which seventy-four percent of voters said they agreed with this statement: “Doing what’s best for my country means doing some things that I don’t like.”

“Now, what does that tell us?” Underwood asks. “We have to do the things that people won’t like. And even when we do, three out of four of them will go along with us.”

This is exactly the kind of poll the real-life corporate crowd loves to conduct – so general as to be meaningless. When asked specific questions, most voters – including Republicans, Dems, and independents – don’t want cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Seventy-six percent of self-described Tea Party members objected in one poll. And they’ll punish any politician who tries.

Voters want millionaires and billionaires to pay the same payroll tax rate as other Americans (the tax is currently capped at approximately $118,500 per year of income). They want Social Security’s benefits increased, which makes sense, since retirement benefits have been decimated in this country and our benefits don’t fare well when compared to those of other industrialized nations. And they’re willing to step up and pay for these increases with higher taxes, according to a poll from the National Academy for Social Insurance.

That’s more than the Third Way’s financiers are willing to do.

“Brave” Corporate Politicos
The Third Way crowd loves to present itself as young, bold, and visionary, and their opponents as “special interests.” “House of Cards” sticks to this script by employing an aging political apparatchik as the voice of liberalism.

“The programs that you want to scale back or dismantle are the bedrock of the American dream,” says the gray-haired, soft-hearted cliché. “You work hard, you pay your taxes –”

Underwood interrupts. “No, I’m sorry, they were the bedrock of the American dream. But they’re not anymore. Certainly not for the ten million people who are out of work.”

In Episode Two, Underwood gives a “bold” speech outlining his plan. It begins:

For too long, we in Washington have been lying to you. We say we’re here to serve you, when in fact, we’re serving ourselves. And why? We are driven by our own desire to get reelected …

That’s another favored trope: that the corporate politicians are courageous (as if it’s brave to serve the wealthy and powerful!), while their opponents are cravenly pandering to the voters – by representing them.

“That ends tonight,” says Underwood. “Tonight, I give you the truth.”

There’s that idea again, that the corporate version of reality is “fact” or “truth.” We’re told that “the root of the problem” is “entitlements” – a favorite word in the corporate crowd because it has negative connotations. (We’ve written about that before.)

“Let me be clear,” adds Underwood. “You are entitled to nothing … ” Just like real-life Third Way types, Underwood is trying to cancel our nation’s social contract.

Real-Life Frank Underwoods

At least Underwood wants to use the money to create jobs, which is more than most corporate Dems are willing to do. That’s a little disturbing: Real-life Third Wayers seem less responsive to the public than a fictional sociopath.

About those real-life Underwoods: You can read about them in an article TheHill.com published this week under the headline “Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing.” They claim to be truth-tellers too, but the truth is their policies don’t work for anyone but the wealthy and privileged.

Their ideas don’t work politically, either: Congressional Democrats ran on their platform in 2010 and 2014 and lost big.

What They’re Not Telling You

You know what Frank Underwood and his real-life counterparts never mention? Taxes. The payroll tax shift, combined with a financial transaction tax and an increase in the payroll tax rate, could fund an increased Social Security program in perpetuity.

They’re trying to make us believe in a false choice instead: between health care and financial security for the elderly and disabled, or jobs and growth for the young. This country has accomplished both before, and can gain – with a balanced program of government investment in growth, higher taxation for the wealthy, regulation of Wall Street (whose gambling got us into our current mess) and sound financial policy.

We could cut our health care costs by as much as 40 percent by doing what other industrialized nations do: negotiating with drug companies, changing physicians’ financial incentives, and limiting the role of for-profit medicine.

Then there is the overarching economic problem of extreme and growing inequality. A more equal economy, like the one we saw during the decades of our greatest growth, would address many of these financial problems. That’s another “truth” Frank and his creators forgot to mention.

Billions for Boeing

You know what else the “centrists” don’t talk about much? Military spending. It produces far fewer jobs for the buck than spending in other sectors – including health care.

Military spending is 19 percent of the budget, nearly as much as Social Security – and it does come out of general revenues. So why the free pass? As it happens, the defense industry is well-represented in some of the groups fighting to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Netflix itself has pushed aggressively for tax breaks. It has played Underwood-style hardball with the state of Maryland, as Citizens for Tax Justice noted, extracting more than $62 million in tax breaks from a film credit program that only produces 10 cents for every dollar granted in economic benefits.

You can fund a lot of “entitlements” with that kind of money. But, as we were saying, that wouldn’t be in a corporation’s best interests. As Frank might say, in his smooth Southern drawl: Now isn’t that a coincidence?

Sociopathic Politics

Don’t turn your back on Frank Underwood. Everybody knows he’s a murderous sociopath. But he’s portrayed as someone who is capable of telling the political truth because he is a sociopath. Only he can see that our old people are spending us into oblivion, because only he is unafraid to take on the “special interests” and think the unthinkable.

I’d like to think that the producers used a corporate “Third Way” Democrat as a consultant because it suits Frank’s character. He’s amoral and incapable of empathy, after all, which does arguably make for a good fit. That doesn’t seem to be their motivation.

As an audience we’re asked to believe that Frank Underwood has been liberated from the petty restrictions of conventional minds and sees the “truth.” But it’s a lie, packaged as truth and peddled by “House of Cards.” Why? A wise politician once spoke of a “conspiracy of shared values,” and that may be all there is to this story.

Whatever the motivations, it’s a deception nonetheless. And since everybody in Washington watches the show, it’s a potentially destructive one.

Frank Underwood is a liar, thief, and murderer. Sure, we can all enjoy the show if we want. But let’s not join Frank, or Netflix, or “House of Cards” as they try to push America’s seniors in front of a train.

Richard Eskow blogs at Campaign for America's Future.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby coffin_dodger » Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:13 pm

Spacey. Done a bit of OVER-acting, Shakespeare-stylee, at The Old Vic and now thinks he's Larry Olivier.

It's an odd business, acting - if you're any good at it, the reason people like you is because you're pretending to be someone else.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: What, no "House of Cards" thread??

Postby coffin_dodger » Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:32 pm

JackPiddler said:
Apparently, Mr No-Dick, you can write the word "spoilers," so I'm thinking your battery-operated skull calculator can probably also master the task of mouth-reading it. "Spoilers" was the first word in my post, the one that you're complaining about because it contains... spoilers! The word "Spoilers" was followed by many skipped lines. And yet, you didn't resist. You didn't scroll over it. You went ahead and read the labeled spoiler and then complained that it's a... spoiler. And then you start impugning characters and calling names. (Can you spell impugning?) Why? I skipped over your shit. You could return the courtesy and skip over Master Shakespeare's. I certainly do not make my rare visits here to engage with the likes of you. There's even a function that skips my posts automatically.

Of course, I'm playing obtuse. It's very easy to understand why I would skip your shit, whereas you would have to read mine. I mean, there's a tiny chance it might have something about you in it. And there's a guaranteed chance it will have something that will allow you to feel intimidated, and to lash out irrationally. Does it feel good? Your perpetually wounded little 1950s Man imago can't just simmer in its cave. If I've walked in, it has to turn its carcass and stagger it on over from the bar to force a fight on Bruce Lee, because he said words that are too big for you. Your lack of reasoning and monotone self-righteousness are indicative of why this board engages at a lower level than once, and why I spend little time here any more. You will win this fight again, of course. I have a door, you mop the floor.


LOL! This is so aggressive (and, on edit, pompous) it reminds me of two other posters here - Solace, bless him/her - and the antifa stuff that AD posts where the antifascists basically end up stating the 'fascist' or 'fascists' they are tearing apart have smaller willies than everyone else. Classic stuff, mate.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests