Imagine that, this one is even better than the US version
Hate to compare it to the US version, but somehow Ian Richardson brought out a darker, yet more honest IMHO, portrait of political leader.
shareNo, I've watched the entire offering of the American series and have so far seen the first three episodes of the original and I think the American version is superior. Not that the original is bad, just not as good. I am getting a bit tired of his catch phrase, though.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
I strongly disagree, though I am a moderate fan of the American remake as well. Given that one is a miniseries and the other a full-fledged series they shouldn't even be compared, but if one were willing to make that comparison, then I would definitely declare the original as the winner.
The original is a time-specific drama, essentially an examination and critique of the extreme neo-liberal Thatcherism ideology that could also be viewed as period television, whereas the remake is largely a-topical and a-political, dealing the nature and structure of power-dynamics. The remake also looks and sounds better, even if the original is a perfectly respectable production. But what it lacks is first and foremost Ian Richardson: Kevin Spacey is, unsurprisingly, excellent but still doesn't "breathe" Underwood the way Richardson "breathed" Urquhart, and there's also something in his performance that is slightly irritating and implies phoniness, perhaps its his intonation. The remake also fails to impress in comparison to Andrew Davies' script that was laced with laconic irony and acerbic humor, fast-paced intrigue and purposeful storytelling as opposed to Willimon's prose that feels chatty and cliched (but Willimon has a pretty good understanding of successfully plotting a season and the remake's saving grace is, of course, the character of Claire Underwood).
I'm curious to check out and compare the original. But how much does one have to know about British political issues in that time period to enjoy the series? I'm afraid that a lot of the show's subtleties may be lost on me.
shareYou needn't worry, the original trilogy plays better if one is familiar with the decade that preceded it and Margaret Thatcher's premiership as there are several amusing allusions and parallels to that but in the end even if you aren't, the miniseries works just as well as a juicy drama full of backstabbing and deception, much like the remake.
shareWell, I finished the series and was just shaking my head at the ending. Are the authorities inept in that they didn't discover her tapes? She taped everything and was taping their final conversation, but whomever picked up the recorder (it wasn't Stamper)didn't listen to it and nobody found and listened to the other ones? Was there not an autopsy done on O'Neill?
I just didn't buy into the characters in the original. I don't see the specialness of Richardson's performance and I certainly don't buy Mattie "falling in love" with some worker bee back bencher. And Daddy? More like Grandaddy. Maybe not being a Brit hurts the perception, I don't know. It was an OK watch, except for the end, just nothing all that special. I don't think this is any better than Prime Suspect, not to say that isn't a good show, either, it is, just nothing extraordinary. Ah well, to each his own.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
Most of those issues are resolved in the next part of the trilogy, "To Play the King". To be fair, there are certain deaths in the Netflix remake that are not thoroughly investigated as well in order to comply with the necessities of the plot (Peter Russo's death is declared a suicide, his being in the passenger seat a lead the police has not worked on yet and only Lucas Goodwin of all people seems to notice? There's footage of Zoe Barnes walking towards and chatting up someone unseen, but then her falling in front of a train is simply blamed on her tripping or jumping?) and that strains credibility much more in 2014 than it does in the 1990s, what with the incomparably advanced means of forensics and surveillance nowadays.
I understand that Mattie falling in love with Urquhart may seem hard to grasp, but at least there's satisfactory build-up: he's charming and powerful and she's the textbook daddy-issues, into-much-older-men kind of girl(she seems to have a peculiar fondness for the aged, alcoholic brother of the PM, as well).
His fake Southern accent becomes annoying after a while. I fully agree with your observations about the British original, but I understand that changes had to made for the American viewing public - and it comes of a little like a soap opera. The original was a work of art.
shareAmerican Version is a thousand times better, which is something I've come to expect from the states.
shareYes, I wish the original had spent more time on filler and irrelevant side and sub-plots like The Peachoid, in the manner of the remake which needed to fill out its episode count which was entirely commerce-driven rather than in response to artistic need.
I enjoyed the US series, but it struck me as largely uninspired, drawn out, and sluggish - Underwood is crude and obvious, established from the opening scene as psychopathic and cold in a manner that really doesn't distinguish him from a number of other Hollywood villains one could easily cite. His acrid commentary is not exactly brimming with deathless aphorisms either, and his attempt to invite us into his conspiracy is hardly as effective or as interesting as that of the original, where the genial Urquhart takes us by the hand and leads us, smiling, the perfect host, into a world where we come to rely on him, laughing along with his unkind jokes until the moment, far too late, when we see him for the monster he is. By comparison Underwood is saying 'Hi, I'm a big goddamn monster, do you wanna see me eat someone? Raagh."
Urquhart is inherently more interesting because he follows the Shakespearian pattern of exploring his talent for corruption, contrary to his previous repute, and is able to move unsuspected by those he destroys. Anybody who doesn't see Underwood coming with his jaws slavering is an idiot, his conspiracy is over-elaborate and involves far too many people, and he is psychologically uninteresting until the 'confessional' scene - very late in the day. He's also, fundamentally, a bore and a bully - finesse is lacking here, he is no virtuoso, only a thug.
Clare Underwood is an excellent character however, and a much more interesting and persuasive depiction of evil. As such she has a lot more in common with the villainy of the original show, as it happens - and with the issue of her fertility hoving into view at the end of season 1, the writers appear to have considered the possible inspirations of her Lady Macbeth ancestry.
I like the American show a lot, I'll definitely watch the second series, and my criticisms above are relative - it's certainly a good show, and the things I identify as flaws are relatively minor, but they become very much more apparent when compared to the BBC version, and the suggestion that the remake is better is one I find difficult to see as more than laughable.
Well written post, combatreview, I agree with much of what you've said. I suspect that those who saw and loved the original series at the time, as I did, will tend to prefer it. Ian Richardson was pure magic as FU, he was so smooth and charming that he drew the viewer into his web and called into question your own responses (there are FU fan clubs today). The Kevin Spacey character is by comparison a mere brute, ham-fisted and perverse. The US series is also darker, more humorless and constipated (yes, there was an entire episode devoted to watching Underwood drink at his alma mater). And while I agree that Robin Wright's character is interesting, she is so cold and impenetrable that I doubt other people, especially women, would trust her.
(Off topic but American productions tend to play down to audiences by casting actors who physically personify what they are; this can present problems in the narrative. A perfect example is "Dangerous Liaisons" v. "Valmont," movies made around the same time based on the same material. The American version cast John Malkovich, who looked as slimy and unattractive as his character is supposed to be, and rendered implausible the idea that he could inspire two innocent women to ruin. Similarly Uma Thurman, cast as an innocent but curious 15 year old, looked 19 and sensual, consequently the horror of what he did to her was lost.)
"neo-liberal Thatcherism"? You lost me there. Thatcher was as conservative as they come, and so is F.U. I don't think it's so period-specific as all that -- the machinations that go on in a parliamentary democracy are pretty timeless.
Richardson is, as you say, perfect in this. I'm almost frightened to see the American version, because I love the original so much and I don't know or care about American politics.
I meant that fundamentally conservative financial policies similar to Thatcher's are nowadays labelled and marketed as "neoliberal" and the original "House of Cards" is almost a period drama in the sense that its particular brand of dramatic conflict and the themes of power and corruption while timeless are better understood in the context of its era (the late '80s) and the shadow of the love-her-or-hate-her political giant that Thatcher was.
Ian Richardson was a revelation, Urquhart the role of his lifetime much like Tony Soprano was the late great James Gandolfini's. Kevin Spacey is definitely one of the remake's high points (along with Robin Wright and most of the cast) but unfortunately the script is, sadly, beneath him and weaker than the master writer Andrew Davies'. American politics in the remake provide, much like British politics did for the original, only an opportunity for intrigue and they are not really ellaborated upon in any substantial way, albeit due to the length of the remake's seasons (13 episodes instead of 4 for each of the three parts of the original) they most frequently tend to be mere filler in a blatant, repetitive and grating manner, introducing and soon disposing of various uninteresting or undefined characters nobody really cares about.
neo liberalism as in liberalise the markets, remove all regulations and monopoly restrictions, but don't be liberal with people like the original liberals, instead they are still socially conservative, saying whom may marry who, what substances you shall allow over people to enjoy, pro capital and corporal punishment, anti healthcare, welfare, pensions, minimum wage, consumer protections, so totally unliberal with people but very liberal with the rights of money to do anything without limit to move across borders without paying all taxes etc.
its like the term neo conservative in the U.S. where conservatives were always isolationist seeing no reason to get involved in any but defensive wars and saw no reason to help out in say Europe during the Napoleonic, first or second world wars, it was seen as liberal do gooders needing to go spend American blood and treasure helping people who are not American. now the new conservatives have never heard of a people America should not be prepared to kill thousands for or a war that America should not start.
keep in mind that the new version had david fincher, big millions and 21st century while the previous was just a book adaptation made in britain.