Exploring House of Cards Through Richard III

 

Though I finished and reviewed Richard III not long ago, I didn’t get around to comparing it with House of Cards as I’d planned.  Until now!  Having read one and watched the other, the common threads between the two stories are clear, especially between the two main characters.

 

Both Richard and Frank have the whole “smartest, sneakiest guy in the room” thing going on, further accentuated by their frequent asides to elaborate on their plans or scorn the stupidity of others.  Obviously, both have their eye on the highest seat in the land and have no qualms about how they attain it.  Plus, it’s not a simple matter of taking out one person – there’s an entire series of hoops to jump through, which requires a complex, multifaceted plan of carefully-balanced wheels within wheels.

 

I had to stop and think for a moment about Richard; though he, like Frank, is certainly fond of intricate manipulations that usually end which his victim destroying themselves, that’s largely his weapon of choice in his own play.  Earlier in the tetrad, he’s much more overt in his takedown of his opponents.  He’s openly hostile, relishing in battle and personally killing a number of his enemies.  I realize, though, that someone needs different tactics for destroying their own family from within than for crushing an acknowledged foe.  There’s no real call for Richard to play nice with the Lancasters, but he’s part of the house of York.  He lives among the people who are in his way – brothers, nephews, and so on – and can’t afford to just commence with the bloodshed.  So, he gets clever and underhanded, instead playing them all like chess.

 

In a way, I suppose Frank is the same.  He can be more openly combative against the Republicans because they’re the opposing party (though he still has to conceal his less legal activities,) and the Democrats enjoy reaping the benefits of his mercenary methods.  However, when he’s gunning for the people above him in his own party, he has to do it subtly.  He has to nurture their trust, isolate them from all voices but his, and gradually undermine them until they’re backed into a corner and can’t escape.

 

Not that the two characters are entirely the same.  There’s Frank’s wife Claire, a partner in Frank’s aims as he is in hers, and the sense of warped vindication that plays a role in Frank’s desire, not just to supplant President Walker, but to eviscerate him.  The biggest difference to me, though, is Richard’s much-talked-of physical deformity.  Throughout his play and the ones preceding it, other characters mock his “monstrous” appearance and cite it as proof of his internal blackness.  Frank, on the other hand, looks every bit the politician.  There’s nothing readily apparent about him that people sneer at.  I almost wonder if future episodes will use his bi-(or possibly homo-)sexuality to touch on this angle.  It’s not visible or evident, but that’s more the political game of today, isn’t it:  secret scandals coming to light and eroding a public figure’s foundation.  It might be an interesting way to go, especially since the show really doesn’t vilify Frank’s sexuality (which definitely relieves me) – there are plenty of other reasons to vilify him.  If anything, his scenes of same-sex attraction seem more honest and less opportunistic than his scenes of opposite-sex attraction and take tiny steps toward humanizing him.  For someone to try and use it against him would be much like people disparaging Richard for physical conditions over which he has no control.  I can’t decide if it’d be obvious, irritating, or intriguing, but I’m curious about the idea.  Sigh… how many months until season 3?