(Warning - minor spoilers ahead for the original BBC series. If you haven't seen it, go watch it. Right now. I insist. Or must I put a bit of stick about?)
Let me admit this up front. I'm a House of Cards fanboy (Franboy?). I watched the BBC version when PBS showed it on Masterpiece Theatre back in the first Bush administration, and loved it. It pushed so many of my buttons: Anglophile, political junkie, and sucker for a good fourth-wall break. The parliamentary shenanigans were fascinating, the Westminster architecture was spectacular (does the BBC keep a House-of-Commons set on hand?), and Ian Richardson was delicious. Francis Urquhart's asides to the camera, especially when he was mid-scene with other actors, both pulled you in and filled you in, making the ride even more exciting. Even its dalliance with catch-phrase-itis, "You might very well think that - I couldn't possibly comment", was well played. Of course a political smarm-artist like FU would have well-worn sayings in his arsenal, and his delivery of those words used every syllable to show us the puppeteering motions behind them.
Sure, there were flaws. The Irish P.R. guy came straight from a box of cocaine-frosted Lucky Charms. The scandal set-ups were a little too easily orchestrated. The Mattie-Francis affair and "Daddy" angle, and especially the final hands-on shocker, seemed to have less motivation and more creepiness than necessary. But I can forgive all that. You don't have a main character named after Loch Ness's Urquhart Castle and then shy away from monstrousness. With only 4 original season episodes covering the whole novel, and so much early exposition & maneuvering to show, you'd need to compress some developments. And may my O'Hara/McDonough ancestors forgive me, but I enjoyed the contrast between the ids of Roger the Walking Irish Joke and FU the Genteel Ever-swimming Shark.
So, yes, I like it - really, really like it. It was the first show I put in my Netflix queue when I joined recently, and I've been consuming the episodes like caramel popcorn ever since. It was twenty-odd years ago that I last watched it, but my memory of the story was so vivid that it felt like re-hearing a song whose melody you know well enough to let you focus on appreciating harmonies you'd forgotten. I couldn't resist diving back into this show, and I'm so glad that I did.
But another reason I'm eagerly re-watching the original House of Cards is a somewhat defensive one. It's to cement its memory into my brain before I see the U.S. remake, much like I did when reading The Lord of the Rings books before seeing their film versions. I know that the story will need some significant changes to work in a modern American political context, and I want to keep the original experience in mind while I step into the new one.
I have some serious doubts about how well the story will translate, but I'm also very intrigued by its possibilities. I've deliberately avoided reading about the new version in advance, to avoid any whiff of spoilers. You might very well think that means I'm speaking in ignorance here. But in this case, I couldn't possibly not comment.
First, the obstacles that I see for an American adaptation. I'm not saying these spell doom for it, since I'm sure the new writers have taken these into account, too. I'm just wary of how they might do that.
Parliamentary, Dear Watson. The British version's whole premise was that a relatively minor member of the government could maneuver to the top in a linear way by removing rivals and superiors in his path, and he could do that without any public exposure. It was like when Tom Sawyer finagled his way to the Bible-verse championship, standing up only to say a final "Jesus wept". It was possible for Urquhart to take that interior path because of the Westminster system's unitary legislative-executive branch, where the party in power determines when and where its legislators run, legislators are cabinet members-in-waiting, re-shufflable cabinet members are potential prime ministers, and replacing a PM is a relatively normal thing to do (or attempt). Even a long-standing icon of a PM is vulnerable to a usurper, as Thatcher was to Heseltine.
A member of the U.S. House of Representatives, even a relatively powerful one like a Whip, doesn't have the same opportunity. Our fixed two- and four-year election cycles put them in a near-constant state of individual seat maintenance. The Presidency must be pursued specifically and in a separate campaign. Cabinet jobs are political cul-de-sacs rather than stepping stones, often used to neutralize former rivals. The last cabinet officer to advance to the Presidency was Herbert Hoover. Yes, there's the presidential line of succession that runs through the Speaker of the House, but that's never had to be used and it's typically thought of as an emergency plan rather than a tactical option. Which brings us to ...
Big Bang. We don't do non-electoral presidential ousters lightly. We've only attempted it twice in 230 years, along with one DIY job by Nixon. Our process and mindset for replacing a President tend to presume that a Very Bad Thing has already happened (death, disability, or an impeachable offense), and we treat that kind of event as a major crisis. Our best fictional occurrences of this (24, The West Wing) predicate it on a cataclysmic event that would be a major shock to the country, not just Machiavellian intrigue. It's tough to picture a storyline that could bring about a realistic Congressman-to-President climb without imagining it shaking the country in awful ways. It'd be hard to suspend disbelief. Sure, Gerald Ford's ascendance happened in reality, but the Agnew and then Nixon resignations came from a perfect swarm of two separate scandals that were both self-inflicted, and it was a paralyzingly dark time for our system of government. That wouldn't make for good TV. Let's hope the new story avoids that pitfall.
The All-Seeing Eye. One reason Urquhart could get away with his overall plan, and in particular with his rooftop maneuver, was that no one was watching. These days, security cameras in the Capitol and elsewhere would make it difficult to avoid observation, although a crafty House veteran might know how to evade them. On a broader scale, the endless and ever-hungry news combination of cable news and web jibber-jabber would probably create more scrutiny than secretive machinations could withstand. Of course, those would provide opportunities for spinning and planting stories that would put to shame the original's Mattie Storin articles.
And then the reasons I'll be watching the new show, in spite of those reservations.
Kevin Spacey. In the original British setting, Ian Richardson's patrician mix of charm & menace was perfect. For a more classless (in both senses) American milieu, I think Spacey would shine on those two facets while keeping the asides delightfully wicked.
Royalty. I don't know whether Netflix's deal with Michael Dobbs (the novels' author) or the original production team will pay them more for higher viewership. In any case, I'm glad to add myself to the headcount, hoping to pay them back in tangible or intangible ways for all the enjoyment they've given me.
More, Please. I want Netflix to do more of these series like House of Cards and Arrested Development. AD had a built-in recent fan base clamoring for it, but HoC was more of a long shot. It's good for viewers and show folks if there's a wider field of places willing to produce/distribute the kind of stories that would fly under even a cable network's radar.
Pass the Bill ... and the Popcorn. For all my earlier kvetching about the U.S. being an unrealistic setting for a HoC-style takeover, I do enjoy fictional political dramas. I don't demand that they hew boringly to realism any more than I get cranky when sci-fi shows do a bit of hand-waving about sound and gravity in space. Hey, I liked William Safire novels, The West Wing, and I admit to catching every episode of 24, which takes a high tolerance for "how will they top last week's presidential predicament?". (African frogmen in the White House basement, anyone?) When I used to watch Law & Order, I kept hoping they'd get to a good Third Amendment storyline. So this kind of political malefaction is to me what normal action movies are to other people. It's just as forgivable to take some procedural liberties as it is to outrun an exploding fireball.
Let me put in one final plug for watching the BBC House of Cards series, as well as its sequels (To Play the King & The Final Cut). It's like fine single malt Scotch, and still intensely delicious after 23 years. Here's hoping its American descendant turns out to be the TV equivalent of a rich bourbon. I'm looking forward to tasting it.
