So finished watching (the original) House of Cards series this past week. These were done in the early/mid-90s (there are three – House of Cards, To Play the King, and The Final Cut) and describe the tale of an increasingly corrupt and ruthless Prime Minister’s rise to power in the UK, Francis Urquhart. All three series have four episodes of one hour each, for a total of 12 hours of delicious evil and political intrigue. The first series describes Urquhart’s rise to power, the second his political battles with the King of England as he consolidates power and eliminates rivals, and the third, his increasing isolation as the wolves circle to drive him from power while he strikes back hard and repeatedly until the end.

Rather than talk about the plots directly and risk spoiling them, it may be of more interest to discuss the character traits seen here at intervals throughout the main players.

First, you have the corruption of power – which even Francis Urquhart admits will overrun and consume literally anything in its path (and in his case, it certainly does). People are attracted to him throughout the series because of it, his earlier, squeaky-clean reputation is what enables him to take fullest advantage of it, and in the end, it makes him over into its ever-more-shrill and strident pawn.

Second, naivete and idealism. Two central characters, Mattie Storin in the first series and then Sarah Harding in the second, most obviously fall victim to it in a number of ways – some of which the cynic might not take seriously, but it’s important to remember that as the viewer, you are getting the inside scoop on everyone’s thoughts and machinations to which the characters don’t have access. But these two aren’t the only ones to end up far differently than they expected – in some ways that can even be applied to old ‘F U’ himself. Even FU’s longtime friend and ally Tim Stamper pays a heavy price for his beliefs, despite cynically playing the game almost (not quite) at FU’s level all the while.

Third, ambition. While this one follows from the corruption of power – this is most notably seen in the third series, where everyone is jockeying for F U’s succession and/or his approval. While there are more benenolent-minded main players in each series (FU himself seems to start out as one, after all) this key trait serves to put nearly everyone at loggerheads fairly quickly, and even the more fair-minded players end up being reduced to the same political games and back-door dealings in the end – Not sure if the series’ are trying to point out ‘everyone’s human, no one is above reproach all the time’ but even if just seeking to entertain, that’s a key takeaway.

Finally, cynicism. To varying degrees, it affects eveyone in all three series, although certainly the paramount character showing this throughout has to be FU’s wife Elizabeth – and certainly she’s just as good, arguably better than FU at the Machavellian gaming by the end.

Each series draws you in for somewhat different reasons, and I was simply unable to stop watching it until the end. Netflix has now redone the first series with Kevin Spacey in an American context – i’m definitely interested in checking it out. But Ian Richardson has set a very high bar in this series as FU, and the supporting cast(s) are equally good, so the Netflix series will have to be very, very good to measure up. I simply hope in the end that this stuff isn’t as close to the truth as I suspect it might actually be…….

candybowl