House of Cards

As for Claire "hate", I can't stand Frank. I want him to fail. Claire at least to me was more interesting than Frank in s1 and s2. I didn't have a problem with Claire opposing some of this Frank did, as long as that opposition wasn't just opposition for opposition's sake. Doing things for her own good, great.

However, this season she went full retard. I have no idea why the writers did this to one of the strongest women characters on tv, but it is depressing. It is absurd to say that those that didn't like Claire this season are sexist. If anything, it is the other way around.

For most of the season, Claire didn't bother me. We've seen she has little seeds of doubt for the past few seasons, so it made sense to see some of those start to blossom. It's been obvious that, at some point, Claire would be another person that would lead to Frank's downfall, and her having a crisis of conscience is a good way of doing that. The problem is they just advanced Claire's part in this way too fast to the point where she became inconsistent.

The last few episodes, rather than giving more insight into Claire's motivations, made her earlier actions look illogical. She wants power handed to her, but feels "sick" that she has to ask for it. She is disappointed Frank isn't doing more to help her gain power, but has some deep-seated doubts about the morality of the decisions required to gain that power. Whereas the beginning of the season started to make her look like she was having doubts about what her ambition requires ("We're murderers."), by the end, she's upset because her ambition isn't being stoked enough. Either Claire is walking away because she does not like what she's becoming, or she's walking away because she isn't becoming what she wants fast enough, but it's hard to tell which is the motivation.

Really, I think Claire should've been one of the last people to turn on Frank. She's been his partner-in-crime, the person complicit in taking down a presidency, someone who is willing to do whatever it takes. The longer they had her stand by Frank and continue to feed their ambition, the bigger impact it would've had when she finally did turn on him. There has always seemed to be a part of her that is uncomfortable with what they do, but the catalyst in bringing that to the forefront felt too forced. Her leaving like this really didn't have the sting it should've because Claire crumbled and is so distant from the strong and shrewd Claire we saw in earlier seasons.

DickTrickle_sl said:

But thanks for confirming my guess that people do watch these shows to celebrate the worst in people.

Click to expand...

You know, people can like a character and watch these shows without respecting or "celebrating" their actions. Don't act all superior just because you are unable to see that complexity.

This is where the show was about to become amazing!
But nope. Lets get him drunk and become a small sub plot rather than help Frank destroy his opponents.

This whole season is just a stop filler for next season. Sometimes a great show has these seasons... I just hope it recovers well to become that great show.

I don't see how you can view Season 3 as Frank becoming more ruthless than he was previously. He's vulnerable on all fronts, including his own marriage. He was straight up whacking people who interfered with him politically in S1 and S2. In S3 he is just an embattled president with a terrible agenda running in a primary and trying to get his wife to stop sabotaging them. Frank from S3 is genuinely trying to help people, from the Russian deal to the Israel deal to the AmWorks stupidity. Frank from S1 and S2 gave zero fucks. S3 Frank kind of gives some fucks.

I love Claire. Claire from S1 and S2 is awesome. Even when she had moments I didn't appreciate, like stepping out on Frank at a key moment, whatever, she had a crisis of faith and then came back to the fold because at the core the show is about the two of them. Everything they have done has been together, as a team. And suddenly she's not on the team anymore in S3. And she blames Frank for it. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems kind of like they were trying to paint Claire as a victim and Frank as some sort of sociopathic controlling maniac, which is context is jut laughable.

Really, if anything I find the concept of her character more interesting than Franks in the first two seasons. She was so in control, S1 Claire never would have fell for that bullshit with Mendoza at the hearing. That was fucking amateur hour. Or the Russian ploy. Come the fuck on, did ANYONE not see that coming? Suddenly she is seeing stars because some housewife in Iowa said she would vote for her? ISN"T THAT THE PLAN ANYWAY? That she use Frank's time in office to catapult her own political career? I mean fuck. The more I think about that ending the more angry I am with the writers. That was just horseshit.

Cantatus_sl said:

For most of the season, Claire didn't bother me. We've seen she has little seeds of doubt for the past few seasons, so it made sense to see some of those start to blossom. It's been obvious that, at some point, Claire would be another person that would lead to Frank's downfall, and her having a crisis of conscience is a good way of doing that. The problem is they just advanced Claire's part in this way too fast to the point where she became inconsistent.

The last few episodes, rather than giving more insight into Claire's motivations, made her earlier actions look illogical. She wants power handed to her, but feels "sick" that she has to ask for it. She is disappointed Frank isn't doing more to help her gain power, but has some deep-seated doubts about the morality of the decisions required to gain that power. Whereas the beginning of the season started to make her look like she was having doubts about what her ambition requires ("We're murderers."), by the end, she's upset because her ambition isn't being stoked enough. Either Claire is walking away because she does not like what she's becoming, or she's walking away because she isn't becoming what she wants fast enough, but it's hard to tell which is the motivation.

Really, I think Claire should've been one of the last people to turn on Frank. She's been his partner-in-crime, the person complicit in taking down a presidency, someone who is willing to do whatever it takes. The longer they had her stand by Frank and continue to feed their ambition, the bigger impact it would've had when she finally did turn on him. There has always seemed to be a part of her that is uncomfortable with what they do, but the catalyst in bringing that to the forefront felt too forced. Her leaving like this really didn't have the sting it should've because Claire crumbled and is so distant from the strong and shrewd Claire we saw in earlier seasons.



You know, people can like a character and watch these shows without respecting or "celebrating" their actions. Don't act all superior just because you are unable to see that complexity.

Click to expand...

The first part of your post was a thoughtful analysis of Claire this season. Kudos. I do agree the breakdown happened far too quickly.

As for your last comment, I'm afraid you're ignoring the kind of comments people make in your attempt to be superior by saying I can't see complexity. If people commonly note a character as being negative because they do not go along with the anti-hero or try to keep the anti-hero from doing bad things (despite the character having valid reasons why they would not), then they are definitely watching, in part, to see that anti-hero succeed. I just wish people would be more honest about that. I also wish they could see that having those types of characters to play against actually add depth to the anti-hero's characterization because it forces them into choices that are more difficult.

I think the problem is you don't think Claire is just as much of "the anti-hero" as Frank is. She is. Was, up until this season started. The last episode of S2, that wasn't the culmination of Frank's plans and Frank's actions. It was a culmination of THEIR plan, THEIR actions. Then S3 starts and she is basically a different character still being played by Robin Wright.

How in the hell was Frank more ruthless this season than the first two?

DickTrickle_sl said:

If people commonly note a character as being negative because they do not go along with the anti-hero or try to keep the anti-hero from doing bad things (despite the character having valid reasons why they would not), then they are definitely watching, in part, to see that anti-hero succeed.

Click to expand...

And what makes that a celebration of the worst in people? Last season, did I want to see Frank unseat the president? Absolutely. Did I want Walt to take down Gus? No question. Neither of these were because I am somehow viewing these as good things and getting some vicarious thrill, but because it's good storytelling. I don't think anyone is going to tell you Frank is anything other than a conniving, manipulative, evil man. But that is the very thing that makes him compelling to watch. It's fascinating to see how he is able to weasel his way out of problems, especially knowing his comeuppance is due, but that doesn't mean I celebrate his actions.

In the case of the wives, I would argue that a dislike of them doesn't entirely come down to them standing in their husband's way, but more because that is typically all they are. The show isn't about them. Skylar was never a fully-fleshed out character until later seasons, because it was Walt's story, and that made it so she mainly just served as an impetus for him and little more. And why would we take Walt's side over hers? Because we knew him better. We got to see the sympathetic side of him. We got to see that the reasons behind his actions weren't purely selfish (at least, not at the start).

Skylar starts off on the wrong foot with viewers because while the show is trying to make Walt sympathetic at the outset, she's an antagonist. When Walt is putting himself at great risk to ensure his family has money after he dies, she's one of the things standing in his way. I'll side with you on Skylar having a realistic reaction to finding out about Walt's meth empire (I often defended her in the Breaking Bad thread), but I can completely understand why people viewed her negatively. It isn't entirely because she was trying to do the right thing, but because up until the later seasons, she was fairly one-dimensional and served a singular purpose.

And Claire is another example of people disliking her not because she got in Frank's way, but because how the writing presented that. Claire really has had enough depth and been sympathetic to where we should have no problem being on her side, but her sudden turnaround was sloppy. It's hard to be on her side when she's being completely irrational, when she sabotaged herself and tries to blame Frank, and where she has completely unrealistic expectations of what he can do for her. The difference between Claire and Skylar, though, is that I think the writers want us to be on Claire's side, whereas the writers of Breaking Bad were intentionally trying to make people question why they had a positive reaction to negative characters and vice versa - and I think that has much more to do with how they are written than what their place was in the story.

I think I don't really hate Claire character, it's just that her development has gone from "powerful, calculating, scheming, uncunning woman" into "2014 feminist, social justice, robin hood chick" with the pussy riot state dinner, putin flirt and russian gay boogaloo. Sorry if I'm being blunt but they've wrote her as a cold hearted bitch and now we have Reddit's SuperWomyn.

Which reminds me, if some of you like well written political dramas with top notch production and awesome actors, give a try toBrotherhood. Setup looks boring, but it's in my opinion on of the best political drama around it's like The Wire in Boston.

I'd say Frank was MUCH less likeable than Claire this season, they were both good in the previous seasons but this one felt drawn out and just dragged on forever.

Saying some women in a handful of TV shows are hated therefore some people hate all women is fucking retarded.

Devlin_sl said:

Saying some women in a handful of TV shows are hated therefore some people hate all women is fucking retarded.

Click to expand...

Thanks but I never said anything close to that. Please don't fabricate in your head what I wrote to suit whatever misplaced sense of persecution or agenda you have.

I just said I found it disturbing and that was more about how that relates to the anti-hero bad guy in these shows. I even clarified that I was talking about spouses specifically. Never came close to saying that meant those people hate all women.

I still don't understand what you want people to think.

"man it sure is nice that claire is undercutting Frank, she is the true protagonist of the story for stopping him (by walking out his door, power is demonstrated by passive aggressiveness and not actions) and I hope the next season involves lengthy court room trials and an appeals process where we get to see Claire scrutinize the long forms indemnifying her for prosecution in return for her testimony, with multiple lawyer POVs debating the terms and agreements."

"Khaleesi, Arya and Cersei are weak role models in Game of Thrones, the true female protagonist is Catelyn Stark and Lysa, the two of them demonstrate the power and brilliant strategies women can have in running Kingdoms. Catelyn was brilliant in starting the war of succession and giving her helpful military tactics to her son, taking independent command secretly when needed like all strong women should."

kidding aside I think you misunderstand most of the viewers. We cheer on Frank, Walt, Don Draper, etc because they are bad ass motherfuckers. But we 100% expect them to fall and fall hard and lose everything.

A story is much more interesting if its an arc - loser shlub, rises to massive power, loses everything because they are greedy fucks who have deep character flaws. There are plenty of shows where good guy stays good and gets the girl and kids and lives happily ever after and those are great too, but that is not BB, HoC, or Mad Men. HoC was rare in that the "main character" was a combo of Frank and Claire and Claire was a bad ass bitch, but now its really unclear what the fuck Claire is (Frank is still a major asshole, in way over his head but Claire just seems confused/lost) and thats annoying/disappointing. Maybe they redeem it in the next season, but her arc this season was written badly.

there are definitely shows where we celebrate assholes being assholes (Archer, Its Always Sunny) but I think only a few people think that way of HoC/Frank. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Anyone trying to defend Clair this season is just a shithead, pure and simple. You can't defend her on her merits(she was shitty at the UN, shitty as a first lady, and shitty as Frank's partner in crime). She isn't suddenly becoming some moral compass for the show. She's still just as ambitious as she was, she just sucked ass when given the opportunity, drug Frank down, and then when he finally got tired of her bullshit causing him problems she decided he was an asshole and told him to go fuck himself. It wasn't even that he realized what a shitter she was, it was that she did and she couldn't live with it. She believed the whole time they were equal partners and when it came down to it she wanted to be more than she could be and fucked everything up, then got pissy and left.

It was a shit character and a huge break from what she had been the first two seasons. Basically when she was Frank's sidekick she could seem interesting and compelling, but when they gave her co-lead she couldn't hold his jock. The only compelling thing on this season was Stamper, and that was mostly because everything involving Frank ended up being weighed down by Clair bullshit all season long. Even though last season wasn't a great TV show it was at least entertaining. This was a slog.

Claire sucks. Robin Wright sucks. This show sucked. And now this thread sucks because we're talking about it.

I can see a transition from frank, but they need an actor that can hang with spacey.

lanx_sl said:

actually the first 2 eps of s3, claire was her badass bitch self, then she took the downward spiral to fucks ville. Cuz i remember watching them (the first eps really was about stamper and his recovery anyway, with bits of claire and frank, probably what made it tolerable) and saying, yea, they're a powerful evil tag team. then eps3 and fuck.

Click to expand...

It was either ep 1 or 2 where she had her little meltdown at her confirmation hearing. That was real retarded, sir.

Honestly, that would have been way better than him making her UN ambassador and them rewriting her character to suddenly be an moran who gets played by Russia all day.