Is House of Cards a quality T.V. show?

 

        Netflix series House of Cards is a show that people love to watch- and talk about. People of all ages, professions, locations are watching this. When season two was released on Netflix, President Barack Obama was even tweeting about it; some may attribute binge watching by congressmen to the government shutdown last year (kidding). However the quality of the show is questioned by critics, such as Ph.D. Anne Helen Petersen. Petersen raises the question, is there any real quality to House of Cards? Can it be valued as a true, pure work of art, or is it just mere entertainment? In order to prove that House of Cards is a quality show we must develop a test to determine what constitutes a quality T.V. show.

        According to the Los Angeles Review of Books, Anne Helen Petersen is a Ph.D. from the University of Texas – Austin in the Department of Radio-Television-Film. She is currently a teacher of film and media studies at Whitman College in Washington. In "House of Cards Is Just Okay. And Thats Okay.", Petersen is saying that T.V. shows are claimed to be "quality" for all of the wrong reasons. "...we’re still using the same rhetoric: if a show looks beautiful, has a complicated narrative, and offers a showrunner (and Hollywood stars to boot, if available!), then it’s quality." (Petersen 1) She believes that none of these things truly make a show "quality", although people seem to believe that this does. She explains that many shows that have great reputations are merely soap operas with larger budgets. She uses Game of Thrones as an example, saying that it is just a soap opera, with nice scenery and a large budget. People's reluctance to agree with this, trying to legitimize their show, exemplifies the problem according to Petersen. She argues that people become defensive when it comes to television, trying to validate that what they watch as something with real quality. She then turns to discuss House of Cards; describing that its captivating, yet simple, and not in a bad way. It does its job, captivating viewers and gets people to talk about it. However Petersen believes that calling it "quality" has no meaning. “Ultimately, House of Cards reminds me of another show characterized by political intrigue, narrative complexity, and high production values: Scandal.  So many of my students feel like they have to apologize for their love for the show, especially the male ones, like it’s something dirty to confess. But no one feels guilty for liking House of Cards, despite its clear sibling status. Yet one show was created by a woman of color and focuses on a female protagonist, and the other was created by white males, including one of our most masculinist directors, and focuses on a white male, performing as straight.” (Petersen 1) She believes that people are proud to watch, and defend the quality of House of Cards due to the fact that is created by and focuses on straight white males. This claim however, is based simply off of speculation. Petersen definitely makes a strong, valid argument about the show and television shows in general. She may be right, in fact, that many of these shows are simply created for enjoyment and designed to get people hooked. However, can this apply to every show? How does one distinguish between a quality show and one made for simple entertainment? And is it possible to achieve both? Aside from much speculation and strong rhetoric, Petersen applies no solid evidence invalidating House of Cards as a quality show. Therefore based upon her criticism, there is no proof to the claim that House of Cards is not a quality show.

        In order to prove that House of Cards is indeed a quality show, there needs to be a test, determining what a quality show does indeed consist of. An interview with Ezra Wolfgang helps to focus on some points explaining what a quality television show needs. Ezra is a film major at Hunter College, as well as a director and film maker. Ezra was asked what makes a quality T.V. drama. According to Ezra, the strength of the protagonist as a character is one of the biggest factors in determining the quality of a show. There are three main characteristics he or she would need. The character needs a challenge, and a motivation driving him or her to overcome the challenge. He or she would also need the capacity to change, which is known as a character arc. Thirdly, the character needs a certain characteristic, or a secret, that makes him or her unique. Throughout much research, it is seen that several other credible sources also pin point these as some of the most important characteristics a very good protagonist would need. Scripteach and The Latino Author both support these points. "There are ways to make your protagonist successful.  One of the ways is to set your protagonist on a mission.  Give them a purpose and revolve your story around the pursuit of that goal.  Make them interact with other characters about that purpose.  Adding obstacles to that goal will bring your story together.  Make your protagonist proactive in search of this goal" (The Latino Author).  So for a test, we will analyze House of Cards, more specifically Frank Underwood, to see if he qualifies as a strong protagonist.

     We look for a challenge, and something to motivate Frank in House of Cards. What drives him? This is clear from the beginning of the show, Frank Underwood is driven by power. His need for power has helped him overcome any challenge that has gotten in his way thus far. Frank’s overall challenge was rising to the presidency. With his sole motivation being power, Frank has not stopped until he has now gained the most powerful position in the free world. As he is sworn into the presidency, Frank has an aside- “One heartbeat away from the presidency and not a single vote cast in my name. Democracy is so overrated.” This soliloquy symbolizes Frank’s journey thus far. Although he faced many challenges throughout his journey, Frank looks back on it like it was nothing. His thirst for power makes all the challenges that he comes across seem minuscule. Frank’s motivation has become so strong he will truly let nothing get in his way. As for a character arc, Frank becomes more ruthless and power hungry with every episode, which has lead to unspeakable things. In the very first episode, Frank is shocked to discover that President Walker went back on his word. He was promised the position of Secretary of State, and spent much time, effort and resources helping Walker get elected because of that promise. Feeling betrayed, and powerless, Frank made sure to never be taken advantage of the same way again. As the show went on, Frank’s actions have become ruthless and destructive. When Peter Russo began drinking again, Frank’s plan was falling into place. Pennsylvania needed a new candidate for governor, and who better than the former governor/current vice president. Frank could then fill in the vice president’s shoes. However Russo was still a wild card, he knew too much, and his actions would be unpredictable. So Frank Underwood took it into his own hands to fake Peter Russo’s suicide. Just the simple starting of a car engine and locking the garage door solved all of Frank’s problems, and he showed no remorse. Frank went through a similar situation in season two when Zoe Barnes started asking questions about Russo’s death. She wouldn't leave it alone, so he did whatever was necessary. Frank pushed her in front of an oncoming subway train, taking his second life since the start of the show. Frank has two unique characteristics that set him apart as a character. The first is his soliloquies. These help the viewer connect with Underwood as the show goes along; you never have to wonder what he is thinking. In comparing himself the the former vice president, Frank holds up an illustration of a bull, “There are two types of vice presidents, doormats and matadors. Which do you think I intend to be” (Netflix, House of Cards). Frank uses this as a way to connect to the viewers. Without the soliloquies Frank Underwood would be a much more distant character who the viewers cannot relate to. Another secret that makes Frank unique is his closeted bisexuality. When Frank visits his old school he has a moment with an old friend. It is implied that they had a homosexual encounter in their earlier years. At the end of season two, there is another moment, where Frank and Claire Underwood seduce Frank’s bodyguard, Edward Meechum. This secret is very unique and scandalous, it brings much intrigue to Frank as a protagonist.

        Frank Underwood fits all of the criteria in the test to qualify as a good protagonist. This implies that House of Cards is a quality T.V. show because it has a strong protagonist. Frank Underwood is a powerful character and has a large influence on the quality of the show. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

 

"4 STEPS TO CREATING A TRULY ACTIVE PROTAGONIST." Scripteach. Wordpress, n.d. Web.

 

Hill, Logan. "The 13 Rules for Creating a Prestige TV Drama." Vulture. Vulture, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.

 

House of Cards. Netflix. N.d. Television.

 

Loofbourow, Lili. "Shakespere Performance Art." The Los Angeles Review of Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014.

 

Petersen, Anne Helen. "House of Cards Is Just Okay. And Thats Okay." The Los Angeles Review of Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014.

 

"What Is a Protagonist?" Thelatinoauthorcom. The Latino Author, n.d. Web. 22 Dec. 2014.

 

Wolfgang, Ezra. "What Makes a Quality T.V. Drama?" Personal interview. 1 Dec. 2014.