Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Bc. Martina Jergová

House of Cards Comparative Analysis: Machiavellian Leader

Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Jeffrey Alan Smith, M.A., Ph.D. 2018

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

Acknowledgement I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor Jeffrey Alan Smith, M.A., Ph.D. for his valuable suggestions during the planning and development of this work. Without his extensive feedback the thesis would lack much of its comprehensibility. I would also like to thank my family for enabling me to achieve this point in my studies and František for his support and passionate discussions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Aims……………………………………………………………...1

1.2 Theoretical Approaches…………………………………………………………….6

2. Machiavelli

2.1 The Prince & House of Cards: Different, Yet Similar.…………………………….8

2.2 A Devout Patriot: Machiavelli’s Biography…..…………………………………..11

2.3 Redeeming The Prince…………………………………………………………….15

2.4 The Ideal Prince...…………………………………………………………………17

3. House of Cards, the Novel

3.1 Background………….…………………...……………………………………….21

3.2 Narrative and Symbolism in the Novel…………………………………………...21

3.3 Plot Overview………………………….………………………………………….23

3.4 Ambition, Revenge?: The Reason FU Longs for Power………………………….25

3.5 FU’s Road to Power: By All Means Necessary…………………………………...26

3.6 FU for Prime Minister: Criminal Activities Continue…………………………….31

3.7 Francis Urquhart, a Great Deceiver……………………………………………….36

3.8 Francis Urquhart, a Modest Public Servant………………………………………36

3.9 Francis Urquhart, a Ruler Without Staff.………………………………………….39

3.10 “Silly Old FU”…………………………………………………………………...39

4. BBC Television Series, the British Adaptation

4.1 Background……………………………………………………………………….41

4.2 Narrative and Symbolism in the Series…………………………………………...42

4.3 House of Cards, To Play the King, The Final Cut: Plot Overview..……………...44

4.4 Making Britain Proud Again: Purpose of Urquhart’s Hold of Power…………….46

4.5 The Road to Power: In the Footsteps of FU#1……………………………………48

4.6 “No, There is No Truth in the Accusation”: FU, an Occasional Liar………….….51

4.7 Francis Urquhart and the Ordinary Citizens...…………………………………….52

4.8 Elizabeth Urquhart: the Priceless Advisor….………………………………….….53

4.9 Machiavellian Tactics, Urquhart’s Ends.………………………………………….56

5. Netflix Production, the American Adaptation

5.1 Background.……………………………………………………………………….60

5.2 Narrative and Symbolism in the Series..………………………………………….61

5.3 Plot Overview..…………………………………………………………………....62

5.4 To Leave a Legacy – Frank Underwood’s Purpose of Gaining Power...…………63

5.5 “The Road to Power is Paved with Hypocrisy, and Casualties”: Frank’s Rise to

Power and Struggle to Keep it…………………………………………………….66

5.6 “I Lied in the Oval Office Before”: Frank Underwood Not Being Virtuous.…….71

5.7 “I Don’t Care Whether You Love or Hate Me”: Frank’s Perceived Reputation….73

5.8 Frank Underwood and His Staff.………………………………………………….75

5.9 Frank Underwood, the Man of Action: Conclusion………………………………78

6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….81

7. Bibliography

7.1 Works Used.………………………………………………………………………85

7.2 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………….85

8. Resumé (English).…………………………………………………………………….93

9. Resumé (Czech)………………………………………………………………………95

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and the Aim

When in 2013 the company for online streaming, Netflix, produced their own show for the first time, it became an immediate success. House of Cards earned nine nominations for Primetime Emmy Awards – becoming historically first television series distributed only via the Internet to achieve that (Stelter) – as well as other nominations for Golden

Globe Awards and Screen Actor Guild Awards (“SAG Awards”). Kevin Spacey portrayed a “Machiavellian” politician on his way to the White House and a no less prominent actress, Robin Wright, co-starred as his career-driven and ambitious wife.

Both won Golden Globes for their performances (“Winners & Nominees”).

It is, perhaps, less known that the show is based on a television series produced in Britain back in 1990, which, in turn, was based on a novel written the year before.

The British version is considerably shorter than the American one, but it also earned its protagonist’s actor, Ian Richardson, a founding member of the Royal Shakespeare

Company, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts award for the best actor

(“BAFTA”).

House of Cards the novel was written in 1989 and it, too, became a bestseller, though for its author, Michael Dobbs, writing was nothing more than his “little private therapy” – “I was on the tiny island of Gozo and in a sore mood. I started complaining about everything – the sun, the sea, and in particular the latest bestseller. Soon my partner was fed up. ‘Stop being so bloody pompous,’she said. ‘If you think you can do any better, for God’s sake go and do it’” (Dobbs, “Afterword”). Which he did, and although he had “no thought of getting it published”, Michael Dobbs has never regretted the decision to make House of Cards public. The other reason why Dobbs wrote the

1 book, or rather why he chose the topic he did, is far more interesting, and will be discussed later.

These are three different works, which differ in the period they were published, the medium, or both. Additionally, there are cultural differences, caused by the shift from the British to the American political system. Nevertheless, the important thing they all share is the protagonist, the antihero without whom the story could not exist –

Francis Urquhart, renamed in the American series to Frank Underwood.

These three versions of the protagonist are often being described by the adjective

“Machiavellian”, in academic essays as well as in newspaper and magazine articles.

David Smith, writing for The Guardian, calls Frank Underwood “the Machiavelli of

Washington” (D. Smith, “House of Art”), while Stephen Kelly, writing for the same newspaper, sees House of Cards as “the show [that] was a parallel universe [to the real world] in which Washington, so mundane in reality, became the domain of snakes and raptors, of Machiavellian masterminds epitomised by Democratic congressman Frank

Underwood…” (Kelly, “House of Cards”). In the article about “Trends in Political

Television Fiction in the UK”, Liesbet van Zoonen and Dominic Wring perceive the

British series of House of Cards as “the story of coldblooded and suave Tory Chief

Whip Francis Urquhart on his Machiavellian route to the premiership” (Van Zoonen,

Wring). In her article about House of Cards and journalism, Marjolaine Boutet states this when writing about transition from the British series to the American one: “The

Chief Whip Francis Urquhart becomes the Majority Whip Francis “Frank” Underwood, and his Machiavellian plot to become Conservative Party Leader (in Britain) turns into a manipulative scheme to become Vice-President” (Boutet, “The Politics of Time”).

Sandine Sorlin in her book Language and Manipulation in House of Cards writes about

“Machiavellian politics embodied by Francis Underwood”, the “Congressman serving

2 his own personal interest to get to the top of the nation” (Sorlin 6). House of Cards and

Philosophy: Underwood's Republic deals with the relationship of Frank Underwood and

Machiavelli several times throughout the book, such as in the sections named

“American Machiavelli” and “Machiavelli Would Not Be Impressed” (Hackett).

Anthony Petros Spanakos contributed to the book Politics and Politicians in

Contemporary US Television: Washington as Fiction with a chapter asking: “Would

Niccolò Machiavelli endorse House of Cards’ Frank Underwood?” (Spanakos). The last example mentioned here is the BBC documentary about Machiavelli called “Who’s

Afraid of Machiavelli?”, in which one of the contributors asked to talk about the

Florentine politician is Michael Dobbs, the author of the novel House of Cards.

Niccolò Machiavelli, the author of The Prince and advisor of princes, lived more than 500 years ago. Yet his name, which is now a dictionary entry, is often used in the present times to describe world leaders, fictional characters, but also ordinary people who did something “Machiavellian” – as seen in the previous paragraph, it applies also to the House of Cards’ main character. What it means to act in such a way explains the

Cambridge Dictionary as “using clever but often dishonest methods that deceive people so that you can win power or control”, similarly, the Oxford Dictionary definition for

“Machiavellian” is to be “cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics”, with the example “a whole range of outrageous Machiavellian manoeuvres”. The

Macmillan Dictionary defines it as “using clever tricks and dishonest methods to achieve an aim, especially in politics”, and another major dictionary states that “if you describe someone as Machiavellian, you are critical of them because they often make clever and secret plans to achieve their aims and are not honest with people” (The

Collins Dictionary). The Free Dictionary offers besides definitions similar to those above one that explains “Machiavellian” as “being or acting in accordance with the

3 principles of government analysed in Machiavelli’s The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality”, or someone who is “a follower of Machiavelli's principles”.

The word “Machiavellian” has spread to other fields and disciplines than, say, political studies and history, which were themselves the subject of Machiavelli’s writings, and is being used not only in the context of ruling a state. In psychology,

Machiavellians are people who are “temperamentally predisposed to be calculating, conniving, and deceptive”, such personality type “does not choose to be, but simply is, a master manipulator” (Hartley). In design and advertisement terminology, “the

Machiavellian Lens comprises design patterns which, while diverse, all embody an ‘end justifies the means’ approach”, which means they control and influence a customer’s behaviour through design, even though they are often considered unethical (“Design”).

“Machiavelli” can be found even there where he would be little expected – Salma

Hayek, the American-Mexican actress contributed to the #MeToo movement1 with her story about constantly having to say “no” to sexual offers of a film producer Harvey

Weinstein, who always responded with a “Machiavellian rage” (Hayek, “Harvey”). This last example supports the idea that this adjective is in the present used mostly in a negative sense and not referring to Machiavelli himself – he, in fact, never dealt with the subject of “rage”, not included it in his book of advice.

The aim of this work is compare the three versions of House of Cards and to study these works and their protagonist from the “Machiavellian” perspective – to create a provisional definition for the adjective “Machiavellian” by analysing The

Prince, and, subsequently, to identify the features by which the main character differs from an ideal prince as imagined by Machiavelli and when, on the other hand, he does

11 The #MeToo movement began in 2017 and brought together (mostly) women who revealed and shared their stories about being sexually harassed by men. 4 act according to advice presented in The Prince. Upon employing the Machiavellian lens on House of Cards and its protagonist, we will see that neither of the three versions analysed in this work can be seen as an ideal Machiavellian ruler. The major goal that

Machiavelli advocates an ideal prince should achieve is to “bring prosperity” to his country and its citizens and “honour to himself”. In all three versions the protagonist employs many of Machiavelli’s tactics, but fails to achieve that crucial goal. The screened version of Francis Urquhart and Frank Underwood initially show a potential interest in reforming their country, yet eventually they focus on their own pursuit of power. Furthermore, the Machiavellian lens show that in both the 1991 British mini- series and 2013 American series, the extent to which the main character is willing to go to keep hold of power grows, compared to the novel, with Francis Urquhart from the series being the only one who has to be stopped, contrary to the other two who end their rule themselves.

The Prince is Machiavelli’s most famous, most controversial, and most discussed work and the one thanks to which his name has lived through centuries. As

George Bull puts it in the Introduction to his translation of the book – “it is not so unfair that he should be judged by The Prince, which, after all, is his supreme masterpiece and which contains the essence of his political thought” (Bull xvi). And even though

Machiavelli wrote several important political works (The Art of War, History of

Florence, The Discourses on Livy) as well as plays and poetry, it is The Prince that is the primary material when discussing Machiavelli in this thesis. However, such analysis as presented in the previous paragraph requires a clear definition of the word

“Machiavellian”, which will be presented later, in the section 2.4.

5

1.2 Theoretical Approaches

Since it is this thesis’ goal to examine House of Cards’ protagonist from the

Machiavellian perspective, a method of comparative analysis will be employed. In his article “How to Write a Comparative Analysis”, Kerry Walk writes about “lens” comparison, when, comparing “A” and “B”, “you use A as a lens through which to view

B” (Walk). He argues that such comparisons are “useful for illuminating, critiquing, or challenging the stability of a thing that, before the analysis, seemed perfectly understood” and, using such method, “earlier texts, events, or historical figures may illuminate later ones, and vice versa”. In this case, Machiavelli and The Prince may be considered “A”, or the lens, through which “B” – House of Cards and its protagonist – is viewed. As mentioned in the previous section, after formulating a provisional definition for the word “Machiavellian”, which will consist of five ideas, or instructions, selected from The Prince, this concept will be applied to each of the three versions of

House of Cards – that is, it will be studied whether the main character behaves in a way taught by Machiavelli or not. We will see that each version of House of Cards is different from the other two, but from the Machiavellian perspective, the two newer versions are closer to the concept of “Machiavellian” than the original novel, although it is still power for its own sake, not the general good, that all three protagonists are after.

Although this work’s main aim is to look at House of Cards through the

Machiavellian lens, it also compares and contrasts its three versions with each other. For these purposes, an approach dealing with adaptations of different works of art is required. A Theory of Adaptation by a renowned literary theorist Linda Hutcheon provides necessary insights into the world of adaptations which are essential for this thesis. Hutcheon provides a number of examples to support her theories, she defends adaptations against claims that they are “secondary” to their originals, and examines

6 them not as “autonomous works”, but as “deliberate, announced, and extended revisitations of prior works” (Hutcheon xiv).

Another method employed in this thesis studies works of art in a similar way, that is, not detached from the conditions in which they were written, but taking into consideration historical, cultural, and social context of the work – known as historical criticism – which is crucial particularly in understanding Machiavelli and his message.

Biographical criticism, too, will be employed, since learning about Machiavelli’s life, in

Maurizio Viroli’s words, “helps us to understand the meaning of The Prince and to better identify the date of composition of the ‘Exhortation’” (63). Only after the message from The Prince is decoded and clearly defined can it be applied to House of

Cards and study how Machiavellian its protagonist is.

For the purposes of this work, to distinguish between the three different versions of the House of Cards protagonist and to avoid necessity to provide his full name all the time, following abbreviations will be used: FU#1 for Francis Urquhart in the novel,

FU#2 for Francis Urquhart in the British series, and FU#3 for Frank Underwood in the

American series.2

2 Initials “FU” are used by Dobbs himself, when he admits it was the very first thing he came up with when beginning to write House of Cards (Dobbs, “Afterword”). Whatever offensive connotations this abbreviation may evoke, it is in no way idea of this thesis to incorporate them into its text. 7

2. Machiavelli

2.1 The Prince & House of Cards: Different, Yet Similar

The Prince is a serious political text written by an experienced diplomat; House of

Cards is a contemporary popular television show and a work of fiction. The former was first created in the early 16th century in Italy, the latter at the end of the 20th century in the United Kingdom (and the United States of America). Since this thesis works with both of them simultaneously, it is vital to look at them from various perspectives. How can such different works be studied together, and what makes them more similar than they appear to be?

Machiavelli was living and writing in a very different age from ours, culturally, but mainly politically. The 16th century was a period when his native Italy “suffered from incessant and often brutal warfare” and “[t]he Italian states…were crushed between the rival ambitions of foreign powers” (Bull x). It was the period when the popes, heads of the Roman Catholic Church, were not just waving at people in Saint

Peter’s square, but fought in wars – such as Pope Julius II, called “the warrior pope”

(Shaw) – and took part in massacring a whole city – as did Pope Leo X in Prato

(“Prato”). All three versions of House of Cards were created and are set in a time of peace, neither Britain nor the United States are in war with any other country and, as presented in the works, they are not under an immediate threat from a foreign power.

Moreover, in The Prince, Machiavelli writes about “principalities”, that is, countries ruled by a sole ruler, a prince; specifically, about the new, composed principalities, which a prince does not inherit, but has to win himself. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is officially head of state, but has no political or executive role; the Prime Minister and the Parliament govern. The United

States of America, on the other hand, is a federal republic, led by the President and the

8 government. The very different setting of The Prince and House of Cards has to be taken into consideration when dealing with these works together.

The two works differ in the genre, too. The rules and instructions in The Prince were meant to be followed by a real, existing ruler to lead an actual country. The examples Machiavelli uses throughout the book are from the real world as well – how did a particular leader perform in a particular event and why what he did was or was not the best he could do, suggesting what could have been done differently to improve the performance. House of Cards, on the other hand, is a work of fiction with imaginary characters and made-up plot (although it was inspired by real events and people).

However, The Prince may be considered also from another perspective. When

Machiavelli writes about the ideal prince who would save Italy from the barbarians and its own decadence, he states the qualities he should have, how he should behave, what relationship he should have with his ministers, soldiers, ordinary people, and enemies – therefore, he imagines a prince. He created a fictional prince who, if incarnated by a real human being, could be the saviour of Italy. In his introduction to the Penguin edition of

The Prince mentioned above, George Bull describes it as “Machiavelli’s imaginative creation of the supreme type of the new ruler” (Bull xvii), while Maurizio Viroli, one of the world’s leading Machiavelli scholars, writes in his book Redeeming The Prince3 that

“the image of the founder and redeemer that he [Machiavelli] shapes is clearly a work of imagination, even if he was exhorting real human beings like the Medici” (Viroli 66).

Therefore, looking at The Prince from this perspective, it can be said that Machiavelli in his work created a fictional political leader who runs a country – and put this way, it does not seem so different from House of Cards.

3 The title of the book is intentionally italicized as a whole, although The Prince is itself a title and, therefore, as part of another title should not be in italics. This should prevent confusion. 9

In Redeeming The Prince, Maurizio Viroli presents an idea that Machiavelli created a “political myth” in order to “motivate a new prince to be a redeemer” (5).

Viroli and his book have an important role in this thesis, since this work is partly based on a claim presented in that book, which says that the last chapter of The Prince –

“Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians” – is crucial for its understanding (it will be discussed in more details later, in the section 2.3). In Viroli’s view, “myths inspire, impel action, sustain commitment. They are political forces” (75). Generally, myths have been around for quite some time and studied by several philosophers as well as scientists. Claude Lévi-Strauss, for example, studied myths from different cultures and “was trying to find out if there was some kind of order behind this apparent disorder” (Lévi-Strauss 3). Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung in his studies of myths concentrated – among others – on archetypes, “shared concepts” which “permeate the collective unconscious and emerge as themes and characters in our dreams and surface in our culture - in myths, books, films and paintings, for example” (“Carl Jung:

Archetypes”). In The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, Jung presents four main archetypes – the figure of the shadow, anima, wise old man, and corresponding figures of the feminine unconscious (Jung 41). However, many other archetypes may be recognized, such as the twelve archetypes as suggested by Carol Pearson and Hugh

Marr in their guidebook What Story are You Living?, one of which is The Ruler, described as possessing “sovereignty, responsibility, and competence. He seeks to provide resources, harmony, support, and order to life. At his best he takes control when things are in disarray, having a highly developed sense of responsibility” (Hautala,

Routamaa 2).

Myth is defined in various ways. The Oxford Dictionary offers several definitions – “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people

10 or explaining a natural or social phenomenon”, “a widely held but false belief or idea”,

“a misrepresentation of the truth”, and the one which perhaps suits best the topic of this thesis – “an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing”. Machiavelli in his “political myth” created an ideal prince, the founder and redeemer, seemingly flawless, who would know exactly when to lie and when to be honest, whom to trust, whom to consider an enemy, and how to make his people respect him.

House of Cards focuses on a fictional politician who is trying to gain more power and influence, using honest as well as dishonest techniques until he becomes the leader of a country. Although completely a work of fiction, it is interesting to consider its relationship with a reality. In The Presidents We Imagine: Two Centuries of White

House Fictions on the Page, on the Stage, Onscreen and Online, Jeff Smith discusses the importance of stories about leaders, since they are often projections of the nation itself. Moreover, political fictions may also “anticipate” “developments in actual politics” and “help them along” (Smith 13). Likewise, the fact that political fictions are often linked to real-life politics may possibly affect “people’s political understandings, judgements, and engagement” (Van Zoonen, Wring). The famous catch phrase popularized in the British series – “You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment”

– entered the political phrasebook and was even quoted in the House of Commons

(Youngs).

Therefore, although the two works are of two different genres, this thesis supposes that it is possible to look at both of them, House of Cards and The Prince, from the perspective of both fiction and reality.

11

2.2 A Devout Patriot: Machiavelli’s Biography

“I love my country more than my soul” – the quote of Niccolò Machiavelli from his letter to Francesco Vettori written in 1527 opens a section which very briefly introduces him and his work. George Bull makes an important remark about The Prince saying that it “still has a bad reputation, partly because of tradition, partly because it is more often cited than read, and partly because it is frequently approached as a work of detached political philosophy rather than as an impassioned tract for the times” (Bull x).

Similarly, Quentin Skinner, a respected historian, stresses the importance of taking historical and cultural context of the 16th century into account when trying to understand

Machiavelli – “once we restore Machiavelli to the world in which his ideas were initially formed, we can begin to appreciate the extraordinary originality of his attack on the prevailing moral assumptions of his age” (Skinner 9).

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469. He was son of a lawyer, of

“ancient family but moderate means” (Bull xii), and was lucky enough to receive “an excellent humanist education” (Nederman). Young Niccolò was concerned “intimately and passionately…with the political life of his time”, Bull remarks, and in 1498 he was appointed secretary and Second Chancellor of the Florentine republic, which “brought him mainly diplomatic responsibilities”. He was a great observer and during his diplomatic trips – such as to Cesare Borgia or Pope Julius II – “he showed his genius for grasping the fundamental political condition of the states he visited, basing characteristic generalizations on a multitude of carefully observed details” (Bull xiii).

Machiavelli saw a need for Florence to have a strong army and in 1505 he was indeed appointed to recruit troops all over the Florentine territories. However, his armies could not have stand a chance against the returning Medici, a rich family of bankers, politicians, and patrons who were de facto rulers of Florence, before as well as after the

12 life of Niccolò Machiavelli. After their return, in 1512, Machiavelli was dismissed from office and lost “the most precious commodity in his life – the possibility to dedicate himself to political action” (Viroli 58). The next year, living in his country house, he began to write down his thoughts and instructions he could not use in real politics, and thus little book On Principalities, which later evolved into Il Principe, came into existence and, as mentioned in the introductory section, The Prince is the primary work for considering Machiavelli in this thesis.

The Prince is still a rather controversial book. It is “regarded as the bible of

Realpolitik” (Humphreys), as well as “a book inspired by the Devil” (Bull ix). It is divided into 26 chapters, which offer advice how to acquire and maintain power in politics, and how to govern a state. Machiavelli dedicated the book to Lorenzo de

Medici, because it was the “illustrious” House of the Medici that happened to rule over

Florence at that time, as well as being head of the Church (Giovanni de Medici was crowned Pope Leo X in 1513) (The Prince 81). He exhorted the Medici because they, as the current rulers, were the only ones who could have possibly saved Italy from its unfortunate condition, which “demanded ruthlessness on the part of any Italian state seeking to resist foreign domination” (Bull xviii).

As to the content of The Prince – Machiavelli received a humanist education (as did many of his contemporaries living in the Renaissance Italy), therefore, he studied such philosophers as Aristotle and Cicero, and was partly influenced by them. Victoria

Kahn, contributing to The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, mentioned several authors who noticed similarities between Aristotle and Machiavelli, in

“recommendations about how to acquire power”, in “discussions of liberality and parsimony”, as well as in Aristotle’s advice to the tyrant “to feign virtue if he wants to preserve his power” (Kahn 244). However, Kahn adds that some commentators

13 condemned Machiavelli, because what Aristotle only “described” Machiavelli was

“recommending”. Indeed, his views on morals were rather diverging from humanism of classical philosophers. Skinner sees “Machiavelli’s criticism of classical and contemporary humanism” as a “simple but devastating one. He argues that, if a ruler wishes to reach his highest goals, he will not always find it rational to be moral”

(Skinner 42). Machiavelli “openly rejected the Ciceronian doctrine that what is useful is also honest and that what is honest is also useful” (Viroli 107). To a considerable extent,

Machiavelli was influenced by the Romans. He often wrote about “a rebirth of ancient

Roman political wisdom”, “fantasized about the restoration of Roman military orders and virtue” (Viroli 3), and believed “in the cultural advantages of the Roman Empire”

(Makolkin 23). At the very end of The Prince, Machiavelli exhorts the Medici to ennoble their country, and ends the book with a quote of Petrarch, an Italian scholar and poet, often considered the first humanist (Morris):

Vertue ’gainst fury shall advance the fight,

And it i’ th’ combate soon shall put to flight:

For th’ old Romane valour is not dead,

Nor in th’ Italian brests extinguished. (Prince 844)

The revival of ancient virtue was a subject for Machiavelli’s poetry, too:

Oh, throw away all fear,

All enmity and hate.

All greed and pride and cruelty away!

And in your hearts once more

Let love of true and noble virtue rise,

And bring the world back to that ancient day.

4 Translation by Edward Dacres. 14

This is the only way

To open up a path to paradise

Where flame of valor never dies. (Viroli 111)

Machiavelli acknowledges that the subject of morality and princes was discussed at length before, but he wants to add his thoughts on it and presents “an original set of rules” (Prince 48). He writes that a prince should appear to be “compassionate, faithful to his word, guileless, and devout. And indeed he should be so. But his disposition should be such that, if he needs to be the opposite, he knows how” (Prince 56; emphasis added), that is, if such qualities would be harmful to him. In the same paragraph

Machiavelli stresses again that a prince “should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary”. “Necessary” to maintain the state and to protect his people – should be added, at least following

Maurizio Viroli’s theory he presents in Redeeming The Prince.

2.3 Redeeming The Prince

In his book, Viroli tries to repair the reputation of the controversial treatise in its title.

Maurizio Viroli has been studying Machiavelli for over three decades, his works, as well as his personal correspondence and his life, and published several books about him

– Machiavelli’s God (2005), Niccolo's Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli (2000), How to Read Machiavelli (2009), and other. The selected criteria for a ruler from The Prince are supported by Viroli’s theory that the last chapter of the book, “Exhortation to

Liberate Italy from the Barbarians” has always been part of the book (37), despite what some theories say (Baron 83), and, perceiving the whole book as an oration, its ending – the last chapter – bears the most importance. There, Machiavelli encourages the Medici and states that there had never been a more suitable time for a new prince, “a prudent

15 and capable man to introduce a new order, bringing honour to himself and prosperity to all and every Italian” (Prince 80). This theory rejects assertions that the book was written only to teach evil (as suggested by e.g. Leo Strauss) or to pursue one’s self- interest, and that even though Machiavelli does advice the new prince to do immoral deeds and to deceive people, it is only when such actions are necessary for bringing some good to the (Italian) people that he approves of them.

More literally, the book aims to redeem – free from the power of evil – The

Prince and its author, who, as mentioned above, are still seen as rather diabolical.

Robert Bireley argues that the book has sparked controversy since its manuscript was first distributed (Bireley 14), while Burd claims that “its immediate reception can hardly be called favourable or the reverse; it made its way slowly, as was natural, until it was printed”, and until “religion raised its voice” (Burd ix). And it did. What Machiavelli advised often diverged from Christian teachings; such as the use of violence, even if it would eventually bring peace and prosperity to the people. Although the first edition of

The Prince was “published in Rome with the papal imprimatur” (Kahn 241), in 1539

Cardinal Pole condemned the book as being written “by Satan’s hand” and in 1559 it

“appeared on the papal Index of Prohibited Books” (Kahn 244). Later, Machiavelli’s subversiveness was associated with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, yet, ironically enough, Protestants saw him as “the tutor of the Catholic kings” (Bull ix) due to his associations with the Medici, whose Pope – Leo X, or Giovanni de Medici – was the one who offered indulgences to sinners who financially contributed to rebuild St.

Peter’s Basilica in Rome and against whom Luther was protesting (“Pope Leo X”).

‘Machiavel’ as a “caricature of Machiavelli’s prince”, “the amoral teacher of force and fraud” (Kahn 246) became a popular character for the Renaissance playwrights (e.g. in

Shakespeare’s Henry VI, or Marlow’s Jew of Malta). However, later, in the 17th century,

16

“Machiavellian realism was used as a weapon against French absolutism” (Kahn 242) and in the early 19th century German philosopher Hegel in his essay on the German constitution praises Machiavelli, “an Italian statesman, [who] with cool deliberation, grasped the necessary idea of saving Italy by uniting it into a single state” (Hegel) and that Germany could be inspired by him. Viroli provides examples from his own country, when he mentions that in 1924, the Italian fascist dictator “Mussolini delivered the keynote speech that launched the new trend of Machiavelli as theorist of pure force”, but at the same time, “the best minds of the antifascist front rediscovered the myth of

Machiavelli’s prince as a liberator and a prophet”, one of the most prominent examples being Antonio Gramsci (Viroli 137).

This dual reception of The Prince throughout the centuries proves that the book has never been considered solely a textbook of evil. To thoroughly analyse Machiavelli and decide what exactly he meant by his teachings would require a thesis of its own, perhaps even more. However, this thesis has a different aim and, thus, a theory has been chosen to support ideas selected from The Prince as employed in this work. The theory is the one of Viroli’s about Machiavelli’s genuine endeavour to bring prosperity to his patria and his fellow citizens by imagining a prudent and capable man.

2.4 The Ideal Prince

The following ideas and characteristics selected from The Prince form a concept that will be applied to the House of Cards protagonist and, subsequently, it will be possible to show in which features or acts FU does follow Machiavelli’s advice and when, on the other hand, he acts otherwise. Therefore, for the purposes of this thesis, the selected ideas form the definition for the word “Machiavellian”.

17

The first point deals with the overall purpose of gaining power, why the prince should act in a devious and sometimes amoral way. According to The Prince and

Viroli’s theory, a prince should bring “honour to himself and prosperity to all and every

Italian” and to protect the state from the barbarians – that is, to redeem his country and its people, and defend them against the foreign violent forces.

The second point summarizes ideas described in chapter VIII of The Prince called “Those Who Come to Power by Crime”. Machiavelli writes that “it cannot be called prowess [virtú] to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory” (27). Cruelty can be considered “used well” only “when it is employed once for all, and one’s safety depends on it, and then it is not persisted in but as far as possible turned to the good of one’s subjects” (29). Those who persist in cruelty and do not use it well, “cannot possibly stay in power”.

The third idea selected deals with what Machiavelli writes about in chapter XV of The Prince – “The Things for Which Men, And Especially Princes, Are Praised or

Blamed”. Essential point here is that “if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need” (48). A prince, “in order to maintain his state […] is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, of religion”, but “he should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible” (56). Similarly, in chapter XVIII, Machiavelli writes that “a prudent ruler cannot, and should not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist” (55).

Another important point from The Prince is whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared. According to Machiavelli, “one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved,

18 if you cannot be both” (52), “a wise prince should rely on what he controls [fear], not on what he cannot control. He should only endeavour, as I said, to escape being hated”

(54). Concerning hatred, Machiavelli writes that a prince “will be despised if he has a reputation for being fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, irresolute” (57).

Machiavelli says that a prince should “escape the evil reputation” if it could “lose him his state”, but he also “must not flinch from being blamed for vices which are necessary for safeguarding the state” (49). Thus, his perceived reputation by the common people is a crucial aspect to focus on. Moreover, a prince should “win honour” of the people, “he should entertain the people with shows and festivities” (73). To have the goodwill of the people, to “satisfy the people and keep them content” is “one of the most important tasks a prince must undertake (59).

The last point chosen for this analysis is about “prince’s personal staff”, as described in chapter XXII. Machiavelli writes about prince’s “minister” when he argues that the prince “should be considerate towards him, should pay him honour, enrich him”

(74). The prince should choose only “wise men for his government and allowing only those the freedom to speak the truth to him, and then only concerning matters on which he asks their opinion, and nothing else” (75). He should also question his advisors

“thoroughly and listen to what they say” (75). However, he should avoid “flatterers” – those who wish to flatter or advise the prince without his request. Machiavelli writes that a “prince must, therefore, always seek advice. But he must do so when he wants to, not when others want him to; indeed, he must discourage everyone from tendering advice about anything unless it is asked for” (75).

Thus, the five points selected from The Prince are as follows:

• the overall purpose of gaining power

• the road to power and the employment of cruelty

19

• the ability not to be virtuous and not to honour one’s word

• the perceived reputation among the people and their goodwill

• personal staff

These will be applied to House of Cards protagonists from each of the three versions and we will see how the comparison of them changes when they are evaluated according to these points.

20

3. House of Cards, the Novel

3.1 Background

The 4th of June 1987 became known as “Wobbly Thursday” and events that took place that day inspired Michael Dobbs to write his first novel, House of Cards (Moore). It was one week before the General Election in the United Kingdom and Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister who was about to win her third term in office, began to wonder if she might lose. The polls were showing “Labour closing the gap” and Thatcher was suffering from a terrible toothache (Moore), the combination which made her apprehensive and nervous. During a meeting that day, she unjustly vented her anger on

Dobbs, her then chief of staff, who recalls the situation – “she stormed, she blew up a tempest, she was brutally unfair. Her metaphorical handbag swung at me time and again” (Dobbs, “Afterword”). Later, sitting “in a sore mood” beside his swimming pool on the island of Gozo, he recalled the incident again, with the words of Deputy Prime

Minister William Whitelaw – about seeing in Thatcher’s behaviour “seeds of self- destruction” – still ringing in his ears. Lord Dobbs, the former member of the

Conservative Party and a life peer in the House of Lords, a politician rather than a writer, decided – as a part of his “little therapy” – to write a story with a character whose “initials would be FU and a plot about “getting rid of a prime minister” (Dobbs,

“Afterword”). Thus, in 1989, House of Cards was first published, with its protagonist

Francis Urquhart.

3.2 Narrative and Symbolism in the Novel

The story opens with Mattie Storin, a young political correspondent trying to succeed in a masculine world of journalism, reluctantly waking up on a chilly June morning

21

(House of Cards5 7). The whole book is divided into sections whose titles correspond to the time period they represent, from Thursday 10th June to Tuesday 30th November the same year, thus the whole story lasts little less than half a year. Although Mattie Storin is the first to be introduced in the story, she is not the narrator, nor is Francis Urquhart.

The novel has a third-person, omniscient narrator, who narrates the whole story, although it is indeed Mattie and Urquhart who are most frequently the centre of attention.

Before Urquhart or any other character is introduced, there is a moth metaphor, which quite well reflects the main theme of the book. The moth is helplessly attracted to the warmth and light of a lamp, it flies still closer and closer to it as if hypnotized by its glow. Finally, it triumphs and flies close enough to touch the hot lamp – at that moment, the moth burns almost instantly, and its “charred and blackened carcass fell back from the lamp towards the ground” (HoC 9). Like a moth to a flame is a common expression suggesting irresistible and dangerous attraction to someone or something. Francis

Urquhart was attracted to power with “unspoken ambitions to make it all the way to the top” (HoC 15), which, similarly to the moth, proved to be fatal to him.

Yet another image at the very beginning of the novel depicts a detective inspector who is building a house of cards, which is supposed to help him decide whether he will spend a weekend with his wife or his mistress. If he succeeds to build it high enough, he will choose the latter option – the one he secretly prefers. As he began to build the base, he reinforced it with a double layer of cards. “It was cheating, of course, but wasn’t that what it was all about?” (HoC 10), the narrator comments, and soon after, the inspector indeed succeeds to get up to seven levels of his building, more than ever before. But his masterpiece has not stood for more than a second, when a cool

5 Hereafter HoC. 22 breeze “nudged gently into the house of cards, which first trembled, then twisted, and finally crashed to the table top with a roar which cut dead the inspector’s inner cry of triumph” (HoC 11-12).

Both metaphors suggest that desiring something too much and obtaining it by any means necessary does not ensure its lasting value and may even have harmful consequences; therefore, they predict that the novel will not have a particularly happy ending.

3.3 Plot Overview

The story begins on the election day, when it is about to be decided whether the

Conservative Party will stay in power. Francis Urquhart, sixty-one-year-old

Conservative Chief Whip, believes he will be promoted to a senior position, as he discussed it with the Prime Minister. The next day, after the Tories win the election and

Francis is refused a promotion by Prime Minister, Mattie Storin pays Urquhart a not- typically-journalistic visit, offering him collaboration on a lobby basis – he would tell her how it really is behind the scenes in Westminster, and she would never attribute any information she received to him. Urquhart sees the opportunity, he accepts the offer, and with the misleading comments he exploits the young journalist and misuses her by getting her to write, unknowingly to her, what is suitable for his rise to the premiership

– a new goal he set to achieve, triggered by the lust for revenge, to the Prime Minister and to all who doubt his abilities.

Subsequently, Urquhart misuses other people, such as the Conservative Party

Publicity Director and a drug addict Roger O’Neill, and an alcoholic brother of the

Prime Minister Henry Collingridge, and blackmails his rivals in the premiership race.

Alongside all this, he feigns his absolute loyalty and support to the prime minister. After

23

Urquhart discredits him, the race begins. Yet his chances as the Chief Whip, with no experience in governing, are not very high. Luckily, he is offered help from Benjamin

Landless, the proprietor of the Telegraph newspaper. Landless made his newspaper pro-

Conservative, dictating editors what they can or cannot write. He comes up with a plan to make Urquhart the prime minister, since they know each other and Landless knows

FU would not interfere in his interests. It is Landless who suggests the election process should be slowed, so that they will have time to discredit all other candidates, and then, when Urquhart unexpectedly joins the race, he will be a welcomed new face and will have much better chances to succeed. The plan works and on the election day, after about 80 per cent of votes have been cast, it seems that Urquhart will win by a landslide.

However, on their rooftop-garden meeting above the House of Commons, Mattie Storin reveals to Urquhart she knows about all the crimes he has committed and, moreover, she has evidence. Realizing his failure, he sees no way out and jumps off the roof to his death.

Michael Dobbs later wrote two sequels to his novel, but it was only after he was

“persuaded” to do so by the immense success of the BBC adaptation, which had an alternative ending (Rockwell). However, he offers no explanation of Urquhart’s resurrection in the sequel – how did he survive the fall from the top of the House of

Commons, or where is Mattie and her evidence. Dobbs himself admits he wanted justice and morality to win and that is why, in his first book, he let the truth-seeking journalist live, and killed the insidious political maniac (Dobbs, “Acknowledgements”).

Therefore, it seems unreasonable to take into consideration versions of Urquhart as presented in the two sequels to the original novel, since they are inevitably different from FU#1. The condition for them to exist is that FU#1 does not jump off the roof and kill himself, which, however, would mean that he is a rather different character than

24

Dobbs first created him – less cowardly and more self-confident and determined to achieve his aims, no matter by what means.

Similarly, Dobbs rewrote the trilogy in 2013 with some changes in the plot, seemingly to bring it into line with its screened adaptations. Again, the character of FU presented in the new editions unavoidably diverge from the original roof jumper. For these reasons, only Francis Urquhart from the first, original novel House of Cards, published in 1989, will be considered when his actions will be analysed through the

Machiavellian lenses.

3.4 Ambition, Revenge?: The Reason FU Longed for Power

The first idea selected from The Prince focuses on the overall purpose of gaining power.

Francis Urquhart climbed the political ladder and became the Chief Whip of the

Conservative Party. He was born in Scotland and spent his childhood wandering through bracken and moors. After his brother failed to return from Dunkirk, Urquhart’s family expected him to take care of the ancestral estates, which has never satisfied him, and instead he sold the heritage. His father has never forgiven him, but Urquhart’s appetite for politics and power prevailed and made him move to London. When he first entered Parliament, he was “harbouring unspoken ambitions to make it all the way to the top” (HoC 15), but the years were passing and he still did not achieve what he believed he was destined to. He reconciled himself to not achieving the premiership, but he believed that “at least a major Department of State would allow him to become an acknowledged national leader, repaying his father’s scorn with greater prominence than the old man could ever have dreamed of” (HoC 16). This suggests that Urquhart wanted to succeed in politics at least partly to prove to his father (probably dead by then) he is worth something.

25

It is difficult to assess what “an acknowledged national leader” means for

Urquhart. Nevertheless, it is never mentioned in the book how he wants to use the power he so much longs for. He does not present any plans on how to improve the

British society or what changes he would introduce to the parliament. It seems that one of his main motives – besides repaying the father’s scorn – is that of revenge – he wants to take the Prime Minister’s position, because he denied Urquhart a new job – which would mean he acts following his self-interest. On the contrary, Machiavelli stresses the importance of bringing “prosperity” to all people in his country.

To save the country from the foreign aggressors cannot be Urquhart’s chief reason for craving for power, either, because there are none. The story takes place in the

United Kingdom around the year 1990, it follows the fictional resignation of Margaret

Thatcher, and the country faces no immediate threat from any aggressors.

3.5 FU’s Road to Power: By All Means Necessary

Regarding the way the prince gets to power, Machiavelli writes about “those who come to power by crime” (Prince 26). He says that if the ruler kills his fellow citizens, betrays his friends, is treacherous and inhuman, it may possibly bring him power, but he will never be considered a courageous and able leader – in other words, it could not be called prowess (virtú) and thus, Machiavelli’s ideal prince should avoid such behaviour.

Machiavelli only approves of the use of cruelty when “one’s safety depends on it” and if it is “as far as possible turned to the good of one’s subjects” (Prince 29), otherwise the prince “cannot possibly stay in power” (Prince 30).

Francis Urquhart first uses cruelty to a drunk brother of the Prime Minister,

Charles Collingridge. Charlie is an aging man, not as successful as his brother, drowning his sorrow of the lost marriage in excessive amounts of liquor – yet he is a

26 good man. When the Prime Minister hints that he may not accept Urquhart’s proposed reshuffle of the Ministers, Urquhart exits the room, upset, and in another room he finds

Charlie, intoxicated with alcohol and asleep, with unpleasant odour all around him.

Urquhart is disgusted at the sight and “as his contempt mingled with the lingering humiliation he had suffered at the Prime Minister’s hands”, he began to slap the Prime

Minister’s brother, whose “whole head whipped from side to side until blood began to seep from the mouth and the body coughed and retched” (HoC 45). What he did was completely unnecessary – it did not bring him any closer to winning power, it did not change the Prime Minister’s decision, and, moreover, it did not prove Urquhart’s courage, since he had attacked a sleeping man unable to defend himself.

Urquhart’s road to power is paved with lies and cheating. However,

Machiavelli’s attitude to lying is not strictly negative, and deceiving is the main topic of the next section – but there are other deeds of FU that are not in line with Machiavelli’s teaching. Besides the useless cruelty, Machiavelli condemns treachery, a betrayal of one’s friends, and a murder of fellow citizens. As the Chief Whip, Urquhart was supposed to know “all about every man in his party who counted” (Gladstone 520) and, as the novel suggests, could use such information against his colleagues when it suited him. According to the book, the Chief Whip “needed to know where every one of his

Members of Parliament was likely to be found, with whom they were conspiring, with whom they might be sleeping, whether they would be sober enough to vote or had any personal crisis which could disrupt their work and the smooth management of parliamentary business” (HoC 14). In their article about the role of the Chief Whips,

Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart acknowledge that the whips are often perceived as “the pantomime villains of Westminster politics – a combination of arm-twister, bully, and

Machiavelli” (Cowley 36), but argue that their role is more complicated than that. The

27 whips have three main functions in the party – management, communication, and persuasion. Cowley and Stuart write that “if an MP looks likely to deviate from the party line” – with his or her ideas or voting preferences – “it is the role of the whips to persuade him or her back into the fold” (Cowley, Stuart 191).6 When they bully or threaten their colleagues instead of negotiating and making compromises, they are less successful in achieving their goals (Cowley, Stuart 198). Either way, the Chief Whip works closely with the Prime Minister, keeps him informed of possible back bench revolts as well as general party opinions, and thus earns the prime minister’s trust

(Johnson). Holding such position, Urquhart was less likely to be suspected of leaking the information from the Party, but at the same time, he possessed a great amount of personal information about his Members of Parliament.

Naturally, then, Francis Urquhart knew about O’Neill’s cocaine addiction, and did not hesitate to use O’Neill for his plan to discredit the Prime Minister Henry

Collingridge. At the beginning, Urquhart frightens O’Neill, claiming that the Party

Chairman, Lord Williams, does not particularly like him and may suspect something about his addiction, which is an utterly fabricated claim (HoC 70). O’Neill believes that

Urquhart is the only one in the Parliament who can and wants to help him, and thus is willing to do anything FU asks him to. The first task he is assigned with is to have a drink with a member of the Opposition, Steve Kendrick, and tell him a “spurious story about a non-existent publicity campaign” about a proposed hospital expansion programme (HoC 76). Kendrick does not find O’Neill’s openness suspicious, since the two are old friends, but he uses the opportunity to mention the newly acquired information and to pose a question about it to the leader of the Government during the

Prime Minister’s Question Time. This “time” is designed to give “Members of

6 The name of the post of Chief Whip has the origin in foxhunting. In this controversial sport, the role of the person called the “whipper-in” is to keep the foxhounds “in check during a hunt”, so that no dog leaves the pack (Johnson). 28

Parliament the opportunity to seek information from the leader of Her Majesty’s

Government”, but “in practice it is an exercise in survival” (HoC 77). Instead of seeking information, the questions from the Opposition Members “seek to criticize and to inflict damage”. The answers, similarly, “rarely seek to give information, but to retaliate”

(HoC 78). Therefore, when Kendrick poses the accusing question to the Prime Minister and he, in this exercise of survival, fails to react in such a way as to persuade the House of Commons about his version, it results in the undermined perception of the Prime

Minister by the Members of Parliament – exactly as Urquhart planned it.

Urquhart arranges another leak – from the Secretary of State, concerning the cuts in the Territorial Army – which means another step on the way to discredit the Prime

Minister, who again failed to control the unexpected situation (HoC 90-94). Moreover,

FU gives sensitive information to the press, confirming to Mattie that the Prime

Minister ordered an investigation of his own Cabinet members’ conduct (HoC 95).

Meanwhile, publicly, he continues to express his full support to the Prime Minister – such behaviour could be considered treacherous not only towards Collingridge, but towards the whole Party as well. However, this is only the beginning of Urquhart’s criminal journey to power.

When Urquhart receives a donation of 50,000 pounds from the “Indian gentleman” – who wishes to express his support for the Party and, if possible, to meet the Prime Minister personally – he already knows how he can use the money in his scheme. Urquhart assigns his pawn, Roger O’Neill, with opening an accommodation address to which the mail could be directed – with the name of Charles Collingridge, the Prime Minister’s alcoholic brother (HoC 103). O’Neill fulfils his task, although he actually makes Penny, his secretary, do it. At the same time, Urquhart opens a bank account, also with the name of Charlie Collingridge, with the deposit of 50,000 pounds.

29

Furthermore, he buys shares in the Renox Chemical Company worth 49, 288 pounds

(HoC 104-106). Urquhart knows that the Department of Health has already licensed three new drugs for general use – the drugs produced by the Renox company, whose shares jumped rapidly as a result. FU collects the money the new bank account has earned him, closes the account, delivers 50,000 pounds to the party treasurers like he was supposed to, and waits for the scandal about the Prime Minister’s brother to break

(HoC 108).

Leaving nothing to chance, Urquhart continues leaking information. Using

O’Neill, he ensures that Mattie reads the secret Opinion Research Survey from the

Party, which reveals the declining support for the Conservative Party, and shows even worse figures about the Prime Minister (HoC 122). Mattie does not speculate about why it was her who received the survey, but she immediately checks whether the document is genuine, and with that confirmed, she is thrilled to get it published. Her editor is less thrilled, though, since he has strict instructions from the newspaper proprietor,

Benjamin Landless, not to publish anything that could be damaging to the Government

(HoC 122-23). The press, and Landless in particular, have a crucial role in this story.

The proprietor’s views, however, change during the reception hosted by Francis

Urquhart. He explains to FU, that he – and his newspapers – support the Government, because he profits from it financially, and that he would lose his business if the

Government were to lose in the next election. Landless also plans to buy another newspaper group, but complains to Urquhart the Government will probably oppose him.

Therefore, when Urquhart hints that he would allow him to buy another newspaper group, Landless seems very open to the idea of supporting Francis instead of Henry

Collingridge, and immediately changes his decision about not publishing the disastrous opinion poll (HoC 143-147).

30

At the same reception, O’Neill’s secretary meets with Patrick Woolton, the

Foreign Secretary, as it was carefully arranged by FU. O’Neill asked Penny to have dinner and something “more” than dinner with the Foreign Secretary, with which she agreed, while Urquhart visited Woolton and – besides questioning the Prime Minister’s competence to lead the Party – exchanged their red ministerial boxes, leaving his – with the hidden radio transmitter – behind (HoC 131-39). At the reception, everything goes as Urquhart planned it and, therefore, with the sound recording from the Woolton’s apartment in the night, he acquires the perfect tool for blackmail.

In his final step to bring down the Prime Minister, Urquhart makes O’Neill alter the computer files, which then suggested that Charlie Collingridge received mail from the Sales and Literature Office, and therefore would have known about the Renox company and the newly licensed drugs (HoC 187). Everyone seems to believe the story about the Prime Minister’s brother profiting from the Government decisions. Under immense pressure and afraid for his family, Henry Collingridge resigns the office of

Prime Minister (HoC 195).

Urquhart, unexpectedly, leaks this decision from the secret Cabinet Meeting, ignoring the oath of office, and makes the Prime Minister’s resignation a sensation for the media. Urquhart’s lack of respect for the oath of office raises a question whether he would respect the office of prime minister, or whether he wanted to gain power only for his self-interest and to take revenge.

3.6 FU for Prime Minister: Criminal Activities Continue

The Party needs a new leader. Landless knows it, too, and invites Urquhart for a chat.

He asks him whether he wishes to become the prime minister himself, and offers him

31 support of his newspapers (HoC 212). Urquhart accepts Landless’s proposal and, thus, makes a criminal deal about biased newspaper articles.

Simultaneously, Mattie refuses to believe the Collingridge brothers would risk

Henry’s career for a few thousand pounds and keeps investigating. She finds Charlie and after a brief talk with him she concludes he did not buy the shares himself. She also finds out that his details could have been easily falsely entered into the computer (HoC

233). She is now almost sure the Collingridges are innocent and that Henry did not have to resign; however, her newspaper will not publish any such thing – since Landless already supports someone else. Instead, Daily Telegraph, Landless’s newspaper, publishes an article in which they openly support Urquhart – “[w]e believe it would be in the best interests of all concerned if the Chief Whip, Francis Urquhart, were to stand and to be elected” (HoC 253). Meanwhile, Mattie interrogates Penny, who indirectly confirms to her that O’Neill altered the files about Charlie Collingridge (HoC 265), however, Mattie still does not know for whom O’Neill works and who is the person responsible for all the leaks and frame-ups.

After Urquhart, as the last person, announces his candidacy, the race begins. It is not the common people, the electorate, who chose the new prime minister, but the

Members of Parliament. The rules of balloting “made sense to nobody other than those who had devised them”, the simple version is that if after the first two ballots “no victor emerged with more than half the votes, a third and final round of voting would be held between the leading candidates” (HoC 309-310). In this case, there are four candidates besides Urquhart who stand a real chance of winning – systematically, he eliminates all of them.

The first victim of Urquhart’s plan is the Secretary of State for Health, Peter

McKenzie. He is on his way to open the new factory manufacturing equipment for

32 handicapped people, and while he wants the media coverage about it, he is cautious about the possible demonstration of discontented nurses that could accompany the event. For that reason, he informed the media only three hours before his arrival, “soon enough to get their camera crews there, but not sufficient time for anyone to arrange a welcoming demonstration” (HoC 277). However, the Chief Whip is informed about this event, too, and arranges a “proper” welcome for McKenzie – with the crowd of protesters. At the first sight of the scene, Mc Kenzie’s driver immediately turns their car and drives away. Not only was McKenzie’s escape perceived as cowardice, but also their car hit a woman, which – although she “was not badly injured”, “was not indeed a nurse at all”, and was experienced “at turning a picket line drama into a newsworthy crisis” – caused the media sensation and ruined McKenzie’s chances to become the prime minister (HoC 279).

The candidacy of Harold Earle, the Education Secretary, looks promising, until the story from his past about the “brief and stupid fling” with the young man, Simon, begins to surface. The story that was known only to him – and to the Chief Whip.

Knowing he would be unable to face the indictment of the story, the Education

Secretary pulls out of the race (HoC 285-297).

For Patrick Woolton, Urquhart has already prepared a tool for blackmail. He sent the copy of the sex tape to Woolton, who thinks it is Penny who wants to blackmail him. She denies it, though, and leaves the Foreign Secretary clueless about who blackmails him. He is forced to pull out of the race, too, and, paradoxically, he decides to support Urquhart from the remaining two candidates – because he is sixty-two and likely to die sooner than the other candidate, making it possible for Woolton to run for the premiership again, until he is not too old himself (HoC 319-327).

33

Hence, there remains only one candidate who can possibly beat Urquhart –

Michael Samuel. Roger O’Neill is assigned with stealing the incriminating files about

Samuel, but he has to “force the lock” on a cabinet that contains the secret files, which subsequently “bent[s] a little” (HoC 330). Urquhart blames him for being careless and incompetent, and desperate O’Neill responds with a threat that if they find out it was him who stole the files, he will tell the truth about all criminal activity from the past weeks and reveal that he did it all for Urquhart, making them fall together. Urquhart is not going to let his pawn ruin his chance to become the prime minister. He invites him to his country house, where he mixes O’Neill’s cocaine with the rat poison (HoC 342).

The next day O’Neill dies.

Several newspapers publish articles containing secret information from Samuel’s past – those stolen by O’Neill – and although it is nothing criminal and it does not make

Samuel pull out of the race, the way the articles are written sheds a very negative light on him (HoC 346). Meanwhile, Mattie finally realizes that she did not include Urquhart as a possible suspect, since he “is not technically a full member of Cabinet”, yet he did have the access to all information needed, because “he’s Chief Whip. It’s his job to know about those things” (HoC 363). Penny confirms to her the address of Urquhart’s country house, which is near the place O’Neill was found dead. Mattie persuades

Landless that he has “backed the wrong horse” and should stop supporting Urquhart, otherwise he will only lose profit and may be associated with Urquhart’s crimes (HoC

370-376).

In the final scene, Mattie meets with Urquhart on the roof of the House of

Commons. About eighty percent of Government Members of Parliament have cast their vote, and it looks like “Urquhart’s home and dry” (HoC 376). However, Mattie

34 confronts him with the truth she knows and proofs she possesses, which results in

Urquhart’s jump to his death. That marks the end of his unsuccessful road to power.

To conclude, we can see several instances of dishonourable behaviour.

Machiavelli’s prince should not “kill” his “fellow citizens” and be “treacherous”.

Urquhart, before he poisoned O’Neill, pretended to be his supporter who would protect him from hostile Members of Parliament. In reality, however, he used him to do his dirty work for him – criminal activities such as leaking information to the press, opening the fake bank account, and stealing incriminating files – and in the end, he offered no helping hand to him. Such behaviour can indeed be perceived as treacherous.

However, Machiavelli also writes that princes, in order to avoid hatred, should

“delegate to others the enactment of unpopular measures and keep in their own hands the distribution of favours” (Prince 59). This could mean that Urquhart was acting in accordance with Machiavelli’s advice. Nonetheless, the measures O’Neill was assigned with were not the necessary measures, and they did not bring any prosperity to the

British people, so it is more likely that Machiavelli would not approve of them at all.

Similarly, Machiavelli states that cruelty can be considered “used well” when “one’s safety depends on it”, and when Urquhart kills O’Neill, it is indeed to ensure the truth will not be revealed and he will escape prosecution. But it is the danger he brought upon himself that he is now escaping from. It emerged as a by-product of his criminal road to power, therefore, it can hardly justify the murder he committed.

Urquhart’s behaviour was treacherous towards the Prime Minister, too. In numerous situations, Urquhart assures the Prime Minister of his loyalty towards him, undermining his credibility behind his back. After the Prime Minister’s decision to resign – which FU had leaked to the media – he cannot tell him how “shocked” and

“devastated” he was, expressing his deepest sadness (HoC 217). The Prime Minister

35 trusted him completely, and even in anger, he did not suspect Urquhart – “[w]ho leaked it, Francis, who? I’m damned if I know, but you’re Chief Whip and I want you to find out who the hell it was” (HoC 85).

3.7 Francis Urquhart, a Great Deceiver

“A prudent ruler cannot, and should not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist”

(Prince 55). Urquhart seems to understand this rule very well. He does not honour his word, that is, he lies, on a regular basis. As demonstrated in the previous paragraphs,

Urquhart often deceives the press – making Mattie believe that Michael Samuel wants to replace the Prime Minister (HoC 61) or lying to the media about his disinterest to become prime minister (HoC 254); he lies to the Prime Minister about not knowing the source of the leaks and the scandal with his brother, and does not hesitate to lie to

O’Neill about his genuine interest to help him, only to misuse his services. However, all his lies serve only his own interests. He does not lie to defend his country or to bring prosperity to its people – which is the crucial aim of the prince, at least according to

Viroli’s theory – although, admittedly, it is possible he would have used his power as the prime minister to improve the position of the United Kingdom, but because he never becomes the leader of the Government, there can be only hypothetical speculations.

3.8 Francis Urquhart, a Modest Public Servant

When Machiavelli writes about whether it is better to be feared or loved, he stresses that

“everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are” (56). Thus, the leader has to be careful how the public perceives him. Urquhart’s job required working “out of the limelight” and “[l]ess than 1 per cent of the Gallup Poll gave him

36 instant name recognition” (HoC 14), so he was not really concerned with the public, or with their perception of him. All the same, when making a public statement, such as declaring his intention to seek the leadership of the Party, he made sure the whole announcement seemed as modest as possible, “establishing the impression of a man who was being dragged reluctantly towards the seat of power, placing his duty to his colleagues and country above his own, modest personal interests” (HoC 267). He concealed his true nature from his colleagues, too. When Patrick Woolton came to return Urquhart his bugged red ministerial box, FU “was smiling his way through an apology”, but the second Woolton stepped outside, his “mood changed” and “his brow furrowed with concern” (HoC 159).

Machiavelli’s prince should at all costs “escape being hated” (54). He writes that a prince “will be despised if he has a reputation for being fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, irresolute” (HoC 57). While Urquhart is quite resolute and determined, there are several situations which he fails to size up, in which he lacks self-confidence, is nervous, and indeed rather cowardly, although usually he is able to conceal his true feelings. During the election night, when Henry Collingridge was elected the prime minister, Urquhart “tried just a little too hard to get to him to shake his hand, and instead managed to get in the way. He retreated apologetically …” (HoC 41), and soon after, he was “thrusting an envelope” with his ideas for Ministerial reshuffle at

Collingridge, realizing it was “hardly the time” for it – “You’re right. This is scarcely the time”, responded the Prime Minister (HoC 42-43). Later, when they were already discussing the reshuffle with Collingridge and the Party Chairman, Lord Williams,

Urquhart suggested the Party needed to bring some new blood amongst the Ministers – admitting to himself it was “a stupid thing to say with that ancient bastard Williams sitting on the PM’s right hand”, and wondering whether Williams, “staring at him with

37 his old, cunning eyes”, had figured out that by “the new blood” he meant “men who owed him” (HoC 50-51). When the Prime Minister refused his ideas for reshuffle and asked for his support all the same, Urquhart answered affirmatively, but he “felt uneasy in Collingridge’s presence, not knowing how to read him or how to respond to him”

(HoC 53). Before his public statement, announcing that he would reconsider his candidacy, he “had been waiting rather nervously” (HoC 254). Most importantly, perhaps, when he was about to kill O’Neill – by mixing his cocaine with poison –

Urquhart’s will “had become a battleground”, and the “morality and restraint” in him were telling him to stop, but eventually he did it (HoC 342).

However, it was not his “reputation”, only his own thoughts and feelings. The decisive moment, though, came at the very end, when Urquhart had to decide whether he would be so cold-blooded and unstoppable in his interests as to kill Mattie – with his own hands, not just by mixing two powders – or will admit to himself “the awful truth of his own cowardice” and end his life instead. He chose the latter option – “[t]he look of doubt crept into his eyes […], he gave a whimper as the chair dropped from his hands

[…]. He had faced his challenge, a fight to the death, confronted the truth, and had failed”. He died “with the ghostly, mocking laughter of his father” resonating in his head (HoC 382).

If Urquhart really believed he could be the great virtuous leader his country needed to become safer and more prosperous, he would not have been stopped by a single person, because the national interest would be placed above it. The ending of this novel suggests Urquhart’s primary motivation was not “Machiavellian”, as it focused on achieving his personal goals, rather than prioritizing the national interest. Either way, regarding his reputation among the people, Urquhart follows Machiavelli’s instructions.

38

3.9 Francis Urquhart, a Ruler Without Staff

Throughout the novel, Francis acts mostly alone. He does not have any staff to advise him, no counsellors he could be “considerate towards” or “enrich” them. Machiavelli warns against flatterers, and those who wish to give the prince advice even if he does not ask for it (Prince 75). The only person with whom Urquhart discusses his plans is the newspaper proprietor Benjamin Landless.

It is Landless who invites Urquhart to dinner and offers to help him become prime minister (HoC 211-215). Urquhart accepts, but Landless has to instruct him what to do. His questions, such as “[s]o where do I come into this great plan?”, “[w]hat do I have to do?”, indicate it is Landless who controls the situation, with Urquhart only following his instructions. Besides, Landless is not Urquhart’s friend nor counsellor, and, in addition, addresses Urquhart as “Frankie” and “old son”, which Urquhart hates, but tolerates. Such unrequested advice, writes Machiavelli, is something the prince should avoid.

3.10 “Silly Old FU”

The previous sections have demonstrated in which situations Francis Urquhart follows

Machiavelli’s advice and when he acts differently. Urquhart’s primary aim is not to save his country from the foreign enemies, nor does any of his deeds indicate he cares about the British people and wants to bring “prosperity” to them. While in the first point

Urquhart fails to act as the ideal prince, the second is perhaps more complicated. As described in the section 3.5, on his road to power, there are actions which could be seen as “Machiavellian” – killing O’Neill was to ensure Urquhart’s own safety, by making

O’Neill his pawn he only delegated unpopular measures to others – but the bigger picture, Maurizio Viroli’s theory and the overall purpose of these deeds, do not justify

39 this term. The third point selected from The Prince talks about knowing how and when not to honour one’s word. Similarly, he does know how not to honour his word and how not to be virtuous, yet his motives are diverging from those of Machiavelli. Urquhart has mastered his perception among the public, as well as among his colleagues. He seemed modest, old, and harmless. He was the least person anyone would suspect, which enabled him to advance on his criminal road to power. As for the last point, about leader’s personal staff, the book offers only one example when Urquhart acts contrary to what Machiavelli says – accepting advice from those who were not asked for it. He cut a deal with Landless, who, however, turned against him when the deal was no longer profitable for him.

Urquhart’s creator, Michael Dobbs, when asked about the link between House of

Cards and Machiavelli, pointed out similarity between the political situation in the late

1980s and in the 16th century – “[t]he Tory Party in the 1987-88 period, just before

Margaret Thatcher was pushed out, which is when I wrote House of Cards, it was like

Florence under the Borgias. I mean, it was full of conspiracy and dark corners and people whispering wicked things. So it wasn’t so much that I must write something which is Machiavellian, but I had lived through a time […] which I think Machiavelli himself would have recognized” (Who’s Afraid 00:20:17 – 00:20:44). He does not seem to perceive Urquhart as the unstoppable, virtuous leader, either – he expressed his astonishment at having “two iconic actors [Richardson, Spacey]” playing his “quite silly old FU” (Grice).

40

4. BBC Television Series, the British Adaptation

4.1 Background

The first series of the BBC trilogy is a very close adaptation of the book. Most of the scenes are depicted exactly as Michael Dobbs described them. In the last episode,

Francis Urquhart and Mattie Storin meet at the roof garden of the House of Commons and the viewer expects FU to jump to his death. But he does not. He grabs Mattie and throws her off instead. The BBC has decided to “let the bastard get away with it”, as

Dobbs’s aunt nicely put it (Dobbs, “Acknowledgements”), which has left them the door open for two more sequels – To Play the King (1993) and The Final Cut (1995).

Perhaps there would be even more of them, if Ian Richardson, the actor portraying FU, would not loathe his role so much that he insisted “he would do no more” (Dobbs,

RadioTimes).

The man who adapted Dobbs’s novel and wrote the screenplay for the British series is Andrew Davies. He is known for his numerous adaptations, mostly television series, including such classics as Pride and Prejudice and War & Peace. Davies and

Dobbs worked together on the adaptation of House of Cards, but gradually, their ideas about the result began to diverge. Davies recalls that they “didn’t really agree about how the story should go. So basically he [Dobbs] wrote his novel and I wrote my screenplay” (Rockwell). Davies, contrary to the Conservative Dobbs, describes himself as a republican and an inactive member of the Labour Party. He did not experience the bombing attack of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Brighton in 1984 – unlike

Dobbs, who was nearly killed there (Rockwell). These differences could perhaps explain why Davies’s series contain more violence and explosions (often unjustly blamed on IRA) than the novel, or why the series portray the Royal family in a not very positive light. Dobbs recalls that his relationship with the BBC increasingly

41 disintegrated, and that the third series, The Final Cut, had nothing to do with his book anymore (Dobbs, RadioTimes). The final straw for Dobbs was to see that the series actually portrayed the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, who was still alive at the time.

Although it was her who angered Dobbs and prompted him to write House of Cards, he still regards her as “probably the greatest peacetime prime minister in the 20th century”

(Chakelian) and after having watched the scene, he “insisted his name was excised from the credits” (Dobbs, RadioTimes).

Besides the adapter – Andrew Davies – it is useful to consider other aspects of the adaptation’s context, such as a time and a medium, a society and a culture

(Hutcheon 142). Andrew Davies’s House of Cards differs from Dobbs’s only in the medium – the written story has become a performance. The setting remains London, namely the Palace of Westminster, the period is the early 1990s, just after Margaret

Thatcher’s fictional resignation.7 Hutcheon argues that the change to a performance may include such additions as “inserting new characters or increasing suspense” (37). In the British series, there are several more and less important new characters – among which are Elizabeth, Urquhart’s influential wife (portrayed by Diane Fletcher); Tim

Stamper, a Junior Whip and Urquhart’s oldest friend; Sarah Harding, FU’s political advisor specializing in surveys; or the newly crowned King, FU’s antagonist. These and other additional characters either stand by Urquhart, or have their own storylines, usually about relationships, which shift the focus from Francis.

4.2 Narrative and Symbolism in the Series

The very first scene of the first episode of House of Cards shows Francis Urquhart himself – he contemplates a framed picture of Margaret Thatcher, puts it face down on a

7 The first episode was aired on the 18 th of November 1990, four days before Thatcher actually resigned (Travis). 42 table, and speaks directly to the audience. This foreshadows the whole series – Urquhart is the central character who comments on events and people around him. Moreover, by breaking the fourth wall and talking to the audience, he makes the viewers his accomplices, sharing secret plans with them and keeping them in the loop. In the move from telling to showing, Hutcheon suggests, “a performance adaptation must dramatize: description, narration, and represented thoughts must be transcoded into speech, actions, sounds, and visual images” (40). In the series, Francis Urquhart’s inner thoughts are expressed in his asides to the audience, letting the viewers know what his intentions and attitudes are. The method of breaking the fourth wall (the imaginary wall between the actors and the audience that keeps up the illusion of theatre) was frequently used in

Shakespeare’s plays, enabling the character to share with the audience thoughts that he or she did not want to reveal to other characters (“Breaking the Fourth Wall”). In

Shakespeare’s Richard III, the protagonist uses asides not only to share his intrigues with the audience, but also to express his character, such as by making a “flippant remark” (Clemen 105) – something which is typical for the screened version of FU, too.

Instead of a moth metaphor or a falling house of cards, in the first series there are rats shown in between the scenes. Their occurrence in the story may symbolize various things. Frequently, rats evoke something unpleasant and disgusting, possibly dangerous, they are associated with diseases and the decadence of a city life, or are seen as a vermin one needs to get rid of. However, rats are also known to be quite intelligent creatures and have the ability to adapt and survive despite the harsh conditions.

Therefore, rats might refer to the decadence of politics, which is portrayed as full of wickedness, corruption, and personal ambitions (Dobbs, RadioTimes), they may also symbolize a hidden threat – since the city rats live mostly hidden in the sewers and underground and surface only in the night – which FU with his concealed nature

43 certainly represents. On the other hand, however, their ability to survive may point out to FU’s reluctance to give up – even when everyone sees his premiership must come to an end, he is fighting until his last breath.

4.3 House of Cards, To Play the King, The Final Cut: Plot Overview

Francis Urquhart’s road to power depicted in the first series, House of Cards, is identical with that of his predecessor in the novel. When Urquhart becomes the Prime

Minister, he encounters an obstacle embodied in the newly crowned King, who wants to build a compassionate and caring British society, where all would be equal. Urquhart finds it unacceptable for a constitutional monarch, who is not “supposed to think”, to publicly oppose his own government. The tension between the two escalates and

Urquhart resolves to force the King to abdicate. Meanwhile, FU hires Sarah Harding, a survey specialist who arranges polls favourable to him and the government. Urquhart arranges an insurance policy against the King, persuading Princess Charlotte, the former wife of a royal family member, to reveal lurid details about the royals.

The King continues to oppose Urquhart and his hard-line policies on welfare and becomes the unofficial leader of the Opposition. Furious Urquhart makes the embarrassing stories about the Royal family public. The final nail in the King’s coffin is his tour to visit people in disadvantaged and poor areas, where he refuses to include a security detail – to show he is one of his people. However, FU arranges a fake attack on the King and then heroically saves him. Subsequently, the Conservative Party wins the general election that Urquhart had called; FU proves he still has support of the British citizens and demands the King’s abdication. At the same time, Sarah Harding and Tim

Stamper find out about Mattie Storin’s death and Urquhart, on Elizabeth’s request, has them killed (IMDb “To Play the King”).

44

In The Final Cut, Francis Urquhart wishes to leave a legacy – both political and financial. His wife suggests making a deal with a Turkish-Cypriot businessman, Mr.

Nures, who will contribute to their Urquhart Trust – if they influence the British judge in the commission deciding about the new boundaries of Cyprus to rule favourable to

Turkish-occupied Cyprus. Mr. Nures knows there are oil fields in one area at the shores of Cyprus, and if that area belonged to Turkey, he would profit immensely from it, and would provide money for the Urquhart Trust, too. Concerning his political legacy, FU takes credit for the peace deal in Cyprus, which was, however, negotiated by the

Foreign Secretary, Tom Makepeace. FU forces Makepeace to resign. Subsequently,

Makepeace launches an attack on Urquhart and agrees to help a young Greek-Cypriot woman, Maria Passolides, identify the killer of her two uncles, who died in Cyprus during the conflict in the 1950s – she suspects the truth, that the killer is in fact

Urquhart.

Makepeace’s questions in the House of Commons contribute to Urquhart’s rising unpopularity. Urquhart leaks the information about the oil fields and thus starts “a small war” in Cyprus, shifting the attention of the British citizens from his government.

It all goes very badly, however, and Urquhart is so unpopular that he would not stand a chance in the next election. Yet he refuses to admit that and he desperately wishes to serve longer than the woman he hates, Margaret Thatcher. After he becomes the longest serving post-war Prime Minister, Elizabeth takes the situation into her own hands and to ensure Francis will come out of the situation unsullied, she and their bodyguard arrange

Francis’s death – making it look like he was shot by Maria’s father, taking revenge for his brothers (IMDb “The Final Cut”).

45

4.4 Making Britain Proud Again: Purpose of Urquhart’s Hold of Power

At the beginning of the series, Francis Urquhart, like his novel version, is refused a promotion by the Prime Minister. At home, he complaints about it to his wife,

Elizabeth, who suggests he is a “better man” for the job and he should be prime minister

(House of Cards8 E1 00:21:25). Therefore, the idea to become the leader of the country was not his own – he ran for premiership because his wife had told him to.

Urquhart often says that all he does is for his country’s good, to make Britain “a proud nation”, as it used to be (Play E2 00:33:10). When he caused Henry

Collingridge’s resignation, he said he has “done the country a favour” (House E3

00:03:58), because Collingridge did not have what it takes to rule Britain. Similarly, when FU has flashbacks about the deaths he caused and feels remorse, Elizabeth reminds him that everything he has done “was for [his] country’s good” (Play E1

00:03:10). If these statements were true, it could be said that Urquhart is indeed a

“Machiavellian” character. Urquhart believed that he, unlike Collingridge, had what it takes to be a great leader – which, according to Machiavelli, means to improve the living conditions of its citizens and position of Britain as a country – and that is why he deserved to be the leader. This could, perhaps, also justify the murders he committed, since they would be necessary for the good of country.

In To Play the King, while the King promotes an equal society and is sincerely concerned about the poor and homeless – he, for example, refuses to eat anything else than a soup and water, and visits these people in the abject conditions they live in – FU claims the country does not have the money to spare at the moment to help such people

(Play E1 00:07:20). FU thinks the poor people are only “lazy” to work and “don’t take responsibility for their actions or their lives” (Play E4 00:25:25). Moreover, he agrees

8 Hereafter House. 46 with Sarah, when she describes his government as being “extremely effective” because it does not seek “the approval of all of the people all of the time”. They have support of

46% of the people and can “afford to ignore the rest”, which they do. By the rest she means the underclass people, most of which “aren’t even registered to vote” (Play E1

00:20:17-00:20:44). Similarly, in The Final Cut, Tom Makepeace tells the Parliament that “the people of Britain have seen little benefit from the economic recovery” of

Urquhart and finds it no longer acceptable that Britain should be run for the benefit of

“a small and cynical club of cronies […] – the friends of Francis Urquhart” (The Final

Cut9 E3 00:34:00). Although Makepeace does have a motive for trying to destroy

Urquhart, he is always presented as an honest and uncorrupted character fighting for the right cause, which makes it improbable that he was making his accusations up. This suggests that when Urquhart thought about improving the life in Britain, he did not have in mind all of its citizens, only a small group chosen by him – contrary to Machiavelli’s idea of bringing “prosperity to all and every” man and woman in his country (Prince

80).

Among other reasons why Urquhart longs to stay in a position of power is to beat “that bloody woman’s record” – to serve longer as the Prime Minister than

Margaret Thatcher did (Final E3 00:19:50), which is a rather selfish reason. He wants to

“leave [his] mark on the world” and “do something about Europe” (Final E1 00:03:20).

It turns out he does not really care what he does, he just wants to do something. He does not hesitate to steal the credit for Makepeace’s peace settlement in Cyprus and presents it as the achievement of his government and himself (Play E1 00:13:00). At the beginning of To Play the King, after he has served as prime minister for some time – yet the viewer is not shown anything he has actually achieved – Francis tells Elizabeth he

9 Hereafter Final. 47 feels “becalmed”, because he has “done all [he] set out to do”, he is “in place” and

“secure”. This implies that his aim was not to serve the British people and protect them, but only to win power for the sake of getting hold of it. He appears to admit it himself, saying that “deep down below it all, deeper than honour, deeper than pride, deeper than lust and deeper than love, is the getting of it all. The seizing and the holding on. The jaws locked, biting into power and hanging on” (Play E2 00:34:02). The fact that he places power over love, lust, and pride could be excused, but to place power above honour and rule as a dishonourable leader – that is something Machiavelli would not approve.

4.5 The Road to Power: In the Footsteps of FU#1

Francis Urquhart’s road to power was, as mentioned above, identical with that of FU#1.

He leaked information, collaborated with the press, blackmailed, was treacherous, and killed – and as Machiavelli says, “[t]hese ways can win a prince power but not glory”

(Prince 27). Concerning treacheries and cruelties, Machiavelli writes that a prince can still find “some means of consolidating [his] position”, if he does not persist in employing cruelty and as far as possible he turns it to the good of his subjects (Prince

29-30). However, Urquhart continues to murder people – those who know the truth about Mattie Storin. He makes his bodyguard, Corder, and his people assassinate Sarah and Tim Stamper, as well as Mattie’s former colleague, John Krajewski. Moreover, they made it look like the murders were committed by the IRA, the Irish Republican Army.

Another thing that can be considered criminal in Urquhart’s ruling is bugging his enemies, whether it be the Buckingham Palace, or Princess Charlotte. Bugging the King and listening to his private conversations, Urquhart could always be one step ahead.

Therefore, when the King decides to tour some of the most deprived areas to show his

48 concern and refuses to take any formal security with him, Urquhart knows about it. He stages a fake abduction of the King, who is immediately rescued by a squad which secretly shadowed the royal tour, and whose presence was authorized by Urquhart himself (Play E4 00:36:34-00:37:30) – FU’s popularity in the polls rose significantly.

In The Final Cut, Urquhart makes a deal with a Turkish-Cypriot businessman,

Mr. Nures, so that they could both profit from the newly discovered oil fields – provided that FU influences the British judge in the arbitration panel to make the disputed area with oil part of Turkey. With the help of Elizabeth, they are able to mislead the judge to rule in their favour (Final E2 00:25:43-00:27:07). However, that is not the worst Urquhart can do about Cyprus.

When he is losing in the polls and it looks like the end of his premiership, he resolves to “leak information to the Greeks and the French that they have been cynically conned”, that there are “massive oil deposits off the coast of Cyprus” and “the British and the Turks have known it all along and are now exploiting it to enrich themselves”.

This will provoke “an international incident, a small war perhaps”, to which they – the

United Kingdom – can “react with moral outrage, uniting the country behind a strong prime minister” (Final E3 00:49:39-00:50:06). FU ignores Elizabeth’s warnings about the impossibility to control such situation and says that he does not care that much about the outcome, because one way or the other he will be remembered (Final E3 00:50:12), which supports the idea presented in the section 4.4. More importantly, though, he starts a war in order to secure his position in power. Machiavelli touches upon the subject of distraction when he writes about the pope Alexander VI. He describes how the Pope created “disorder, throwing their states [of his enemies] into a turmoil, so that he could win secure control of part of them” (Prince 22) and give it to his son, Cesare Borgia.

Machiavelli seems to approve of this, he says that the Pope “had to do it”, that he

49

“showed how much a pope could achieve with money and armed force” (37) and he perceives him as the greatest deceiver he knows (55) – his apparent approval of this may be partly caused by the fact that the Pope would give the land to Cesare, whom

Machiavelli describes as “a man in whom some spark seemed to show that he was ordained by God to redeem the country (81). Nevertheless, when writing about war,

Machiavelli quotes Livy (Titus Livius), stating that “a necessary war is a just war and where there is hope only in arms, those arms are holy” (81). In Urquhart’s case, the conflict he provoked can hardly be regarded as a necessary war. He himself admits that he wants to strengthen his own position by it, and adds that while this small war is “a tragedy for the Cyprus settlement”, it is “a chance to reassert our [his government’s] own superiority […] and enhance our standing in the polls” (Final E4 00:01:26-

00:01:36). Thus, it is apparent that Urquhart does not care about Cyprus at all.

Nevertheless, his chief concern should be his own country, so his acting could still be in accordance with Machiavelli’s teachings, if this enhanced position of his government was used to bring prosperity to Britain. Urquhart claims he wants to

“preserve the idea of a constitutional monarchy” (Play E4 00:50:15) and that in the great days when “the map of Europe” is being redrawn (new Cyprus boundaries), it is

Britain that “is showing the way” (Final E3 00:26:35). This rather seems that he blindly longs for the lost British Empire, instead of focusing on the current political situation and realistically considering what is best for his country and all its people. Therefore,

Urquhart either does not care about the British people, only about his own position of power, or he does want to make Britain a great country, but, apparently, he does not know the right approach – because starting the war abroad and causing turmoil in the

Parliament and in his own Party certainly does not seem as a way of improving lives of ordinary people of Britain.

50

4.6 “No, There is No Truth in the Accusation”: FU, an Occasional Liar

Machiavelli writes that a prince, if he wants to succeed, needs to learn how not to be virtuous (48) and be able to act in defiance of kindness and good faith (56). However, he should only behave in such a way when it is necessary for safeguarding the state

(49), and should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible (56). Furthermore, he should not honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage (55).

As presented in the previous sections, Urquhart does not find it difficult at all to act in a way that is not virtuous – by committing crimes, treachery, murders of his fellow citizens. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether he is virtuous at all. Machiavelli writes that a prince should indeed be compassionate, guileless, and kind (56), but FU is never shown acting in such virtuous ways; he is always scheming and plotting against those who might endanger his position of power.

Again, there is the question of the necessity of this dishonest behaviour – which was elaborated in the previous section – but disregarding it, there are several demonstrations of Urquhart’s ability to not honour his word – to be “a great liar and deceiver” (Prince 55). Unlike his novel version, FU#2 not only misleads Prime Minister

Henry Collingridge about the source of the leaks, he tells him it was Lord Billsborough, while it was FU himself (House E2 00:39:20). He lies to Sarah, his close advisor, about

Mattie’s death and their relationship, thus luring Sarah into an affair with him, making her obsessed with him and, subsequently, easier to manipulate (Play E2 00:45:47-

00:51:12). When talking to the King, he claims that it is “deeply distressing” for him to see all the homeless people in the streets (Play E1 00:07:01), while he actually thinks of them as lazy and irresponsible. He also says the King’s thought about the redevelopment of the Victoria Street – to build something the whole community can enjoy instead of “another bloody shoebox of government offices” – is “a very exciting

51 one”, only to sack the Secretary of State for the Environment who came up with that idea and thus stopping the whole project (Play E1 00:08:53-00:13:12). Urquhart does not hesitate to lie in the House of Commons, either. When Tom Makepeace asks him whether he knew about the presence of oil near Cyprus and whether he or his family profited from it, Urquhart declares that “there is no truth in the accusation” and “there was no manipulation of the border settlement” (Final E4 00:02:30), while it was clearly a false statement. Yet this time, there is no need to ponder about the necessity and purpose of not honouring his word – Urquhart has done it precisely to enrich himself and his wife (Final E4 00:18:30-00:19:58).

4.7 Francis Urquhart and the Ordinary Citizens

One of the crucial things a “Machiavellian” prince must bear in mind is his perceived reputation by the common people, since one cannot rule without the goodwill of people

(Prince 59). As mentioned above, a prince should appear to be “a man of good faith” and “integrity”, should “demonstrate in his actions grandeur, courage, sobriety, strength”, and avoid reputation of a “cowardly” and “irresolute” ruler (Prince 56-57).

Similarly to FU#1, Urquhart in the British series is a great deceiver – he deceived people by his supposedly modest nature, and apparently even his colleagues saw him, at least at the beginning, as someone who would “never stab you in the back, however much he disliked you” (Lord Billsborough, House E1 00:14:27). After

Urquhart censures the King’s speech about the need to help the underclass people, which the monarch ignores and makes the speech anyway, gaining support of crowds of people in all major cities, their relationship deteriorates to such extent that even the press senses there is “a complete breakdown” between “the Palace and Downing Street”

– yet Urquhart, furious inside, tells the press with a warm smile that it is “absolute

52 nonsense” and that His Majesty and himself “enjoy excellent relations based on mutual trust and free and frank exchange of views” (Play E3 00:10:44-00:10:59). The relations are clearly not excellent – as Urquhart will soon demand King’s abdication – they are not based on trust – Urquhart stages a fake attack on the King – and are not really free and frank, although that is what the King suggests during their first official meeting, yet

Urquhart is appalled by this lack of “manners in the ordinary sense. No small talk, no apparent sense of irony” (Play E1 00:09:57-00:10:01).

Urquhart could not understand why the King was so concerned with the common people:

“Why are you doing this? What can possibly be in it for you?” (Urquhart)

“You really don’t understand, do you?” (King) (Play E3 00:52:07)

This conversation suggests that Urquhart indeed could not grasp the fact that the King was doing it just for the sake of improving the lives of British citizens, the reward being their devotion and loyalty. In fact, it is what Urquhart should have been doing, too.

While he was concerned with the poll results and made Sarah come up with such questions that produced favourable answers (Play E1 00:19:53), perhaps he should have been more concerned with the real public opinion and act according to that – because to have the goodwill of the people, to “satisfy” them and “keep them content” is “one of the most important tasks a prince must undertake” (Prince 59).

4.8 Elizabeth Urquhart: the Priceless Advisor

Although FU#1 and FU#2 act quite similarly in all the above-analysed points, they differ substantially in the question of personal staff and flatterers. Unlike FU in the novel, the screened one does have someone with whom he works closely – Tim

53

Stamper, a Junior Whip10, later Chief Whip and Party Chairman. In the first series,

Urquhart seems to trust Stamper, who in turn is absolutely loyal to him. Stamper appears by Urquhart’s side most of the time, they share jokes and little remarks about their colleagues, and he helps Urquhart find incriminating materials on his opponents.

However, there are certain conversations, which FU prefers to have without Stamper’s presence – such as when he is telling O’Neill he knows about his addiction and asks him to be his partner in crime – in such situations, a little reluctantly, yet obediently,

Stamper leaves the office. Therefore, he is not informed about Urquhart’s plans, and, apparently, Urquhart does not share with him his burning desire to become prime minister either (House E3 00:36:30).

After Urquhart was elected to the office, he shares with Stamper information about the King and his unwelcomed desire to get involved, and asks Tim to persuade

Princess Charlotte to share her lurid stories about the royal family members, in case they needed to use them against the King (Play E1 00:13:20-00:14:59). Francis promotes Stamper to the Party Chairman, despite the apparent disappointment of the latter, because he thinks “he’ll take what he’s given. That’s the beauty of Stamper, he’s loyal and he knows his place” (Play E2 00:06:20). Furthermore, even after Stamper delivers information FU wanted, he refuses to tell him the date of the general election, which enrages Stamper, even more so, when he sees Sarah entering Urquhart’s office while he is leaving, and he feels replaced and betrayed (Play E2 00:29:12-00:30:13).

There is no apparent reason for Urquhart not to share information about the date of the election with Stamper. Machiavelli writes that a prince should be “considerate towards” his staff, “pay [them] honour”, and “share with [them] both honours and

10 There are approximately ten Junior Whips in the party, they serve as supervisors, they, too, bear responsibility for the party’s unity, they gather information about policy views of backbenchers. Each Junior Whip is usually responsible for 25-30 Members of Parliament (Searing). 54 responsibilities” (Prince 74). Moreover, “relations between princes and their ministers” should be based on mutual confidence, otherwise, “the result is always disastrous for both of them” (74). Stamper did wish to “serve” Urquhart and to “be close to him”, but he was not willing to endure his ungrateful behaviour anymore and, thus, he decided to use the material he possessed all along – the tape with the recording of Mattie’s death.

He gives a copy to Sarah, and decides he will take the tape to the police (Play E4

00:38:40). Unfortunately, Urquharts’ bodyguard spies on them and passes this information to Francis and Elizabeth. Only then FU admits he “pushed him [Stamper] too far. I treated him with contempt because it pleased me […] if I’d treated him better,

I would be safe now” (Play E4 00:41:12-00:41:22). However, it was too late. The only solution that would keep Urquhart safe and in the high office was to have both his closest advisors killed. Yet it all could have been prevented if Urquhart was at least a bit more “considerate” towards Stamper.

Machiavelli warns against flatterers, advising a prince to avoid those who offer their opinion and good advice unless it is specifically asked for. He indeed encourages a prince to seek advice, but only when he wants to (Prince 75). In the BBC House of

Cards trilogy, Francis Urquhart is often being advised by Elizabeth, his wife, who admires and believes in him without reserve (Play E1 00:03:15). It may be seen simply as support sometimes, encouraging him when he feels down, but very often she just tells him what to do – and he listens. As it was already mentioned, it was her idea that

Francis should become Prime Minister; she suggested that Mattie “might be just the little friend” he needed, that is, to have someone in the press who would write what they want (House E1 00:29:46), and, moreover, implies Urquhart should begin an affair with her to “be quite certain of her loyalty” (House E2 00:43:12). Similarly, it is Elizabeth who finds a new “challenge” for Francis – Sarah – to stimulate him intellectually and

55 bring out the best (or worst) in him (Play E1 00:03:50). It is her, too, who says that

Roger O’Neill has “become a bit of a pest” (House E4 00:14:40), which leads to

Urquhart poisoning Roger with rat poison. The murders of Tim Stamper and Sarah

Harding were her ideas, too – she coldly said to Francis that he “must” have them killed, only that way he could be safe still (Play E4 00:41:52). She blames him for being

“too lax with that fool from the Palace” and tells Francis to inflict some serious damage.

To his argument that first they need to win the election she replies that they “must make it unimaginable” not to win the election, and thus has the last word in the argument

(Play E4 00:08:52). The whole Cyprus business with Mr. Nures was her idea, too (Final

E1 00:16:35).

Francis Urquhart followed almost every Elizabeth’s advice. It seems that her admiration without reserve made him believe he was capable of anything, which, perhaps, he was, but he did not care about the consequences anymore, not even mentioning honour. In fact, her last advice – not to start “a small war” in Cyprus – was the one that Francis no longer followed (Final E3 00:49:56). Nevertheless, a prince who is influenced by someone to such extent that he acts in a dishonourable way and does not care about the outcomes anymore – while the common people judge mostly by results and therefore these are crucial (Prince 56) – cannot be considered a

“Machiavellian” leader.

4.9 Machiavellian Tactics, Urquhart’s Ends

In The Final Cut, Mr. Nures gives Elizabeth a book, “a little gift to celebrate good fortune” – it is The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Elizabeth remarks that the book “is one of Francis’s particular favourites” (Final E3 00:31:39). The creators of the BBC

56 series, thus, associated Urquhart with Machiavelli, suggesting he indeed is a rather

“Machiavellian” character, with The Prince being one of his favourite books.

After the study of the character of FU#2 through Machiavellian lenses, it can be concluded that his purpose of gaining power is, unlike FU#1’s, a bit more ambiguous.

On the one hand, he claims that power is more important than love or honour; that when he became prime minister he achieved all he set out to do; that he does not really care about the outcome; and that he longs to remain prime minister only to outlast the reign of Margaret Thatcher. On the other hand, he also wants to make Britain a proud country again, so that it would show the way in Europe and the world11; he wishes to preserve the ideal of a constitutional monarchy (with its limited powers of the monarch, apparently) and says he is doing country a favour. This conflict of goals may reflect his inner state of mind, when he is no longer sure what he wants to achieve, but is willing to do anything for it (he suggests starting a war in Cyprus with a madman’s expression on his face). It also should be reminded that he was forced into most of the things by his wife, while he himself, perhaps, did not want to commit them at all, and that is why he was not in fact sure what he wanted to achieve. Either way, to be the ideal

“Machiavellian” leader would require a clear determination to bring prosperity to

Britain, not this ambiguity.

Urquhart’s road to power was treacherous and full of dishonourable actions. He indeed learnt how not to honour his word, whether it was in front of the Parliament in

House of Commons, or when speaking to the King. His ability to conceal his true nature was rather exceptional; even Members of Parliament with whom he worked every day

11 When Urquhart says he wants Britain to be proud again and to show the way in Europe, his words partly resemble those of the woman he greatly opposes, Margaret Thatcher. She, too, wanted (and succeeded) to strengthen the economic position of Britain, despite the fact that it brought poverty to many ordinary people (Elliott). She wanted to be perceived as someone “who has an absolute passion for getting things right for Britain. I can’t bear Britain in decline. I just can’t. We who either defeated or rescued half Europe, who kept half Europe free, when otherwise it would be in chains” (“Margaret Thatcher” BBC 1979). 57 did not think of him as someone who would stab them in the back. He erred in the relationship with his staff, namely with his supposedly closest friend, Tim Stamper.

Francis did not honour or enrich him, and in the long run, it indeed ended disastrously for both of them. Finally, Urquhart was not able to manage a “flatterer”, his wife. She led Francis into running for premiership, and subsequently she encouraged him to do anything to stay in power, which eventually got out of control.

In this aspect, the story resembles that of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Lady

Macbeth, too, spurred her husband into criminal action by “invoking his manhood”

(Ramin 63). Macbeth got rid of everyone standing in his way to become the king, starting with King Duncan, a rather kind and benevolent leader – as was the former

Prime Minister Henry Collingridge. Unlike Lady Macbeth, however, Elizabeth did not feel guilt over the things she had caused. Francis, on the other hand, often had flashbacks about the murder of Mattie Storin, as well as about the two innocent young men he killed in Cyprus, and, same as Macbeth, he was “haunted by the sense of guilt and self-doubt” (Ramin 63). However, both of them continued murdering, to cover up their initial crime and to stay in power. This resemblance to Macbeth is not accidental.

Urquhart’s numerous quotations from this play show that it was the series creators’ intention to have the protagonist bear the legacy of Macbeth.12

The BBC series clearly contain elements of both Macbeth and The Prince – nevertheless, when speaking about the latter, “Machiavellian tactics”, rather than

“Machiavellian ends”, are more often present in the story (Kasper 167). This means that

12 “After life’s fitful fever he sleeps well.” (House E3 00:04:38) Urquhart quotes Macbeth’s words he uttered after the murder of King Duncan. Urquhart says them after he forced the Prime Minister to resign. “If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not...” (House E4 00:29:50) Urquhart quotes Banquo, Macbeth’s friend, as he questions the witches about a prophecy; just before he poisons O’Neill (who will, thus, not grow anymore). “I am in blood stepped in so far…”, says Urquhart, when he has to kill Tim Stamper and Sarah Harding, quoting Macbeth who realizes he has already killed many men and may need to continue to do so.

58 although FU#2 employs many of the tactics described by Machiavelli – he is a great deceiver, he knows perfectly well how and when to conceal his true nature and act as an incarnation of modesty, as well as when not to be virtuous – these tactics are used for the wrong ends, because they do not contribute to the fight for the common good.

59

5. Netflix Production, the American Adaptation

5.1 Background

Twenty-four years after the novel House of Cards was first published, Beau Willimon was approached by director and producer David Fincher with the idea to adapt the

British mini-series. For a year, Willimon worked on the pilot script, and while it was inspired by the British version, he wanted his story to feel “new and refreshed” (Jacobi).

The main roles were taken on by Kevin Spacey, playing Francis “Frank” Underwood, and Robin Wright, portraying Claire Underwood, his wife. The show was produced by

Netflix, the company providing streaming media, which made it possible for the viewers to watch the whole series in one sitting (so-called binge-watching). It is considerably longer than the previous versions – at the time of writing this work there are five seasons, each containing 13 almost hour-long episodes.

Francis Urquhart, the Conservative Party Chief Whip in the British Parliament, becomes Frank Underwood13, the Majority Whip in the United States House of

Representatives. Instead of bringing down the Prime Minister and taking his place,

Frank conspires against the President. Underwood seems to be younger than Urquhart, more charming, and his hobbies include playing the PlayStation. The technologies of the 21st century (other than PlayStation), not present in the previous versions, play an important part in the American adaptation (e.g. the journalists are able to post the news through their phones immediately after they acquire the information; Frank is able to fake a cyberattack and justify his moves towards war). When asked who was the model for creating Frank, Beau Willimon said that he used “two scoops of LBJ with a dash of

Richard III and a pinch of Hannibal Lecter” (Schneider) and calls President Lyndon B.

Johnson “a master Machiavellian” (Sandberg). At the end of the first series, there is a

13Probably named after the first Democratic Whip Oscar Underwood (Waxman). 60 book lying on the Frank’s desk – it is The Passage Of Power, the fourth volume of

Robert Caro’s biography of President Johnson – and there is a picture hanging in

Frank’s office displaying Johnson staring down at a frightened Senator Richard Russell

(House of Cards14 E14 00:05:20). Both Lyndon Johnson and Frank Underwood were known for their skills at manipulation (Seward) and both were Southern Democrats from traditionally red states (Texas and South Carolina, respectively). Having family members from South Carolina, Beau Willimon was aware of the fact that “Southern politics works differently than other places; it is a lot more about personal relationships and connections you make”. Until recently, politics there was “inherently more political as opposed to ideological”, which Willimon found “appropriate for Francis Underwood

– someone who doesn’t define himself by party or ideology, but operates on personal connections and traverses the political web as a free agent” (Sirota).

5.2 Narrative and Symbolism in the Series

In the opening scene of Netflix’s House of Cards Frank strangles his neighbours’ dog. It was hit by a car and Frank concludes it has no chance of surviving the injuries. Frank reveals he has “no patience for useless things”, such as the dog’s pain, and that

“moments like this require someone who will act, who will do the unpleasant thing, the necessary thing”. He puts the dog out of its misery, so that it feels “no more pain”.

Frank is therefore introduced as someone who will do what is necessary, no matter how unpleasant or difficult it might be. However, whereas by strangling he helped the dog, throughout the series he seems to do whatever is “necessary” for him to win and keep power.

14 Hereafter HC. 61

When Frank speaks about the necessity of someone who will act, he breaks the fourth wall. Similarly to Francis Urquhart in the British series, he speaks to the audience, implicates the viewers in his schemes and shares with them his, presumably, true feelings and thoughts. The story is therefore narrated primarily from Frank’s perspective. In the fifth season, Claire, too, breaks the fourth wall and speaks to the camera.

It is Claire’s hobby to go for a run every day. At the end of the first season, she suggests she and Frank go for a run together. In season 4, they are running together again – on the same ticket, for President and Vice President of the United States (HC

E49 00:53:40). As in the running in its literal sense, where Frank is shown to outrun

Claire, he takes the lead in the elections, too, since it is him who has the more prominent position on the ticket, running for President.

5.3 Plot Overview

Frank Underwood helped Garrett Walker become President of the United States.

Walker promised him the position of Secretary of State, but after the election, Frank is told that he will not be promoted and will stay in Congress as Majority Whip. Frank begins scheming his way to the Oval Office. He collaborates with Zoe Barnes, a journalist; uses Congressman Peter Russo – supposedly supports his candidacy for the governor of Pennsylvania, only to deliberately end it and persuade Vice President

Matthews to reclaim the governor’s seat in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Frank succeeds in passing an education bill and thanks to his feigned loyalty and friendship to the president, it is him who is tapped as a replacement for Matthews. As Vice President,

Frank tries to weaken the influence of billionaire Raymond Tusk on President Walker by disrupting trade relations with China, Tusk’s chief trade partner. Frank disrupts the

62 friendship of Walker and Tusk, too, and persuades Tusk to falsely testify against

Walker, which contributes to the Walker’s resignation. Subsequently, Frank is sworn in as the 46th President of the United States. However, he needs to focus on the upcoming elections, which will take place in 18 months’ time, and when the electorate will decide if Frank will stay president. Therefore, he proposes a program called America Works, which is supposed to eradicate unemployment by creating new jobs. To popularize

AmWorks, Frank hires Tom Yates to write a book about the program and its vision.

Frank begins campaigning to win the Democratic nomination for president. At first,

Claire supports him, but then they have a fight about the equality in their relationship and she tells him she can either sabotage his campaign or help it – as his running mate.

After a long recovery from injuries caused by Zoe Barnes’s former colleague trying to assassinate him, Frank agrees with Claire’s demand. Frank and Claire face the

Republican candidate, William Conway, and both candidates respond to the new threat of ICO, a terrorist organization. Since it looks like Frank is going to lose the popular vote, he declares war on ICO, disrupts the election process, and finally is elected president by the Electoral College. However, his criminal and questionable tactics used to gain and keep power begin to surface, and he decides (is forced) to resign.

5.4 To Leave a Legacy – Frank Underwood’s Purpose of Gaining Power

When Frank Underwood strangles the dog to put it out of its misery, it seems he is someone who helps those in need, the weak and defenceless. Throughout the series, however, he mostly helps himself to stay in power. Frank did not long to become president, all he wanted was to be Secretary of State, as he was promised (HC E61

00:24:56). Naturally, after the president does not nominate him for the position, he comes home disappointed and apologizes to Claire, who does not accept his apologies

63 and wants to see some anger instead – only then Frank shows his annoyance and turns over a table in their living room. Soon after, he comes up with a plan to retaliate against the president for breaking his promise. If it was not for Claire, though, Frank would have probably not go to such extreme measures to take his revenge. Thus, one of the reasons Frank wanted to become president, to take the revenge15, was in fact triggered by his wife, Claire.

Frank wants to leave a “legacy”, which is a rather vague term and may or may not be in line with Machiavelli’s image of an ideal leader. Frank wants to be remembered in history thanks to his new program, America Works, which he proposes as the newly innaugurated president. He sees it as “a fundamentally different look at how to solve the problem of unemployment” and in its size and scope, he likens it to the

New Deal16 (HC E27 00:21:25). Frank wants to use 500 billion dollars from entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to create jobs for 10 million people within two years. America Works is designed to eradicate unemployment by creating new jobs in infrastructure and within the private sector, and by increasing the size of the military. Frank does not care “how much it hurts” or “how controversial” the program is, he is willing to pursue it by any means necessary (HC E27 00:28:50-

00:31:29). He encounters opposition from his own team of advisors, as well as from both parties. When Congress refuses to pass and fund the program, Frank declares a state of emergency in Washington D.C. (the mayor is his friend) and takes the money from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund17 to initiate his program there, hoping that it would show results and convince Congress to fund the program nationwide (HC E27 00:15:10-

00:16:35). He succeeds in creating several thousand jobs in the District of Columbia,

15 The motive of revenge is shared by all three FUs. 16 “The New Deal was a series of programs and projects instituted during the Great Depression by President Franklin D. Roosevelt that aimed to restore prosperity to Americans” (“New Deal”). 17 FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency. 64 but then is forced to cut the funding from FEMA, because an actual disaster – a hurricane – is approaching.

Frank sees America Works as both “a good thing” for the country, and “the key for our [the Democrats’] keeping in the White House” in the next election; “the only chance we have of winning back majorities in Congress”. He is convinced that only if the Democratic Party does something “bold” and “decisive” will they have a chance to succeed in the upcoming election (HC E28 00:39:59-00:04:17). Therefore, it is clear that to a certain extent, the reason for Frank Underwood pushing for this job program is not only to put people to work, but to ensure his re-election. This does not necessarily have to be seen as non-Machiavellian, if his re-electing brought prosperity to the

American people. Machiavelli indeed writes that a new prince should “introduce a new order”, but, he adds, such order should bring “prosperity to all and every” citizen of his country. While Frank’s program would indeed give jobs to many people, a large number of people would lose the entitlements needed for their well-being.

In season 5, Frank testifies in front of the Declaration of War committee. He claims he did not break the rules, he was only playing by the rules everyone else played by, the rules all of them wrote together, pointing at the members of the committee, suggesting that everyone benefited from the system that is corrupt. In his aside, Frank says he does not really stand for anything, and that he does not care whether he is loved or hated, as long as he wins. He tells the viewer this is the “death of the Age of

Reason”, that there is “no right or wrong” anymore, only “being in, and then being out”

(HC E64 00:47:08-00:50:30). This implies that Frank perceives politics as some kind of game, which he can win or lose. Such attitude is not in line with Machiavelli’s thinking

– Machiavelli perceived diplomacy as a serious matter, and the corrupt system (of the

Medici) was something he opposed, not had taken part in.

65

5.5 “The Road to Power is Paved with Hypocrisy, and Casualties”: Frank’s Rise to

Power and Struggle to Keep it

An ideal prince as imaged by Machiavelli should not win power by killing his fellow citizens, by being treacherous and pitiless. He should use cruelty only when his safety depends on it, and not persist in it, but turn it to the good of his subjects. Only such cruelty may be considered “used well”, and “with divine and human assistance”, the prince can “find some means of consolidating [his] position” – otherwise he “cannot possibly stay in power” (Prince 29-30).

Frank starts his road from the position of Majority Whip in the House of

Representatives and he has his plan for bringing down the president perfectly crafted from the beginning. He agrees to collaborate with a young and ambitious journalist,

Zoe, who will write anything he tells her in order to break a good story. Through Zoe,

Frank leaks a too liberal first draft of the education bill written by Donald Blythe, and, as a result, he is given autonomy to come up with a new, passable, bill. He hires a team of young congressional staffers to write a completely new draft of the bill in a week – usually, this process takes months. After Frank unexpectedly and against the previous agreement adds new amendments to the bill, Marty Spinella, the spokesperson for the teacher’s union, gets angry and starts a nation-wide strike of teachers. Linda, the president’s chief of staff, reminds Frank that they “are the Democrats” and they “are the ones who are supposed to be defending the teachers”. He replies that she cannot have it both ways, and that they cannot have the reform they want and keep the teachers happy.

Frank puts Spinella to a position when he has to end the strike; he succeeds to pass the bill through Congress, the president signs it and is grateful to Frank for making it happen. Except for leaking Blythe’s bill, however, Frank has not yet committed

66 anything criminal as such, but all he did was part of his treacherous road to undermine and discredit President Walker.

In order to vacate the vice-presidential seat, Frank persuades Vice President to resign and reclaim his governor’s seat in Pennsylvania. That position is vacant, because

Congressman Peter Russo, who initially ran for it, pulled out of the race – with Frank’s

“help”. It was Frank’s plan from the very beginning – to make Peter run, support him, but to make him drop out of the race when there is not enough time to find a suitable replacement, and Vice President Matthews will gladly reclaim his position (being discontented with his insignificant role as the vice president). Peter Russo serves as

Frank’s pawn, similarly to Roger O’Neill in the British versions. Frank gets him out of jail when Russo is arrested for driving under the influence with a prostitute by his side, but he demands his “absolute, unquestioning loyalty” in return (HC E1 00:46:15). He forces Russo to let the shipyard in his district be closed (although Russo has fought against the closing his whole campaign), because he needs another military base to stay open – which will make thirteen members of black caucus support his education bill. As a result, Russo is devastated by his inability to protect the people in his district and tells

Frank he is going to confess to everything – his use of controlled substances; closing the shipyard because Frank strong-armed him, and tell the truth about the Kern editorial.18

Not willing to let anyone stop him, Frank kills Russo by letting him fall asleep in a closed garage with the car engine running. When this apparent suicide is investigated by

Zoe Barnes, Frank kills her, too.

Machiavelli writes that cruelty might be considered used well (“if it is permissible to talk in this way of what is evil” (Prince 29)) when one’s safety depends

18 Michael Kern was a nominee for Secretary of State, the position promised to Frank. In order to discredit him, Frank makes Russo visit Kern’s classmate from college and persuade him to tell that Kern wrote the explicitly anti-Israeli editorial in the college magazine – not the best thing to say about the newly nominated Secretary of State who has to deal with the problems in the Jordan Valley. 67 on it. The problem here is the same as in the previous two versions of House of Cards

(see section 3.6), when FU indeed used cruelty to ensure his safety – but it is the danger he himself created that he was escaping from. This would not let “a prince” like Frank

Underwood “being honoured among eminent men”, but he could still consolidate his position – if he turned this cruelty into good of the American people.

Before looking at Frank Underwood’s politics after he became vice president and then president, it should not be left out how he got rid of President Walker.

Publicly, Frank always supports the president and his actions. Privately, he pretends to be his friend (HC E21 00:15:08), which Walker believes. However, he systematically undermines his presidency. The very next day after Walker’s inauguration, Frank leaks the first draft of the education bill, which does not shed a very positive light on

Walker’s administration. In season 2, Frank secretly negotiates with Xander Feng, a

Chinese billionaire and business partner of Tusk’s, but tells Cathy Durant, the Secretary of State, the exact opposite of what they agreed upon. He then accuses Feng of double- dealing and since Feng is Tusk’s partner, it weakens the friendship of Tusk and

President Walker. Tusk, growing irritated by Frank’s rising influence on the president, begins to finance anti-Democrat adds and donate money to Republicans (HC E20

00:00:01-00:00:36) through a money laundering scheme using a Kansas City casino.

Frank soon finds out about this illegal activity and persuades Feng to work with him rather than Tusk, offering him political asylum in the United States (HC E25 00:10:47).

Feng agrees, Frank leaks the information about the money laundering scheme, but denies his involvement.19

Walker’s administration’s ratings are falling, and Frank contributes to it by persuading President to hand in all his official travel logs, to show the president is in no

19 He was involved through Doug Stamper, his chief of staff, whom he sent to investigate into the casino, confirming he knew about the scheme, and held secret negotiations with Feng and Tusk. 68 way involved in the illegal activities. Frank agrees to do the same – “as a gesture of cooperation” – but he alters his logs to hide his visits to Zoe, and perhaps other things, too. In the president’s travel logs, however, the special prosecutor, Heather Dunbar, finds something that Frank claimed to be only a “needle in a haystack, and not a needle that Dunbar is looking for” (HC E24 00:26:15). That needle is Walker’s marriage counselling sessions, as a result of which Walker has taken some medication. The information gets to the public and Walker’s impaired judgement is in question.

Moreover, he is accused of coaching the witness, their marriage counsellor, how to testify and how to reply to Dunbar’s questions about medication (HC E25 00:28:14).

Walker’s ratings continue to fall, and Frank begins to whip votes (through his successor as Majority Whip, Jackie Sharp) for the president’s impeachment. Publicly, he still vigorously defends the president, says the impeachment is nonsense and that he “fully expect[s] that the president will run” in the next election (HC E26 00:02:02). When

Frank succeeds in forcing Walker to resign, the latter still does not believe that Frank in fact stole his presidency – in his resignation speech he says that “Frank Underwood will bring virtue, experience, and courage to the Oval Office. I have been blessed to have him as my Vice President. But I’m even more blessed to call him my friend” (HC E26

00:49:50).

There is no doubt about Frank’s treacherous behaviour towards President

Walker. He feigned his loyalty and friendship, while at the same time he orchestrated

Walker’s impeachment. Frank’s road to power includes murders whose necessity is dubious and involvement in at least one illegal activity – the money laundering scheme

– and he continues his criminal activities after elected to the highest office.

Frank is now the president, but he needs to focus on the upcoming election in 18 months’ time, when the American people will decide about the new president. He wins

69 the Democratic nomination,20 and now faces the Republican candidate, young and charming William Conway. As the election day approaches, Conway is leading in the polls. Frank learns that Conway is manipulating a search engine to increase his visibility for the election, and both candidates have to face a new terrorist organisation ICO, the

Islamic Caliphate Organisation. The extremists’ group is taking over oil fields in Syria, but does not pose any immediate threat to the United States. Frank refuses to launch strikes against them, but, at the same time, he uses the situation to request a domestic surveillance program at the classified rulings of the FISA Court21 (HC E46 00:06:34-

00:08:04). The data from the surveillance program are used to get voters’ data – with the help of Aidan Macallan, “the top data scientist in the country, maybe the world”

(HC E46 00:14:18), Frank and his team will know whom to target, “how to target them, to influence them” (HC E46 00:19:35). While this helps him considerably, it still is not enough to defeat Conway. Moreover, it is possible that their illegal collecting of voters’ data will be exposed. Frank and Claire decide to earn more time, to create chaos, to put the country into fear – to start a war. Frank states ICO indeed is a threat to the United

States and declares war on them.

With Aidan’s help, Frank stages a cyberattack, which only supports his claims about the danger of ICO (HC E54 00:30:17). On the election day, when it seems

Conway will win, Frank and Claire again use some fake threats of ICO, which results in the governor of Ohio announcing closing the Ohio polls due to the potential terror threat, leaving the results not certifiable. Several more states hold their results, too, so

20 The Democratic leadership actually supports Heather Dunbar, the special prosecutor. She has an unfortunate meeting with Lucas Goodwin, Zoe’s ex-colleague, who asks her for help in implicating Frank. He has no proof, however, and Heather refuses to cooperate with him. Later that day, desperate Lucas shoots Frank. Heather is too honest to lie about her meeting with Lucas, she confesses to it, but the implication that she told him to assassinate the president is already there and her campaign is over (HC E45 00:22:54-00:25:10). This is the very situation in which Machiavelli would suggest to lie – Heather could have said she did not talk to Lucas, which would be lying, but she could still be president and rule more honourably than Frank ever would. 21 The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 70 there is no official winner of the election (HC E56 00:36:05). Eventually, two states refuse to certify (Ohio and Tennessee), and neither Frank nor Conway receives the needed 270 electoral votes. Nine weeks after the election, it is up to the House of

Representatives to choose the president, and the Senate chooses the vice president, according to the Twelfth Amendment22 (HC E57 00:00:20-00:02:36). Although initially, none of the two presidential candidates receives 26 votes in the House needed to win and the vice president chosen in the Senate becomes the acting president,

Conway’s frustration from the whole situation grows, and after Frank leaks more recordings shedding a bad light on Conway and his running mate, Frank wins the Ohio election and becomes President-elect.

It is clear now that Frank would do anything to stay in power, whether it was criminal or not.23 Instead of protecting his fellow citizens, as Machiavelli suggests, he misused them, evoked fear in them by exaggerating a small terrorist group operating abroad into a national threat to the whole United States, only to secure his access to power. Even if Frank Underwood did want to help the American people by creating jobs in season 3, this aim was certainly gone by season 5.

5.6 “I Lied in the Oval Office Before”: Frank Underwood Not Being Virtuous

A prudent ruler, writes Machiavelli, should not honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage (55). Frank Underwood could indeed be compared to Alexander VI, who, according to Machiavelli, “never did anything, or thought of anything, other than deceiving men; and he always found victims for his deceptions” (55). Frank lies

22 Whereas Frank’s description of the Twelfth Amendment is mostly accurate, the part about “tossing a coin” is fictional. Although “multiple states allow ties for state or local office to be resolved by some form of chance”, no federal election is “resolved by a form of chance” (Istook). 23 He resigned partly because he would most probably face the impeachment soon, but mostly because he was convinced that with Claire in the White House (she was his Vice President), he would still have access to power (HC E65 00:04:12-00:05:38). 71 regularly to the press (HC E26 00:01:24); he deceives the teachers’ union spokesperson

Marty Spinella about the amendments to the education bill, and even provokes a hot- tempered Spinella to punch him in the face – thus, if Spinella does not want to face charges for assaulting the United States Congressman, he must end the teachers’ strike and agree with the bill (HC E6 00:41:45-00:45:47). As a part of his plan to become vice president, Frank lies to both President Walker and Vice President Matthews – privately, he says to each one of them that the other perceives him as the “pain in the ass” or that he lacks “entirely in leadership” and has “no sense of respect” (HC E11 00:03:20;

00:10:00). As a result, Matthews reclaims his governor’s seat in Pennsylvania and vacate the position of vice president.

When discussing the Port Jefferson bridge with Linda, President’s chief of staff,

Frank falsely claims that he does not have any ulterior motive there (only that of president’s – to create jobs and help the infrastructure), but the truth is, that he needs the bridge to be built in order to stop Feng from donating money to the Republicans (HC

E21 00:06:30). Subsequently, Frank lies to the special prosecutor during the investigation of his connections to Feng (HC E24 00:13:20), and to the president’s lawyer about encouraging Cathy Durant to offer Feng asylum (HC E25 00:17:24). After he becomes President, he publicly states he will not be running for the next term in the office, but in fact, he has “every intention of running for president” (HC E28 00:25:39).

These examples prove Frank Underwood’s ability not to honour his word, and if their final purpose and necessity is not considered, Frank meets the requirements for an ideal

Machiavellian leader in this aspect.

72

5.7 “I Don’t Care Whether You Love or Hate Me”: Frank’s Perceived Reputation

In chapter XVII of The Prince, Machiavelli writes that a prince should want to be both loved and feared, but “because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared” (52), because fear is something a prince can control (54). He should escape the evil reputation and being hated, and must have the goodwill of the people (59).

Frank is known as someone who “get[s] things done” in Washington D.C. (HC

E27 00:21:08), and although those who work with him know he has his own, not very honourable tactics, he certainly is not irresolute or “frivolous” either. Frank is careful about how he presents himself to the public, he realizes that “we are nothing more or less than what we chose to reveal” (HC E7 00:48:38) – which applies to all people, after all, but he, as a politician, needs to do more. He practices his speeches before speaking to the audience – in season 4 he even hires a professional writer to prepare those speeches for him – but be can make a convincing speech without a preparation, too.

After Peter Russo’s death – after Frank killed him – he and Claire make a statement together, expressing their grief, and Frank calls Peter “more than a friend – a family”

(HC E11 00:51:10).

Before this tragedy, another one happened – a young woman has died in a car accident, distracted by a controversially looking water tower, which Frank had advocated to keep standing, and, therefore, is now blamed for the girl’s death. He asks the local reverend, his friend, to give him few minutes to make a speech in church during the service. Reverend agrees and Frank makes the most touching and religious speech (HC E3 00:28:58), although he does not believe in God at all and prays only to himself (HC E13 00:22:22). He succeeds in softening the parents’ hearts, however, so they no longer feel anger against him. Similarly, one of the first things Frank does as a president is visiting his father’s grave, but he would not do it if he “had a choice”. He

73 goes there because he has to “do these sort of things now”, it “makes [him] seem more human, and you have to be a little human when you’re the president”. When no one can see him, he urinates on the grave (HC E27 00:02:14). Therefore, people see him as

“human”, while he himself apparently admits he is only pretending.

Regarding fear, Frank is indeed feared by a journalist – a former Zoe’s colleague, Janine Skorsky, who knows Frank killed Zoe and would not hesitate to get rid of anyone else standing in his way. A country in which journalists are afraid to write freely and investigate can hardly preserve its peaceful state, and, subsequently, have support of its people. However, Frank does not care very much about the goodwill of the people, even despite the fact that he is keen on his speech performances. In season 5, he says that he does not “care whether you love me or you hate me, as long as I win”24

(HC E64 00:50:01), and when he sees dozens of very displeased protesters chanting in front of the White House after the disrupted election, he makes a dispassionate comment that “the people are angry”, and with a slightly scornful tone he remarks that they “exercise their magnificent right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to let their angry voices be heard”. He then tells the audience that it is now up to the House of

Representatives to choose a president, or as he puts it – “the identity of the next

President of these United States is once again in the hands of a bunch of self-serving, money-hungry, boot-licking, power-seeking politicians who can be seduced or sucker punched or blackmailed into submission. And all I need is just one more vote than the other guy” (HC E57 00:00:20-00:02:58). Here, Frank basically states all his methods for winning, which, supposedly, substitute the goodwill of the people who would not vote for him. A few days before the election, Frank and Claire decide they want to win by any means necessary, and that is why they will spread fear and chaos throughout the

24 He says that in his aside to the audience, but presumably he addresses both the audience and the fictional American citizens. 74 nation, using ICO as the supposed threat. They are “done trying to win over people’s hearts”, they are going to “attack their hearts” (HC E52 00:42:00-42:50). As stated in the introductory paragraph of this section, Machiavelli approves of the employment of fear, because it can be controlled. That is exactly the reason the Underwoods want to use it. However, Machiavelli writes about the prince being feared, not about creating a fake threat that his people would be scared of. Nonetheless, their plan is successful, several polling stations close and the election is not decided by the electorate – because that would mean their defeat.

Thus, Frank was never elected to the office of vice president or president by the

American citizens. Moreover, he apparently never had their “goodwill” either, since his approval ratings were low (HC E27 00:23:08) – even lower “than Walker’s before he resigned” (HC E27 00:11:54). Machiavelli regards the goodwill of the people as a crucial aspect of the prince’s rule (59), without it, his endeavours to fool the people by his public performances are vain.

5.8 Frank Underwood and His Staff

Machiavelli stresses the importance of the selection of people that a prince has around him and their appropriate treatment (73). While Frank cannot choose (most of) his colleagues, he nevertheless should be “considerate” towards them and pay them

“honour” and “enrich” them (74). Otherwise, the result will be disastrous for both them and him (74).

Frank does “enrich” and “honour” his colleagues, but only when it suits him, mostly when he expects something in return. He gets Linda’s son to Stanford, but he expects her to help him become Vice President (HC E11 00:22:45) – yet he does not hesitate to deceive her and subsequently yell at her when she finds out about it (HC E21

75

00:27:12). He acts in the same way towards Jackie Sharp, his choice for his successor as

Majority Whip. Since she got the position thanks to Frank, he expects her to be not only loyal, but to do anything he asks – to support a bill (HC E23 00:28:30), to support his campaign (HC E37 00:37:37), or to impeach the President (HC E25 00:41:54). When

Remy, his former press secretary and later chief of staff, tells Frank he owes his staff the same respect which he demands from them as a president, Frank replies that he gave him a position in the White House and does not owe him “a damn thing” (HC E34

00:20:16). After both Jackie and Remy quit working for him, they are willing to testify against Frank in front of the committee.

Cathy Durant and Frank have known each other for quite some time and she has been his political ally, which is why he offered her the position of Secretary of State. He seems to be honest and straightforward with her, unlike with his other colleagues, but in season 4, he lies to her in the same way as to anyone else – about her nomination for the vice president, though he knows that is never going to happen and Claire will be on the ticket instead (HC E48 00:19:08). When Cathy is no longer willing to stand by Frank and his crimes, he threatens her with fates of Zoe and Peter Russo and tells he would kill if it was necessary (HC E49 00:38:14). When she still resists Frank and is going to testify against him, he throws her down the stairs (HC E64 00:00:44).

His only truly loyal member of staff is Doug Stamper. As Tim Stamper in the

British series, Doug does not have any bigger ambition than to serve FU, but he is even more dedicated than Tim. It may have something to do with the fact that Doug is an abstaining alcoholic, and his devotion to work and Frank keeps his mind occupied, so that he does not need a drink. Either way, he always stands by Frank and assists him with everything; he is willing to donate a part of his liver when Frank needs a transplant and when the doctor says a full liver transplant is needed, he intimidates the Secretary

76 of Health to make sure Frank is next on the list for liver transplants – letting the man who was first on the list die (HC E45 00:04:13). However, when Frank is in serious trouble and wants to “remove the entire issue” of killing Zoe Barnes “from the table”, he requests Doug to blame the murder on himself – with which Doug agrees (HC E64

00:21:20; E65 00:36:47). This can be treated as both a misuse of loyalty of his staff, knowing Doug would do anything for Frank, and, at the same time, as delegating “the enactment of unpopular measures” to others, which Machiavelli recommends (59).

In this adaptation of House of Cards, Frank has a strong ally in his wife,

Claire.25 To a certain extent, she may be considered both a member of his staff (working closely with him as his Vice President, the First Lady, the Ambassador to the United

Nations26), and the flatterer. Regarding the latter, although she does sometimes tell him what to do, she does not have that much control over her husband than Elizabeth over

Francis Urquhart. Claire and Frank perceive their marriage as a partnership of two independent people supporting each other (HC E17 00:29:56). Nonetheless, Claire influences Frank’s political decisions to such extent that he does not act rationally (she is manipulated by Russia, but Frank does not consider this possibility and believes her because she is his wife and approves a mission to investigate the deaths of Russian soldiers, which, however, goes terribly wrong (HC E35 00:25:47). Gradually, after

Frank is elected President, the inequality between them grows and Claire is willing to sabotage his presidency unless he will make her his running mate. Frank knows he needs Claire by his side – for her support as such, but also because she seems to be more popular than him and can earn them votes. When Claire is sworn president after his resignation, he admits that although he has always told himself “that everything [he]

25 To capture the relationship of Frank and Claire would require a chapter of its own, and although it might be interesting, there is not space for it in this work. 26 The position to which she was appointed by her husband, overriding the Senate v ote against it – the example of nepotism that the Medici (and all the Renaissance popes) would approve (“The Medici” 00:21:50). 77 did was for her”, now he realizes that “maybe [he] love[s] power more”, power “for its own sake” (HC E65 00:20:55). It cannot be clearly assessed what would Machiavelli think of such situation, he most likely did not think of a prince’s wife as his closest advisor. Yet, it can be said that as a member of his staff, Claire persuaded Frank to do things that he would not do or would consider more carefully before acting. He also pushed her too far, apparently, when he no longer treated her as equal and did not share plans with her (about him resigning), resulting in Claire not pardoning him for his crimes after he resigned.

5.9 Frank Underwood, the Man of Action: Conclusion

Congressman Frank Underwood lied and cheated his way into the presidency, only to lie and cheat to keep it. Meanwhile, he proposed a program that would help a considerable number of American citizens, and deteriorate the quality of life of many others at the same time. He did not follow any ideology, he believed in power for its own sake. Similarly to FU#1 and FU#2, therefore, it can be generally said that he employed Machiavellian tactics, but he used them for the wrong ends.

One of the major differences between Frank and the two British versions is the fact that he never doubts himself; he does not feel remorse, the murders he committed do not haunt him.27 If FU#2 is Macbeth, Frank Underwood is Richard III.

Whereas FU#2 cares predominantly about the upper classes, since those from the lower classes are often not even registered to vote, FU#3 appeals to the working- class people, creating jobs for those who cannot find them themselves. Frank describes himself as “the man of action”, who is loved by the people (not enough people to elect

27 He does have hallucinations about the people he killed when he is lying unconscious in the hospital after the assassination attack on him. But when he regains consciousness, he does not treat the hallucinations seriously, he even tells Cathy about them when he threatens her ( HC E49 00:38:25). 78 him president, though), because “with all the foolishness and indecision” in their lives, they want to see some action, someone who does not “apologize”; and he lives by the rule of two extremes – “being in” or “being out”, aiming to “win” (HC E64 00:49:27). It is possible that the creators of the show reflected on the actual presidential elections in the United States which took place in November 2016 (season 5 was filmed from July

2016 to February 2017). That election has been won by a businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump, who, too, was too keen on winning (Amis), who also has “a free and easy attitude towards the truth” (Jeffries), and who appeals to the ordinary people by his speeches.

In both British versions – to use the fairy tale terminology – good defeats evil. In the novel, FU#1 ends his journey himself, jumping off the roof. In the British series,

FU#2 can no longer assess his position rationally and when he is about to lose in the upcoming election, his wife has him assassinated to save his reputation, and the moral

Tom Makepeace succeeds him as prime minister. The crimes of FU#3 begin to surface and haunt him and he decides to resign. He believes that with Claire in the White

House, he will still have access to power, but it is not probable that he would be

President ever again. Nevertheless, by the end of season 5 – which is when this thesis is being written – Claire still has not pardoned Frank for his crimes as they agreed upon, so he is out of White House with no connections to it. The words of Michael Dobbs, which he uttered when the British series was coming to an end, seem to be fitting again

– “It’s time for FU to come to a close, …, [y]ou can’t have a prime minister [or a president] going around being a homicidal maniac” (Rockwell). The ending of the fifth season of the American series leaves it open for the future comeback of FU#3 to power, but the situation that has arisen around Kevin Spacey, the actor portraying him, predicts

79 a very different season 6. Due to the allegations against Spacey,28 he will not be cast in the sixth season at all, which means Frank Underwood indeed will not be “going around being a homicidal maniac” anymore. It is vital to consider here the extent to which the series or a movie are influenced by the team of people who make it. The actors themselves have an impact on the character they portray – as is apparent from the

Spacey-FU example – and since almost every episode is created by a different person, it may be also worth asking whether such characters (in series) are coherent, or whether the particular character was something else in season 1 than he or she is in later season.

28 Kevin Spacey was accused by actor Anthony Rapp of making a sexual advance towards h im when the actor was 14 and Spacey 26 (Lomas). 80

6. Conclusion

This work has set out to compare the three versions of House of Cards with each other, and to view them through a Machiavellian lens. The aims were to show where the 1990

British adaptation and the 2013 American adaptation diverge from the original novel, and asses how the comparison of the woks changes when they are studied from the

Machiavellian perspective.

Both the British mini-series and the American Netflix series preserve the character of FU, the unscrupulous politician longing for revenge and subsequently power, as the central character in the story. With each adaptation, additional characters are included in the story. In the British mini-series, Elizabeth, Francis Urquhart’s wife, has a profound impact on him and encourages his actions. Frank Underwood has Claire, who is almost as important a character in the American House of Cards as her husband, but does not influence him as much as Elizabeth. All three versions are political fictions, but the setting of the American one is inevitably different – instead of the

British Parliament in the Palace of Westminster, Frank Underwood operates in the

United States Congress and later in the White House. He needs to bring down both vice president and president to get to the highest position, and therefore his plan is much more elaborate. All three works can be seen as conspiracies that turn out to be true –

FU’s road to power includes so many dishonest and insidious actions that no one believes it might be actually true. In the screened adaptations, the story is narrated mostly from the perspective of FU, while in the novel there is only a third-person omniscient narrator. Moreover, FU in the series breaks the fourth wall and often speaks directly to the audience, sharing his schemes with the viewers. Netflix’s House of Cards is considerably longer than the British mini-series, which allows the creators to include more supporting characters as well as many subplots. The major aspect in which the

81 protagonists of the three versions diverge is their determination to keep hold of power by any means necessary. In Dobb’s novel, Francis Urquhart’s will “had become a battleground” when he was about to kill someone, and when confronted by the first real obstacle, he decided to jump off the roof to his death. Andrew Davies’s Urquhart was not sure what else to do after he succeeded in becoming prime minister; the murders he had committed continued to haunt him. Only Frank Underwood never regretted anything he had done and felt no remorse.

Michael Dobbs said that his book is not about politics and institutions, but rather about power, personality, great ambition, weakness, and wickedness. The creator of the

American version, Beau Willimon, stated that the fact that the show is more about people than political institutions is one of the fantastic things about both British versions, because it does not “require that you be a political expert in order to enjoy it”; he chose the same approach for his adaptation (Chakelian).

Upon viewing the three versions of House of Cards through a Machiavellian lens, it can be seen that although the three works diverge in many aspects, they are considerably similar as far as Machiavelli is concerned. Whereas in all three works FU is the main character and the main topic is a struggle to win and keep power, in neither of them does the protagonist seek power to wield it for the common good. Machiavelli’s ideal prince must “bring prosperity” to his country and its people. Francis Urquhart,

Urquhart in the series, and Frank Underwood all seek power to pursue their self-interest and as a means of revenge. Even though the protagonists in the British and American series initially show a potential interest in reforming their country, eventually they focus on their own pursuit of power. However, because the two of them at least tried to bring prosperity to their country, they may be considered slightly closer to the ideal

Machiavellian leader than Francis Urquhart in the novel.

82

The Machiavellian lens has also shown that Francis Urquhart and his two adaptations employ many of the tactics recommended by Machiavelli in The Prince.

The aspects in which these three protagonists are or are not Machiavellian are basically the same. While they oppose some of Machiavelli’s instructions – they are criminal and treacherous on their road to power (with Frank committing the most crimes – e.g. money-laundering, disrupting elections, misuse of domestic surveillance) and do not treat their staff well – they are, on the other hand, skilful liars, are not virtuous when needed, and are careful about their reputation among the public. Despite the fact that all three protagonists use Machiavellian tactics in their behaviour, they fail to meet the most crucial condition suggested by him – to bring prosperity to their country and its people and honour to themselves. Machiavelli did not encourage and approve of immoral actions unless they were to bring the common good, therefore employing only his tactics is not in line with his thinking.

It may seem that one FU is more “Machiavellian” than the other two. For example, it may seem that Frank Underwood is more “Machiavellian” because he is more resolute than the other two, he is merciless and remorseless. Yet that does not make him any closer to the ideal prince, at least not according to the conditions selected for this work. Perhaps if different criteria were selected for the analysis – such as the actions and lives of those Machiavelli in The Prince considers to be the greatest leaders and examples the new prince should follow – Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus (18;

81) – then we would get different results.

The fact that the adjective “Machiavellian” is commonly used referring to House of Cards protagonists even though these characters are Machiavellian only in some aspects, excluding the crucial one, proves that this word does not necessarily refer

83 strictly to Machiavelli and the ideas presented in The Prince, but its usage is the result of the evolution of this word’s meaning throughout the centuries.

84

7. Bibliography

7.1 Works Used

Dobbs, Michael. House of Cards. Glasgow: Collins Sons, 1990.

House of Cards. Prod. Beau Willimon. Perf. Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright. Netflix.

2013. Web. 20 June 2017.

House of Cards. Screenplay by Andrew Davies. Perf. Ian Richardson and Diane

Fletcher. BBC. 1990. DVD.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Trans. G. Bull. London: Penguin Books, 2002.

The Final Cut. Screenplay by Andrew Davies. Perf. Ian Richardson and Diane Fletcher.

BBC. 1995. DVD.

To Play the King. Screenplay by Andrew Davies. Perf. Ian Richardson and Diane

Fletcher. BBC. 1993. DVD.

7.2 Works Cited

Amis, Louis. “Has Donald Trump Been Taking Inspiration From Action Movies?” New

Statesman, 8 Sep. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2018.

taking-inspiration-action-movies>

“BAFTA.” Bafta, British Academy of Film and Television Arts Award, Web. 22 Jan.

2018.

Bireley, Robert. The Counter-Reformation Prince: Anti-Machiavellianism or Catholic

Statecraft in Early Modern Europe. Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP, 1990.

Boutet, Marjolaine. “The Politics of Time in House of Cards.” Transgressive

Television: Politics and Crime in 21st-Century American TV Series. Ed. Birgit

85

Däwes, Alexandra Ganser, and Nicole Poppenhagen. Heidelberg: Heidelberg

UP, 2015. 83-102.

“Breaking the Fourth Wall.” Discovering Shakespeare, 20 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 March

2018.

the-fourth-wall/>

Bull, George. Introduction. The Prince. By Niccolò Machiavelli. Trans. G. Bull.

London: Penguin Books, 2002. ix-xxiv.

Burd, L. Arthur. Ed. Il Principe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891.

“Carl Jung: Archetypes and Analytical Psychology.” Psychologistworld. Psychologist

World, Web. 20 Jan. 2018. < https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/carl-

jung-analytical-psychology>

Chakelian, Anoosh. “House of Cards creator Michael Dobbs: ‘I Must Have Sold My

Soul’.” NewStatesman. New Statesman, 7 July 2015. Web. 6 Oct. 2017.

Chaytor, Rod. “Ian Richardson Has Final Resting Place In Row A.” The Guardian, 22

Nov. 2010. Web. 15 March 2018.

theatre>

Clemen, Wolfgang. Commentary on Shakespeare’s Richard III, London: Routledge.

2005.

Cowley, Philip. The Rebels: How Blair Mislaid His Majority, London: Politico’s. 2005.

--- and Stuart, Mark. “Whipping Them In: Role-Playing Party Cohesion with a Chief

Whip.” Journal of Political Science Education, London: Routledge, 11 (2015):

190-203. Web. 4 Nov. 2017.

“Design with Intent: Machiavellian Lens.” Design with Intent, Web. 2 Apr. 2018.

86

Dobbs, Michael. “Acknowledgements.” To Play the King. By Dobbs, London: Fontana,

1993.

---. “Afterword.” House of Cards. By Dobbs, London: Harper, 2011.

---. “House of Cards author Michael Dobbs on taking his creation Stateside.”

RadioTimes, 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 15 March 2018.

dobbs-on-taking-his-creation-stateside/>

Elliott, Larry. “Did Margaret Thatcher Transform Britain’s Economy For Better or

Worse?” The Guardian, 8 Apr. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2018.

transform-britain-economy>

Gladstone, Herbert J. “The Chief Whip in the British Parliament.” The American

Political Science Review 21.3 (1927): 519-28. Web. 4 Nov. 2017.

Grice, Elizabeth. “House of Cards: ‘All Politicians Get Pushed in the End’.” The

Telegraph, 4 March 2016. Web. 5 March 2018.

Hackett, Edward J. House of Cards and Philosophy: Underwood's Republic, Chichester:

Wiley, 2016.

Hans, Baron. “The Principe and the Puzzle of the Date of Chapter 26.” The Journal of

Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Durham: Duke UP, 21 (1991): 83-102. Web.

25 Jan. 2018.

Hartley, Dale. “Meet the Machiavellians.” Psychology Today, 8 Sep. 2015. Web. 2 Apr.

2018.

rubes/201509/meet-the-machiavellians>

87

Hautala, Tiina, and Routamaa, Vesa. “Archetypes and Types.” A Multicultural

Research Conference, Hawaii, 4-6 Jan. 2008.

Hayek, Salma. “Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too.” NYTimes, The New York

Times, 12 Dec. 2017. Web. 14 Dec. 2017.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. “The German Constitution.” Marxist Internet Archive,

Web. 26 Jan. 2018. <

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/gc/ch02.htm>

Humphreys, Adam. “Realpolitik.” The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Ed. Michael

Gibbons, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. London: Routledge, 2006.

Istook, Ernest. “House of Cards and the Constitution.” The Salt Lake Tribune, 10 June

2017. Web. 15 Apr. 2018.

Jacobi, Jorie. “Beau Willimon, House of Cards Creator, Tells His Own Story.” The St.

Louis Curator, 8 Apr. 2015. Web. 4 Apr. 2018. < http://stlcurator.com/beau-

willimon-house-of-cards-netflix-st-louis/>

Jeffries, Stuart. “Who Said It: Donald Trump or Frank Underwood?” The Guardian, 29

May 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2018.

radio/2017/may/29/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-frank-underwood>

Johnson, Ben. “Fox Hunting in Britain.” Historic UK, The History and Heritage

Accommodation Guide. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. < http://www.historic-

uk.com/CultureUK/Fox-Hunting-in-Britain/>

Jung, Carl Gustav, Collected Works of C. G. Jung: The Archetypes and the Collective

Unconscious, Trans. R. F. C. Hull, New Jersey: Princeton UP. 1968.

88

Kahn, Victoria. “Machiavelli’s Afterlife and Reputation to the Eighteenth Century.” The

Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, Ed. John M. Najemy, Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2010.

Kasper, Eric, and Kozma, Troy. Machiavelli Goes to the Movies: Understanding The

Prince Through Television and Film, London: Lexington Books. 2015.

Kelly, Stephen. “When Good TV Goes Bad: How House of Cards Came Tumbling

Down.” The guardian, The Guardian, 16 Oct. 2017. Web. 12 Jan. 2018.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Myth and Meaning. London: Routledge Classics. 2001.

Lomas, Natasha. “Netflix Cuts Ties With House of Cards Actor Kevin Spacey.”

TechCrunch, 4 Nov. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2018.

kevin-spacey/>

Nederman, Cary. “Niccolò Machiavelli.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 13 Sep.

2015. Web. 21 Jan. 2018. < https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/>

Makolkin, Anna. “Machiavelli’s Roman Nostalgia And His Critique Of Christianity.”

Electronic Journal For Philosophy, 2018: 12. Web. 2 Apr. 2018.

“Margaret Thatcher: TV Interview for BBC Campaign ’79.” By Michael Cockerell,

Margaret Thatcher Foundation, Web. 3 Apr. 2018.

Moore, Charles. “Margaret Thatcher Biography Part 14: Wobbly Thursday.” The

Telegraph, 4 Oct. 2015. Web. 18 Feb. 2018. <

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/margaret-thatcher-

biography/11908715/margaret-thatcher-biography-general-election-panic.html>

89

Morris, Roderick Conway. “Petrarch, the First Humanist.” The New York Times, 29

May 2004. Web. 4 Apr. 2018. <

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/style/petrarch-the-first-humanist.html>

“New Deal.” History.com, A+E Networks, 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2018.

“Pope Leo X.” Reformation 500, Web. 26 Jan. 2018.

“Prato – Mass Murder in the Italian Wars.” School of History, Classics and

Archaeology, SHCA Research Blogs, 26 Feb. 2017. Web. 12 Jan. 2018.

Ramin, Zohreh. “Shakespeare’s Richard III and Macbeth: A Foucauldian Reading.”

k@ta journal, 15 (2013): 57-66. Web. 28 March 2018.

Rockwell, John. “Britain Undone, With Evil Delight.” nytimes, The New York Times,

13 Jan. 1994. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.

“SAG Awards 2014: The Complete List of Winners and Nominees.” LATimes, Los

Angeles Times, 2014. Web. 20 Jan. 2018.

nominees-winners-complete-list-story.html>

Sandberg, Bryn Elise. “Kate Mara on President Obama’s House of Cards Fandom:

Awkward, ‘Like My Dad Is Watching’.” The Hollywood Reporter, 14 Feb.

2014. Web. 9 Apr. 2018.

Schneider, Michael. “Watch My Show: House of Cards’ Beau Willimon Answers Our

Showrunner Survey.” TV Guide, 13 March 2013. Web. 9 Apr. 2018.

90

Searing, Donald D. Westminster’s World: Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard UP, 1994.

Seward, Zach. “House of Cards’s Fourth Wall.” Medium, 10 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Apr.

2018.

b54a60143519>

Shaw, Christine. Julius II: The Warrior Pope. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, 1997.

Sirota, David. “Why Was Francis Underwood a Democrat?” Salon, 12 March 2013.

Web. 10 Apr. 2018.

Skinner, Quentin. Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford UP,

1981.

Smith, David. “House of Art: Portrait of Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood Hung in

Washington.” The guardian, The Guardian, 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 25 Jan. 2018.

Smith, Jeff. The Presidents We Imagine: Two Centuries of White House Fictions on the

Page, on the Stage, Onscreen, and Online. Madison: Wisconsin UP, 2009.

Sorlin, Sandrine. Language and Manipulation in House of Cards. London: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2016.

Spanakos, Anthony Petros. “Would Niccolò Machiavelli Endorse House of Cards’

Frank Underwood?” Politics and Politicians in Contemporary US Television:

Washington as Fiction. Ed. Betty Kaklamanidou and Tally Margaret. New York:

Routledge, 2017.

Stelter, Brian. “Netflix Does Well in 2013 Primetime Emmy Nominations” NYTimes,

The New York Times, 18 July 2013. Web. 27 Jan. 2018.

Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1995.

91

“The Final Cut.” Internet Movie Database. IMDb. Com, Inc, Web. 19 March 2018. <

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1457537/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl>

“The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance 3/4.” YouTube.com, 24 July 2012. Web. 17

Apr. 2018.

“To Play the King.” Internet Movie Database. IMDb.com, Inc, Web. 19 March 2018.

Travis, Alan. “Margaret Thatcher's Resignation Shocked Politicians in US and USSR,

Files Show.” The Guardian, 30 Dec. 2016. Web. 18 March 2018.

Van Zoonen, Liesbet, and Wring, Dominic. “Trends in Political Fiction in the UK:

Themes, Characters and Narratives, 1965 – 2009.” Media, Culture & Society

34.3 (2012): 263-279. Web. 14 Oct. 2017.

Viroli, Maurizio. Redeeming “The Prince”: The Meaning of Machiavelli's Masterpiece.

Princeton: Princeton UP, 2013.

Walk, Kerry. “How to Write a Comparative Analysis.” Writingcenter, Harvard College

Writing Center, 1998. Web. 15 Jan. 2018.

Waxman, Olivia B. “Why the Real Congressman Underwood Never Became

President.” Time, 30 May 2017. Web. 8 Apr. 2018.

Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli? Dir. Clare Beavan. BBC, 2013. TV series. “Winners & Nominees, House of Cards.” Golden Globes, Golden Globes Awards,

2016. Web. 20 Jan. 2018. < https://www.goldenglobes.com/tv-show/house-

cards>

Youngs, Ian. “Richardson's rule in House of Cards.” bbc entertainment, BBC NEWS, 9

Feb 2017. Web. 17 Feb. 2018.

92

8. Resumé (English)

This work compares the three versions of the political drama House of Cards with each other and subsequently views them through a Machiavellian lens. The aims are to show where the 1990 British adaptation and the 2013 American adaptation diverge from the original novel written by Michael Dobbs, and asses how the comparison of the works changes when they are studied from the Machiavellian perspective. The work shows that although the novel, the British mini-series, and the American series are different in many aspects, they are surprisingly similar when viewed through a Machiavellian lens.

The thesis consists of six chapters. The introductory chapter presents the aims and the theoretical approaches used in the work, and provides the basic background about Niccolò Machiavelli and House of Cards. The second chapter focuses on

Machiavelli and his work, particularly The Prince and the concept of an ideal leader.

Subsequently, the following chapters analyse the three versions of House of Cards by applying this concept on their protagonist. Chapter six concludes the findings.

For the purposes of this thesis, the definition of an ideal Machiavellian prince

(leader) was formed, containing five ideas or instructions from The Prince. The subsequent analysis of the novel House of Cards and its two adaptations into the series shows in which aspects does each protagonist act following Machiavelli’s advice and in which he does not. Whereas the three works diverge in many aspects – the time period, political systems, or the determination of the protagonist – they are not so different from the Machiavellian perspective. All three protagonists follow the instruction about not honouring one’s word and not acting virtuously when necessary, and they conceal their true nature from the public. However, neither of them has the goodwill of the people, does not threat his staff accordingly, and most importantly, does not seek or use power for the common good, but rather for his own self-interest. It was shown, therefore, that

93 when the adjective “Machiavellian” is used in connection with the House of Cards protagonist, it refers to only some of tactics described by Machiavelli, excluding the main goal advocated by him – to bring prosperity to one’s country.

94

9. Resumé (Czech)

Předložená práce porovnává tři verze politického dramatu House of Cards (Dům z karet) mezi sebou a následně se na tyto práce dívá z pohledu Machiavelliho a jeho díla

The Prince (Vladař). Cílem práce je určit, v čem se dvě adaptace – britský seriál z roku

1990 a americký z roku 2013 – liší od původní knižní verze napsané Michaelem

Dobbsem v roce 1989 a také zjistit, jak se toto porovnání změní, když jako kritérium vezmeme Machiavelliho a jeho dílo. Práce ukazuje, že ačkoliv se kniha a její adaptace v mnohém liší, z Machiavelliho perspektivy jsou si více než podobné.

Práce se skládá ze šesti kapitol. Úvodní kapitola představuje cíle a metodologii použitou v této diplomové práci a poskytuje základní informace o Niccolò

Machiavellim a House of Cards. Druhá kapitola se zaměřuje na samotného

Machiavelliho a jeho díla, konkrétně na Vladaře a z něho plynoucí koncept ideálního vládce. Následující kapitoly pak analyzují tři verze dramatu House of Cards aplikací tohoto konceptu na postavu protagonisty z každé z těchto verzí. Kapitola šestá shrnuje zjištěné poznatky.

Pro účely této práce byla vytvořená definice ideálního prince, neboli vladaře, podle Machiavelliho, která se skládá z pěti bodů vybraných z Vladaře. Následná analýza knihy House of Cards a jejích dvou adaptací ukazuje, ve kterých aspektech se daný protagonista chová podle Machiavelliho rad a ve kterých nikoli. Ačkoli se tyto tři verze v mnohém liší – politický systém, doba, či odhodlanost protagonisty – když se na ně podíváme z perspektivy ideálního lídra podle Machiavelliho, nesou více podobných znaků. Všichni tři protagonisté se řídí Machiavelliho radou nedodržovat své slovo a jednat nečestně, jestliže je to nutné, a také dokážou před veřejností ukrýt svou pravou tvář. Nicméně žádný z nich si nezískal dobrou vůli a podporu lidu, nechoval se ke svým spolupracovníkům poctivě a co je nejdůležitější, získanou moc neuplatňoval na

95 zabezpečení všeobecné prosperity pro svůj lid, nýbrž k uspokojení vlastní touhy po moci a pomstě. V této práci bylo tedy ukázáno, že když se označení „machiavelistický“

(„Machiavellian“) užívá ve spojení s House of Cards, naráží se tím na jenom některé z taktik popsané Machiavellim, opomíjejíc ten hlavní cíl, který Machiavelli zdůrazňuje

– zabezpečit prosperitu pro lidi ve své zemi.

96