Filosofická Fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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