The Evolutions of Serialised Television in House of Cards

Home , Aside, Claire Underwood, House of Cards (novel), To Play the King

Ghent University

Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

An Increase in Complexity and the Arrival of the Antiheroine

Supervisor: Paper submitted in partial fulﬁlment of the

Prof. Dr. Gert Buelens requirements for the degree of "Master in de

Vergelijkende Moderne Letterkunde"

by Laura Van den Bossche

May 2016 1

Contents

Acknowledgements 3

1 Introduction 4

1.1 Methodology and Results ...... 5

1.2 The Evolution of Serialised Television ...... 8

2 Narrative Techniques 12

2.1 Beginnings ...... 12

2.2 Diverging Narrative Arcs ...... 15

2.2.1 UK Version: The Start of Serialisation ...... 16

2.2.2 Netﬂix: A Hyper-serialised Story ...... 18

2.2.2.1 Character Serialisation and Episodic Focuses ...... 19

2.2.2.2 Long Story Arcs and Character Appearance ...... 22

2.2.2.3 Serialisation Through Dialogue ...... 23

2.2.2.4 Serialisation Through Symbolism ...... 25

2.3 The Functions of Melodrama ...... 28

2.4 Accessibility Through Recapitulation ...... 34

2.4.1 Previously Segment ...... 34

2.4.2 Flashbacks ...... 35

2.4.3 Diegetic Retelling ...... 41

2.4.4 Breaking the Fourth Wall ...... 43

3 Character Dynamics 47 2

3.1 Mrs Urquhart and Mrs Underwood in House of Cards ...... 47

3.1.1 Elizabeth Urquhart ...... 48

3.1.2 Claire Underwood ...... 53

3.1.2.1 The Anti-heroine: Relatable and Detestable ...... 56

3.1.2.2 A Feminist Representation ...... 64

4 The Increase in Complexity and the Rise of the Antihero(ine) 67

Works Cited 72 3

Acknowledgements

Throughout my life I have been inﬂuenced by a number of great storytellers. The last four years I was able to learn about stories in an academic context. For that chance I will be forever grateful.

So ﬁrst of all, I want to thank my parents for the support I received during my time at the

University of Ghent, the preceding years and the years that are yet to come.

Next I want to thank my promoter, Prof. Dr. Gert Buelens for offering me the chance to research the exciting medium of the serial and to provide me with the necessary feedback.

Literature and movies have always been a topic of conversation among my friends and me, but a couple of years ago the conversation changed. My friends and I were not talking about the movies we watched last night, but which shows we binged on and how much sleep we lost over them.

House of Cards was one of those programmes that intrigued me. Researching in which ways the narrative operates was equally intriguing.

I also want to thank my grandparents for the encouraging hugs, proud telephone calls and multiple cakes that kept me company while studying and writing. Thank you, Julie De Muynck,

Lore Piers, Louise Smet en Margot Vervliet for being a part of my support system during my time at university and for the encouraging reﬂection sessions. Last I want to thank Roberto Medico for reading my thesis, but most of all for his patience and loving words. 4

1 Introduction

Today, our age-old need for stories is met through multiple media. Classic art forms such as literature and theatre continue to serve that need, but in the last decades televised narratives have become increasingly important. Indeed, the primary story source of Western society seems to be shifting towards the small screen. According to multiple cultural and television researchers such as Jason Mittell and Brett Martin, the television landscape changed tremendously since the late

1990s. These changes ensured that today’s television can be regarded as an art form, deserving attention from academia and critics. A contemporary television programme that could count on much attention from television critics was House of Cards, a political drama.

Most people today know House of Cards as an original Netﬂix production, but in 1990 the

BBC also broadcasted a television programme entitled House of Cards. The programme ran until

1996, but changed names three times since every new season came with a new title. Accordingly, there are three titles that can refer to the House of Cards production from the BBC: House of

Cards, To Play the King and The Final Cut. The Netﬂix version is an adaptation of the BBC production and both are based upon Michael Dobbs’ novels that form a trilogy. House of Cards was chosen as the topic for this thesis for multiple reasons. One being that both productions were critically acclaimed and recognised by prize committees such as The Emmys, The Baftas and The

Golden Globes. Therefore, House of Cards can be considered an archetype for qualitative and contemporary television. Many awards were handed out for performances of lead and guest actors, but the writing, casting and cinematography has also yielded nominations and awards.

Other reasons for selecting House of Cards revolve around the differences between the two productions. Those differences promise to clarify certain evolutions of the TV making 5 industry. The setting of the Netflix production and the BBC production diverges due to the geographical difference and the difference in time. Netflix is an American company that primarily targets American viewers. Hence, Netflix chose Washington D.C. as the most important location.

The BBC production is British and follows the setting of Michael Dobbs, namely London.

Furthermore, there is a time gap of twenty-three years between the two productions. During this period the television world developed in many ways. The House of Cards’ productions should be exemplary of at least some of the changes that occurred in the last quarter decade. Because of the time gap House of Cards grants academia a unique insight into how TV storytelling changed since 1990. Besides time and geography, length is another important difference between the productions. A BBC season consists of four episodes as opposed to the thirteen-episode seasons

Netflix produces. Moreover, Netflix already has four seasons and a fifth one on the way, while the

BBC only had three seasons. To illustrate, the BBC told the entire story in the same amount of time as one Netﬂix season, that time being approximately 660 minutes. Consequently, Netﬂix has room to explore the narrative in ways the BBC could not. In this thesis it will become clear how the differences in time and size affect both form and content. More precisely, this thesis will explore how the US and UK version of House of Cards compare to each other on the level of form and content, and if the differences between the productions represent larger evolutions of serial televised narration.

1.1 Methodology and Results

The thesis consists of two main chapters that are split up according to the division: form and content. The ﬁrst chapter discusses narrative techniques and the second discusses character 6 dynamics. In that way, it is possible to systematically explore how the adaptations of House of

Cards function differently and how these differences relate to the previously mentioned dissimilarities determined by geography, time and length. When analysing formal components such as narrative arcs and recapitulation techniques, ‘close viewing’ of all episodes and note taking were necessary steps. In that way an in-depth comparison between the productions could be made and interesting (dis)similarities could be noted. The same is true for Chapter 3

(Character Dynamics).

The second step involved the creation of a theoretical framework. The works of multiple scholars such as Newman, Mittell, Martin and Armbrust were used as a basis for the analyses that are discussed below. Newman and Mittell were important ﬁnds, since there are not many academic works regarding the poetics of contemporary television storytelling. Especially,

Mittell’s book Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling considers many of the topics that directly relate to the questions of this thesis. Many references are made to Jason

Mittell because of two reasons. First, the book was published in 2015, making it hard to ﬁnd an academic work that considered more recent changes in TV making than Mittell’s. Second, there is the exhaustive character of the book. Complex TV is one of the few scholarly works that offers formal analyses and theory on almost every aspect of contemporary television.

Technical jargon and various concepts were borrowed from Newman, Mittell, and

Armbrust, especially in relation to Chapter 2. It analyses the use of pilots, story arcs, the functions of melodramatic plots and recapitulation techniques in order to illustrate how narrative techniques work and how they have evolved in regard to House of Cards. A discussion of the pilot of both versions acts as an introduction to the story world of House of Cards, its themes and operational techniques. In Chapter 2, it becomes clear that Netﬂix recounts the narrative in a more complex 7 manner than the BBC since it entangles more narrative levels and narrative plots. As a result, the operational techniques of the US version are also more advanced.

Brett Martin was especially important in relation to Chapter 3 that primarily revolves around the female protagonist of House of Cards: Elizabeth Urquhart in the BBC serial and Claire

Underwood in the Netﬂix production. In his book Difﬁcult Men: Behind the Scenes of a Creative

Revolution: From The Sopranos and The Wire to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, Brett recounts the rise of the televised antihero. According to Brett "difﬁcult men", meaning the antiheroes, are representative for a new golden age of TV that started in the late 1990s. The book was published in 2013 and only mentions American primetime serials. Therefore, it does not mention House of

Cards since the ﬁrst version is British and the second one was not yet available during the writing process. It is interesting that the evolution from Elizabeth Urquhart to Claire Underwood not only represents the creative revolution Brett describes, but also builds upon it. In contrast to Brett’s arguments that are limited to the masculine anti-hero who is discontent and middle-aged, this comparative study of House of Cards offers the next wave of what Brett calls "the creative revolution", namely the rise of the anti-heroine and the anti-couple. To repeat, this thesis argues that the House of Cards’ productions treat the female protagonist and various narrative techniques differently. Those differences are interpreted in relation to the evolutions that took place in TV making since the 1990s. In the chapters below the analyses are supported by screenshots from key scenes of both versions and by Freytag’s triangle. Freytag’s triangle was used to recreate certain plots schematically. 8

1.2 The Evolution of Serialised Television

To conclude this introductory chapter, a short history of serialised television is given. This overview allows a better understanding of the evolutions and concepts that get mentioned in

Chapter 2 and 3. According to Jason Mittell, the era of television complexity started in the late

1990s (17). Brett Martin situates a creative revolution of the television landscape in the same period. Hence, the UK version of House of Cards (1990 - 1996) does not belong to the era of complex television according to Mittell or the creative revolution according to Martin. Complex narration on the small screen became increasingly popular, but did not overthrow conventional forms of television such as melodramas and sitcoms (Mittell, 29). This build-up of complexity seems to be related to the recent increase of scholarship and academic interest.

Thomas Doherty compares the evolution of what he calls Arc TV, "long-form, episodic television", to the evolution of literature (1). Both literature and television had a pre-novel mode that was less complex. The genres of television that belong to this pre-novel mode are the

30-minute sitcom and the hour-long drama, two traditional formats that contain elements of picaresque literature (Doherty, 2). Viewers often had no information about the protagonist’s personal history or thoughts. The hero was simply "hit by one damn thing after another" (Doherty,

2). Hence, in both literature and television, action was initially more important than characterisation and psychology. There was simply no room for profound character studies since episodes used to be self-contained, meaning that storylines were not spread out over episodes and seasons (Doherty, 2). The arrival of story arcs on television changed this (Mittell, 33). The Collins

English dictionary deﬁnes a story arc as follows, "a continuing storyline in a television series that gradually unfolds over several episodes"(Story arc). When talking about television series that are 9 not self-contained, Sarah Kozloff’s term, TV serial, will be used.

Characteristic of the TV serial is the emphasis on back-story and evolution (Doherty, 2).

These elements have become increasingly signiﬁcant because of the build up of intertwined story arcs and the creation of profound character studies. Sarah Kozloff also refers to literature when distinguishing series from serials (91). Series ﬁnd their literary counterpart in anthologies of short stories, while the serial is compared to the serialised Victorian novel. In an anthology of short stories, the stories might be linked through recurring characters and themes, but the stories are able to stand on their own much like self-contained episodes of TV series can. The serialised

Victorian novel operates in the same way as the TV serial and therefore functions differently from the TV series. Victorian literature tells one story through sequential instalments and TV serials narrate stories in a similar way. Like Kozloff, Doherty and Martin also direct the reader to the publications of the Victorian era when tracing the literary background of serial television (1) (7).

Charles Dickens, among many other authors, helped to establish this genre of serialised ﬁction through novels like The Pickwick Papers.

Once stories got spread over multiple episodes creators had more room for complex storylines and character studies. The best television series and serials are "as exquisitely calibrated as the social matrix of a Henry James novel" according to Doherty (2). By comparing

TV to novels that were written by innovative authors such as Henry James, Doherty shows his appreciation for this new medium. His comparison aligns with the aforementioned increase of academic interest for TV series and serials. Only since 2010 scholars have increasingly been researching the poetics of TV shows. The legitimacy of serialised television and the focus on narration is thus fairly new. Jason Mittell and Brett Martin both offer an explanation for the reluctance of scholars to focus on narrative in television programmes. According to Mittell the 10 cause of their reluctance stems from the roots of television studies. These lie in mass communications and cultural studies (30). Both ﬁelds focus on social impacts rather than on aesthetic analysis. Mittell refers to narrative complexity as the main reason for the changing perception among scholars (30). In Difﬁcult Men, Brett Martin explains that the notion of quality television used to be revolutionary in the late 1990s, before television used to be "an artistic dead zone" (21). As a result, TV was perceived as unworthy of academic research, even when the quality increased. This demonstrates how the TV industry had to eliminate many stigmas, for example, the misconception that categorises TV as a passive and "lazy" activity. In Chapter 2, it will become clear that complex TV serials such as House of Cards require an active and engaged

audience.

The transition of self-contained episodes to serialised story arcs has been linked to the

increase of complex narratives, but in order to get a complete overview there are other elements

that should be considered when interpreting complexity in TV series and serials. Mittell takes into

account creative, industrial, participatory and technological developments (32). Especially,

technological and participatory developments are interesting for the analysis of House of Cards.

For example, viewing practices changed tremendously since the BBC ﬁrst broadcasted House of

Cards in 1990. Before 1990 there was barely any viewer control and channels chose what the

people at home watched (Mittell, 31). Since there was only one way to access television content,

you had to check the television guide regularly in case you wanted to watch your program of

choice. VCRs, digital video recorders and later DVDs enabled viewers to watch whatever and

whenever they wanted. In an article from 2006, Jason Mittell referred to a phenomenon that has

been normalised over the last years, namely binge watching (31). Back then it was DVDs that led

to this particular kind of viewing style. Today binge watching is not only offered, but also 11 encouraged by online streaming platforms such as Netflix. House of Cards was the first original program Netflix created and it encouraged binge watching because all episodes of the first season were made available at the same time. Netflix has continued to release its original programmes in this way and by doing so left its mark on the TV industry. In "The Netflix Effect" Sidneyeve

Matrix states that a huge percentage of the audience watched the House of Cards episodes back-to-back (119). As a result of this new viewing style people today watch television more often and for longer periods. It seems the abundance of choice also makes people choosier. A teenager states, "I’m not ever watching TV shows, I’m just watching on-demand. I don’t have time and I hate commercials" (D’Onfro). In a society where there are countless leisure activities to choose from time management is important. Nobody has time to waste on commercials or programmes they are not interested in. However, there seems to be a second important reason for

Netﬂix’s popularity amongst teenagers and age groups eighteen to thirty-four. In the words of

Matrix, "Netﬂix is also winning the original content wars, producing shows that are cinematically interesting, with complex narratives, compelling characters, and enough cliff hangers to keep audiences hooked" (130). Hence, matrix gives yet another reason for the surge of complicated story lines: Netﬂix and its commercial free back-to-back viewing style that encourages binge watching. 12

2 Narrative Techniques

2.1 Beginnings

The beginning of a television serial comes in the form of a pilot, i.e. the first episode. Pilots are complex entities due to the many functions they have to fulfil. First, there is the high degree of narrative exposition (Mittell, 56). The viewer at home is introduced to the main characters, multiple narrative arcs, narrative techniques and a fictional world. The world of House of Cards feels real since it is set in present-day Washington/London and is preoccupied with the lives of government officials. The pilot does not have to introduce anything fantastic unless Francis

Underwood’s/ Francis Urquhart’s Machiavellian personality is experienced as inhuman. That is not the case, because FU feels no less real than the White House or 10 Downing Street. It is the serial’s characteristic narrative technique that makes sure we do not discard FU as a villain, but rather label him the antihero. Within the first minute of both pilots FU is talking directly to the audience at home. By breaking the fourth wall the viewers feel close to the programme’s ruthless protagonist. At this moment, the pilot also succeeded in successfully educating its audience. From now on, they know FU is able to talk to them directly. According to Jason Mittell an important operational technique is laid bare here. Such techniques enable the audience to attune themselves to a specific storytelling style (Mittell, 56). When viewers are successfully educated, they turn into competent viewers who have mastered the narrative and its techniques perfectly. Obviously, there is more to House of Cards’ storytelling style than the broken fourth wall, but it is the most striking one. In this regard, it is telling that both pilots open with this narrative technique. In a later chapter, the fourth wall will be examined more closely to demonstrate just how substantial this narrative technique is for the programme. Since a pilot represents what is yet to come, an 13 examination of this first episode is a suitable starting point for this comparative study.

The main characters and many secondary characters are introduced in the ﬁrst episode.

Many of the original British characters have an American counterpart, but they are certainly not copies or doubles. The American characters are very different on multiple levels. Nonetheless, it is useful when comparing the narrative of the pilots to get the following overview:

British Characters American Characters

Francis Urquhart Francis/Frank Underwood

Elizabeth Urquhart Claire Underwood

Mattie Storin Zoe Barnes

Tim Stamper Doug Stamper

Roger O’ Neill Peter Russo

Penny Guy Christina Gallagher

Henry Collingridge Garret Walker

On the one hand, Netﬂix added various characters to its pilot, such as Janine Skorsky

(colleague of Zoe), Freddy Hayes (owner of Freddy’s joint) and Linda Vasquez (the President’s

Chief of Staff). On the other hand, Netﬂix also eliminated some characters of the British pilot

such as Charles Collingridge, the Prime Minister’s brother. The adding and eliminating of

characters predicts a difference in narratives. This turns out to be true, although the pilots are a lot

more alike than any other episode. For about ﬁfty minutes the Netﬂix team behind House of

Cards stayed rather close to the UK plot. Both versions introduce a lot of information in their

pilot that is substantial to the evolution of the main plotlines. Thus, the pilots are similar while the 14 other episodes show major differences. This contrast signiﬁes that Netﬂix followed a certain structure, but simultaneously created its own content within that structure.

By analysing the similar narratives, the sameness of structure can be deﬁned. FU’s cancelled promotion to a senior position (UK) / the Secretary of State (US) is what sets in motion his plan to bring down the Prime Minister/President while gaining power for himself. This narrative arc spans one season in the UK version, while it spans two in the Netﬂix production.

Other narratives that can be traced back to the pilot are: Zoe’s/Mattie’s collaboration with FU, the manipulation of Peter/Roger into an assistant of his schemes and the melodramatic plotline between Peter/Roger and Christina/Penny. All these plotlines are subordinate to FU’s ultimate goal: obtaining the most powerful position politics has to offer. Hence, it is this A plotline and its introduction that causes the unusual amount of similarities within the pilot.

There are two scenes that stand out in their resemblance to each other. First, the scene in which FU manipulates Peter/Roger into promising him "his unquestioning loyalty" (House of

Cards). FU can hold a drug addiction and visits to prostitutes above Peter’s/Roger’s head. The latter confrontation only happens in the US version. Second, there is the scene where Peter/Roger and Christina/Penny have telephone sex. Although all characters involved in these scenes are very different in both versions, Netﬂix decided to keep these scenes in the pilot. One reason is the scandalous and sensational atmosphere of the scenes. They could convince the viewers to continue watching. However, more important are the themes that these scenes evoke: sex, manipulation, politics and power. These themes are the main focus of the narrative in both productions. In that regard it is a logical decision to keep the scenes mentioned in the pilot.

The pilot might be the most similar episode when comparing the UK and US versions, but that does not mean the pilots do not differ as well. It goes without saying that the geographical 15 differences and the 23-year gap between the versions inﬂuence the setting. A story of UK politics of the 1990s could not simply be copied for the contemporary adaptation of House of Cards (US).

The American and British political systems are not the same, so there could never be a complete one on one relationship between characters who work in different political systems. Netﬂix also changed the political content of certain conﬂicts: Francis Urquhart focuses on insider trading to bring the PM down, while Francis Underwood starts his scheming with an education bill.

Presumably education might be a popular topic for the US viewer. Alongside differences in setting and narrative there is a big difference in characters. Netﬂix’ mark on House of Cards is

most visible when one looks at the characters. They might fulﬁl some of the same functions, but

they are very much different persons. The character dynamics are further discussed in Chapter 3.

2.2 Diverging Narrative Arcs

Newman distinguishes three storytelling levels for the analysis of primetime serials: scene or beat,

the episode and the multi-episode arc (17). Beats represent the micro level and multi-episode arcs

represent the macro level (17). When multi-episode arcs stretch out over a whole season one can

add a fourth level, namely the season arc. Newman does not mention this arc, but this level of

narration will prove a signiﬁcant storytelling unit in House of Cards. Therefore, the term season

arc will be used to refer to multi-episode arcs that coincide with the length of a season. The

narrative arcs of House of Cards are not the same in the US and the UK. The previous comparison

of the pilot indicated that the content and characters are dissimilar. Additionally, there is a

structural difference within the narrative. In the BBC production every season has a main plot

line, accordingly the narrative emphasis is on the season. Netﬂix uses the season arc as well, but 16 plays around with multiple storytelling levels due to its heavily serialised format. An analysis of some narrative arcs will follow to illustrate how the storytelling levels are employed in both productions. Freytag’s triangle has been used to reproduce the plot schematically (Jahn 189-190).

2.2.1 UK Version: The Start of Serialisation

Figure 1: Freytag’s triangle for season one UK

Each season consists of four episodes. (1) In the pilot the audience is introduced to Francis

Urquhart and his ‘helpers’ who are often manipulated: Tim Stamper, Mattie Storin and George

O’Neill. (2) Francis is also told he will not get the promotion he had counted on in one of the ﬁrst

scenes. That night he talks to his wife, Elizabeth, and decides to plan the Prime Minister’s

downfall. (3) The rising action consists of all the arrangements Francis makes in order for his plan

to succeed. (4) Mattie ﬁnds out the truth about Francis and seems on her way to a big revelation of

all his criminal activities, (5) but before she has a chance to speak Mattie is murdered by Francis.

This murder takes place at the end of episode four. (6) Francis wins the election and (7) drives off 17 to Buckingham palace.

The complication, climax, falling action and resolution all occur during the season’s

ﬁnale. The exposition and incentive moment are situated in the pilot, which has been discussed before. Therefore number three, the rising action, is the longest and most signiﬁcant narrative component. It takes up most of season one. The plotlines 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d are not narrated episodically, but serially, meaning that at least two episodes contain 3a, 3b, 3c or 3d. There is no plot element of Freytag’s triangle that is episodic: or the plot elements contain a part of an episode and belong to the micro level of the scene, or they are spread over multiple episodes and belong to the macro level of the multi-episode arc. However, there are some storylines that have an episodic feel about them, such as the Mattie narrative in episode four.

Mattie Storin is a young political journalist and Francis Urquhart’s mistress. She uses him for political scoops and he manipulates her writing to advance his political ambitions. The relationship between these characters starts in the second half of the first episode, but it is only in the fourth and last episode that Mattie starts to doubt Francis’ moral grounds and sees him for what he really is: a man that would literally walk over bodies to get what he wants. So Mattie’s suspicions start in the fourth episode and at the end of the same episode she is dead. The only storyline concerned with uncovering Francis’ ruthless and criminal behaviour seems to be brought to a stop. However, defining this narrative arc as episodic is problematic due to a tape recorder that has the truth on it. Somebody finds it and thus the danger of being uncovered is still there. Even Mattie does not completely disappear after this episode. She is still in the picture because of Francis’ PTSD which is represented in the second season through flashbacks and nightmares. The tape recorder and flashbacks are two elements that make it hard to define this storyline as episodic. The discussion of this particular Mattie-narrative and the plot of season one 18 as a whole demonstrate the high degree of serialisation in House of Cards.

Freytag’s triangle not only helps to visualise and discuss story levels, but also shows how the accumulation of narrative events is organised. Numbers one to three are necessary elements that prepare the last episode in which numbers four to seven take place. Accumulative narration is characteristic for serialised programmes, since a serial employs multiple plots and tension building to arrive at successful climaxes and resolutions. A high level of accumulation leads to expectations among the viewers. They expect the series to be consistent and to show a strict continuity (Mittel, 23). Since House of Cards is a realistic political drama, it is obvious that the level of continuity within House of Cards has to be very strict and consistent. If not, it would be impossible for the viewer to follow the many political ploys and schemes. The analysis of

Freytag’s triangle makes clear that the first important plotline starts with the first episode and ends with the fourth, the season’s finale. In season two and three the narrative emphasis is the same.

They each have their own focus. In the second season, entitled To Play the King, Francis wants to defeat the king, who is rejecting Francis’ harsh social policy. The Final Cut is the last season and focuses on Francis’ struggle to survive. Francis claims to "fight, fight and fight" to become the longest-serving Prime Minister (House of Cards). His downfall transforms the entire narrative into a tragedy.

2.2.2 Netﬂix: A Hyper-serialised Story

Beau Willimon is the show runner of House of Cards’ ﬁrst four seasons and one of the writers. In an interview, he says the following about the serialised format the series adopted:

Vince Gilligan described it as ‘hyper-serialized stories’, which is an apt description, 19

where every little moment and arc plays into a larger whole and you want to be

protective of that. It wasn’t the case when television tended to be more episodic than

it is these days. You didn’t have as much to protect. The characters didn’t change as

much, there weren’t as many twists and turns, a lot of the story was situational. So I

think that television as a whole, at least on the drama side veering toward this

hyper-serialization necessitates being a little secretive (Willimon).

Vince Gilligan created the high quality crime drama television series Breaking Bad. His description of the complex TV format as "hyper-serialized" is used by Willimon to explain why he is so reluctant to share facts about the upcoming season. All scenes, episodes, seasons and combinations of multiple scenes and episodes are of value to the entire story that is being told. In other words, even the smallest bit of information Willimon gives could become a spoiler. Every detail is important in House of Cards (US) and that leads to a hyper-serialised format. Four examples will illustrate how hyper-serialisation works in the US version and on which story levels it can take place. The discussion does not provide an extensive enumeration of every possible serialisation technique, but it does demonstrate how various elements such as characters, arcs, dialogues, settings, symbols and themes function in a complex serial. Because all these elements

"play into a larger whole", they help to hyper-serialise House of Cards.

2.2.2.1 Character Serialisation and Episodic Focuses

It is remarkable that Netflix uses the episodic arc more frequently than the BBC. In the first season, half of the Netflix episodes have a clear focus. It is important to note that an episode with a clear focus is not the same as a self-contained episode, since it would be very hard for a viewer to follow an episode of House of Cards at random. Brett Martin effectively compares this kind of 20 storytelling architecture to a colonnade in which "each episode [is] a brick with its own solid, satisfying shape, but also part of a season-long arc, that in turn, would stand linked to other seasons to form a coherent, freestanding work of art" (6). In that way, episodes with a clear focus are most satisfying and solid. They might facilitate comprehension for viewers who do not possess all information about the narrative. Both episode three and episode eight of the first season contain a good example of the episodic focus. It is not a coincidence that the locations used for these episodes diverge from the usual setting that is Washington D.C. By using another location the creators immediately define the episodes as different, even peculiar.

In episode three Frank Underwood goes back to his hometown of Gaffney, where a teenager died while driving. Apparently she was distracted by a water tower that looks like a peach. Frank advocated building the water tower while his political rival in Gaffney fought it.

Frank’s rival is now encouraging the small community to blame Frank for the girl’s death. In

Washington, the discussions about the education bill are about to start, but Frank has to go smooth things over in Gaffney before a lawsuit arises. So, why did the writers create a distraction in

Frank’s hometown when the education bill is a fundamental and thriving force of the plot? This episode turns out to be the ﬁrst thorough character study of Francis. He shows how Machiavellian his politics can be, even when it comes to the politics of a small town. When he gives a speech in church he uses a personal example to win over the people of his town, but through a break of the fourth wall it becomes clear he is manipulating them. The following quote is directed at the viewer at home:

Truth be told I never really knew my father or what his dreams were. He was quiet,

timid, almost invisible. My mother didn’t think much of him. My mother’s mother 21

hated him. The man never scratched the surface of life. Maybe it’s best he died so

young. He wasn’t doing much but taking up space (House of Cards).

Frank not only dishonours his father while lying in church, he does it to manipulate the feelings of parents who have just lost their child. This level of cruelty has not been shown before.

Frank’s plan works, he defeats his political rival in Gaffney and the Peachoid problem gets solved.

While the episode interacts on many different story levels, the character development of Francis seems to be the main focus. The setting of his hometown aligns perfectly with the goal of the creators to elaborate on his character.

Episode eight accomplishes similar goals with similar means. Peter Russo goes back to his hometown for political reasons, but at the same time the viewer gets an insight into his personal life. In the same episode Frank goes back to his alma mater, The Sentinel, where they built a library in his name. Yet, again these settings seem to evoke character elaboration, but this time the viewer sees a softer, more loving Frank Underwood. As soon as the trip is over his iron

ﬁst reigns again, but the viewer now knows this different, softer side exists. Episodes three and eight have an episodic focus. Naturally, this makes the episodes easier to follow, but the profound analyses of characters should be seen in light of serialisation. The creators offer a better understanding of the characters so they can build the complicated narratives around characters that the viewer knows and understands. The protagonists function as stable entities in the large narrative web that is House of Cards. The episodic focus is thus used functionally in light of serialised character developments. 22

2.2.2.2 Long Story Arcs and Character Appearance

Freytag’s triangle below (Figure 2) reproduces the plot progression of season one from Frank’s viewpoint. The main narrative operates similarly to the UK version, on the level of the season arc.

Figure 2: Freytag’s triangle for season one US

The rising and falling action consist of many components. However, this diagram is less

exhaustive than the previous one concerning the UK version. On this diagram not all storylines

are visible because multiple characters besides Frank have their own narratives. To arrive at a

complete plot representation one would need to make Freytag’s triangles from the viewpoint of all

main characters. Only then would all storylines be visualised. The difference in size that was

discussed in the introduction causes an increase of narrative elements in the US version. Some of

the B plots that evolve in one season become equally important in later seasons. Hence, they

transcend the seasonal arc. Here, Netﬂix diverges from the BBC version where the narratives are

mainly grouped per season.

An example of a storyline that goes beyond the season is the quest of the journalists. 23

Journalists such as Zoe Barnes, Lucas Goodwin, Jeanine Skorsky and Tom Hammerschmidt want to reveal the power abuse and criminal behaviour of the Underwoods. While one journalist often leads the search, this narrative arc spans all seasons that have been produced up until now. If future seasons do not abandon this narrative, this story arc can be deﬁned as a myth arc, since myth arcs span the entire serial (What Is Myth Arc?). The hyper-serialisation of this narrative arc is coupled to character appearance and disappearance. Tom Hammerschmidt is a main character of season one, appearing in all episodes. In season two, he shows up in only two episodes, in this manner Tom is reduced to a sideline character. His character seems to fade from the serial entirely when he does not show up in season three, but season four turns his character arc around. In episode ﬁve of season four Hammerschmidt resurfaces and afterwards returns in six more episodes. The fact that a character is able to return to the programme after having disappeared from the screen for over two years is a clear sign of a heavily serialised serial. The return of Tom aligns with the progression of the aforementioned quest narrative. Other characters that appear in all available seasons are: Frank, Claire, Meechum, Doug and Remy. In the UK version only

Urquhart and his wife appear in all episodes. Serialisation on the level of characters is thus far less current in the oldest version.

2.2.2.3 Serialisation Through Dialogue

Another level of serialisation situates itself in the dialogue. In episode seven of season four, Frank reminds Claire and the viewer of "everything we had to do since" he did not get the Secretary of

State position in the ﬁrst episode (House of Cards). This line can be regarded as simply a part of the House of Cards universe, but the phrase does more than carrying out a mimetic function. Here, the diegetic world also comments on the use of serialisation and how everything that happened is a 24 consequence of the incentive moment in the pilot. Season four seems to apply this technique more than once. The reason for this is a practical one. The pilot was made in 2013 and three years later it is plausible that certain events from earlier years start to fade from the minds of the viewers. By incorporating details and past narratives into the dialogue, the viewer’s memory is refreshed.

In episode ten of season four, it is Frank who is reminded of something by Catherine

Durant. She points out she has been there from the start: "I’ve had a front row seat to everything since the day Walker took ofﬁce – all the lies and betrayals and I helped you. My mistake was I assumed you wouldn’t stab me in the back. Your mistake is that it backﬁred" (House of Cards).

Especially the phrase "all the lies and betrayals" makes the viewer think of all the criminal activities that the Underwoods carried out through the years, much in the same way as the sentence "everything we had to do since". House of Cards demonstrates its narrative complexity by playing with its own narrative techniques. The iteration of past events is an intrinsic norm of the programme and serials as a whole. The competent viewer is aware of this. In the second half of this episode, Frank starts to recount his most deplorable actions, namely the killing of Zoe and

Russo. He even tells Cathy about the hallucinations he had of them when he was in hospital. The viewer knows what Frank says is completely true: "But of course it makes sense that they would have haunted me, because it’s all true. Everything Lucas Goodwin claimed. I killed them both"

(House of Cards). Just like Catherine, the viewer gasps at this confession, but soon learns Frank presents the truth as a joke. He starts laughing and then claims, "No, we didn’t kill anybody"

(House of Cards). Past events are recounted to Catherine, but only the viewer can recognise them for what they are, the truth. Although Cathy claims to have had "a front row seat" to all his "lies and betrayals", it really is the viewer who was in this position. This dialogue not only reminds the audience of what happened in season one, but also points out that the competent viewer is the 25 only one who can comprehend what really goes on while other characters remain in the dark.

Since FU directly addresses the viewer, the viewer can be regarded as a character. FU is aware of the viewer, turning him into a part of the diegetic world. During the discussion of the fourth wall break at the end of this chapter, more examples clarify the role of the audience.

2.2.2.4 Serialisation Through Symbolism

House of Cards also uses symbolism to serialise its narrative. Throughout the series smoking is a characteristic happening for the Underwoods. It represents their partnership and symbolises the intimacy of their relationship. There are barely any scenes with romantic or sexual encounters between Frank and Claire, but there are various scenes in which they smoke together. After a long day at work the Underwoods do not come together in the bedroom, but reconnect downstairs.

There, they share a cigarette while planning the next step in their schemes (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Season one Episode one

The smoking scenes have a ﬁxed setting in the ﬁrst two seasons, namely the side window of their house. When they move to the White House these moments cease to exist and at the same time their marriage starts to deteriorate.

Two scenes from the fourth episode of the ﬁrst season illustrate the immense symbolical 26 value of the cigarette in House of Cards. Claire returns just in time from a dinner with an old lover to join Frank and share their daily cigarette. This scene immediately follows the one where she rejects Adam, her former lover. He also offers her a cigarette, but does not smoke it with her since he stopped smoking a while ago. He lights it for her, creating the kind of intimacy Claire has with Frank (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Season one Episode four

After he lights the cigarette they kiss. However, Claire rejects Adam’s proposal to spend the night and returns home. When she arrives Frank is carrying out their daily ritual by himself.

The lonesome smoking with Adam contrasts with the smoking habit she and Frank share. For now she prefers siding with Frank, while continuing their smoking habit. Since these two scenes succeed each other, the viewer can easily make the connection between Claire who chooses her marriage and the smoking that symbolises their peculiar union. Their partnership often revolves around sinister activities. Hence, the atmosphere of their relationship aligns with how smoking is regarded today, namely as improper.

The smoking scenes form a substantial element of the story world and echo through the entire series as reminders of where Frank and Claire are standing in their partnership. At the beginning of season four, their relationship is collapsing when Claire abandons Frank.

Consequently, Claire is smoking alone in the second episode of the same season. In this scene, the 27 creators choose to shoot Mrs Underwood alone in a big garden where she lights up her cigarette.

Afterwards they zoom in on the actual smoking. The screenshot below (Figure 5) demonstrates how the creators wanted to emphasise her loneliness while smoking. To construct this image they used an extreme long shot with a long-focus lens. The effect is almost alienating.

Figure 5: Season four Episode two

In the middle of the fourth season the Underwoods are able to make amends and continue

their partnership in the interest of the next elections. When Frank reads an excerpt from Tom’s

book about their disintegrating marriage in the eighth episode, Claire states, "it is not like that

anymore" (House of Cards). Their reunion takes place in yet another smoking scene. (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Season four Episode eight

The screenshots (Figures 3,4,5,6) capture the common setting of the smoking scenes.

They frequently take place in private and at night. Therefore, the setting strengthens the immoral

side of both their partnership and the act of smoking itself. Since the marginalisation of smoking 28 is a recent phenomenon, this symbol was partly unavailable to the UK version. In the US version,

Claire and Frank’s shared cigarettes symbolise their shared life. When they smoke alone or not all it indicates something is awry. This symbolic clariﬁcation of their relationship is a convention of

House of Cards because it is used so often in the ﬁrst two seasons. It is indirectly explained in the

ﬁrst season and then turns up throughout the series. The smoking scenes are another example of what serialisation can accomplish.

2.3 The Functions of Melodrama

Today, TV programmes do not necessarily have to qualify as either episodic (series) or serialised

(serial). The opposition between series and serials disappeared and was replaced by a continuum where hybrid forms exist, meaning that TV programmes can be both episodic and serialised at the same time. Two elements caused this development: the rise of quality television and hybridization

(Armbrust). In "Analyzing Storytelling Strategies in Serial Television Drama: Hybrid Structure and Functional Polyvalence in House M.D.", Sebastian Armbrust states the following:

(. . . ) television policemen and doctors increasingly found themselves not only

solving one or more weekly cases at the same time, but were also confronted with

ongoing personal problems and character development progressing slowly in the

background (Armbrust).

In other words, series with self-contained episodes incorporated serial secondary storylines. These secondary storylines are used to narrate ongoing personal problems and feature an advanced kind of character development. Moreover, they elicit multi-episode melodramatic narrative arcs. Both House of Cards productions contain melodramatic plotlines. Previously, it has 29 been made clear how the serialisation of House of Cards works. The older UK version is primarily serialised on season level and does not use the episodic arc as frequently as the US version. However, Netﬂix is serialised to a greater extent overall. Consequently, Netﬂix has more continuing melodramatic plotlines. As has been said before, the scale difference between the productions is big. The three seasons of the BBC approximately take up the same time as one

Netflix season, eleven to twelve hours. Additionally Netflix has just released a fourth season and renewed the series for a fifth season in January 2016. Hence, Netflix has more room for secondary plotlines, character development and melodrama.

The melodramatic storylines of the UK version can often be reduced to a one-track reason of existence that is clearly linked to the main plot. I consider the following nine romantic/sexual relationships to form the frame of melodrama in the British version: Penny and Roger, Mattie and

Francis, Sarah and Francis, Sarah and her husband, David and his boyfriend, Lady and Sir Bruce,

Francis and Claire, Claire and Tom and ﬁnally Tom and his wife. I do not label the relationship between Francis and Elizabeth as melodramatic since their relationship is dominated by reason and not by romance or heightened emotions. Three out of nine relationships directly involve

Urquhart and two other secondary storylines would not exist without him: namely, the relationship between Sarah and her husband and the affair of Lady and Sir Bruce. The latter one only exists because Stamper and Francis convinced them to sleep together and Sarah’s marriage or rather the downfall of her marriage is a storyline that, within the series, only exists because of her affair with Francis. The viewer gets to witness how the marriage breaks down and how Sarah becomes another victim of Urquhart’s manipulative nature. There are two remaining relationships that can be linked to Francis indirectly. Francis has a strong inﬂuence on the relationship between

Penny and Roger and the affair between Tom and Claire. Tom and Francis challenge each other 30 for the leadership in the last season. Because they are competitors and Claire is working for

Francis, their affair becomes too complicated. Tom and Claire both want a break from their relationship for job related reasons and ﬁnally end the affair. An in-depth analysis of Penny and

Roger will follow below.

The remaining storylines revolving around Tom and his wife, and David and his boyfriend have little to do with Francis, but are still connected to the main plotline. Both have the potential to weaken Urquhart’s antagonists: the King in season two and Tom Makepeace in season three.

David is the King’s press secretary and gay. Considering it is 1995, his awakening homosexuality puts the monarchy in a bad light. However, David chooses to resign before Francis gets a chance to shame him and the King. Tom Makepeace’s marriage is a negligible storyline and is almost solely narrated in the third episode of the last season. Tom’s wife could endanger his race for the leadership since she wants to divorce him. As a result, Tom would lose the trust of many of his supporters and that would lead to Francis’ victory. However Tom’s wife promises to "ﬁt in with

[his] plans as far as [she] can" (House of Cards). In other words, she will wait with going public until after the election. The damage is conﬁned. In the last two relationships that were discussed, the link with Urquhart is different because of the stability of his adversaries. Neither the King nor

Makepeace weaken. In that regard, there is only a negative link to Urquhart: a link of missed chances.

In the UK version nearly every narrative has a direct impact on the A plotline. In the US version the majority of the storylines connect to the main plotline as well, but there are exceptions. Moreover, there are secondary storylines that the viewer experiences as independent of the A plotline. Because the character development is much more elaborate, the audience becomes more invested in the character’s lives and consequently their melodrama. As was said 31 before, this is partly a result of the scale difference between the two productions. To illustrate the ways in which melodrama functions differently, a discussion of one relationship will follow.

There are only two melodramatic narratives that are similar in both versions, the one between FU and Mattie/Zoe and the office romance between Roger/Peter and Penny/Christina. Since the first relationship can hardly be considered secondary the focus will be on the office romance.

The relationship between Christina and Peter in the Netﬂix production serves multiple storylines. Therefore, their plotline falls into Armbrust’s category of "functional polyvalence" (3).

The romance of Penny and Roger not only has a smaller focus within the series, but it is also less polyvalent. Both relationships function as the main melodramatic plot of the first season. This signifies that Penny and Roger have around four hours in which they occasionally make an appearance, while Christina and Peter have around twelve hours. Naturally, the viewers gets to know Christina and Peter better. They witness their first "I love you" in episode one and in episode two we see the couple get comfortable with each other, wearing sweatpants and using each other’s toothbrush. These short scenes appear throughout the first season in the US version, but do not occur in the BBC version. This lack of information makes it hard for the viewer to see the relationship between Penny and Roger as a stand-alone narrative, but there is enough information to interpret the romance as a secondary plotline that can mobilise the primary narrative: overthrowing Collingridge, the Prime Minister.

Previously, it was explained how Roger had to promise his "unquestioning loyalty" to

Urquhart (House of Cards). In the second episode, Urquhart already makes use of his controlling and powerful position. He asks Roger to convince Penny to have sex with one of his competitors.

Urquhart then records the sexual encounter and uses it as blackmail in the ﬁnale of season one. By forcing Roger to act as a pimp he also puts a strain on the romantic relationship he has with 32

Penny. Even their break up has Urquhart as its cause: "I lost the best girl in the world for you"

(House of Cards). In this quote Roger is talking about the secrecy Urquhart forced on him.

Urquhart asks Roger to come to his country home, but warns him he cannot tell Penny about the trip. Since Penny and Roger had a romantic getaway planned for the same weekend, Penny gets mad when Roger turns her down. All her hopes about their relationship were pinned on this romantic weekend. When he does not want to tell Penny where he is going, she breaks up with him. Although Urquhart is not the source of all their relationship problems, he inﬂuenced it by manipulating Roger. Their relationship is represented as just another move in one of Francis’ schemes.

The relationship between Christina and Peter in the US version is not only an independent melodramatic plotline, but also fulﬁls more functions. It is a secondary plotline that is entangled with many other narratives in a complex way. Its position of independence has a lot to do with character elaboration. Previously there were some examples of everyday scenes that demonstrate how the viewer gets access to small intimate details. Another example is the tertiary storyline that develops around Peter’s children. Christina gets to know them and the viewer witnesses in what way their future might develop. It seems the viewer is there for every step of their maturing relationship. Only in the second half of the ﬁrst season becomes their romance an instrument to

Underwood. Just like Penny broke up with Roger, Christina also breaks up with Peter. The difference is that Urquhart immediately kills Roger after the break up, while Peter’s death occurs later in House of Cards. Underwood wants to use him for another scheme first. Underwood realises Christina is the only one who can convince Peter to do what is necessary, namely to run for governor. From hereon out, their relationship turns into an instrument. After the break up in episode four Christina disappears for two episodes aside from one very short scene in the 33 beginning of episode five where we see Christina clear out her office. She only comes back in the second half of episode seven when Francis asks her to be Peter’s campaign manager while implying Peter could use her help to get back on track. When Peter/Roger is murdered by FU the storyline of the love interests, Christina and Penny, diverges. The viewer witnesses Penny’s reaction, but she soon disappears from the series without much information. Penny’s story was only relevant in relation to Roger. In the US version Christina does not disappear as quickly. Her narrative evolves by itself and away from Peter for seven more episodes. At first, the viewer witnesses how she works through Peter’s death by focussing on her job, but later on she also becomes involved in another scheme of Claire Underwood, which has nothing to do with Peter.

However, in her plan to link Christina to the president, Claire uses her single status and history of sleeping with the boss. The goal is to worry the First Lady.

Undoubtedly, the US version shows a higher amount of polyvalence. First, Peter and

Christina’s romance is followed more closely and thus able to function as an independent secondary narrative. Second, the viewer is introduced to new characters through their relationship such as Russo’s mom and kids. These characters are also used to explore Russo as a person. In contrast, Roger’s character study is superﬁcial because he is only important in relation to

Urquhart. Third, the relationship of Russo and Christina is employed by the Underwoods on multiple occasions. Fourth, the romance lays the groundwork for the further development of

Christina’s narrative and last Russo’s character is portrayed as more important than Roger’s. In the UK version, Urquhart only hallucinates about Mattie’s death and never about Roger’s, but in season four of the US production Underwood does hallucinate about Peter, keeping his character alive through multiple seasons. 34

2.4 Accessibility Through Recapitulation

Formerly, the concept of serialisation was explained and illustrated through a multitude of techniques that were used in House of Cards. The memory of the competent viewer is strongly related to the success of those techniques. In order to fully understand the storyline, the symbols, the melodrama and other character relations, the viewer needs to store information for long periods of time. Moreover, the viewer needs to actively recall past information when necessary.

Creators of series aid their audience by jogging their memory in various ways. To conclude this chapter a discussion of various stimulating techniques that allow access to the viewer’s memory and the programme’s past events will follow.

2.4.1 Previously Segment

The recaps that often feature at the beginning of an episode stimulate the memory of the viewer in an obvious way. Since they bring the audience up to date in a matter of seconds, it is also a helpful tool for the sporadic viewer. Newman deﬁnes this technique as the "previously segment". It contextualises information and emphasises past events that are relevant to the upcoming episode

(Newman, 19). Neither House of Cards productions originally broadcasted episodes that contained a "previously on House of Cards" segment. However, the DVD box sets do. The Sony

Pictures box set of the American version even gives their customers the option to watch with or without recaps. The option indirectly implies that some viewers might think of the recaps as redundant and in the worst case, irritating. The creators of highbrow series such as House of

Cards also assume that their audience does not need an abundance of repetitions. The fact that this particular kind of recapping was not integrated during the original broadcasting already 35 proves this, but in an interview Beau Willimon also explicitly said he assumes his audience to have a good memory: "We always assume that we’ve got a smart audience that has a good memory, that we don’t have to repeat a lot and we don’t have to infuse it with artiﬁcial cliff-hangers at every turn" (Willimon). The DVD box of the UK version contains recaps at the beginning of only some episodes. They seem to make a selection between episodes that could beneﬁt from this technique and episodes that do not.

2.4.2 Flashbacks

Another way to recapitulate events is through flashbacks. A character or narrator of a TV programme can have a flashback of either an older scene or of a past event that has not been shown to the audience yet. Thus, flashbacks can have multiple functions, but when they only replay previous scenes it often comes across as artificial and redundant. In both versions of House of Cards the flashbacks are layered with multiple meanings, making them more complex and significant. In contrast to the US version, the UK version does replay multiple scenes exactly as they were shown earlier. For example, Mattie’s death scene that takes place during the last episode of the first season. During this episode Urquhart murders her by throwing her off a building. The second season starts with a flashback to this murder. Due to the place and time of this flashback its main function is recapitulation, but it is also the first of a series of flashbacks that illustrates Urquhart’s deteriorating mental state. At the start of the second season, viewers following the series on the BBC might have been distanced from the House of Cards’ story world for almost three years since the first season ended in December 1990 and the second one started in

November 1993.

The opening scene of the second season shows the inauguration of the new King 36

(Figure 7).

Figure 7: Season two Episode two

This scene blends together with a ﬂashback of Mattie’s death. The Mattie ﬂashback then

functions as a transitioning scene, leading the viewer to the next one. That scene takes place in a

different setting, but has the same characters, namely the Urquharts. The composition of the

ﬂashback is complex. First, there is the audio track of the inauguration scene that is mixed with

the audio track of the ﬂashback. Second, there is the use of alternating images (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Season two Episode one

Mattie’s deadly fall alternates with images of Francis who is sitting on his bed. Since he

and his wife are still wearing the same clothes, the viewer knows this happened right after the

inauguration when they came home. On the screenshots below (Figure 9), Francis’ facial 37 expressions suggest that he is following Mattie’s fall in his mind.

Figure 9: Season two Episode one

The conversation he has with Elizabeth after the ﬂashback conﬁrms this analysis. He

claims it was just "a little debris from the past" (House of Cards). Elizabeth seems worried about

his mental state when she ﬁnds him after the ﬂashback. She tries to convince him he did what was

necessary for the greater good of the country (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Season two Episode one

This ﬂashback uses a previously shown scene, triggering the memory of the viewer.

Important is that the creators successfully avoided redundancy while repeating information. They

added an extra level of signiﬁcance through the mixture of the above scenes. This ﬂashback is the

ﬁrst of many Mattie ﬂashbacks that demonstrate Francis’ guilt and possibly his PTSD. Not only

the images come back throughout the following episodes and seasons, but also Mattie’s voice 38 surfaces from time to time. An example of an audio ﬂashback can be found at the end of the second episode of the second season: "Daddy, I want you to call me daddy" (House of Cards).

Until the very end of the series, ﬂashbacks of Mattie are a part of the narrative. In the last episode,

there is a series of images that shows Urquhart’s victims. Among them is also Mattie Storin. In

that way she never left the programme. Naturally these ﬂashbacks are not only there to remind the

viewer of the murder again and again, they also stress Urquhart’s inability to let go of Mattie, i.e.

his trauma.

In the American version of House of Cards, exact repetitions of earlier scenes barely exist.

Only through the character of Doug, does the audience rewatch a previous scene. Doug, Francis’

helping hand, is obsessed with a woman named Rachel Posner. In season two, his obsession leads

to a ﬂashback in which he thinks back of how she used to read to him. This ﬂashback does not

serve as a recapitulation. It almost functions in the same way as the Mattie ﬂashback that was

discussed before since the ﬂashback shows Doug is unable to let go of Rachel, in the same way

that Francis Urquhart was unable to let go of Mattie. However, in the UK version the ﬂashback

does not only elaborate on the plot. It also has a clear recapitulation function. In both House of

Cards productions these ﬂashbacks represent character’s inability to let go.

As seen before, Zoe Barnes is the corresponding character of Mattie Storin. The US

equivalent of the Mattie ﬂashback situates itself in the sixth episode of the fourth season. At this

moment, Underwood ﬁnds himself in the hospital with a damaged liver. His pain causes him to

hallucinate. Instead of ﬂashbacks about Zoe the viewer witnesses hallucinations that feature Zoe,

Russo, Claire and Frank. The hallucination scenes are able to awaken many memories despite the

fact that they do not include ﬂashbacks. Underwood killed both Zoe and Russo. Hence, these

hallucinations illustrate how Frank is haunted by his own gruesome actions. At the same time, the 39 hallucinations offer a summary of everyone he has lost. Obviously Frank lost Zoe and Russo when he decided to kill them, but the scenes also suggest he lost Claire.

In the screenshot below (Figure 11) Zoe’s pixie haircut and white dress cause her to look like Claire.

Figure 11: Season four Episode six

The threesome that takes place between Zoe, Frank and Russo triggers the viewer’s memory about the threesome of Claire, Frank and Meechum (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Season four Episode six

Zoe has become interchangeable with Claire during these scenes because of her demeanour, clothes, looks and her feminine role in the threesome. Moreover, both women are lost to Francis at the time of his hallucinations. To repeat, the pains of his past and present get entangled. Therefore, these scenes recapitulate past and present events: Zoe’s murder and his deteriorating marriage. 40

The hallucinations show that Frank lost a part of Claire during their rise in power. In the screenshot below (Figure 13) he sees Claire, but she closes the door and leaves him alone with

Zoe. Later on Frank tries to reach her again, but he is not able to because she is behind glass.

Figure 13: Season four Episode six

Besides referring to the Underwoods’ disintegrating marriage and the deaths of Russo and

Zoe, the hallucinations also remind the viewer of Meechum’s part in the narrative, yet another person who died because of Underwood. Meechum was the personal bodyguard of the

Underwoods and relates to the hallucinations because of two reasons. First, he also took part in a threesome with Underwood. Second, he gave his life during the shooting that is responsible for

Frank’s injuries and consequently his hallucinations.

Flashbacks can serve recapitulation purposes, but the US version demonstrates that there are more subtle techniques that can awaken memories of the audience. Through the hallucinations the viewer is not only reminded that Underwood is a murderer, the scene also activates long-term memories revolving around Zoe, Russo and Meechum, and elaborates on the relationship between

Claire and Frank. The multilayeredness of the discussed scenes illustrates the complexity of the serial. They also show how recapitulation often functions alongside other operational techniques such as techniques that evoke trauma theory or character elaboration. 41

2.4.3 Diegetic Retelling

Diegetic retelling is another form of recapitulation. Through dialogues the viewer is reminded of what has previously happened in a series or serial (Mittell, 181). Jason Mittell claims primetime serials are less dependent on this practice than soap operas, but House of Cards demonstrates that the technique is not limited to the genre of the soap opera. In "Serialisation Through Dialogue" I gave an example of how diegetic retelling is used. Typically one character reiterates past events to another character. The example of Frank Underwood repeating his most horriﬁc crimes to

Catherine Durant illustrated that use although it also commented on this practice by blurring the truth. In season two episode three of the UK version, Mattie’s friend and co-worker John

Krajewski also recounts some of Urquhart’s criminal activities when talking to Sarah Harvey. In addition, House of Cards innovates this technique by expanding on its use.

With the ﬂashbacks it became apparent that besides recapitulation there was also a layer of analysis present. In the UK version it concerned Francis’ trauma and in the US version the

ﬂashbacks commented on multiple character relations. An analytic element is also present when creators of the serial use news programmes to summarise and clarify the political narrative of

House of Cards. The US version employs this technique on a regular basis, but examples can also be found in the original version.

The third episode of the second season of House of Cards (UK) provides a second example of diegetic retelling. Here, it is not a conversation between characters that summarises information, but a news reporter. The reporter explains the relationship between the King and the

Prime Minister: "The King’s broadcast has brought out a truly extraordinary public response.

Crowds are out in the streets here in London and all major cities in support of the King’s apparent 42 opposition to Francis Urquhart’s hard line policies on welfare" (House of Cards). In seconds the relationship between FU and the King has become intelligible for any viewer. Moreover, a clear reason for their stressed relationship is given, namely Urquhart’s policies on welfare. Of course the competent viewer could collect this information from previous episodes, but a repetition and summary at this time is useful because the information is essential for a good comprehension of the main narrative. The focus of the second season is on Francis who has targeted the King and wants to bring him down. Because of the news reporters’ dialogue with the audience, all viewers are now capable of fully understanding the storyline.

The modern House of Cards’ adaptation contains many examples of reporters summarising and analysing political events. The second season of House of Cards (US) is

politically the most confusing one, because the plotline deals with a number of Chinese and

American negotiations that are interwoven in multiple storylines. Recapitulations of these

negotiations are thus necessary for a good comprehension of the story. In the ﬁnale of the second

season, multiple news channels summarise and explain the political negotiations that are relevant

in relation to the main narrative: bringing down the president. The news anchors describe political

events related to President Walker’s downfall. CBS news chief and White House Correspondent

says the following: "The list of lawmakers publically condemning the president has grown on

both sides of the aisle. This afternoon the Chinese ambassador also condemned the Walker

administration (. . . )" (House of Cards). By jumping to another news channel the viewer also gets

a summary of what is happening to the president and the First Lady at that very moment:

"Meanwhile, the president and First Lady remain bunkered at Camp David" (House of Cards).

The following news channel features a character from House of Cards that is not only seen during

the news, Aylla Sayad. By including her in the news the summarising function of these scenes is 43 blurred, because the viewer knows Aylla as a character who is able to propel the plot. As with the

ﬂashbacks, this scene also illustrates how creators play with different operational techniques at the same time.

2.4.4 Breaking the Fourth Wall

One of House of Card’s most famous operational techniques is the fourth wall break. FU is able to speak directly to the camera and therefore to the viewer. These asides allow FU to summarise and explain certain events to the viewer. Nevertheless the main function of this technique is not recapitulation, but involvement. It is important that the horriﬁc Urquharts and Underwoods are able to fascinate the viewer, since they are the protagonists of House of Cards. Fascination and involvement are partly created through the breaks of the fourth wall. When FU talks directly to the audience the viewer is given an insight into his criminal behaviour and thus turned into an accomplice. Consequentially, the viewer becomes invested in the scheming of the Underwoods and Urquharts. In that way the fourth wall breaks allow access to the mind of FU, but this operational technique is also used to increase access to the plot. Fourth wall breaks often recapitulate parts of the plot from FU’s viewpoint. Hence, they are an important element in relation to both FU’s character and the operational aesthetic of House of Cards. It is the latter

category that is of interest in this chapter. One example of both versions will be given to illustrate

how these Shakespearean asides operate in the House of Cards universe.

At the beginning of the second episode of the second season (UK), Francis Urquhart

delivers a speech in which he claims that the political conversations of the entire weekend should

be regarded "as absolutely conﬁdential" (House of Cards). The subject of the weekend is a speech

that the King gave earlier. Francis strongly disagrees with the policies of the King during the 44 second season. Their antagonism is central to the main plotline of this season. Right after Francis’ address, Francis breaks the fourth wall and starts talking to the viewer in an honest fashion:

It’ll leak of course. It’s probably leaking already. (. . . ) These days, a nice controlled

leak is absolutely the best way to announce anything. Did you enjoy my little speech?

(. . . ) I am in fact extremely angry with His Majesty and I intend to do him harm. I

feel exhilarated (House of Cards).

In this fourth wall break, Francis discloses what the real goal of the political gathering is.

He also expresses his feelings and asks the viewer’s opinion about the speech. His honesty contrasts with the tone of the speech. This contrast conveys trust since the viewer feels as if he is the only one getting access to the real Francis Urquhart. The inquiry directed at the viewer ties in with the viewer’s position as accomplice that was mentioned before. Not only does Francis conﬁde in the viewer about his plans with the King, he also searches for his/her approval by asking him/her directly what they thought of his speech. As a result the aside starts to feel like a collaboration between Francis and the viewer, even though the viewer’s presence is only implied.

The viewer is a part of the story world of House of Cards because FU is aware of the audience’s existence. There is also an explanatory function present in this fourth wall break. FU clariﬁes what is happening at the political gathering and also summarises his relationship with the king.

Later on he explains the value of a general election that was announced earlier: "Next to a small war, there’s nothing quite like a general election to stiffen the sinews and summon up the blood"

(House of Cards). For these reasons the fourth wall break increases accessibility through honest elaboration, clariﬁcation and summary.

The Netﬂix version uses fourth wall breaks in a similar way, but they draw more attention 45 to the operational techniques than the UK version. Highlighting the operational aesthetic of TV serials is characteristic of the new television era that Jason Mittell deﬁnes as more complex (47).

In other words, the US version demonstrates that television has become more complex through its use of fourth wall breaks. The ﬁrst example takes place during the eleventh episode of season three and shows how the fourth wall breaks are used to repeat information. This fourth wall break is preceded by a talk between Frank Underwood and Jackie sharp, his co-worker. In a television debate Jackie has to take down Frank’s opponent, Catherine Dunbar who also wants to run for the presidency. Frank wants Jackie to use unjust arguments and "be the pit bull" (House of Cards). He wants to depict Dunbar as a liar by calling her out for sending her children to private school.

According to Frank’s logic this proves Dunbar’s ﬁght for equality is not an honest one. Jackie does not want to bring up Dunbar’s children because the argument is unethical. In addition, she says she would look like a hypocrite because her own stepchildren are also sent to private school.

Through the fourth wall break it becomes clear Frank is irritated with Jackie’s behaviour: "Such a pity how much ruthless pragmatism gets weighed down by family values. Without her doctor and his pimply-faced brood, she could soar as high as this plane. Oh, I know, the marriage was my idea. Don’t remind me" (House of Cards). The last sentence claims that the viewer should not remind Underwood that he suggested Jackie should get married. In reality it is Underwood who reminds the viewer that he was the one who advised Jackie to marry. More speciﬁcally, Jackie’s goal of becoming vice-president could only be reached through marriage. Without a husband and children Jackie would not represent the family values many Americans hold in high regard.

According to Frank, those family values are holding her back from being a pragmatic politician.

For the viewers to notice the irony in this dialogue it is important that they remember Frank was responsible for the marriage. The creators used a fourth wall break to make sure that memory was 46 activated or created for the casual viewer.

The ﬁnal example will illustrate how the US version of House of Cards draws attention to its operational techniques. Near the end of the pilot Frank not only breaks the fourth wall, but also directs the camera when he uses the words "the edge of the frame" (House of Cards). The phrase,

"The edge of the frame" entangles content and form because Frank refers to his place in history

(content) and his place within the mise en scene (form) at the same time. His reference to history

can be deduced from the following monologue: "Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about

location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value.

Centuries from now when people watch this footage, who will they see smiling just at the edge of

the frame?" (House of Cards). At the beginning of this quote the camera is focused on Frank and

his fourth wall break. The focus shifts towards president Walker when Frank talks about "this

footage" (House of Cards). Cameras are recording the president’s inauguration, creating

politically and historically important footage. The viewer sees the camera move again from

president Walker to Frank when Frank asks the viewer who will matter "centuries from now"

(House of Cards). Through these moves the camera literally shows the viewer what Frank

implies, namely that he will make history as opposed to president Walker. Frank even waves to

the camera right after the quoted lines above. The scene suggests Frank can control the camera

whenever he wants to. As a result the mode of narration is self-conscious and external operations

such as camera movements enter the story world.

In the third episode of the second season, Frank refers back to this scene: "As for me, I

used to be at the edge of the frame. Now I’m only three feet away" (House of Cards).

In the scene from the screenshot below (Figure 14), the camera moves in a similar way.

First, there is a close up of Frank who breaks the fourth wall. As he talks, the camera zooms out in 47

Figure 14: Season two Episode three

order to include the activity he is taking part in. In the pilot that activity is the president’s

inauguration and in this scene it is a speech from the president. In both scenes, the camera

visualises Underwood’s position in relation to the presidency. In the ﬁrst scene he was "at the

edge of the frame" but in the last screenshot the viewer clearly sees he is now standing right

behind president Walker, merely "three feet away". The discussed scenes illustrate how a

repetition of operational techniques can also jog the memory of the viewer. Here, that effect is

strengthened by Frank’s use of the exact same words in the two scenes: "the edge of the frame".

3 Character Dynamics

3.1 Mrs Urquhart and Mrs Underwood in House of Cards

The same year Netﬂix released its ﬁrst season of House of Cards, Brett Martin wrote his book,

Difﬁcult Men: Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution: From The Sopranos and The Wire to

Mad Men and Breaking Bad. In Difﬁcult Men, Martin explores the rise of the anti-hero on TV. In the prologue, he claims that the anti-heroes and their creators are the protagonists of a new golden age of TV. That golden age started with The Sopranos in 1999 (1-17). The US version of House of

Cards ﬁts in the list of series that are mentioned in the title because just like The Sopranos, The 48

Wire, Mad Men and Breaking Bad, Netflix left a mark on the creative revolution Martin researches. Not only did the Netflix writers create a convincing and ruthless antihero, they also made room for one of the first, real antiheroines. Together, the Underwoods form an anticouple that has not been seen on the small screen before. Creator Beau Willimon states their marriage

"has always been the core of the story" (Willimon). The same cannot be said about the UK version. Francis Urquhart is as good an antihero as Frank Underwood, but his wife Elizabeth is portrayed differently from Claire. A comparison of the female leads, Elizabeth and Claire, will illustrate that both women are vital to the series plot, be it in different ways.

3.1.1 Elizabeth Urquhart

While Elizabeth is an important character, she does not get a lot of screen time. As a result the viewer knows very little about her background. In the first two seasons, she seems to be just a whisper in Francis’ ear. In spite of this, the viewer should not undervalue her contribution to the story since her support to Francis Urquhart influences key events of the narrative. That kind of influence on Francis and the story makes one question where the source of power lies, with

Elizabeth or Francis? More precisely, is Elizabeth a supportive wife that enjoys the beneﬁts of having a successful husband or does she use Francis as an instrument to wield power herself? The last chapter already mentioned the difference in character studies between the productions. The

US version contains an abundance of information about its characters and that information allows the viewer to discover the underlying reasons of the characters’ behaviour. Relying on character information to pinpoint Elizabeth Urquhart’s motivations is fruitless since there is almost none available. The little screen time she has is the only source of information that can be subjected to an analysis and reveal how powerful she is. 49

From the start it is clear Elizabeth is a driving force. It should be noted that her driving force is limited to forwarding the plot, meaning her character is not subjected to many psychological explorations. In one of the ﬁrst scenes of the pilot, she claims Francis should become the Prime Minister, possibly planting a seed in Francis Urquhart’s mind that leads to the incentive moment of the plot. Francis elucidates Elizabeth’s statement by breaking the fourth wall

"yes, my wife is very loyal. A politician needs a wife, and other people too, regrettably. A man of state needs helpers, little elves and sprites to do his bidding" (House of Cards). Later on in the

pilot it becomes clear his wife is not just a helper. When Francis informs her the Prime Minister

did not give him the promotion he had counted on, she rubs his shoulders while elaborating on the

idea she mentioned earlier, Francis becoming the Prime Minister (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Season one Episode one

The proposition startles Francis. Hence, the viewer knows it is Elizabeth who originally

came up with the plan of revenge that will be carried out over the next season. She remains very

supportive throughout the season, even proposing he should sleep with Mattie because it could

help him accomplish his goals. Thus, in season one Mrs Urquhart lies at the root of the two main

narratives: Francis’ struggle for the leadership, which entails bringing down Collingridge, and his 50 relationship with Mattie Storin.

In season two, Elizabeth also has a substantial impact on the plot. In the ﬁrst episode she suggests Francis might take an interest in a woman named Sarah Harvey. At the end of the same season, Sarah and Francis’ old friend and colleague Tim Stamper have become liabilities. It is

Elizabeth who implies Francis can still be safe if he gets rid of both of them. She tells him, "the means for the job are there" (House of Cards). For the second time Elizabeth is responsible for the introduction of a main female character that turns into Francis’s mistress. Furthermore, Sarah and another lead get killed because of her. Without her ruthless suggestion and support of murder,

Francis might not have committed that crime. Still, the viewer cannot be sure of this, especially because Francis chose to murder Mattie in season one.

Mrs Urquhart becomes a more prominent character with an independent storyline in the last season. Up until now she could be labelled as the supportive wife, acting in alignment with her husband’s agenda. It is a plausible analysis since she would financially benefit from Francis’s status as well. In the first episode of season three, Francis is in hospital. This is a turning point for the character development of Elizabeth. At this moment she starts to worry about her future, in particular about her pension. If she were to become a widow it would not suffice, thus she searches for and finds a way to secure her (and Francis’s) financial status. The Urquhart trust is created through political negotiations that involve offshore oil deposits from Cyprus. If Francis makes sure a Turkish-British consortium obtains the drilling rights for this petroleum reservoir, their executives will take care of the Urquhart’s retirement fund. However, it is Mrs Urquhart who manipulates Sir Clive, an international judge, to vote in their favour. Mrs Urquhart also negotiates with Mr Nures, a Turkish-Cypriot businessman.

Before Elizabeth talks to the judge we see her and Francis act as a team (Figure 16). 51

Figure 16: Season three Episode two

Francis warns her about Sir Clive who is incorruptible and wishes her good luck.

Figure 17: Season three Episode two

When Elizabeth talks to Sir Clive, she manipulates him by dumbing herself down

(Figure 17). First, she pretends she does not know he is a judge and then she claims to be

"frightfully ignorant about the law" (House of Cards). Naturally, Elizabeth knows Sir Clive is the international judge who will arbitrate the court case on which their retirement fund hinges, but only when she can convince him that she is talking to him without an agenda can she recount what is necessary for the Urquhart’s plan to work. Hence, after she dumbed herself down, she informs the judge about the oodles of oil that are present in Cyprus. The Urquharts know Sir Clive 52 will vote in their favour now that he has this information.

In the third episode Mr. Nures informs Elizabeth about the success of the pension plan.

The last season proves to be critical for the character arc of Elizabeth. Before, she inﬂuenced the narrative through whispering ideas into Francis’ ear. Her inﬂuence was valuable and noticeable, but indirect. In all four episodes of the last season the viewer sees Mrs Urquhart take direct action.

Naturally, she also gets more screen time. The foregrounding of Elizabeth is a consequence of

Francis’ downfall that accelerates during the last season. He is continuously ﬁghting to survive as

Prime Minister. In the last episode, he ruins himself politically by not taking responsibility for the death of Cyprian civilians who died at the hands of British troops. He ordered British troops to kill them in order to rescue hostages. Mrs Urquhart becomes worried when members of parliament turn against Francis. Together with Corder, their bodyguard, she goes to extremes lengths and prepares the assassination of her own husband. According to Elizabeth "it was the only way" (House of Cards). Not just the only way to keep him safe and protect his reputation, but also the only way that ensured the safety of the Urquhart Trust. Since her primary concern throughout the season is the retirement fund, it is safe to assume her motivations are based on its survival. In this moment, Elizabeth wields the power, but the viewer cannot be certain that was the case for all three seasons.

It is possible Mrs Urquhart was content with her situation as supportive wife as long as

Francis’s criminal behaviour was concealed and his career thrived politically. In other words, as long as she was ﬁnancially cared for. In season three, she starts to question her dependency on

Francis and secures both of them ﬁnancially. For this reason, Elizabeth only reaches her full potential in season three. She was always able to inﬂuence Francis, but it is only when he is attacked and ends up in hospital that Elizabeth starts to take initiatives that she carries out herself, 53 independent of her husband. The Elizabeth of season three can be seen as a precursor of the previously mentioned golden age that started with The Sopranos. Martin claims that female characters were also affected by the creative revolution that took place then:

Female characters, too, although most often relegated to supporting roles, were

beneﬁciaries to the new rules of TV: suddenly allowed lives beyond merely being

either obstacles or facilitators to the male hero’s progress. Instead they were free to be

venal, ruthless, misguided, and sometimes even heroic human beings in their own

right (Martin, 5).

Mrs Urquhart certainly is her own hero, but remained a facilitator to Francis’s success in the ﬁrst two seasons and became an obstacle to his progress in the last. Her storylines are always intertwined with her husband’s. The viewer only witnesses her in relation to Francis and when she murders him the narrative ends. Moreover, the viewer never roots for Elizabeth simply because there was never enough background information to become invested in her choices. For this reason Elizabeth’s actions come across as villainous. The portrayal of Claire Underwood, her

American counterpart, is much more nuanced. Claire certainly shows as many evil traits as

Elizabeth, but because of the profound character analysis that is incorporated into the narrative, she becomes an anti-heroine instead of a villain.

3.1.2 Claire Underwood

Claire Underwood has only two things in common with Elizabeth Urquhart: she is married to FU and she can be ruthless.

Figure 18 is an advertisement from the Ofﬁcial House of Cards Facebook page, uploaded 54

Figure 18: House of Cards - Timeline Photos in January 2013. It is the first image of Claire Underwood that was published and it contains one of the most important tag lines of the show: "Behind every great man is a woman with blood on her hands". The advertisement reproduces one of the core conflicts that determines Claire’s entire character arc, namely the imbalance of power in her marriage. She is portrayed as the woman behind a great man. As the story progresses Claire feels conflicted about this position. She is too ambitious to stand behind anyone. She wants to stand next to Francis, but this proves to be difficult. It is only at the end of season three that she realises their partnership is not enough for her.

There is one clear protagonist in the UK version, but Netﬂix chooses to focus on a couple of antiheroes instead of just one. This choice results in a different dynamic that was not present on the BBC. The role of women has become increasingly important when comparing the two versions. The analysis of Elizabeth Urquhart proves that women had an inﬂuence in the House of

Cards serial from the very beginning, but this inﬂuence was hidden and only revealed in the last episode. Therefore, Elizabeth’s betrayal of Francis mainly functioned as a plot twist. Thus, her existence was not character driven, but plot driven. As explained before, the viewer knows very little about Elizabeth. The US version does not hide that it has expanded its focus by including extensive character studies of women. In the article "How Claire Underwood And ‘House Of 55

Cards’ Changed The TV Antihero Forever", Erin Whitney claims that the era of the televised antihero is ﬁnally ready for its female counterpart in the form of Claire Underwood:

From Dexter to Tony Soprano to Walter White, television has been dominated by the

male antihero for decades. The protagonist who we pretend to despise for his

immoral deeds, yet can’t help but root for and admire, has become more prevalent

while his female counterpart remains widely non-existent. (. . . ) Until now (Whitney).

The conversation about the representation of women on television is not a new one as the article, "The Rise of TV’s Lady Jerks" demonstrates. "The Rise of TV’s Lady Jerks" narrates how women representations are affected by the convention of likeability. Women in media are expected to be the "charming ingenue, supportive wife, acerbically warmhearted elder", etc

(Valentine). This explains why women who demonstrate a psychological complexity, such as

Elizabeth Urquhart, are often turned into villains. The article states, "In a ﬁeld so dogged by the

Likability Factor (. . . ) it could be tricky business to commit to a woman anti-hero as messy and meaningful as the men" (Valentine).

Netﬂix fully embraced the anti-heroine because creator Beau Willimon cast aside the notion of likeable characters for both men and women. In an interview Willimon makes a distinction between likeability and attraction. He makes it clear he only cares about the latter and is interested "in the tension where one moment you might like them and the next you abhor them, or maybe simultaneously" (Willimon). Willimon wants the viewer to be so invested in the characters that they cannot take their eyes off them. A closer look at Claire’s storylines and character arc will illustrate how one of the ﬁrst female anti-heroes found its way to the viewer. 56

3.1.2.1 The Anti-heroine: Relatable and Detestable

Claire is a central character to the story from the first episode, but over the course of the first four seasons, she turns into a lead in which Frank Underwood finds his equal. Accordingly, Claire’s impact on the narrative increases every season. While Elizabeth’s influence on the narrative is limited to whispering things into her husband’s ear, Claire’s influence is present in many different plotlines. Most of those storylines are intertwined with Underwood’s schemes, but that does not mean their primary function is to propel the main plot. Many narratives offer background information on Claire that is essential for a portrayal of an antiheroine. It is essential because a character can only be an antihero(ine) if the viewer is intrigued by the tension of abhorrence and relatability that was mentioned before. This tension is visible when analysing Claire’s interactions with others: employees, family, competitors and lovers. Claire is portrayed as a ruthless pragmatist who is haunted by the decisions she makes. The guilt that seems to follow her around turns her into an ambiguous character. She cannot completely discard her moral compass. An analysis of Claire’s relationship with Evelyn, Gillian Cole, Adam Galloway and Megan

Hennessey will follow to study the ambiguity of her nature that empowers her status as an anti-heroine.

The House of Cards creators were aware that the introduction of characters is an important function of the pilot. After the pilot, the viewer can already conclude Claire is an ambitious, independent, authoritarian woman who has a close relationship with her husband, professionally.

Her ambition and authority manifests itself in her job as CEO of Clear Water Initiative (CWI), a non-profit organisation. Due to an unforeseen financial change Claire decides to fire half of her staff and asks Evelyn, her office manager, to inform the employees. Evelyn opposes the decision, 57 but Claire pushes through. The day after, Claire also fires 59-year-old Evelyn. Evelyn points out she will have no job prospects, but Claire only responds with "I’m sorry" (House of Cards).

Evelyn retorts "you do not give a fuck" and Claire’s silence and emotionless face seem to agree with this statement (House of Cards). The viewer witnesses how relentless Claire can be with the people who surround her, even if they are trusted and long-term employees. She appears to be a woman of steel, but a later scene assures the viewer she is not emotionless. After ﬁring Evelyn,

Claire goes to a coffee shop where an older woman serves her. The older woman seems to be new at the job since she has a hard time using the touch screen register. This encounter reﬂects on the scene in which Claire ﬁred Evelyn. In an indirect way the creators make the viewer contemplate

Claire’s feelings. The content of the scene implies Claire feels conﬂicted about ﬁring Evelyn.

Claire’s facial expressions support this interpretation. When she sees the woman struggling with the register she has a sad expression and ﬁnally she has to look away (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Season one Episode two

Seemingly, the incident makes her feel uncomfortable. In the end she smiles at the older

lady in a comforting way, as if to make up for her cold reaction with Evelyn (Figure 20).

Claire’s severe actions at CWI are considered less ruthless after the coffee shop scene,

because the viewer can now relate to Claire because she has displayed emotions and guilt. As a

result her ruthless behaviour is accepted in light of her goals at CWI. 58

Figure 20: Season one Episode two

Because of Clear Water Initiative’s new international aspirations, Gillian Cole is hired.

When Gillian does not agree with the political partners of CWI, she crosses Claire. She was promised autonomy in her projects. In the ﬁrst episode of the second season, Claire reacts brutally by using Gillian’s unborn baby as leverage. Gillian needs the medical care that comes with her job at CWI, but Claire would take it away if necessary. Her immorality reaches a high when she delivers one of the most cruel lines of the entire series: "I am willing to let your child wither and die inside you, if that’s what’s required (. . . ) Now tell me, am I really the sort of enemy you want to make" (House of Cards). Claire also traces the father of Gillian’s baby who is married to another woman. Claire informs his clueless wife and sends her to Gillian, hoping it will cause problems. It is possible that the family would ﬁght for custody of the child. In contrast with

Evelyn, this conﬂict is not followed by a scene that evokes guilt. An explanation can be found in the subject of the conﬂict that partially revolves around Gillian’s pregnancy. Gillian claims Claire

fired her because she is expecting. Claire denies these allegations and a lawsuit follows. At this moment Claire doubts her decision to be childfree so it is possible that her (un)conscious jealousy of Gillian’s pregnancy influences her behaviour. More specifically, she convinces herself that not having children was the right choice. A maternal instinct would have stood in her way when 59 uttering the quoted lines above. The growth of CWI functioned as an extenuating circumstance in

Claire’s relationship with Evelyn, but her behaviour towards Gillian cannot be mitigated since it is partly an act of revenge and partly stimulated by her jealousy. As a result, it is hard to relate to

Claire when she states she is capable of letting Gillian’s baby die inside her.

Claire is not only cruel to her employees. Her husband and lovers are also harmed when necessary. Adam Galloway is Claire’s former lover who, as an artist, chose an entirely different lifestyle. Claire is obviously attracted and fascinated by this free-spirited world, but she knows it is not a permanent setting for her. In episode ten, Claire leaves for New York after a ﬁght with

Francis. In New York she stays with Adam for a couple of days. During her visit, the viewer gets to see a completely different side of Claire. Whereas she is very composed in earlier episodes, she is emotional and spontaneous with Adam and his friends while indulging in alcohol and marijuana. Because the setting and Claire’s behaviour differs with what the viewer is accustomed to, these scenes contain an escapist atmosphere from the very beginning. Later, dialogues between

Claire and Adam emphasize Claire’s wish for an escape. First, Adam cannot bring up Frank, because Claire wants to keep her husband and lover in two different worlds. After, Adam states he cannot be a mere pit stop or an escape to her. He clearly still loves her and although Claire admits a part of her still loves him, she is also capable of hurting Adam minutes after she said that. When

Adam points out she had a choice and that she chose to not be free, she retorts: "No, what I chose is a man that I could love for more than a week" (House of Cards). When she sees how hurt Adam is (Figure 21), she claims she should not have said that, but her icy nature has surfaced nonetheless. However, her humanity has the upper hand in these scenes. She is crying and it clearly hurts her to hurt him (Figure 22). For this reason, the viewer can easily sympathise with

Claire. 60

Figure 21: Season one Episode eleven

Figure 22: Season one Episode eleven

In the second season, the tables are turned. Claire manipulates Adam to such an extent that

she becomes the only person he ever hated. This transformation starts with Adam who took a

photo of Claire while sleeping. The photo is leaked and ends up on the front page of a newspaper.

The Underwoods release a statement in which they recount that the picture was a birthday

present. As a family friend, Adam was invited in their home to take the picture. However, before

releasing their statement they made Adam state that he did not take the picture, turning him into

"an idiot" (House of Cards) on national television. Claire explains, "it would have seemed too

clean otherwise" (House of Cards). Now she wants him to conﬁrm their version, "say you lied

because you were scared" (House of Cards). Adam is angry and hangs up when she says, "I was not trying to be manipulative" (House of Cards). Claire declines Francis’ offer to smoke after

Adam hangs up on her and wants to go to bed. Again, her reaction shows guilt. Remy Danton and 61

Raymond Tusk, enemies of the Underwoods, approach Adam for another incriminating picture of

Claire. In return the father of Adam’s ﬁancée, who is a human rights activist in Bogota, will be safe. The Underwoods arrange for Adam to come to their home to keep him in line. Adam speaks for a lot of characters in House of Cards when he says, "we’re not your chess pieces" (House of

Cards). He tells Claire "Because of you I will always be the man who placed [my ﬁancée’s] father in danger. I can never erase that. (. . . ) I’m sorry I ever met you. All you’ve ever done is cause me pain" (House of Cards). He also claims he loves his ﬁancée more than he ever loved her.

Figure 23: Season two Episode nine

After the ﬁrst picture Claire was still feeling guilty, but her reaction now is cold and

ruthless: "we are giving you an out Adam and if you choose not to take it I will bury you" (House

of Cards). The screenshot in Figure 23 also depicts how her haughty behaviour manifests itself in

her body language. Now that Adam is not hers anymore she is ready to bury him just like she did

with Evelyn and Gillian. Her narcissistic sense of entitlement prompts her to behave in a

pragmatic and ruthless way that can be considered evil. However, Claire would not categorise

herself as evil because she transcends the Christian concept of evil versus good by rationalising

her behaviour. For example, in this scene Claire believes she can treat Adam the way she does

because it is what the political situation requires her to do. According to Claire’s train of thought

an external factor, i.e. the political situation, is to blame. In reality, her jealousy, which is an 62 internal factor, is a motivator too. When Adam tells her about his ﬁancée, Claire is clearly taken aback by this change of events. She chooses to ignore inner emotions such as jealousy because they would make her responsible for her own actions. Instead she rationalises her behaviour by using external factors, like the political landscape. In this way Claire creates a grey zone for herself between the concepts of good and evil.

Interesting are the two breakdowns Claire has, since those enable the viewer to observe how she is haunted by the immoral actions she carries out. In the ﬁnale of season two, Claire breaks down after Megan Hennessey attempts to commit suicide and the ﬁrst lady calls her a good person on the phone. The Underwoods have been manipulating the President and the First Lady from the start, pretending to be their friends and allies. The schemes to win over the presidency are almost completed when Claire starts to cry. She might be wondering if the means really did justify the end that is now within reach after twenty-six episodes. A scene in which Claire visits

Megan Hennessey precedes Claire’s breakdown. Megan is a young marine who was sexually assaulted by the same man who raped Claire when she was a student. Claire convinces her to help pass a bill that would allow civilian prosecution of sexual assault in the military, but drops the bill because "the political landscape shifted" (House of Cards). Megan’s mental health deteriorated because she had to relive her trauma and once Claire tosses her aside she breaks down and attempts to commit suicide. She blames Claire for her current pill addiction: "Every time I take one of these, I think of him. And the next one I think of? It’s you" (House of Cards). Just like

Adam she wishes she had never met Claire. The sequence of screenshots in (Figure 24) shows

Claire feels guilty and responsible.

Again, Claire uses the political landscape to hide behind. Her breakdown illustrates that she is not capable of completely ignoring her emotions when rationalising her behaviour through 63

Figure 24: Season two Episode thirteen external factors.

The second breakdown takes place in episode six of season three after Michael Corrigan successfully hangs himself in his jail cell while Claire was asleep in the same room. It is interesting both breakdowns happen after a suicide attempt. Possibly the creators want the viewer to connect them because they have the same function: illustrating Claire’s humanity behind her composed façade. The breakdowns are the purest examples of Claire’s emotional side while most of the other relationships that were analysed here are ambiguous. With both Evelyn and Adam the viewer can see Claire cares, but she is cruel enough to suppress inner emotions and act accordingly. During

For now, the culminating point of Claire’s character arc can be found in the last seconds of the fourth season. She breaks the fourth wall for the ﬁrst time by looking directly at the audience.

Up until now, only FU used the Shakespearean asides. This ending suggests Claire will be able to talk directly to the viewer as well in upcoming episodes. Earlier it was explained that breaking the fourth wall allows creators to turn the audience into accomplices. It would be intriguing if the fourth wall breaks would allow the viewer a distinct insight into the double nature of Claire, the anti-heroine of House of Cards. The transformation from the villainous wife to the anti-heroic wife perfectly follows the creative evolution Martin Brett describes in Difﬁcult Men. The next 64 phase for the anti-hero on television has arrived now that anti-heroic couples and anti-heroines have found their way to the viewer.

3.1.2.2 A Feminist Representation

In the UK version it is ignored that the Urquharts are childless, but in the US version that theme echoes through the entire series. In the second half of the ﬁrst season, it becomes a part of the narrative directly and indirectly. Directly because Claire talks about not having children with her former lover, Adam, and later visits a fertility clinic inquiring whether it would still be possible for her to become pregnant. Gillian’s baby and Peter Russo’s kids also confront Claire with her choice to remain childless. It is a choice she is questioning openly during the ﬁrst season. In the

ﬁnale of the ﬁrst season, Claire and Frank have the following dialogue in one of their intimate smoking scenes:

What will we leave behind?

- We’ve accomplished a great deal and I intend for us to accomplish a lot more

But for whom?

- For each other

But if we’re not...

Silence

Ah, I’m being silly.

(House of Cards)

Claire is having an existential crisis, wondering what the purpose is of rising in society when there is no one to preserve your legacy. Four episodes earlier, Frank admits to the audience 65 that he despises kids and Claire knows this. Before this dialogue she has already stated "You will roll your eyes at me" (House of Cards). Francis will not engage in second guessing their life without kids. For him it sufﬁces to have each other. Claire’s existential crisis coincides with the onset of her menopause. In episode four the viewer sees her standing in front of the fridge for the

first time, suffering from hot flashes. The first lady initiates a conversation about the topic when she finds Claire in front of the fridge. Claire’s menopause and her desire to have children are intertwined since her body is telling her she is running out of time. These storylines represent different aspects of womanhood through a female perspective.

House of Cards does not only pay attention to the female perspective, but also to a fundamental concept of feminist theory and pop culture, "the gaze" (Moe 28). "The gaze" refers to women who adjust their conduct because they realise they are "being seen and interpreted by others" (Moe 28). Claire is confronted with being childless on multiple occasions and her reaction changes over time. In episode four of the first season, she is highly affected by "the gaze" of others when she is the guest in a live primetime television interview. The viewer witnesses how outsiders feel they have the right to intrude into the most delicate and personal areas of someone’s life. In the interview Claire is grilled about why she did not want children. The interviewer bluntly asks if she could not have any, if it was a sacrifice for Francis’ career or if she just does not have a maternal instinct. She also inquires if Claire has ever been pregnant. It is not the first time Claire has to deal with such prying questions. Hence, she has her standard answer ready: "Francis and I wanted to devote our lives to public service and we didn’t feel that we could both do that and be the parents we wanted to be" (House of Cards). However, the interviewer is not satisfied and calls her out for repeatedly answering with the same sentence in interviews (Figure 25).

Claire is uncomfortable and forced to elaborate on the subject. 66

Figure 25: Season two Episode four

It is interesting to contrast the interview with a scene from the fourth season (Figure 26).

In the fourth season, the Conways are the rivals of the Underwoods for the upcoming presidential election. Due to a high priority political threat the Conways are residing in the White House as well. Hannah Conway asks Claire if she regrets it, not having children. Claire replies with her characteristic cold and smug stare that is accompanied by the following line: "Do you ever regret having them?" (House of Cards).

Figure 26: Season four Episode twelve

Here, it is under Hannah’s gaze that Claire adapts her behaviour. When comparing the facial expressions of Claire in the previous screenshots, it is noticeable that she does not react the same in the interview and in her conversation with Hannah. She is shocked and taken by surprise in the ﬁrst screenshot and poised and cold in the second one. The dialogue that accompanies these screenshots aligns with this interpretation. By season four, Claire has decided it is invasive and 67 personal to ask why somebody did not want children, therefore she replies with an equally invasive question. The scene ends with Hannah uncomfortably sipping from her cup of coffee.

With this scene House of Cards criticises a society that judges people who openly admit to not want kids. Debra Mollen, in a journal of mental health counselling, says the words "woman" and

"mother" have become so synonymous that women who do not conform to this convention experience negative responses. The scene between Claire and Hannah illustrates how the creators of House of Cards represent Claire in a feminist way. It is important to note that offering a feminist representation is not the same as creating a feminist character. Claire is represented as a strong woman who dares to point out that it is as inappropriate to ask a childless woman if she regrets her choice, as it is to ask a woman with children. However, other interactions such as her

ﬁght with Gillian make it impossible to label Claire’s character as feministic.

4 The Increase in Complexity and the Rise of the

Antihero(ine)

A comparative case study of House of Cards was carried out in order to advance knowledge about serialised TV narration from 1990 to 2016. In those twenty-six years TV and streaming services such as Netﬂix have increasingly acted as the primary storytellers of the Western world, affecting countless people. While the research of literature has a long-standing tradition, narration on the small screen only recently caught the attention of academia. Research concerning the poetics of serialised television is limited, especially when considering the huge amount of people who watch

TV programmes nearly everyday. I believe the impact of televised narration on people’s lives is 68 big and therefore it is important that we know how these modern stories operate, in the same way we know about other art forms.

The most signiﬁcant results from this research depict three important evolutions. First,

House of Cards became more complex. Second, both versions illustrate the "creative revolution".

Third, the American version not only represents the "creative revolution", but also started the next one by creating a female counterpart for the well-known antihero. House of Cards (US) is one of the ﬁrst serials to create an antiheroine. Hence, this dissertation demonstrates how common evolutions of televised serial narration are manifested in House of Cards. The ﬁrst evolution that is represented in House of Cards is the one Jason Mittell describes in Complex TV: The Poetics of

Contemporary Television Storytelling. The second one is described by Brett Martin in Difﬁcult

Men : Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution: From The Sopranos and The Wire to Mad Men and Breaking Bad and the third evolution continues Martin’s creative evolution.

Mittell argues complexity is a key characteristic of present-day TV serials. When discussing the narrative techniques of the House of Cards productions it became apparent that the contemporary version demonstrates a higher degree of complexity because of three reasons: hyper-serialisation, its recapping techniques and the use of operational techniques. The US version is more heavily serialised than the UK version. As a result the US version requires narrative techniques that serialise the story on different levels. In Chapter 2 the following narrative techniques of House of Cards (US) were discussed: story arcs, dialogue, symbolism and character appearances. These elements illustrate how the creators arrive at hyper-serialising the narrative.

Many of these techniques are absent in the UK version. Hence, in comparison the US version is more complex due to the increase of narrative techniques that are needed to serialise the story.

Hyper-serialised programmes also demand more of their audience because they need to 69 remember many details for long periods of time. Therefore, recapping information is an important part of every serial because the viewer’s comprehension of the narrative depends on it. The UK version proves to recap in a sophisticated way. For example, by adding extra layers of meaning through ﬂashbacks. However, the recapping techniques in the US version connect to so many different narratives that the degree of complexity is much higher. This was illustrated through the hallucination scenes that appear in season four.

Finally, the American version is the only one drawing attention to its operational techniques. According to Jason Mittell this self-conscious mode of narration is a characteristic of complex TV programmes. In Chapter 2, two examples were given of this mode of narration. First, a scene between Underwood and Cathy demonstrates how Underwood draws attention to a dialogue that is used to recap information. Second, Frank blurs the line between reality and the diegetic world by breaking the fourth wall. In contrast to the UK version he is not only aware of the viewer’s existence, but also of technical elements such as the camera and its movements.

Other signiﬁcant results revolve around the character dynamics of House of Cards. When researching, the subject of character studies emerged more often than expected. Chapter three is concerned with character dynamics in a straightforward way, but various narrative techniques proved to be connected to the character dynamics as well. The diverging use of narrative arcs illustrates how narrative techniques can be related to the difference in character studies. The US version is more heavily serialised than the UK version because the UK version’s serialisation is often limited to the season arc, while the US version serialises various storylines over multiple seasons. Sometimes a storyline even spans all seasons. Remarkably, episodes with an episodic focus are only present in the American version. The reason for their existence is linked to the in-depth character studies, House of Cards (US) includes. The episodes with an episodic focus 70 often function as storytelling units that create detailed portraits of certain characters. Protagonist

Frank Underwood is present in multiple episodic character studies, but also secondary characters such as Peter Russo are explored in a similar way. The UK version does not have episodic focuses because they do not need them to explore character’s mental states. Overall, the US version proves to allocate a lot more time to the emotions and mental states of characters, while the UK version emphasises plot progression.

The discussion of Claire Underwood and Elizabeth Urquhart illustrates most clearly how the British and American characters are different from one another. First, Claire is assigned a lot more screen time than Elizabeth. The difference in screen time reﬂects the availability of knowledge about these female leads. The viewer knows very little about Elizabeth and up until the ﬁnale of The Final Cut, Elizabeth’s character solely functions in relation to her husband,

Francis Urquhart. Claire’s character arc is also entangled with the storylines of her husband, but there are multiple narratives that she carries alone as well. The narratives that do not solely exist because of Mr. Underwood allow the viewer to get to know Claire. Her private breakdowns and romantic relationships are examples of such narratives. To repeat, Claire’s character arc is explored through the analysis of her background and certain mental processes. Comparable insights into the psyche of Elizabeth are unavailable. The in-depth character study of Claire results in the arrival of a new character type, the anti-heroine.

House of Cards serves as an archetype for the evolution of the antihero, but more important is Claire’s status as an antiheroine. The US version innovated Martin’s creative revolution by transforming FU’s villainous wife into an anti-heroine. House of Cards (UK) cannot be considered as a part of Brett Martin’s creative evolution. There are two reasons for its exclusion. First, Martin’s creative revolution starts with The Sopranos (1999). Second, he only 71 took into account American primetime serials. However, House of Cards (UK) chose an antihero as its protagonist, nine years prior to the release of The Sopranos. Therefore, the UK version of

House of Cards can be regarded as a precursor of Martin’s creative revolution. Even when taking into account he did not research British television. A gap of nine years cannot simply be ignored.

It would be interesting for future research to explore the rise of the anti-hero in British and

American serialised television. Only then would it become possible to claim that the British antihero preceded the American one, on the small screen. This dissertation suggests a certain evolution, but to claim it as the truth would be premature.

The rise of the antihero on television is a well-known phenomenon, but the US version of

House of Cards found a way to innovate and continue Brett’s creative revolution. Besides featuring an antihero, House of Cards (US) also presents the Underwoods as an anticouple and

Claire as an antiheroine. As a result, the American version features male and female leads that are equal to each other. In the UK version there is only one lead, Francis Urquhart. Additionally, the

US version spends more time on feminine and feminist issues. Similar topics are completely absent in the UK version. To repeat, the comparison between Elizabeth and Claire illustrates the rise of the antiheroine. Consequentially certain feminine and feminist issues are foregrounded in the contemporary version. The contemporary version is an innovative serial because of Claire’s character and the increase in complexity that was illustrated throughout this dissertation. The arrival of the antiheroine opens up new research possibilities. It would be interesting to explore the role of the antiheroine in serials and ﬁnd out why she only emerged now. This case study proves

House of Cards will be a good starting point for further research about the antiheroine on TV. 72

Works Cited

Primary Sources

House of Cards: Season 1-3. Dir. Beau Willimon. Perf. Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright. Netﬂix.

2015. DVD.

House of Cards: Season 4. Dir. Beau Willimon. Perf. Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright. Netﬂix.

2016. Web 4 Mar. 2016

House of Cards. Dir. Paul Seed. Perf. Ian Richardson and Diane Fletcher. BBC. 1990. DVD

The Final Cut. Dir. Mike Vardy. Perf. Ian Richardson and Diane Fletcher. BBC. 1995.DVD

To Play the King. Dir. Paul Seed. Perf. Ian Richardson and Diane Fletcher. BBC. 1993. DVD

Secondary Sources

Armbrust, Sebastian. "Analyzing Storytelling Strategies In Serial Television Drama: Hybrid

Structure And Functional Polyvalence In House M.D.". Amsterdam International

Electronic Journal for Cultural Narratology 6 (2011): n. pag. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.

Doherty, Thomas. "Cable is the New Novel". Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012. Web. 10 Nov.

2015.

D’Onfro, Jillian. "We Grilled Nine Teens About Their Digital Lives And They All Groaned When

Facebook Came Up". Business Insider Australia. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

"House of Cards – Timeline Photos". Facebook.com. 2013. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.

Jahn, Manfred. "Freytag’s Triangle". Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory 2005: 189-190.

Print.

Martin, Brett. Difﬁcult Men : Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution: From The Sopranos 73

and The Wire to Mad Men and Breaking Bad. New York: Penguin Books, 2014.

Matrix, Sidneyeve. "The Netﬂix Effect: Teens, Binge Watching, and On-Demand Digital Media

Trends". Jeunesse 6.1 (2014): 119-138.

Mittell, Jason. Complex TV: The Poetics Of Contemporary Television Storytelling. New York:

New York University Press, 2015. Print.

Mittell, Jason. "Narrative Complexity In Contemporary American Television". The Velvet Light

Trap 58.1 (2006): 29-40. Web.

Moe, Angela. "Unveiling the gaze." Feminist Theory and Pop Culture. Ed. Adrienne

Trier-Bieniek. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2015. 1-17.

Mollen, Debra. "Voluntarily Childfree Women: Experiences And Counseling Considerations".

Journal of Mental Health Counseling 28.3 (2006): 269-282. Web.

Newman, Michael Z. "From Beats To Arcs: Toward A Poetics Of Television Narrative". The

Velvet Light Trap 58.1 (2006): 16-28. Web.

"story arc", Collinsdictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary Online. Web 10 Nov. 2015

Salon. 2015. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

Valentine, Genevieve. "The Rise Of TV’S Lady Jerks: We’re Entering A New Age Of The

Complex Antiheroine — And Leaving "Likability" Behind".

"What Is Myth Arc?". Seriable. N.p. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.

Whitney, Erin. "How Claire Underwood Changed The TV Antihero Forever". The Hufﬁngton

Post. N.p., 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.

Willimon, Beau. "House Of Cards And The Era Of Graphic Dramas About Antiheroes".

Interview by Conor Friedersdorf. The Atlantic. 2014. Web. 7 Apr. 2016.

Willimon, Beau. "’House Of Cards’ Creator Beau Willimon Gets Political About Season 4". 74

Interview by Liz Shannon Miller. Indiewire. 2015. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.

Willimon, Beau. "House Of Cards Interview: Beau Willimon". By Steve Weintraub Collider.

2014. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.