+Oz Boz That's the problem I noticed that most people that are into philosophy just reiterate and imitate what philosophers say and just copy their ideologies, instead of thinking an original thought and idea that could lead to the same conclusion or philosophy to modern or ancient philosophers. How can you be a philosopher if you just imitate others thoughts, views, and philosophy instead of thinking for yourself? Modern philosophy today is done by the textbook. People don't thinking on their own and conceive an original thought.
I think that the purpose behind Frank's soliloquies is not so much a lazy attempt to provide exposition (the monologues really don't add any plot points we don't already know), but rather to give viewers an insight into Frank's self-perception. Frank Underwood, in my opinion, isn't a sociopath at all. He just wants to be one. He wants to be Machiavelli. He's not just trying to convince us that he's a sociopath, he's trying to convince himself as well. Kevin Spacey pulls this off brilliantly. After killing Zoe Barnes, he demonstrates, in his face and body language a lingering form of regret and shock at his own actions, which he then covers up by convincing us that he feels no remorse. Frank's soliloquies are his defense mechanism to protect him from a deep-seeded fear he has of not being in control.
That actually happen in the original British show with Frank Urquhart, not matter how much misdeeds he does he always feel some guilt about the actions that he take, never the less he try to mask with faux patriotism and lie to himself saying that everything that he does to benefit himself is for the good of the country.
Yeah Machiavelli kinda getting bullied out here. Some of these princes were like fifteen years old and in charge of people. Could you imagine being responsible for that many han beings at that age? He just wrote them a Kidz Bop politics.
"They are what people want to be. (About Frank's opponent in S4 and S5, can't remember his name though). You are what people want to become" (about Frank and Claire).
@@drjp4212 what most people believe is not significant. Idk who, but someone said that people are sheep and are meant to be ruled and he is right about the sheep part, people are sheep
8:48 Frank is NOT deeply annoyed by the buddhist monks, and is in fact simply astounded that they would dedicate a whole month to painstakingly create the sand mandala. Frank's reaction to the monk's presence and work is neutral at first, then later supportive. this is evident when he finds out that the monks completed the mandala and destroyed it way before he could see it together with Claire.
+Alex Ray-Weber Yeah, she practically IS Lady Macbeth, isn't she? Her suppression of her desire to have a family is a lot like lady Macbeth's speech about "unsexing" herself, and her desire to achieve power through her husband is just like lady Macbeth as well.
The reason why it's hard to hate Frank Underwood is because he isn't exactly an evil person. In Frank's mind, nobody is entitled to anything not even compassion or love. If he wants something well then he has to fuckin earn it. That's what makes Frank Underwood such a despicably appealing character. He always knows the price for his goals and does whatever it takes to achieve them even if it means losing the most valuable thing to him, his marriage. The problem here isn't Frank Underwood being all ruthless and deceptive, the problem here is how our injustice world rewards man. You certainly can't be the most powerful man in the world by being a nice honest guy. A rabbit will always be hunted by a wolf, that's just how the world works.
That’s what I like about him too. He’s not a good or bad person, he’s just a person who has done and is doing lots of good things and bad things. There is no clear answer
@@drhypno6317 I coined the term "mindful compassion and empathy" for being empathetic and compassionate while at the same time being fully aware and prepared for people to try and take advantage of you for it.
Don't equate nature to human beings. Humans know right from wrong. If the world was the way you think, it would be a world of predators. It isn't. They're the ones locked up.
When i was a child i wanted that sort of immortality, but then it occured to me that leaving a legacy doesn't require goodness and as a matter of fact i'd wager that more people remember Hitler than Churchill (although i'm sure it's close). I enjoy Frank underwood because he's intelligent and driven but you know what i enjoy most? The fact that he manages to be so condescending towards people who don't understand that money is nothing more than a means to an end, yet he himself completely misses the point that the same exact logic can be applied to power, and earning money for the sake of money is roughly as valuable as earning power for the sake of power. Power without direction is useless for anything more than the inflation of pride. I think the reason the viewer likes Frank is because of those little asides, being let in on a part of a world that nobody else gets to see. Maybe that's just me, but if all i ever saw was the frank underwood of the news and the media, as he presents himself i'd be bored to tears if not repulsed.
+eight216 Actually sometimes there is a direction, never the less, is hidden under the nice charade of a charitable and good corporation that work for the benefit of everybody, when in reality, they willing to destroy a whole country and their economy only for a short period of time of huge profit, power and money are just tools to bet better your status quo and show to everybody that you are the top dog, but humans are stupid creature, they are willing to destroy and cause millions of death believing in a short period of success and power, that would end sooner or later, because they are swimming in a pool of sharks there always somebody that would smart you or you would die old and join the worms in the ground without taking any of that power and money with you, making all absolutely meaningless.
Not like Curchill was a saint. He let 3 million Indians starve to death in the Bengal Famine Of 1943 during the Japanese occupation of Burma, due to the British empire taking 60% of all harvests and ordering Bengal to supply a greater proportion of the food for their army to fight the Japanese Even being quoted about the situation, "If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?" He was just on the winning side of the war and therefore remembered as a hero. You could have at least say Mother Teresa or Gandhi
"i wanted that sort of immortality, but then it occured to me that leaving a legacy doesn't require goodness" I was really sure you were going somewhere like 'so I masacared some babys'
When Claire gave the homeless man money, it was a $100 bill, the origami was a $20 bill, the man was just giving a part of it back as a gesture of good will..
Frank Underwood IS the best politician, ever. Ruthless, efficient, willing to play the game to its fullest, bending the rules as far as he can. Break them if he must. Never losing focus of the goal: POWER. I kind of like him. I would shoot him in real life but on film I like him.
@@Xpistos510 that is sadly true. The best politicians are Sociopaths. You can't handle some of the Decisions politicians have to make when you're own Moral compass stands in the way of doing something for let's say the greater good. Like Decisions about Life & Death, you can't really order something like a drone hit when you can't live with the fact that you just ended a life. So yeah sadly you are right
you wouldn't shoot him. That is a lie. If you ever meet him in the real world, he would manipulate you in the way that you think you are being loyal to your principles. He would use you until you are no longer useful. Then he would shoot you.
In reference to Frank's quest for a lasting legacy, I think we should look at it psychologically... To Frank his father was nothing, a nobody. Something frank despises and, to some degree I think is afraid of. I think he is afraid of being like his father (daddy issues, ikr) but yes. Frank is so afraid of being buried and forgotten that he's been reduced to half assed attempts at creating a lasting legacy. I think he realizes that these attempts aren't enough, so he keeps striving for more power. Or rather he's striving to run away from demise.. from being forgotten. He can't run away from inner issues... he's going to want more power, try more things, but even if he successfully concretes a legacy.. he'd still be empty.
I agree with your point on what motivates Frank Underwood, however some people will always be remembered to the end of time, I don't think people like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the great, Jesus etc will ever be forgotten, for some of those I have just mentioned they have been dead for nearly 2000 years and still have a resounding legacy today.
MrTyrannus Absolutely, but Frank is trying to create a legacy for all the wrong reasons. Those above mentioned contributed greatly to society. Of course depending on who you ask. Frank has been reduced to fear mongering to keep his place. Instead of him just being someone great regardless if he's remembered, he trying too hard and for what? Selfish reason and motivations.
MrTyrannus lastly, it's just a matter of time before they are forgotten. The world could end or a separate turn of events could turn those with legacies into just another person. It may take a millennia or a few short years. But time withers all.... in the end
So House of Cards is a reversed tragedy. The main character aims high, but ends in disgrace (will end in disgrace). But because the main character is a villain, the story is a tragedy for him, but a joy for the viewer. Truly genius art !
As though Shakespearean tragedies were never about terrible people? I suppose Macbeth started good, but he fell rather quickly for someone we're supposed to sympathize with. And King Lear was an idiot from the opening page.
+Wisecrack Hate Frank Underwood but admire him for his extreme pragmatism and political brilliance. His brutality is simply a reflection of our own politic when you strip away the bullshit. He's the culmination of everything we hate about politicians, and yet he bulldozes every idealist with great distaste. Love everything about this show, great video!
Firestrafer I think it's partly because he's honest to viewers and no one else - he's like 'I'm an asshole, so?' and the only response you can give is 'oh, ok.' 😕
I was hoping that wisecrack would tell more about each episode and what the underlying meaning was what we supposed to get from what happened in the episode because frankly sometimes I don’t know or I’m 🤔
Maths is difficult yes I will be watching it this is in November well December 1 week I’m understanding a little bit more than I did earlier I’m not into politics so it’s hard for some of us to truly get what’s what but we do knowUnderwood is screwing over and manipulating people left and right
Don't forget! What makes Frank appeal to the audience is that he seems to be *honest,* as opposed to theatrical. The "theatrical" asides emphasize the idea that he's letting us peek behind the curtain at what's really going on. It's that sense of feeling like we're seeing the unvarnished truth that we like, even if the truth is horrible. If the theory were true that there's "no truth behind the masks," Frank's appeal would totally evaporate. It isn't the mask we like, it's the stripping away of the mask.
Yeah but youre missing the general point here, because what is Frank Underwood "without the mask" then? Right, nothing. At every level, he is literally nothing without his appearence, which is shown all the time throughout the show. We are what we do, nothing more, nothing less, to quote the great Jean-paul sartre.
@@wil_nik7632 Even just judging based on actions, I assume most people would describe the umasked Frank along the lines of “sociopathic”, “selfish”, “ruthless”, etc., as opposed to a complete void. If Frank’s soliloquy persona is a pose, it seems much more in line with their actions - more honest - than their public one.
@@BardicLiving My point is exactly that. Frank's “real persona” is nothing because he never acts on it. Nothing he ever says or does in the show is because it aligns with this self, but because it will gain him power, thus, this “real persona” becomes redundant, as none are ever there to witness it (except for the viewers of course) So the question becomes, can you claim to be other than what you do and say, if you never show it? Id argue no, we all alter our behaviour all the time accordingly, its human nature, hence why I think we should judge character on actions and words, and not wether or not we have some one true version of ourselves buried beneith layers of alternate ones.
@@wil_nik7632 That’s interesting, because I would have thought that Frank is meant to be characterized as someone distinguished by their willingness to pursue/seize power (at least as of the beginning of the story). If that’s how they present their “unmasked self”, and it’s in accordance with their actions, why would we not accept it as an accurate representation of their character?
I feel like the reason why we love Frank is because he embodies Nietzsche's ideal of the Will to Power so completely. Morally reprehensible he's also incredibly psychologically robust, able to endure almost any setback and take the steps necessary to achieve his goals. While his means are reprehensible and his goal seems nihilistic, I think that psychological strength and force of will is incredibly inspiring.
Thanks for talking about this. I think there is a major shift in the worldview of popular TV shows over the last decade. The shift from The West Wing to House of Cards is mirrored by the shift from Law and Order (with a righteous police and DA's office taking care of society) to The Good Wife (where law enforcement and law are hopelessly corrupt, even the good ones) and How to Get Away With Murder. Similarly, Game of Thrones plays out the same worldview as House of Cards - power plays in a world of corruption and intrigue - in a more raw and vicious environment.
I don't have to agree with anything Frank believes, says or does, I love Frank as a character because he fascinates me. If he was a politician in real life, and all I ever got to see of him was that suspiciously wholesome, outward image politicians tend to favour, I would most likely be bored and/or repulsed by him. In the show, however, Frank confides in the viewer, he's honest with us, and we get a front row seat to what he actually gets up to. Some of my favourite moments in the series is when he turns around and tells us to our faces what he's actually thinking, I suppose because of the raw honesty, but in a way also because of how exclusive this feels. His honest, unfiltered thoughts is obviously something he guards extremely well. In a way, I think having Frank confide in the audience compels us to feel as if we're on his side on some level, like we're part of his inner circle. I guess it's hard to resist feeling at least a little bit flattered when someone interesting, charismatic and powerful wants to include you. The real question is perhaps, if you do end up fond of him for whatever reason, whether you will let his views rub off on you or not. Then again, I have a huge thing for really well fleshed out villains, anti-heroes, characters with ambiguous moral codes, etc., so of course Frank would be right up my alley.
Tom Yates is one of the most interesting, important characters in the show. He forced Frank and Claire to question their views, motives, and even their relationship simply by asking pointed questions. He left them feeling like total hypocrites, even in areas where they weren't.
I appreciate that he always knew. The same way Claire and Frank knew when each other were sleeping with others, Tom knew what Frank wanted, how Claire felt, and so on.
There is one simple philosophy behind Frank. Pragmatism. Which is obvious since the first episode. And BTW... Frank did not hate the monk's art, he did not much cared for it, but found it interesting. Just pay attention mate...
Yup, I like the mandala artwork designs but I hate the way that people waste their time like that. Sure the monks are trying to point out the fleeting of life, but who cares? Like you said...pragmatism....even those monks would put much more serious effort in life if they had to work for their food and living instead of depending on alms or gifts from devotees. Everybody is a hypocrite when faced with the reality of life....
Richard Frank Yes and the funny thing is i feel he hated anything that downpoints the southern legacy and the confederates. I think that Frank and the confederation is deeply intertwined, and that he probably fears he will meet the same fate.
@@jofftherevelator3691 Omg yes! I didn't notice this before but it is so evident in his background and his subsequent choices. His choosing the winning side. His pragmatism. His yeaning for a lasting legacy through securing power. This show is brilliant omg
Why do i love Underwood? Coz looking my eyes and he said- "After all the foolishness and indecision you have in your life, why not a man like me?" It really felt personal!
It is a breathtaking process of you taking notes about concealed and unobvious details of the series making things clear. Complicated meanings seems to lie on the surface after your review. We definitely in lack of review that kind, which like an essay refering to great works on philosophy diskuss the social problems. Thank you for the intringuing game of inquiring mind)
+"Once There Was An Ugly Barnacle, He Was SO Ugly That Everyone Died, the end" -Patrick Pinhead Star We have to at least wait until DVD release, but I second this.
i think one of the main reasons this show was so good is because David Fincher directed the first couple of episodes and was an executive producer for the rest. That man has a supernatural ability to get into your head hes so fucking good at his work.
He is excellent. You can obviously see the HoC has his typical lightning. The scenes are dark sometimes but you can still see people. When they are light, they are not over the top. Take a show like Ozark for example. Their scenes are too dark, you can’t even see people. David Fincher would make those scenes workable.
Picture at 3:44 is that of the Roman senate (specifically Cicero giving one of his famed Catiline orientations), and is not an assembly of an Ancient Greek polis.
seriously, that channel is pure gold. Does not matter if it's books, games or movies you analyze, I always leave with the feeling of knowing more than before
We don't hate Underwood because he never lied to us, only to his other characters. Claire wasn't unset that Frank killed Zoey, she just saw it as him making the play that was required.
Another thing I noticed about this show, there are 4 (good) seasons, and 13 episodes in each season, just as there are 4 suits in an actual deck of cards, and 13 cards in each suit. Not only that, but each identifies with a particular suit: ♣️ Season 1, Frank uses blunt force to accomplish his ends. ♦️Season 2 is all about money, as he tries to get Raymond Tusk to get the money flowing again. ♠️ Season 3 is about burying the past and trying to cover up the actions mostly of Season 1. At one point Doug Stamper literally uses a shovel to bury Rachel Posner’s body. ♥️Season 4 is about Frank and Claire’s love life, as well as Frank literally getting shot in the heart. (And there’s season 5 all about chaos, representing 🃏. I haven’t finished season 6 yet.)
@@FurthestLevell Watch the UK version of the house of cards the Ending is very good and satisifying for a character like Underwood or shall we say Francis Urqat !
Dr0pkidd Yeah i'm rereading the prince at the moment and honestly there are so many things you can draw parallels to that they should have done a whole episode just one that.Or heck why not a video on just the subject of characters with a Machiavellian personality, that would be fascinating to see how many villains this channel could come up with that have very Machiavellian behaviors.
Being obvious doesn't mean it has to be forgotten, they could have done the first in depth showing of the publications Machiavelli as I haven't seen any youtubers making in depth showing of this in the story of House of Cards.
I've finished Season 3 and to me, I think the show is ultimately a political satire. Starting with the idea, "what would happen if a complete sociopath strives for the most powerful position in the world?" And here's the funny part; There is no difference ...
I just subscribed and have been binge watching your videos. Enjoying every minute of seeing new retrospectives on popular shows and movies. Great job!!
Do this for Hannibal, the TV series! The cinematography, music. acting, plot, everythings just on par with House of Cards! Would love to see you analysis on it
I honestly believe seasons 5-6 should be rewritten in Franks favor with the spacey scandal aside in season 5 have frank win the election and then his public opinion shifts to his favor at the end of season 5 because all the risky things he does in season 5 is just not his character and also have Claire and Frank be as united as ever and save the total breakdown in season 6. Then in season 6 have Frank still as president but Claire believes his plan is to step down in 2020 and let Claire run but that isn't Franks plan his plan is to keep it for himself and the whole last season is about Frank choosing power or his wife, and in the end he chooses power, Claire finds out his plan and threatens to reveal it to the public and the season ends with Frank killing Claire and we hear cheers for Frank as he now has everything and nothing is in his way. I feel like that would've been a much better ending in my opinion
That's literally how politics works. What you're allowed to see, is for the show of it all. And what you're not allowed to see, happens behind closed curtains...
It was very simple to understand why people are fascinated by Frank. Let me tell you a story. Just this week I was walking down a busy city street when abruptly two women got into a verbal clash over one woman invading the personal space of another. Most people tried to politely ignore it when they when started calling one another bitches and exclaiming about how dare they take that tone with one another. But since I am a mostly shameless person I just soaked up the scene, watching how everyone was fascinated by this event and the details of the scrap. Now since I am mostly shameless and one of the women I was going my way, I just inconspicuously watched her. To my amusement the woman who had started the verbal sparing (not the one who invaded personal space) kicked a homeless man not a block later and ran off giggling with her friend. I found the event very enlightening. Where all the times a stranger was rude to me out of the blue like this woman just like her? A horrible person looking to torture people for her own ego. I think that is what people seek out stories like House of Cards, closure on pain. When others use power or opportunity to hurt us, the bitter aftertaste of their actions is lack of closure and understanding. We are left their wondering whether we are the ones actually at fault, if we acted bravely, if we acted wisely, and if we are judging them too harshly. And of course our adversary out of the blue will give us no clue, at least none that we can trust. And that leads us to politics. In America the federal government has grown so distant, large, and hostile that it has become an adversary out of the blue for the American people. House of Cards is like me getting to watch that woman and figure out her motivations. One feels a little less clueless as to what is going on.
Yes, but Machiavelli suggested the ruler used fear and 'evil' means for the sake of the State. F. Underwood does it for the sake of power and power alone.
One thing I noticed is that House of Cards loves to ignore the actual things the parties do. Frank says "You are entitled to nothing." but he's a democrat. Real democrats are all about entitlements. Democrats support gay marriage, but Frank thinks less of the men he has sex with. It's not about which political philosophy or party is best, it's about how politicians themselves are the worst. Also Frank constantly talks about his legacy, but he doesn't have kids. Passing on your name, genes, and wealth to your offspring are usually thought of as being important for your legacy. Frank has instead chosen to pass his name on to art pieces like the building in his old school.
Do you know what equivocation is? I think you're pretty close to equivocation. I think the America WORKS program would fit your definition of "entitlement."
elkellenhabla Sounds to me like you just learned a new word and felt like using it at the first chance you got. Don't be so butthurt, I'm not attacking the Democrats. I was merely remarking an artistic choices the show made. The famous 'you are entitled to nothing' speech would be more fitting coming out of Reagan or one of the Pauls than someone like Bernie Sanders or Ruben Hinojosa. What I did was called being unbiased. The show isn't about Frank's views, the party's views, or the creators views, it's about how the politicians are themselves. The show makes it seem like none or at least very few, of the politicians care about the bills they try to pass, they just want to dominate each other.
+Douglas Paulson I'm just pointing out what seems to be a flaw in your logic. If you disagree that's fine. What was the context of Frank saying "you are entitled to nothing"?
elkellenhabla Frank says money in things like Medicare and Social Security would be better spent creating jobs and making people work. That is an idea that Republicans have expressed and even allocated funds for. Democrats would like to increase money in programs like Social Security and expand government funded healthcare, aka entitlements.
+Ian Baker Even in the first few seasons, Claire never really does that. Claire wants to leave her own mark, what she has to suppress is her own overt aspirations so she can help further those of Frank. Every time something that has her fingerprints on it gets axed, she gets pissed. She is tired of her own legacy always being put second place to that of Frank's. She is tired of just being "Frank's husband".
war1980 Well it would help if she woke the hell up and recognized that she’s a lousy diplomat, a terrible schemer and generally BAD at the game. She really isn’t anything special without Frank. The first few episodes of season 4 show rather clearly that she’s trading on his power….and actively trying to undermine him at the same time. She’s naive and doesn’t realize how deep a hole she’s dug for herself.
Kinkade Well that is a significant part of the show. They're both selfish and power hungry; yet the only time they're every really "successful", is when they act as a team.
war1980 Of all the people in the show....Frank has always been a team player with Claire....but she has NOT always been a team player with Frank. She got jealous of his power and so she spitefully undermined him in some blindly ambitious plan to "force" him to share......which he only did because he genuinely cares about her. The same can't be said about her truly caring about him.
Well, while I can honestly say that the comment was made for humorous purposes, particularily aimed at this election, I must also say that there are some definite parts about him that I do admire. Is he a bad person? Yes. Is he a bad leader? No. He goes against he norm, and what will promise him power, but instead does the right thing, which isn't always the easiest rought to power. I admire Underwood simply for his pragmatism... but if he was running for president, it is likely I wouldn't vote for him if I knew about his 'work realtionship' with Zoe Barnes and Peter Russo. However, since he isn't running for president (ever), I will continue to poke fun at Hillary, Donald, and Bernie. *Cheers*
Coll Drake Hillary Clinton is *completely* pragmatic. But everyone hates her because of it. They find her robotic. Donald Trump is preaching against the norms. As is/was Bernie Sanders. ... I'd say the only thing he has over them is that he is FAR more charismatic.
Looking back at this after the show ended, it’s a hell of a slap to the Frank’s face knowing that Claire buried him next to his father instead of in Arlington. It’s as if, for all of his efforts and dealings, Frank ended up in precisely the place he was going to end up: 6 feet under, a couple feet from his father. All the while, the people who knew him move on and distance themselves from him, in what’s probably the most Frank Underwood move of all time.
this is an incredibly well done video and I loved the show and I think it hits the nail on the head when it comes to describing Frank and what he represents. However, I think the idea that Claire is better than Frank ignores the fact that Claire is in my opinion even worse than Frank. She is just as cruel heartless manipulative and cold as Frank and this is made apparently clear through the first few episodes where she made her secretary lay off everyone in her non profit and then layed off the secretary. Clair and Frank are one in the same two people driven by power.
Please please please!! Do philosophy of Silent Hill philosophy of The Stanley Parable philosophy of Breaking Bad philosophy of Mr Robot philosophy of Apocalypse Now!! excelent content!
I think what's really important to keep in mind is that the main criticism lies on the system itself and not the individual. It wouldn't matter if there was a better person in Franks place because as we saw with people like Peter Russo, the system doesn't allow someone with good intentions to actually change things. So yeah, hate the game don't hate the player.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
"Politics is no longer just theater, it's show business." - F. Underwood
that's so true
@@Pinkranger87 Reagan already said something like this. Then Clinton perfected it in his campaign.
I’m not so sure
This is how you put a philosophy major to good use
More like English Lit😂
he just quoted several european philosophers...
You don't have to study philosophy to think , thinking people philosophize everyday
Then where's your high quality video on this subject?
+Oz Boz That's the problem I noticed that most people that are into philosophy just reiterate and imitate what philosophers say and just copy their ideologies, instead of thinking an original thought and idea that could lead to the same conclusion or philosophy to modern or ancient philosophers. How can you be a philosopher if you just imitate others thoughts, views, and philosophy instead of thinking for yourself? Modern philosophy today is done by the textbook. People don't thinking on their own and conceive an original thought.
I blame house of cards for making me lose half of my emotional capacity
Me too
Your picture! 😂
well if you thought for yourself, you would come to the same conclusion , you dont need them to show you that
I haven’t watched this show yet but I can’t wait. I’ve been into politics only because of Trump. He is here to knock down the house of cards.
@@kylebrender5244 lol, he's part of the house or cards , all presidents are
I think that the purpose behind Frank's soliloquies is not so much a lazy attempt to provide exposition (the monologues really don't add any plot points we don't already know), but rather to give viewers an insight into Frank's self-perception. Frank Underwood, in my opinion, isn't a sociopath at all. He just wants to be one. He wants to be Machiavelli. He's not just trying to convince us that he's a sociopath, he's trying to convince himself as well. Kevin Spacey pulls this off brilliantly. After killing Zoe Barnes, he demonstrates, in his face and body language a lingering form of regret and shock at his own actions, which he then covers up by convincing us that he feels no remorse. Frank's soliloquies are his defense mechanism to protect him from a deep-seeded fear he has of not being in control.
That actually happen in the original British show with Frank Urquhart, not matter how much misdeeds he does he always feel some guilt about the actions that he take, never the less he try to mask with faux patriotism and lie to himself saying that everything that he does to benefit himself is for the good of the country.
Agreed. You've learnt some serious psychology.
Rly good point.
Sociopath and machiavelli are two very different things. Frank Underwood is not a sociopath, but he is a machiavelli.
Yeah Machiavelli kinda getting bullied out here. Some of these princes were like fifteen years old and in charge of people. Could you imagine being responsible for that many han beings at that age? He just wrote them a Kidz Bop politics.
"We dont succumb to terror... we make terror."
"she can chase me all she wants but if she goes after my wife I'll slit her fucking throat in broad daylight"
"They are what people want to be. (About Frank's opponent in S4 and S5, can't remember his name though). You are what people want to become" (about Frank and Claire).
Arian Behnami church
Yessssssss
This is the best line of the entire show which in my opinion should have ended there
The system isn't broken. This _is_ the system.
Exactly....
However, most ppl don't believe that. Most rather think system is perfect, humans are not, so it's not system's fault.
Yeah good luck explaining that to people lmao
@@drjp4212 what most people believe is not significant. Idk who, but someone said that people are sheep and are meant to be ruled and he is right about the sheep part, people are sheep
@@nemanjamanutd Well, Jesus was the good shepherd after all
8:48 Frank is NOT deeply annoyed by the buddhist monks, and is in fact simply astounded that they would dedicate a whole month to painstakingly create the sand mandala. Frank's reaction to the monk's presence and work is neutral at first, then later supportive. this is evident when he finds out that the monks completed the mandala and destroyed it way before he could see it together with Claire.
Yeah, he made sure Claire got a picture of the dust-object that the monks made.
+Kurt Roundstone That just drills the point home - he wanted to make it permanent.
I took Claire putting on makeup as another reference to Shakespeare, covering up perceived blood as opposed to washing it away
+Alex Ray-Weber Yeah, she practically IS Lady Macbeth, isn't she? Her suppression of her desire to have a family is a lot like lady Macbeth's speech about "unsexing" herself, and her desire to achieve power through her husband is just like lady Macbeth as well.
+Heather McIntyre agreed. and also Claire leaves frank in the end, much like Lady Macbeth. (albeit in a different manner)
The reason why it's hard to hate Frank Underwood is because he isn't exactly an evil person. In Frank's mind, nobody is entitled to anything not even compassion or love. If he wants something well then he has to fuckin earn it. That's what makes Frank Underwood such a despicably appealing character. He always knows the price for his goals and does whatever it takes to achieve them even if it means losing the most valuable thing to him, his marriage. The problem here isn't Frank Underwood being all ruthless and deceptive, the problem here is how our injustice world rewards man. You certainly can't be the most powerful man in the world by being a nice honest guy. A rabbit will always be hunted by a wolf, that's just how the world works.
Yep, that's why you can't care, more or less your not allowed to.
Compassion is the ultimate weakness, only in healthy doses, does it not hinder you.
That’s what I like about him too. He’s not a good or bad person, he’s just a person who has done and is doing lots of good things and bad things. There is no clear answer
@@drhypno6317 I coined the term "mindful compassion and empathy" for being empathetic and compassionate while at the same time being fully aware and prepared for people to try and take advantage of you for it.
Don't equate nature to human beings. Humans know right from wrong. If the world was the way you think, it would be a world of predators. It isn't. They're the ones locked up.
@@schroederscurrentevents3844 He only did bad things.
When i was a child i wanted that sort of immortality, but then it occured to me that leaving a legacy doesn't require goodness and as a matter of fact i'd wager that more people remember Hitler than Churchill (although i'm sure it's close). I enjoy Frank underwood because he's intelligent and driven but you know what i enjoy most? The fact that he manages to be so condescending towards people who don't understand that money is nothing more than a means to an end, yet he himself completely misses the point that the same exact logic can be applied to power, and earning money for the sake of money is roughly as valuable as earning power for the sake of power. Power without direction is useless for anything more than the inflation of pride.
I think the reason the viewer likes Frank is because of those little asides, being let in on a part of a world that nobody else gets to see. Maybe that's just me, but if all i ever saw was the frank underwood of the news and the media, as he presents himself i'd be bored to tears if not repulsed.
Lol cocoa puffs
+eight216 Actually sometimes there is a direction, never the less, is hidden under the nice charade of a charitable and good corporation that work for the benefit of everybody, when in reality, they willing to destroy a whole country and their economy only for a short period of time of huge profit, power and money are just tools to bet better your status quo and show to everybody that you are the top dog, but humans are stupid creature, they are willing to destroy and cause millions of death believing in a short period of success and power, that would end sooner or later, because they are swimming in a pool of sharks there always somebody that would smart you or you would die old and join the worms in the ground without taking any of that power and money with you, making all absolutely meaningless.
Not like Curchill was a saint. He let 3 million Indians starve to death in the Bengal Famine Of 1943 during the Japanese occupation of Burma, due to the British empire taking 60% of all harvests and ordering Bengal to supply a greater proportion of the food for their army to fight the Japanese
Even being quoted about the situation, "If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?" He was just on the winning side of the war and therefore remembered as a hero.
You could have at least say Mother Teresa or Gandhi
"i wanted that sort of immortality, but then it occured to me that leaving a legacy doesn't require goodness"
I was really sure you were going somewhere like 'so I masacared some babys'
wow well said
When Claire gave the homeless man money, it was a $100 bill, the origami was a $20 bill, the man was just giving a part of it back as a gesture of good will..
Good observation. I never noticed it
🤣🤣 Trust a Jew to notice! Only kidding...NOT! LOL!!
Damn I always thought there was something more than just the homeless refusing the money... Thanks good sir it out the scene in a new light
@@seanc.mcnally2118 😂😂😂
@@seanc.mcnally2118 What
Frank Underwood IS the best politician, ever. Ruthless, efficient, willing to play the game to its fullest, bending the rules as far as he can. Break them if he must. Never losing focus of the goal: POWER.
I kind of like him. I would shoot him in real life but on film I like him.
Being the best politician requires being the worst form of citizen.
@@Xpistos510 that is sadly true. The best politicians are Sociopaths. You can't handle some of the Decisions politicians have to make when you're own Moral compass stands in the way of doing something for let's say the greater good. Like Decisions about Life & Death, you can't really order something like a drone hit when you can't live with the fact that you just ended a life. So yeah sadly you are right
you wouldn't shoot him. That is a lie. If you ever meet him in the real world, he would manipulate you in the way that you think you are being loyal to your principles. He would use you until you are no longer useful. Then he would shoot you.
@@mauriciosotoa8130 lmfao
This was so well done it hurts
the truth hurts
In reference to Frank's quest for a lasting legacy, I think we should look at it psychologically...
To Frank his father was nothing, a nobody. Something frank despises and, to some degree I think is afraid of. I think he is afraid of being like his father (daddy issues, ikr) but yes.
Frank is so afraid of being buried and forgotten that he's been reduced to half assed attempts at creating a lasting legacy. I think he realizes that these attempts aren't enough, so he keeps striving for more power. Or rather he's striving to run away from demise.. from being forgotten.
He can't run away from inner issues... he's going to want more power, try more things, but even if he successfully concretes a legacy.. he'd still be empty.
In the end though... I think he knows that a legacy, time, place, idea, a person will always be forgotten... just a matter of time.
I agree with your point on what motivates Frank Underwood, however some people will always be remembered to the end of time, I don't think people like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the great, Jesus etc will ever be forgotten, for some of those I have just mentioned they have been dead for nearly 2000 years and still have a resounding legacy today.
MrTyrannus Absolutely, but Frank is trying to create a legacy for all the wrong reasons. Those above mentioned contributed greatly to society. Of course depending on who you ask. Frank has been reduced to fear mongering to keep his place.
Instead of him just being someone great regardless if he's remembered, he trying too hard and for what? Selfish reason and motivations.
MrTyrannus lastly, it's just a matter of time before they are forgotten. The world could end or a separate turn of events could turn those with legacies into just another person. It may take a millennia or a few short years. But time withers all.... in the end
Brie Shaniece
So House of Cards is a reversed tragedy. The main character aims high, but ends in disgrace (will end in disgrace). But because the main character is a villain, the story is a tragedy for him, but a joy for the viewer. Truly genius art !
Rick Apocalypse hope not
As though Shakespearean tragedies were never about terrible people? I suppose Macbeth started good, but he fell rather quickly for someone we're supposed to sympathize with. And King Lear was an idiot from the opening page.
No tragedies are exactly like that - the character has a flaw, that flaw creates a problem that ends the character. That's what happened here.
Are we doomed to love Frank Underwood? Tell us what you think Wisecrack!
+Wisecrack Thug notes on Neuromancer
+Wisecrack hated him from episode one. Couldn't get through season 2. Great show though. And great analysis:)
+Wisecrack I find my self at points were I begin to root for Frank Underwood remind my self of his actions and don't find it hard at all to hate him.
+Wisecrack dont care about Frank, I just love Kevin Spacey
+Wisecrack Hate Frank Underwood but admire him for his extreme pragmatism and political brilliance. His brutality is simply a reflection of our own politic when you strip away the bullshit. He's the culmination of everything we hate about politicians, and yet he bulldozes every idealist with great distaste. Love everything about this show, great video!
We don't hate Frank Underwood because we love Kevin Spacey too much.
On the other hand, i hate Walter White even though i love Bryan Cranston
grimrp3r1 I love it when people compare breaking bad with house of cards. My two favorite shows
grimrp3r1 I love Walter White
Firestrafer I think it's partly because he's honest to viewers and no one else - he's like 'I'm an asshole, so?' and the only response you can give is 'oh, ok.' 😕
That, our he is plays a compentant leader in the era where saying is better than doing.
I just noticed that WiseCrack videos have great rewatch values!
I've watched this one 5x.
4th time here. Won't be the last either.
The replay value is off-the-chain in all wisecrack vids. It's pretty crazy. Except The hidden meaning ones. The gotta get rid of those
I was hoping that wisecrack would tell more about each episode and what the underlying meaning was what we supposed to get from what happened in the episode because frankly sometimes I don’t know or I’m 🤔
Maths is difficult yes I will be watching it this is in November well December 1 week I’m understanding a little bit more than I did earlier I’m not into politics so it’s hard for some of us to truly get what’s what but we do knowUnderwood is screwing over and manipulating people left and right
Don't forget! What makes Frank appeal to the audience is that he seems to be *honest,* as opposed to theatrical. The "theatrical" asides emphasize the idea that he's letting us peek behind the curtain at what's really going on. It's that sense of feeling like we're seeing the unvarnished truth that we like, even if the truth is horrible.
If the theory were true that there's "no truth behind the masks," Frank's appeal would totally evaporate. It isn't the mask we like, it's the stripping away of the mask.
This.
Yeah but youre missing the general point here, because what is Frank Underwood "without the mask" then? Right, nothing. At every level, he is literally nothing without his appearence, which is shown all the time throughout the show. We are what we do, nothing more, nothing less, to quote the great Jean-paul sartre.
@@wil_nik7632 Even just judging based on actions, I assume most people would describe the umasked Frank along the lines of “sociopathic”, “selfish”, “ruthless”, etc., as opposed to a complete void. If Frank’s soliloquy persona is a pose, it seems much more in line with their actions - more honest - than their public one.
@@BardicLiving My point is exactly that. Frank's “real persona” is nothing because he never acts on it. Nothing he ever says or does in the show is because it aligns with this self, but because it will gain him power, thus, this “real persona” becomes redundant, as none are ever there to witness it (except for the viewers of course) So the question becomes, can you claim to be other than what you do and say, if you never show it? Id argue no, we all alter our behaviour all the time accordingly, its human nature, hence why I think we should judge character on actions and words, and not wether or not we have some one true version of ourselves buried beneith layers of alternate ones.
@@wil_nik7632 That’s interesting, because I would have thought that Frank is meant to be characterized as someone distinguished by their willingness to pursue/seize power (at least as of the beginning of the story). If that’s how they present their “unmasked self”, and it’s in accordance with their actions, why would we not accept it as an accurate representation of their character?
I feel like the reason why we love Frank is because he embodies Nietzsche's ideal of the Will to Power so completely. Morally reprehensible he's also incredibly psychologically robust, able to endure almost any setback and take the steps necessary to achieve his goals. While his means are reprehensible and his goal seems nihilistic, I think that psychological strength and force of will is incredibly inspiring.
Thanks for talking about this. I think there is a major shift in the worldview of popular TV shows over the last decade. The shift from The West Wing to House of Cards is mirrored by the shift from Law and Order (with a righteous police and DA's office taking care of society) to The Good Wife (where law enforcement and law are hopelessly corrupt, even the good ones) and How to Get Away With Murder. Similarly, Game of Thrones plays out the same worldview as House of Cards - power plays in a world of corruption and intrigue - in a more raw and vicious environment.
I don't have to agree with anything Frank believes, says or does, I love Frank as a character because he fascinates me. If he was a politician in real life, and all I ever got to see of him was that suspiciously wholesome, outward image politicians tend to favour, I would most likely be bored and/or repulsed by him. In the show, however, Frank confides in the viewer, he's honest with us, and we get a front row seat to what he actually gets up to. Some of my favourite moments in the series is when he turns around and tells us to our faces what he's actually thinking, I suppose because of the raw honesty, but in a way also because of how exclusive this feels. His honest, unfiltered thoughts is obviously something he guards extremely well. In a way, I think having Frank confide in the audience compels us to feel as if we're on his side on some level, like we're part of his inner circle. I guess it's hard to resist feeling at least a little bit flattered when someone interesting, charismatic and powerful wants to include you. The real question is perhaps, if you do end up fond of him for whatever reason, whether you will let his views rub off on you or not.
Then again, I have a huge thing for really well fleshed out villains, anti-heroes, characters with ambiguous moral codes, etc., so of course Frank would be right up my alley.
You realise don't you, that this show is based on the original BBC show of the same name with the main character, Francis Urquart.
@@francisheperi4180 Yes, I'm aware. Do you realise you just replied to a five year old comment?
Man, didnt realize how in-depth this show is! Amazing!
Just found this channel. Where have you been all my life? This video was amazing.
it reminded me when i felt the same way about another channel. exurb1a. you should check it out
And if you are also interested in some quick entertaining knowledgeable physics lesson than check out Science Asylum.
This show allowed me to write an essay on one of my favourite TV shows and use it in an exam. The Teacher loved it. Thanks Wisecrack!
Can I get a copy of that I kinda having the same task maybe your essay help meee....
Tom Yates is one of the most interesting, important characters in the show. He forced Frank and Claire to question their views, motives, and even their relationship simply by asking pointed questions. He left them feeling like total hypocrites, even in areas where they weren't.
I appreciate that he always knew. The same way Claire and Frank knew when each other were sleeping with others, Tom knew what Frank wanted, how Claire felt, and so on.
Sorry to Spoil, But Claire kills Him!
first video I ever watched of you and it is genuinely awesome
Please do "Fargo" (TV Series)
So good!
+Wisecrack Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter
+Wisecrack What about "Suits"?
+Jesse Torres "Philosophy of Hannibal" Fucking crazy series.
agreed
There is one simple philosophy behind Frank. Pragmatism. Which is obvious since the first episode. And BTW... Frank did not hate the monk's art, he did not much cared for it, but found it interesting. Just pay attention mate...
Yup, I like the mandala artwork designs but I hate the way that people waste their time like that. Sure the monks are trying to point out the fleeting of life, but who cares? Like you said...pragmatism....even those monks would put much more serious effort in life if they had to work for their food and living instead of depending on alms or gifts from devotees. Everybody is a hypocrite when faced with the reality of life....
Richard Frank Yes and the funny thing is i feel he hated anything that downpoints the southern legacy and the confederates. I think that Frank and the confederation is deeply intertwined, and that he probably fears he will meet the same fate.
“Did I mention I hate useless things”
@@jofftherevelator3691 Omg yes! I didn't notice this before but it is so evident in his background and his subsequent choices. His choosing the winning side. His pragmatism. His yeaning for a lasting legacy through securing power. This show is brilliant omg
Why do i love Underwood?
Coz looking my eyes and he said- "After all the foolishness and indecision you have in your life, why not a man like me?"
It really felt personal!
We don't submit to terror.
+jordan w We make the terror.
+jordan w Rest In Peace Meechum. You will be missed. :(
+rootikins :^) you haven't seen the new season yet.
+jordan w Revolutionary France *duhhh*
terror is exactly what politicians use to drive you to become a tool for them
These "philosophy of" are the best videos of the channel imo. They are awesome
Loved this episode! I wpuld love to see you guys tackle Black Mirror!
That would be quality!
It is a breathtaking process of you taking notes about concealed and unobvious details of the series making things clear. Complicated meanings seems to lie on the surface after your review. We definitely in lack of review that kind, which like an essay refering to great works on philosophy diskuss the social problems. Thank you for the intringuing game of inquiring mind)
I watched this TWICE and I still think it's the BEST reading you've ever done for such a good show! keep us the good work guys! I LOVE you!
Philosophy of Revenant. I caught quite a lot of symbolism in it and I want you guys to (wise)crack it open
+"Once There Was An Ugly Barnacle, He Was SO Ugly That Everyone Died, the end" -Patrick Pinhead Star We have to at least wait until DVD release, but I second this.
+Nathan Weisser Ah alright
I hope I make a film so good that Wisecrack would make a philosophy video about it.
+Film News Report We hope you do too! :)
+Wisecrack Thank ya.
You can do it
i think one of the main reasons this show was so good is because David Fincher directed the first couple of episodes and was an executive producer for the rest. That man has a supernatural ability to get into your head hes so fucking good at his work.
David Fincher is highly underrated. He understands human behavior and does a perfect job feeding a story’s emotions to the audience.
He is excellent. You can obviously see the HoC has his typical lightning. The scenes are dark sometimes but you can still see people. When they are light, they are not over the top.
Take a show like Ozark for example. Their scenes are too dark, you can’t even see people. David Fincher would make those scenes workable.
Frank Underwood reminds me of Palpatine from star wars. Because they both wants power, and wants to leave a long lasting legacy behind.
GUess I should finally watch house of cards.
*sigh*
I envy you
I feel your pain brother. I got Sucked in
like game of thrones i stopped till the show is complete. i suggest you do the same
Watch the UK version. It's way better than the American garbage, only made bearable by Spacey's amazing performance.
Unnamed RedShirt you’re tripping. Seasons 1-2 is some of the best tv ever
Damn you Frank,,we had 1 season left, now its gone forever
Picture at 3:44 is that of the Roman senate (specifically Cicero giving one of his famed Catiline orientations), and is not an assembly of an Ancient Greek polis.
House, M.D. is another good philosophical series to review!
it's lupus
+James Payne No... It can't be lupus. Autoimmune doesn't fit. It has to be sarcoidosis.
Vasculitis
seriously, that channel is pure gold. Does not matter if it's books, games or movies you analyze, I always leave with the feeling of knowing more than before
We don't hate Underwood because he never lied to us, only to his other characters.
Claire wasn't unset that Frank killed Zoey, she just saw it as him making the play that was required.
Really love Jared's analysis. Would love to see him do more.
+The Law There's lots more planned! Make sure and subscribe so you don't miss them! :)
+Wisecrack
I already am subscribed. c:
Another thing I noticed about this show, there are 4 (good) seasons, and 13 episodes in each season, just as there are 4 suits in an actual deck of cards, and 13 cards in each suit. Not only that, but each identifies with a particular suit:
♣️ Season 1, Frank uses blunt force to accomplish his ends.
♦️Season 2 is all about money, as he tries to get Raymond Tusk to get the money flowing again.
♠️ Season 3 is about burying the past and trying to cover up the actions mostly of Season 1. At one point Doug Stamper literally uses a shovel to bury Rachel Posner’s body.
♥️Season 4 is about Frank and Claire’s love life, as well as Frank literally getting shot in the heart.
(And there’s season 5 all about chaos, representing 🃏. I haven’t finished season 6 yet.)
Makes so much more sense after actually watching the show.
A-yep. I'm subscribing. I'm loving the breakdown of these shows and games.
With Season 6 out, an update to this would be AWESOME! #TeamUnderwood
Update: season 6 sucks
@@FurthestLevell Watch the UK version of the house of cards the Ending is very good and satisifying for a character like Underwood or shall we say Francis Urqat !
@@FurthestLevell You described it rather kindly. It was atrocious.
"Legacy is more important than currency."
No Machiavellianism? I'm disappointed wise crack.
I thought that was an oversight too.
Dr0pkidd Yeah i'm rereading the prince at the moment and honestly there are so many things you can draw parallels to that they should have done a whole episode just one that.Or heck why not a video on just the subject of characters with a Machiavellian personality, that would be fascinating to see how many villains this channel could come up with that have very Machiavellian behaviors.
A 16 years old could link HoC with Machiavelli's work within 5 minutes of any chapter. He just skipped the obvious.
indeed it would take a whole episode
Being obvious doesn't mean it has to be forgotten, they could have done the first in depth showing of the publications Machiavelli as I haven't seen any youtubers making in depth showing of this in the story of House of Cards.
I've finished Season 3 and to me, I think the show is ultimately a political satire.
Starting with the idea, "what would happen if a complete sociopath strives for the most powerful position in the world?"
And here's the funny part;
There is no difference ...
Actual politics is a satire as well.
I just subscribed and have been binge watching your videos. Enjoying every minute of seeing new retrospectives on popular shows and movies. Great job!!
this review was really amazing !!
Do this for Hannibal, the TV series! The cinematography, music. acting, plot, everythings just on par with House of Cards! Would love to see you analysis on it
Yes! I do hope to find an episode about Hannibal.
came to say this!!
DO Mr |Robot
Season 4 coming Friday. Netflix and chill!!
I wish this was a series, this was so good and insightful. Great video, instant sub
amazing content!
I honestly believe seasons 5-6 should be rewritten in Franks favor with the spacey scandal aside in season 5 have frank win the election and then his public opinion shifts to his favor at the end of season 5 because all the risky things he does in season 5 is just not his character and also have Claire and Frank be as united as ever and save the total breakdown in season 6. Then in season 6 have Frank still as president but Claire believes his plan is to step down in 2020 and let Claire run but that isn't Franks plan his plan is to keep it for himself and the whole last season is about Frank choosing power or his wife, and in the end he chooses power, Claire finds out his plan and threatens to reveal it to the public and the season ends with Frank killing Claire and we hear cheers for Frank as he now has everything and nothing is in his way. I feel like that would've been a much better ending in my opinion
The ending we deserved
you guys have to do MAD MEN!!
Mr. Robot - Fargo - Boardwalk Empire - Louie
This is the best one in this channel. Thank you for existing ... I love this segment !!!! Keep it up!!
That's literally how politics works.
What you're allowed to see, is for the show of it all. And what you're not allowed to see, happens behind closed curtains...
Can you maybe put the books you're quoting from in the description? Would be very helpful :) Thank you!
It was very simple to understand why people are fascinated by Frank. Let me tell you a story.
Just this week I was walking down a busy city street when abruptly two women got into a verbal clash over one woman invading the personal space of another. Most people tried to politely ignore it when they when started calling one another bitches and exclaiming about how dare they take that tone with one another. But since I am a mostly shameless person I just soaked up the scene, watching how everyone was fascinated by this event and the details of the scrap.
Now since I am mostly shameless and one of the women I was going my way, I just inconspicuously watched her. To my amusement the woman who had started the verbal sparing (not the one who invaded personal space) kicked a homeless man not a block later and ran off giggling with her friend.
I found the event very enlightening. Where all the times a stranger was rude to me out of the blue like this woman just like her? A horrible person looking to torture people for her own ego.
I think that is what people seek out stories like House of Cards, closure on pain. When others use power or opportunity to hurt us, the bitter aftertaste of their actions is lack of closure and understanding. We are left their wondering whether we are the ones actually at fault, if we acted bravely, if we acted wisely, and if we are judging them too harshly. And of course our adversary out of the blue will give us no clue, at least none that we can trust.
And that leads us to politics. In America the federal government has grown so distant, large, and hostile that it has become an adversary out of the blue for the American people. House of Cards is like me getting to watch that woman and figure out her motivations. One feels a little less clueless as to what is going on.
how did that make the women likable
your doom It made her interesting, not likable
I would absolutely love to see you take on The Wire and True Detective!
Loved this video, super interesting. Thank you!
Great explanation. I enjoyed it!!
Frank makes corruption look so good.
Please make a part 2 of this for season 4!
+Dino Prašo I support this.
Hello? ... Niccolò Machiavelli ... Anyone? Please?
I'm listening
Yes, but Machiavelli suggested the ruler used fear and 'evil' means for the sake of the State. F. Underwood does it for the sake of power and power alone.
Love this channel
Wonderful clip. Well thought and explained!
I love frank because he's an interesting, complex and enjoyable character. Its his antagonistic nature that makes him likeable to me.
One thing I noticed is that House of Cards loves to ignore the actual things the parties do. Frank says "You are entitled to nothing." but he's a democrat. Real democrats are all about entitlements. Democrats support gay marriage, but Frank thinks less of the men he has sex with. It's not about which political philosophy or party is best, it's about how politicians themselves are the worst.
Also Frank constantly talks about his legacy, but he doesn't have kids. Passing on your name, genes, and wealth to your offspring are usually thought of as being important for your legacy. Frank has instead chosen to pass his name on to art pieces like the building in his old school.
Do you know what equivocation is? I think you're pretty close to equivocation. I think the America WORKS program would fit your definition of "entitlement."
elkellenhabla Sounds to me like you just learned a new word and felt like using it at the first chance you got. Don't be so butthurt, I'm not attacking the Democrats. I was merely remarking an artistic choices the show made. The famous 'you are entitled to nothing' speech would be more fitting coming out of Reagan or one of the Pauls than someone like Bernie Sanders or Ruben Hinojosa.
What I did was called being unbiased. The show isn't about Frank's views, the party's views, or the creators views, it's about how the politicians are themselves. The show makes it seem like none or at least very few, of the politicians care about the bills they try to pass, they just want to dominate each other.
+Douglas Paulson I'm just pointing out what seems to be a flaw in your logic. If you disagree that's fine. What was the context of Frank saying "you are entitled to nothing"?
elkellenhabla Frank says money in things like Medicare and Social Security would be better spent creating jobs and making people work. That is an idea that Republicans have expressed and even allocated funds for. Democrats would like to increase money in programs like Social Security and expand government funded healthcare, aka entitlements.
+Douglas Paulson Okay so you're saying Frank publicly espouses conservative principles?
Better Call Saul and/or Mr. Robot would make good "Philosophy Of" videos!
Definitely Mr. Robot!
"Information IS a commodity."
-all media companies
Awesome analysis!! You really surprised me, didn't think this show was so deep!
Claire did not abandon her political ambitions.
someone watched the new season
+Ian Baker
Even in the first few seasons, Claire never really does that. Claire wants to leave her own mark, what she has to suppress is her own overt aspirations so she can help further those of Frank. Every time something that has her fingerprints on it gets axed, she gets pissed. She is tired of her own legacy always being put second place to that of Frank's. She is tired of just being "Frank's husband".
war1980 Well it would help if she woke the hell up and recognized that she’s a lousy diplomat, a terrible schemer and generally BAD at the game. She really isn’t anything special without Frank. The first few episodes of season 4 show rather clearly that she’s trading on his power….and actively trying to undermine him at the same time. She’s naive and doesn’t realize how deep a hole she’s dug for herself.
Kinkade
Well that is a significant part of the show. They're both selfish and power hungry; yet the only time they're every really "successful", is when they act as a team.
war1980
Of all the people in the show....Frank has always been a team player with Claire....but she has NOT always been a team player with Frank. She got jealous of his power and so she spitefully undermined him in some blindly ambitious plan to "force" him to share......which he only did because he genuinely cares about her. The same can't be said about her truly caring about him.
so artists stole the world and the politicians stole art
HOLY SHIT THAT GAVE ME CHILLS
Frank Underwood for president, 2016!
he'd make a better president than than trump or clinton for sure
#FU2016
He is just as bad as them. Hell, he's even murdered people. Only difference is we "know" him and I'll admit he is more charismatic.
Well, while I can honestly say that the comment was made for humorous purposes, particularily aimed at this election, I must also say that there are some definite parts about him that I do admire. Is he a bad person? Yes. Is he a bad leader? No. He goes against he norm, and what will promise him power, but instead does the right thing, which isn't always the easiest rought to power.
I admire Underwood simply for his pragmatism... but if he was running for president, it is likely I wouldn't vote for him if I knew about his 'work realtionship' with Zoe Barnes and Peter Russo.
However, since he isn't running for president (ever), I will continue to poke fun at Hillary, Donald, and Bernie. *Cheers*
Coll Drake Hillary Clinton is *completely* pragmatic.
But everyone hates her because of it. They find her robotic.
Donald Trump is preaching against the norms.
As is/was Bernie Sanders.
...
I'd say the only thing he has over them is that he is FAR more charismatic.
Looking back at this after the show ended, it’s a hell of a slap to the Frank’s face knowing that Claire buried him next to his father instead of in Arlington. It’s as if, for all of his efforts and dealings, Frank ended up in precisely the place he was going to end up: 6 feet under, a couple feet from his father. All the while, the people who knew him move on and distance themselves from him, in what’s probably the most Frank Underwood move of all time.
excellent work !
Do Hannibal (tv show)!!!
+Miles “Topless Unicorn” Kilburn YEEEESSSS!!! Love that show!!
Wisecrack I expected a Willhelm scream at 0:13
The show wasn't the same after Frank gets killed off.
this is an incredibly well done video and I loved the show and I think it hits the nail on the head when it comes to describing Frank and what he represents. However, I think the idea that Claire is better than Frank ignores the fact that Claire is in my opinion even worse than Frank. She is just as cruel heartless manipulative and cold as Frank and this is made apparently clear through the first few episodes where she made her secretary lay off everyone in her non profit and then layed off the secretary. Clair and Frank are one in the same two people driven by power.
3:21 the chess piece next to the thrown brick is just genius
House of cards is now an allegory for Kevin Spaceys career
Make a video about Homeland and Hannibal, please. That would be intense.
This was my favourite TV show until Kevin Spacey left
Great overview!
Thank you for your insightful & informative video. It explains a lot about life...
I also assumed that the name house of cards meant that the House (senate etc.) Is filled with players with varying strengths (the cards )
Please please please!!
Do philosophy of Silent Hill
philosophy of The Stanley Parable
philosophy of Breaking Bad
philosophy of Mr Robot
philosophy of Apocalypse Now!!
excelent content!
I was hoping Makivelli would get a mention...
Great analysis.
I think what's really important to keep in mind is that the main criticism lies on the system itself and not the individual.
It wouldn't matter if there was a better person in Franks place because as we saw with people like Peter Russo, the system doesn't allow someone with good intentions to actually change things.
So yeah, hate the game don't hate the player.