Having binge watched Downton Abbey, Forsyte Saga, Homeland, Prime Suspect, Foyle's War and other such quality offerings, I jumped in and got through all 13 episodes of the new version at a stretch and then repeated the experience on the original, since that was offered up on Netflix as well.
To my friends who keep asking me, 'where do you find the time?'; I reply, "if you wake up like me at 4.30 am, and you are forbidden to speak to your wife at that time in the morning upon pain of banishment, then there are two hours available for viewing right there, with a steaming pot of coffee!' :-)
Plot Summary
Francis is the house whip in parliament who is upset that he is passed over for a senior cabinet position. So with his wife as an accomplice he plots his path to power. Venally, ruthlessly and relentlessly using every diabolical means.
Ian Richardson was a sensation when this series was broadcast in 1990 and has stood the test of time. The new version starts Kevin Spacey. So the question is, how does the new series hold up?
Net/Net which is better? Original narrowly.
What the original got done in 4 episodes, this one takes 13 (and is still trying to wrap up!). The newer one is really slick and gives the supporting cast much more room to breathe and develop. Both are equally good at the warp and woof of the political process, but the new one just with more time, does a better job.
Richardson vs Spacey: Tie
Ian Richardson is shakespearean and 100% venal. Spacey is almost as venal, but there is a human touch he adds that is a good nuance.
Spouse vs Spouse: Original by a lot.
 |
| Lady Macbeth |
Mattie vs Zoe: Original
Mattie is a journalist first, and a enabler second (unknowing). By making Zoe a knowing enabler, the punch of the story is lost.
Loser drug addict: New version by a lot
This is the one place where the new version just runs away with the plot line and character development. Majority of the increase in length of time is worth it to explore this character. Interesting twist on who this character is in the new version. Nothing to spoil here - but you might as well enjoy it when you watch it. Real kick - and real power to the story with this one.
Prime Minister vs President: Tie
PM in the original was a nice guy; but did not stand a chance. President in the new version, is not as helpless. Ironically, even though the US character is stronger, the story is weaker and strains credibility. The deposing of the PM is more credible.
Production Values: New version
 |
| Will Netflix experiment work? |
Breaching the fourth wall: New version
Ian Richardson talking to the camera might have been fresh and innovative in 1990 and therefore presumed to have the edge. But amazingly, Kevin Spacey does the better job! He speaks less to the camera - and is more human. This is a peculiar point - but one that Kevin Spacey understands better. And the point is this. We the audience think of him as venal. But the character himself may not be aware that he is venal! In the case of Ian Richardson there is not that difference. He is venal in his actions and in his talking to the camera. Whereas, Kevin Spacey is much more nuanced in this regard.
Final word: Two thumbs up
The new version does not better the original. But Kevin Spacey carries this on his shoulders and has made it uniquely compelling. Two thumbs up!!
3 comments:
Interesting. Having not seen either, there’s not much I can say than these two things:
1. If it doesn’t come across as patronizing, your writing has greatly improved.
2. Which brings me to this offering in exchange – there are a number of relevancies to your piece beyond that of reviewing, old and new, and improving one’s writing… there’s even a reference to Indian bugs: On Writing Well and Other Joys - By EDWIN M. YODER JR.
I haven't seen the original but now I'm inspired to after reading your review. I absolutely loved House of Cards and I too finished the entire series this weekend. Perfect timing with the storm and all.
But I wonder about the longevity of the series.
I have seen the house of cards. It is excellent. The rats are a fine touch! but somehow, I thought that at the and he would overplay his hand and the prime minister wins ! Any way a good story and well directed.
That is perhaps the master touch ! Rats are symbolic for surreptitiously digging underneath and eating away the grain and leaving the husk ! They are also considered very difficult to get rid off ! So, he is showing that all the guys surrounding the prime minister are praising him in his presence and digging like rats behind !
For all the master craftsmanship of the play, there is one serious flaw ! No one who can become a prime minister will EVER trust ANYBODY ! Does he not have a secret service chief ? That bank transaction can be discovered by the simplest amateur detectives ! But , the play is directed very well and quite suspenseful
Post a Comment