I'm late to 'The House of Cards' party but I can now say that I have watched all three seasons quite obsessively. There was one night when my husband and I watched three episodes back to back and when Claire walked out on Francis (or at least that is what she said) my husband spoke of her not as a character but as a living, breathing person, appalled at her quest to gain control.
There's no denying that she couldn't possibly have done something more dramatic than to withdraw her services at that particular moment of Francis's career, but here's the thing that also absolutely can't be denied. Francis had to pay for that absurd little spectacle he put on for Claire the night before (at the end of Season 3), telling her to smile and look happy and he didn't care if she vomited in her own time. Was he really expecting Claire to report for duty the next day as if he hadn't said something so despicable? That is simply not the Claire he knows.
Of course, I began to think, to research, to dwell on these characters and it suddenly became clear that we were indeed talking about characters very similar to those in Macbeth. A really good script writer will give you little clues along the way, moments when your mind registers something as unusual, and I sensed that the way that Claire was using her hands in the first two seasons meant something significant. It was quietly 'witch' like.('double, double toil and trouble')
Claire was urging Francis on constantly, not asking questions about people in their lives who just happened to fall foul to life's circumstances; fixated on power and prestige. Clearly, only Francis could give her those things. Only Francis understood how she ticked. Remember the line in Season 3 which went something like this: 'If you are doubting yourself, I can't indulge that'? He can't talk to Claire and that leads him to church, although that does him no good either.
It's a 'Lady Macbeth' meltdown, Claire leaving Francis. I don't think there is any doubt about that, and this leads Francis, it would seem, to play out his dirty work in Season 4 alone, with the assistance of Doug, who coldly murdered Rachel, the love of his life, of course.
It's fascinating to realize that sex plays very little part in their lives. When Francis as President has a mini meltdown himself Claire revives him with sex, but it seems a means to an end, don't you think? She needs him functional. And, his sex with Zoe the reporter; that was quite sickening. When she asks what he gets out of it, he is happy to say it is power. Sex for him is about power and control.
It's with Adam in New York that we see a more sensual side of Claire, but even this sensuality was obtained as a response to Francis denying her something, or saying something out of turn. Knowing this about her, it was quite daft to egg her on the way he did with the 'vomit on your own time' comment. He had more than enough evidence to suggest that he should be proud of her and scared of her. How profound to see this character, with such a dark side, responding so naturally and lightly to the school children as she reads to them. Or, how tender is the moment when Claire, Francis and the chauffeur become a three some! Can we take anyone at face value?
At times I have thought the Claire character so immensely satisfying to follow because she is unpredictable, but is she that unpredictable really? She has made herself quite clear. She wants to be an equal with Francis in spite of the fact that, as he points out, there is only one chair in the Oval Office. She wants her own power, to be gainfully employed, even if that means she is not the best person to do the job. She wants Francis' ear, and for them to make decisions together.
She doesn't want people to look at her as a beautiful woman only; to have to smile when she isn't happy, as her mother insisted she do, although she has been doing this for Francis all his adult life. Co-dependency with Francis was fine until co-dependency in the White House format no longer worked for her. It worked just fine for Francis (well, he wished that Claire was less cold towards him...) but it didn't work for Claire at all.
In power exchange relationships co-dependency needs to work for both (all) people. If there is one who gives much more often and one who takes much more often, best to check in from time to time and ensure that that arrangement is still working for everyone involved. Reality dictates that we do alter and change over time and there is no reason why adjustments cannot be made within a relationship to suit those changes, provided both partners are clear as to their needs.
There is a certain slight tension between a couple I think; a hopefully healthy and erotic tension; a tension that has one partner checking the tension on the rope that binds them, perhaps asking for a little slack, or a little tighter pull; perhaps checking that the other is still holding on firmly and that balance is maintained. What you don't want to occur is that one lets go of the rope entirely as Claire appears to have done. That's the sort of outcome the witches prophesized when they told Macbeth he was destined to be King; when he became so 'bloody minded' in his pursuits; the sort of outcome that spelled out the demise of both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.
There's no denying that she couldn't possibly have done something more dramatic than to withdraw her services at that particular moment of Francis's career, but here's the thing that also absolutely can't be denied. Francis had to pay for that absurd little spectacle he put on for Claire the night before (at the end of Season 3), telling her to smile and look happy and he didn't care if she vomited in her own time. Was he really expecting Claire to report for duty the next day as if he hadn't said something so despicable? That is simply not the Claire he knows.
Of course, I began to think, to research, to dwell on these characters and it suddenly became clear that we were indeed talking about characters very similar to those in Macbeth. A really good script writer will give you little clues along the way, moments when your mind registers something as unusual, and I sensed that the way that Claire was using her hands in the first two seasons meant something significant. It was quietly 'witch' like.('double, double toil and trouble')
Claire was urging Francis on constantly, not asking questions about people in their lives who just happened to fall foul to life's circumstances; fixated on power and prestige. Clearly, only Francis could give her those things. Only Francis understood how she ticked. Remember the line in Season 3 which went something like this: 'If you are doubting yourself, I can't indulge that'? He can't talk to Claire and that leads him to church, although that does him no good either.
It's a 'Lady Macbeth' meltdown, Claire leaving Francis. I don't think there is any doubt about that, and this leads Francis, it would seem, to play out his dirty work in Season 4 alone, with the assistance of Doug, who coldly murdered Rachel, the love of his life, of course.
It's fascinating to realize that sex plays very little part in their lives. When Francis as President has a mini meltdown himself Claire revives him with sex, but it seems a means to an end, don't you think? She needs him functional. And, his sex with Zoe the reporter; that was quite sickening. When she asks what he gets out of it, he is happy to say it is power. Sex for him is about power and control.
It's with Adam in New York that we see a more sensual side of Claire, but even this sensuality was obtained as a response to Francis denying her something, or saying something out of turn. Knowing this about her, it was quite daft to egg her on the way he did with the 'vomit on your own time' comment. He had more than enough evidence to suggest that he should be proud of her and scared of her. How profound to see this character, with such a dark side, responding so naturally and lightly to the school children as she reads to them. Or, how tender is the moment when Claire, Francis and the chauffeur become a three some! Can we take anyone at face value?
At times I have thought the Claire character so immensely satisfying to follow because she is unpredictable, but is she that unpredictable really? She has made herself quite clear. She wants to be an equal with Francis in spite of the fact that, as he points out, there is only one chair in the Oval Office. She wants her own power, to be gainfully employed, even if that means she is not the best person to do the job. She wants Francis' ear, and for them to make decisions together.
She doesn't want people to look at her as a beautiful woman only; to have to smile when she isn't happy, as her mother insisted she do, although she has been doing this for Francis all his adult life. Co-dependency with Francis was fine until co-dependency in the White House format no longer worked for her. It worked just fine for Francis (well, he wished that Claire was less cold towards him...) but it didn't work for Claire at all.
In power exchange relationships co-dependency needs to work for both (all) people. If there is one who gives much more often and one who takes much more often, best to check in from time to time and ensure that that arrangement is still working for everyone involved. Reality dictates that we do alter and change over time and there is no reason why adjustments cannot be made within a relationship to suit those changes, provided both partners are clear as to their needs.
There is a certain slight tension between a couple I think; a hopefully healthy and erotic tension; a tension that has one partner checking the tension on the rope that binds them, perhaps asking for a little slack, or a little tighter pull; perhaps checking that the other is still holding on firmly and that balance is maintained. What you don't want to occur is that one lets go of the rope entirely as Claire appears to have done. That's the sort of outcome the witches prophesized when they told Macbeth he was destined to be King; when he became so 'bloody minded' in his pursuits; the sort of outcome that spelled out the demise of both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.
No comments:
Post a Comment