Um Kopf und Krone

There is much more drama here, much deeper character development and, of course, the whole story has a whole new depth than that of its predecessor 'House of Cards', which everyone seems to prefer. That was mostly humorous, very light entertainment.

I found this one far more rewarding due to the above. Gone was the inevitability and lack of challenge of 'H.O.C.'. Here the main character has to plum to real depths to achieve his aims.

Onto the gripes: Primarily, the pacing is a real problem. It struck me that the first three episodes were little more than exposition, establishing the situations of the story, a three-hour Act One. Nothing really happens, story-wise, until the final episode.

The presentation of the homeless was at times a little trite, although it was amusing to confirm my suspicions about Emma Bunton's acting skills.

I did not find the ending forced at all. In fact, the means are far more convincing and difficult to pull off than any of the maneuverings of 'H.O.C.'

What carries this serial through really is the relationship between Urquhart and Harding. Although clearly an echo of that of with Storrin in 'H.O.C', it does not seem out of place; here is something with strange, emotional, dark and disturbing undertones.

Prime Minister Francis Urqhart will stop at nothing in his bid to gain ultimate control over Great Britain. Now, he is threatening to expose some of the royal families most scandalous secrets if the king continues to stand in his way. The media explodes as the two men go head to head in their efforts to gain the upper hand. Stories of sexual escapades, economic fiascos and more flood TV, magazines, the internet and newspapers. It appears that Urqhart just may succeed in his attempt to overthrow the monarchy.

Underhanded, dirty, low down politics (are we sure this isn't the U.S?) take center stage in this story of ego and the ultimate bid for supremacy.

Compared to the first House of Cards, this is a retread of familiar ground, far-fetched in spots, and fizzles out in the 'explosive' finale. It is still fun to watch, and together with Cards, a great primary text.

The narrative tension arises from the fact that the protagonist—Francis Urquhart, now Prime Minister after the events of the first one—is both an actor inside the story and the capricious narrator who in telling it attempts to control that story and his environment, Lolita-wise. (which Ian Richardson has not only known, as anyone in his trade can be expected to, but actually played on the stage, in Albee's Broadway version as apparently Nabokov himself)

We are roped in the story, by Urquhart making the camera a co- conspirator on his side.

This could have been of more interest than the first. The issue of co- conspiratorial viewing more ambiguously rears its head here, because mixed with parliamentary intrigue, the great deceiver is beginning to show signs of doubt and remorse, but knowing him to be a demagogue, can we trust him? Is he lucidly toying with us? Do we open up? It all comes back to Lolita, the seduced younger woman, his mirrored nemesis the current Chief Whip. It is good material, a good text to work from.

Alas, the same problem persists as in Cards.

Urquhart's doubt grows from memories of the first film, the whole Mattie Storin affair. If you haven't seen Cards, he has done something horrible even by his standards, and tormenting visions begin to seep into and disrupt his control.

Now there are two types of film when dealing with cinematic memory, mostly distinct of each other.

Films where memory is a narrative device and the reminiscing self fetches the images as insight into some past story, a category of which this is a part of, and can be relied on for a good jigsaw but hardly much else. Hitchcock usually worked in this way.

And films, much fewer, where true to the function of memory, images steal into the story as insight of the narrating self, images not always in the right order or logical that partly create the self. All the great films (as well as Lolita) fall in this latter category.

So the narrative is clean and logical, which the British do better than anyone. The acting is fine, Richardson above all. But, there is no reason whatsoever for Urquhart to be truly confiding to the viewer, especially now that we see aspects of Urquhart he does not control. Everyone else is being lied to, uncertain and fumbling, but we are not. This is as if Lolita was just a chronicle of mischiefs, missing layers.

The sequel to House of Cards opens with the coronation of King Charles (many years before his real-life ascendency to the throne.) It is implied that this takes place in the near future of 1993, probably some time between 1994-96.

Britain under Urquhart has become frighteningly authoritarian. Violent crime is rampant, and often seems directed by the government. The security services are willing to gun down, or plant explosives to kill, enemies of the government at the Prime Minister's whim. It is even suggested that a bomb may be in place in the vehicle of everyone connected with Urquhart, ready to detonate if needed. Despite this, Tim Stamper believes that the police could be trusted to fairly investigate serious allegations about Urquhart, implying that law enforcement has bifurcated into the ordinary police and another branch made up of Urquhart's personal army, and that there may a tension between the two.

There's a chilling moment when Princess Charlotte (representing a rough caricature of Sarah Ferguson) reveals that not only does she have shocking stories about those close to her, but that she has also been threatened with an 'accident' if she publishes them. It is also stated that much of the media is fixed in favour of the government.

Ian Richardson continues to play a deeply fascinating portrayal of Urquhart as a convincing manipulator and deceptively sympathetic figure on his face. I constantly have to remind myself that the tyrant is a liar and a murderer, when he talks fondly about Mattie Storrin, for example.

The main downside is perhaps the slightly ineffective in-universe opposition to Urquhart's rule. Neither the King nor his allies are shown to have any coherent of specific ideas for a better Britain. The King rather feebly tells a family in poverty that 'something will be done'. FU's relationship with Sarah, and the King's brief encounter with Chloe are perhaps also unnecessary. David Mycroft's coming out as gay is handled progressively for the time, although he is ultimately still forced out of his job, which is unthinkable now.

The final act contains what may be Urquhart's greatest ever political manoeuvre in humiliating his adversary: on the day before the general election. But even after that, will Urquhart be able to do what he needs to do to remain safe still?

A very worthy sequel, gripping throughout, and with significant historical interest. 9/10.

This entire BBC series is well worth watching. The screenplay is literate and hilarious. All the actors are wonderful, the script is great, and they've spared no expense with locations! This is an exciting series and I can't recommend it highly enough. Too bad in the United States we don't have actors talented enough to pull of a series such as this one. Diane Fletcher and Ian Richardson are perfect! All the actors in this were first rate and I certainly hope to see more of all of them in the future.