The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Tuesday, March 10, 2015 — 5
‘House of Cards’
takes a tumble
Third season of
Netflix original
disappoints
By MATT BARNAUSKAS
Daily Arts Writer
This article contains spoilers
from the third season of Netflix’s
“House of Cards.”
“The
Presi-
dency
is
the
illusion
of
choice,” Frank
Underwood
(Kevin Spacey,
“American
Beauty”) muses
late into season
three of Netf-
lix’s “House of Cards.” Over the
first two seasons, Frank fought,
lied and killed to become the
leader of the free world. Now, in
season three, he finds the posi-
tion he sought might not have all
the power he hoped for.
In the visually dark and unsat-
urated world of “House of Cards,”
Frank works best in the shadows,
but now, the harsh spotlight is
on him. With his approval rating
sinking, he is a character far more
desperate than the cold, calculat-
ing schemer seen in the first two
seasons. Spacey still delivers the
cruel bravado of a Shakespearean
villain even as Frank fights for a
flatlining political life. Beset by
attacks from both parties, Frank
tells Stephen Colbert (playing
his alter-ego from “The Colbert
Report”), “Both parties want
the same thing,” to which Col-
bert replies, “A new president in
2016.”
Frank is no longer able to exe-
cute the well-laid plans from pre-
vious seasons. Instead, he grasps
at straws in a desperate attempt
to survive, and fails more often
than he succeeds. While this
brings some humility to the char-
acter, it does cause the momen-
tum of the season to break up,
and is not nearly satisfying as
Frank’s rise to power. The strug-
gle to succeed places character
development before moving the
plot forward with mixed results.
The impeachment of Presi-
dent Walker (Michael Gill, “Per-
son of Interest”) last season has
blown a powder keg in D.C., and
both sides are rushing for power
among the wreckage. The first
episodes of the season lay this
landscape out well with different
characters set up to challenge or
work with Frank, but the series
fails to capitalize on the poten-
tial. The worst failing is when
Hector Mendoza (Benito Marti-
nez, “The Shield”), a promising
Republican candidate, is abruptly
written out halfway through the
season’s run.
Other
primary
characters
struggle to make a mark this sea-
son. Notably, Heather Dunbar
(Elizabeth Marvel, “Law & Order:
SVU”), Frank’s rival for the 2016
Democratic bid, begins to sink
into the shadowy morality Frank
occupies until the man she hates
says, “You’re finally one of us.”
Dunbar is interesting because she
is unaware of her growing hypoc-
risy, caught up in her delusions
of idealism. But like many story-
lines this season, her relevance is
inconsistent. She is important one
moment, takes a backseat the next
and then comes to the forefront in
fits and starts.
After being nearly beaten to
death by Rachel Posner (Rachel
Brosnahan, “Manhattan”), Doug
Stamper’s (Michael Kelly, “Person
of Interest”) survival and recovery
brought forth the most engaging
subplot in season three. Physically
and mentally broken, Doug has to
come to grips with his reality. He’s
a wounded animal put out to pas-
ture by Frank, except Doug’s not
ready to quit. The character has an
addictive personality, and for years
has filled his life serving Frank.
Now that what defines him is gone,
Doug spirals into self-destruction
as he relapses into alcohol addic-
tion and obsesses over finding
Rachel. But he contains an unstop-
pable resilience, even in his lowest
state, when he drunkenly declares
to Frank, “I’m not Peter Russo; I
won’t go like he did.”
One of “House of Cards” ’s big-
gest weaknesses following its stel-
lar first season is the absence of
Russo (Corey Stoll, “The Strain”).
Stoll brought forth a man try-
ing to get his life right in order to
be a better father for his children
and partner for his girlfriend. His
relationships and promise made
his orchestrated demise by Frank
the series’ greatest tragedy, and
the show has struggled to create a
worthy followup.
Doug’s storyline in season three,
while overextended and taken
slightly too far near the end, is the
closest “House of Cards” has come
to equaling Russo’s conflict. Kelly
captures a man in flux, desperately
trying to claw his way back into
the world he’s been cast out of. His
attempts to stabilize also bring
genuine, humanizing moments to
a stoic character as Doug recon-
nects with his brother and his fam-
ily. But Doug is disturbed man by
nature, and in his final arc in the
last three episodes, he cements his
dark path beside Frank.
As Doug tries to fall back within
Frank’s good graces, the series’
second lead, Claire Underwood
(Robin Wright, “The Princess
Bride”) slowly begins distanc-
ing herself from Frank. Frank
and Claire realize the integral
role each has played in their rise,
but what bound the two together
soon becomes a problem for the
pair. Visually striking motifs such
as eggs and Buddhist sand art
emphasize the fragile state of their
union as Claire tells author Tom
Yates (Paul Sparks, “Boardwalk
Empire), “I hate how much I need
us.”
Frank and Claire’s partner-
ship is meant to be equal, but it
becomes more apparent through-
out the season that the end result
is anything but that. Claire may
be just as tactile as Frank but she
possesses the flaw of humanity.
It’s what makes Claire see the
pair as “murderers” while Frank
says, “We’re survivors.” It’s these
emotions of empathy that hold
Claire back from achieving what
the brutal Frank has gained.
Claire has sacrificed so much
to put Frank in power so she
would one day find herself at the
top. Sadly, she sees that because
of her smallest hint of decency,
she will never gain her end goal.
Meanwhile, Frank refuses to see
or acknowledge this. In the final
episode, all this comes to head in
a battle of wills inside the Oval
Office.
The focus on character devel-
opment sets up many of the series’
main characters for promising
arcs in season four. But it still
feels like setup. After 13 new epi-
sodes, “House of Cards” season
three did not made great strides.
The acting by Spacey, Wright and
Kelly, complemented by fantas-
tic, dark cinematography, carry
the season. However, the nar-
rative feels stretched too thin,
unable to fully deliver on several
promising setups. Instead, it’s
left waiting for another season to
pick up the pieces.
Why we need a space
for female writers
COMMUNITY CULTURE COLUMN
A
s a native of Metro Detroit,
it’s not uncommon for
me to return home a few
times a semester to enjoy some
R&R and catch
a break from
the fast-paced
University life.
On one of these
returns a few
months ago, I
stopped by an
exhibit at our
local science
museum, which
featured a col-
lection of National Geographic
photographs all shot by women.
Aptly titled “Women of Vision,”
the exhibit was moving, poignant
and empowering, but I have to
admit I didn’t think deeply about
it until I received the hardcover
collection as a gift this past week.
Flipping through the glossy
pages of striking photographs, it
became apparent to me just how
important it was to have a space
that recognizes not just good pho-
tographers, but fantastic women
artists.
We hear cries for gender equal-
ity in politics, we try (unsuccess-
fully) to pass legislation to close
the wage gap, but there’s a quieter
movement for equal recognition in
fields of art. For many years, art has
been a place to foster social move-
ments, including gender equal-
ity, and while there’s certainly a
space for women in artistic fields,
there remains a discrepancy in
how women artists are recognized
professionally. Of the 11 photog-
raphers highlighted in “Women
of Vision,” several make mention
of how difficult it was to be taken
seriously in their field profession-
ally, due to gender and not skill.
One photographer even quoted a
male colleague’s reaction to her job
placement: “A girl! I’m not working
with a girl. She’ll never be able to
carry my equipment.”
Of course, there are exceptional
artists, in this case photographers,
of every gender identity, and tal-
ent should be celebrated without
dependence to this categorization.
However, I’ve noticed that females
often have a skilled eye for reading
people, a skill that translates well
through artistic mediums.
Maybe it’s due to nature or
nurture, two X chromosomes
or
something
else
biological,
but when I look at the photos in
“Women of Vision,” I see individu-
al captures of humanity that really
encourage emotional response.
My reactions are not black and
white, but rather a kaleidoscope
of emotions, much like the human
experience itself. Sure, there are
photos of landscapes, lions stalk-
ing prey in the Kalahari Desert, a
moonrise behind Mount St. Hel-
ens and cherry blossoms in Kyoto,
but the majority of the photos are
focused on raw, unfiltered human-
ity, which is not always easy to look
at: A Nepali child bride crying out
in anguish as she’s forcibly taken
to her husband’s village; unsettling
polygamous, Mormon families in
Utah; a Swedish reindeer herder
mourning the loss of two of his
herd in the snow.
It’s this ability to capture
moments so deeply human and the
power to illicit a range of emotions
that not only cements photography
as art, but also encourages further
recognition of women as artists.
And the ability to bring to light
political and human rights issues
in the world through the lens of a
camera is a skill that starts with
the artist’s own eye for artistry.
Just a few weeks ago I found
myself at a Zine release party, cel-
ebrating 52 glossy pages of poems,
photographs and designs, all cre-
ated by women artists and many
from the University. It was truly
inspiring to see such a large turn-
out for the event, including both
women and men, all gathered to
celebrate female artists. Even if
this sparked desire for women-
curated art begins in progressive
cities like Ann Arbor, I’ll bet that
the fire will spread to the rest of
the world. There just needs to be
artists encouraged to light the
match.
Davis is creating a women’s
art gallery. To contribute,
email katjaqu@umich.edu.
By GREGORY HICKS
Daily Arts Writer
The king of spring made his way
through Suntan City, where just a
sip turned into taking his drunk ass
home, and now
he’s packing up
his ol’ Bronco
and checkin’ out.
Luke Bryan had
a long run with
his spring break
EP series and at
38 years old, the
country
super-
star decided to
call it quits —
but not before
releasing
one
last record, Spring Break: Checkin’
Out, which includes five new tracks
in combination with his previous
six-track EP, Spring Break 6 … Like
We Ain’t Ever.
Bryan knows the ingredients to
a well-balanced vacay breakfast:
sand, spring flings and sippin’. The
record encompasses all the singer’s
usual substances for the series —
the mind “games” played out at a
hot-and-cold bar scene, the linger-
ing visions of “you and the beach”
and the gal you wish you’d met
on “night one” of your weeklong
spring adventure. That’s enough to
qualify as a Panama Beach nutri-
tionist, right?
On the flip side, if there’s a spe-
cial somebody that you should’ve
told off on day one, do yourself
a kindness and find “The Sand I
Brought to the Beach.” Don’t make
the same mistake twice, in case
you missed this free-spirit rocker
from Spring Break 6… Like We Ain’t
Ever.
Most of Bryan’s five new songs
are tailored to the singer’s exit
strategy (or “checkin’ out” strat-
egy, rather) and leave listeners
with a reminder that “You and the
Beach” are a lingering sensation,
post-departure.
“I was a fool to think I could
just move on/Because you and the
beach followed me home.”
But “the sand runs out” offi-
cially on Bryan’s “Spring Break-
down” — a tearjerking roundup
of the memories made between
the country star and his longtime
spring break followers.
“I’ve watched this crowd grow
… I remember when we started
this week-long party/And to think
that it’s over/It makes me wanna
spring breakdown.”
The saga began with the 2009
debut of Spring Break With All
My Friends, and fans’ heartbro-
ken feelings began swelling upon
hearing about their party pal’s
entertainment exit from Panama
City. The reminiscing words of
the track are just enough to push
beach-goers into their own spring
breakdown.
“Next year I’ll go through pic-
tures/Wishing I was down there
with ya, hanging out/It’ll kill me
then, but I’m here right now.”
It’s a sad day indeed when the
man, the myth, the legend, Luke
Bryan, has to come to terms with
his own age — something that’s
been a recent talking point for the
“Crash My Party” singer. For the
time being, however, the spunky
country star still has the beach
flare to carry tunes that know no
age-bounds. Thirty-eight is just a
number, after all.
‘Murder’ butchers
its narrative potential
By ALEC STERN
Daily Arts Writer
This review contains spoilers
from the season finale of “How to
Get Away with Murder.”
“How
to
Get Away with
Murder”
had
an immensely
successful first
season. As the
newest
addi-
tion to Shon-
daland and the
lead-out to the
newly dubbed
“TGIT”
line-
up, “Murder” was undoubtedly
this fall’s most talked about new
drama. “ ‘How To Get Away With
Murder’ Exposes Just How Dan-
gerous Gender Stereotypes Can
Be,” wrote The Huffington Post
earlier this year. A controver-
sial September New York Times
article asserted that the series
should really be called “How to
Get Away with Being an Angry
Black Woman.” In one of my own
columns, I praised “Murder” for
its commitment to breaking down
stereotypes of any kind, calling it
one of the highs of network pre-
miere week. But if “Murder” has
taught me anything, it’s that talk-
ing about a show — or praising it
in specific ways — isn’t mutually
exclusive from the quality of its
narrative. In other words, “How to
Get Away with Murder” the series
is very different from “How to Get
Away with Murder” the spectacle.
If you take away the think-
pieces, the controversy and the
penises on dead girls’ phones,
what are you really left with? A
“Damages”-inspired legal thriller
that’s not nearly as great as, well,
“Damages.” A twisty soap opera
not nearly as fun as “Scandal.” An
ensemble drama with only a few
integral cast members. Despite its
many triumphs, it was always, if
anything, “How to Get Away with
Murder” the series that fell short,
and the two-hour season finale
was no exception.
Throughout its entire first
season, “How to Get Away with
Murder” ’s biggest issue was its
repetitiveness — not just with its
obvious visual motifs or flashback
to the murder night (though I’d be
ok to never see another cheerlead-
er twirl or coin toss ever again), but
dramatically as well. Who killed
Lila? What was Sam’s involve-
ment? Can Annalise be trusted?
How does Asher fit in? Will the
Keating Five fold under the pres-
sure? And in its closing moments,
“Murder” ’s big reveal didn’t seem
to forge a new journey for the
characters, but rather rehash the
same ideas. In fact, “Murder” ’s
finale brought us right back to the
very beginning.
The sight of Rebecca’s dead
body, eyes open, lying under
the stairs might have been a big
enough twist to satiate “Murder”
’s dedicated fan base, but beyond
its high shock value, the Rebecca
whodunit almost assures that
“Murder” ’s second season will
hit all the same notes as its first
— just change the names and the
scenery and you’ve got season
two. Who killed Rebecca? What
was Frank’s involvement? Can
Annalise be trusted? How does
Asher fit in? Will the Keating Five
fold under the pressure?
Admittedly, I might be mak-
ing a lot of assumptions about the
second season already, which is
yet to even film, let alone air. But
season finales aren’t only about
wrapping up the current sto-
rylines. Even more importantly, a
finale must convince its audience
to come back after a long summer
hiatus — seven months in “Mur-
der” ’s case. Perhaps in that time,
I’ll grow more accustomed to the
idea of yet another murder to get
away with. But for now, the sight
of dead Rebecca was less exciting
than it was exhausting — more of
a here we go again.
That’s not to say there weren’t
bright spots in “Murder” ’s two-
hour finale. Most significantly,
we finally did get to see exactly
who killed Lila, as most of the
first hour took place on the night
of her murder. In the end, it was
Frank, the mysterious not-a-law-
yer/hit-man, who strangled Lila
on the roof of the sorority house.
Though the biggest mystery of all
is how two grown men made it to
the roof of a sorority house on one
of the busiest nights of the year
without being noticed. Regard-
less, in another satisfying twist,
Lila’s murder was under Sam’s
orders, not Annalise’s, teasing
an interesting backstory to come
between the two men in Annal-
ise’s life. And even in such a busy
episode, the finale’s first hour
managed to shoehorn in a case-of-
the-week. Like in “Scandal,” the
more episodic elements of “Mur-
der” defuse the high energy and
tension, and the finale’s unique
priestly murder case did just that.
“How to Get Away with Mur-
der” ’s first season was a success
by any measure. Despite two
previous Academy Award nomi-
nations under Viola Davis’s
belt, “Murder” finally put the
deserving actress on the map. It
showcased different faces and
voices, and it has become the
foremost talked-about series
when it comes to diversity. It
broke down stereotypes and
barriers for women and por-
trayed both its straight and
gay characters with refreshing
realism. But most often, and
arguably even more important-
ly, what got lost in the shuffle
was its narrative.
“How to Get Away with
Murder” — best in spectacle,
not in show.
B
House of
Cards
Available to
stream on Netflix
TV REVIEW
KATHLEEN
DAVIS
NBC
The Donald is always watching ...
TV REVIEW
NETFLIX
And with that review, Matt Barnauskas disappeared under a train.
Bryan’s last ‘Break’
ALBUM REVIEW
A-
Spring
Break ...
Checkin’ Out
Luke Bryan
Capitol Records
Nashville
B
How to Get
Away with
Murder
Season 1 Finale
ABC
ABC
“Why is your penis on a dead girl’s phone?
Separate the
show from the
surrounding
spectacle