In the fifth season, the series has not disappointed and continues to seduce the viewer. In this, the essential topics are the manipulation of terrorism to obtain favorable situations, the distortion of the electoral results, the physical liquidation of some protagonists, the external interventions, the centers of parallel power, the threat of an internal coup, the "empeachment ", Which, as a whole, constitute a real leap forward of the protagonist couple and join those already present in other seasons: critiques of democracy, cunning and maneuverability coupled with the lack of scruples and the will of Power, constitute a kind of common denominator of the series.
There is something of "American history" this season: it is inevitable to remember - and the series has done so wisely - that what it presents to us are recent episodes of US politics. Or are we going to remember that George W. Bush won the presidential election after the country stayed almost a month attentive to the election results in Florida on which there was no way of reaching agreement and that it was, finally, Al Gore , Who closed a controversy that does not know how far he could have arrived, simply accepting his defeat? Are we going to forget that the entire eight-year period in which Bush sat in the "oval office" was presided over by the "anti-terrorist struggle" and by attacks that miraculously appeared to pave the way for any presidential adventure? Should we not remember how his predecessor, Bill Clinton, diverted attention from any criticism of his government by undertaking dramatic bombardments abroad that the Serbian people or the Iraqi people had to endure with their share of pain and death?
Some commentators have wanted to see in the Underwood drift, a criticism of Donald Trump's presidency... Hardly: after all, Trump is a spontaneous, outsider, while "Frank Underwood" is a product of the American stablishment: He is well acquainted with the House of Representatives, knows the inner dynamics of his party and knows, of course, the essential rule of American democracy: one thing is the political power that can be handled from the White House and another very different real power Which is in other hands.
In this fifth season appears an axial episode: "Underwood" goes to the meeting of "The Champs Elysees", a kind of picnic that brings together informally millionaires, industrialists, new technology tycoons, the oil industry, Financial corporations, culture... It's the "real power." Not only is it addressed to the attendees, but it is there where it receives the information with which it will manage to impose itself on its rival. Under the seemingly harmless form of a picnic, what we are seeing is one of those "remarkable conferences" with which history has moved since the early years of the 20th century: Let us call them "Council of Foreign Relations", "Club de Bildelberg", "Trilateral Commission", "Pugwash", etc., etc., are the true centers of power.
Do you believe in voting? Do you think your vote is worth anything? Do you believe in the institutions you choose? Do you think any politician will do anything for someone other than himself? Do not be naive, man, with the label of "democracy" you are allowed to believe that "governs", but neither you rule nor the one you have chosen does: govern who holds the reins of power and is in the hands of Who has the reins of the economy. Not forgetting that you vote because you are carried away by an electoral propaganda of which, of course, you can not trust or by some instincts that always, absolutely always, are victims of the masters of the mental manipulation. So do not be naive: see how "Frank Underwood" illustrates who really governs and listen carefully to the best of the series, the protagonist's soliloquies describing the American political landscape (do not forget that other national political scenarios are not More than the reduced photocopy of the one who is an example, guide and way for any other).
In this fifth season appear some new personages. The season starts at half-gas, but it is a subterfuge of the writers who are operating like those players of chess whose first plays are banal and little illustrative about its quality, but each data that is served to the spectator constitutes an element that will be developed later Will acquire in the following episodes decisive importance.
As in previous seasons, the series not only refers to "Frank Underwood", but his wife, "Claire", is gaining more and more prominence, among other things, because it is made of the same paste as her husband and In this season, in the two final episodes stars in one of the most chilling (and unforeseen) scenes of this season. "Claire" is placed in an exceptionally favorable position to be the central character of the sixth season that has already been contracted and for which we will have to wait a long year.
Among the novelties of the season is the presence of "Patricia Clarkson", starring Jane Davis, a character who appears suddenly, viper, conspirator, serpentine, who hates "Frank" and loves "Claire." The "Clarkson" knows everything, is in everything, is ahead of everything, without being very clear to the service of who is. Practicing some form of yoga, it seems to be excited at times by how much it always appears as cold and calculating. His promises to be another starring role in the upcoming season. It can be intuited that it is the nexus of union between the "political power" and the "Power" with capital letters, that, to which finally, "Frank Underwood" in that meeting in "The Champs Elysees" had the illumination. Because (and this is the conclusion of the fifth season made explicit in the last half hour of the last episode) "Frank" what he wants is not the "power of the Oval Office", but that true "Power." The other one leaves it to his wife, "Claire."
The pieces of chess of the first episodes, arrive at their apotheosis in the last two. At the end of the series one waits impatiently for the next installment and then, when in solitude he relaxes and thinks about what he has seen, he can not assault a doubt: what is intended with this series? Is it simply a television series, brilliant as were Boardwalk Empire, True Detective, Fargo or any other successes of the last five years, no more, no message, no background, resorting only to effective elements to fix the viewer to the plasma? Or is it rather as if an anonymous little goddess exposed to us what is really happening in the spheres of power and which, some, we have long believed is actually happening? And in the latter almost, it is clear that this is not a complaint (after all, the "Underwood" are the antiheroes with which the viewer identifies), but almost a mockery ("we know you're blind and silly, we know that you are cannon fodder, we know that the sheep can be clearly told that they go to the slaughterhouse and explain their role as cattle and the guard dogs, total, they will not understand anything").
There is one worrying element this season: the issue of "empeachment" (prosecution of the president by the congress and dismissal). It is curious that it is the possibility that has before the future of Donald Trump (and that already finished with the race of Richard Nixon). But there is something disturbing: the series premiered on May 30, 2017 and it must be thought that the screenwriters had finished their work much earlier (the series was completed on February 14, 2017). But Trump did not sworn his office until January 20, 2017 and the ghost of the presidential "empeachment" did not appear until late May 2017 ... One of two, the scriptwriters, are either prophets or will have to accept the conspiranoic version that they have Drafted the central content of this season as a kind of "guide" on how to act in the "Trump era" (ie against Trump). Because, basically: the problem of this president is that he is in the White House, holds the political power, but not at all belongs to the stablihsment, does not have that Power in capital letters that is elsewhere. Do you remember that the trailer for Season 5 of the series was released the day of Donald Trump's inauguration?.
In this sense, this season is different from the previous ones: if the others showed us how the US had been until now and what material were made the tenants of the White House, in this fifth season, in addition to this, we are told how Is going to evolve the country (towards the "empeachment"), who really heads the US (the centers of power: economic, technological, petroleum and industrial). And I wonder: does this unprecedented turn in the series have something to do with the resignation of Beau Willimon (its creator) to continue exerting like "showrunner" and its replacement by Melissa James Gibson and Frank Pugliese, with much less experience and, Therefore, much more docile to external influences?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario