S03.E13: Chapter 39

[Guest]

 

In the midst of the Iowa caucuses, Frank and Claire must confront hard truths about each other.

[rozen]

Welp, holy guacamole. I can buy Claire's conscience slowly starting to peek through the cracks, and that motivating her departure. But the argument that she thought she'd be anything more than a linchpin is pretty disingenuous, imo. And he did give her a chance to shine, and she screwed it up. I don't even think she could mentally handle the amount of skullduggery she'd have to engage in to have a hustle game as strong as Francis. 

 

It was worth it to see Francis's mask come all the way off. It was like Kevin Spacey's whole freaking face deformed as he eviscerated her. 

 

I hope Doug at least put her back in the van, otherwise all his cleaning preparation would be for naught. Totally knew he would turn around, she did too. I would have been running straight into the fields the second the cuffs were off. His whole obsession with her has always been so perplexing to me. Or maybe he was so obsessed because he wanted to be the one to kill her? 

 

I can't believe I stayed up for like 11 hrs watching everything. I haven't been this dedicated to anything since the last Harry Potter book came out.

[Bama]

All done!

 

Really Claire?  I find her sudden intolerance for Francis being the one in "the chair" sort of ridiculous.  She got her chance - totally underserved chance - to show her worth independent of Frank and she blew it from the jump.

 

Her behavior at her confirmation hearing was a disaster, having her husband do an end around recess appointment, her handling of the Corrigan situation, getting played by the Russian UN ambassador - all of those missteps she made on her own.

 

After I digest everything, I may feel differently but this was my least favorite season - by far.  

 

I feel like nothing happened except Rebecca/Cassie is now dead and Claire left Francis.  Everything else resolved into nothing of consequence.

[dohe]

What a despicable climax to the Doug/Rachel story.  Who writes this crap. What trash!  Season 2 ends with a woman finally taking charge and killing the creepy guy obsessed with her.  But no he survived and in the end the lesson is that a woman "betraying" an obsessed male by being with a woman must be murdered. 

 

Westboro Baptist Church would appreciate this trash.  

Edited February 28, 2015 by dohe

[rozen]

What a despicable climax to the Doug/Rachel story.  Who writes this crap. What trash!  Season 2 ends with a woman finally taking charge and killing the creepy guy obsessed with her.  But no he survived and in the end the lesson is that a woman "betraying" an obsessed male by being with a woman must be murdered. 

 

I agree it was upsetting. But I thought it was necessary to show that Doug is truly irredeemable. A lot of people made excuses and rationalizations for him last season and thought Seth was way worse. But Seth looks like he failed out of Girl Scouts compared to what Doug is willing to do to get the job done.  "haha I pulled that chic's credentials, I'm stone cold." "oh? I hunted a man to another continent, beat him nearly unconscious with my cane, then drove across america to hunt down the (twisted) love of my life and throw her in a ditch. Because Francis asked me too." Check and mate. Showing all season that Doug was slowly learning how to be an actual human and that the end result was that he hesitated for less than a day about killing someone before turning around and finishing the job is terrifying.

 

Really Claire?  I find her sudden intolerance for Francis being the one in "the chair" sort of ridiculous.  She got her chance - totally underserved chance - to show her worth independent of Frank and she blew it from the jump.

 

I think part of her argument was that being with Francis so long has made her weak. She's a tool that's lost her purpose, and Francis was all too happy to try to redirect her as he saw fit. S1 Claire would have incinerated Francis's ambitions for less. S1 Claire was willing to do more, go further, destroy anything, to get what she wanted. 

[LADreamr]

Huh... Well... OK, then. Here's hoping for season 4, because it can't just end like this.

[dohe]

I agree it was upsetting. But I thought it was necessary to show that Doug is truly irredeemable. A lot of people made excuses and rationalizations for him last season and thought Seth was way worse. But Seth looks like he failed out of Girl Scouts compared to what Doug is willing to do to get the job done.  "haha I pulled that chic's credentials, I'm stone cold." "oh? I hunted a man to another continent, beat him nearly unconscious with my cane, then drove across america to hunt down the (twisted) love of my life and throw her in a ditch. Because Francis asked me too." Check and mate. Showing all season that Doug was slowly learning how to be an actual human and that the end result was that he hesitated for less than a day about killing someone before turning around and finishing the job is terrifying.

 

 

I think part of her argument was that being with Francis so long has made her weak. She's a tool that's lost her purpose, and Francis was all too happy to try to redirect her as he saw fit. S1 Claire would have incinerated Francis's ambitions for less. S1 Claire was willing to do more, go further, destroy anything, to get what she wanted. 

Rozen, to me the defenses of and love for Doug always threw me.  I tried to pretend that did not exist because to contemplate it made me sad.

 

This was not at all necessary.  The reality is having Doug killed off last year worked.  The obsessed creepy psycho gets killed because the woman recognizes him as such.  Instead we get this trash.  And it is trash of the highest order.  I am done with lesbians and bisexual women serving as props to tell someone else's story.  Whether a lesbian dies so the straight characters will have some tragedy to suffer through or the bisexual woman dies so we can see how evil someone is, it is enough.  The show shouldn't have coddled people that for some reason didn't see Doug was a massive creep to begin with.  It should not have pandered like that.   That is the last audience it should have been concerned with.   

 

This was vile on the part of the storytellers.  This was trash.  I am fed up.  I am tired of excuses being made by showrunners for loathsome trash like this.  Seriously the people who run this show can rationalize all they want.  I am sure they have plenty of insulting logic.  Their show is contemptible garbage.  

 

As for season 4, I will definitely not be watching.   It is a shame that a show can't be flushed down the toilet because that is where this disgusting crap belongs. 

Edited February 28, 2015 by dohe

[ApathyMonger]

General S3 talk:

Ugh, they're going to stretch this election out until S5, aren't they? I wouldn't mind, but it means there's basically no tension about whether Frank will get the nomination.

This season really feels like they've nowhere to go plot-wise, and are just treading water. I was kind of hoping they'd go all-out crazy and start a nuclear war, but no.

I think the show has the same problem a lot of anti-hero shows, where it's fallen in love with its protagonist. It was kind of fun watching Spacey when he was a congressman trying to work his way up the ladder, but it's less fun when he's the most powerful man in the world. I really want to see Frank get his comeuppance, but I can't see that happening, because the show thinks we want him to be super-successful at everything he does.

Robin Wright has some great moments, especially later in the season, and Lars Mikkelsen looks like he's having fun, but no-one else interested me. I love Jimmi Simpson, but groaned every time he appeared on screen this season. The Doug storyline was awful too, especially that vile final episode.

I really hope they set an end date for this at some point soon, but it seems unlikely. I'm vaguely interested in what they set up for S4 at the very end of this season, but only if they go through with it, and if the show is going to run eight seasons or so, that seems unlikely.

Edited February 28, 2015 by ApathyMonger

[Samsnee]

This season was a letdown. Too much Stamper and Claire became infuriating.

[Penman61]

Wow, that season was a hot-mixed mess, with some enjoyable moments and way too many slogs.

 

Doug Stamper:  He better turn into a much more interesting character, because we just spent nearly 1/3 of this season on his "arc," which journeyed from failing to kill Rachel to succeeding and then Rachel Getting Buried.  Yeah.  (Btw, can someone remind me why Rachel needed killing? It was so damn long ago, and it's hard to keep straight all the attractive twenty-something women Frank needs dead.  She Knows Something, right?)

 

Claire:  What exactly is her talent or skill set, besides abetting ruthlessness?  She botched being ambassador, has no common touch with the people, has a short fuse in front of Senate confirmation committees...so, what has she got?  She looks fabulous, but then so does Heidi Klum.

 

Frank: Kevin Spacey is apparently melting before our eyes, and I hope it's part of his character work and not just letting himself go, but it really showed this season.  Still, it's fun when he's down, and that's the problem with Frank being President.   

 

Heather Dunbar: I like this character, but the actress looks and sounds so much like Alison Janney (who I think played on some other TV show about politics, maybe, right?) that it distracted me.  And her bluffing about Claire's diary before she had it in hand was a rookie mistake.

 

Someone said this about Fincher's other films, but it applies here to the look/lighting of the interiors: This show looks like it takes place in the saddest Starbuck's ever.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Penman61

[Control]

So what of Remi and Claire?

 

I wont mind HoC more seasons just like I never minded the West Wing

 

Any one know how much Netflix has made out of this new season?

[Chaos Theory]

Well there goes my plan to NOT bindge.

 

I LOVED this season.  I have read a few bad reviews on Netflix saying how it wasn't as good as the first two but I disagree completely.    Season three moves away from the power tripping of the first two seasons and is less concerned with what happens next and is more concerned with the emotional impact of what is happening at the moment;  what each victory and defeat reveals about each character (Especially Frank and Claire). The first two season had Frank and Claire sure that ultimate power was their ultimate goal but having it turns out to be far more difficult then either of them expect.  I found it intriguing what power does to their marriage which was damn near unbreakable the first two seasons and how paper thin it is by the end of the season.     Claire and Franks marriage was aways the most intriguing thing about the show and watching it fall apart was fascinating.  

 

<---Edited to add.   I think heather Dunbar is the Anti-Frank.  Someone with high moral and ethical standards who Frank can't buy or blackmail.  Who is just as savy and has just as much charisma as him.  The show actually does need someone who is a genuine threat for season 4.  Especially now.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[HyacinthBucket]

I'm going to have to go along with the use of the word "vile" for Doug and his actions.  I really hate watching that kind of cat-and-mouse game, and it seemed to drag on forever.  He didn't seem to have any concerns about being seen around town, did he?  Surely someone could identify him if they saw him on TV?  There are quite a lot of characters joining Frank is his cesspool.

 

So, Frank won the Iowa caucus, but he no longer has Claire by his side.  Was he serious when he said he couldn't have won the Presidency without Claire?  If so, can he win re-election without Claire?  If the show doesn't come back for another season (and I don't know why it wouldn't), I'm going to reassure myself that Frank's reign of terror will be coming to an end. 

[NorthstarATL]

That was disppointing. So Claire trurns out to not be the appropriate partner for Frank after all, as she is unable to turn off her conscience completely, and her departure is offset by the truly irreedemable Doug Stampre's return? I can buy that, I guess. I still only enjoyed the Underwoods as a power-mad couple, though, and they were better together than separately. The only moment that intrigued me was when I thought Frank might dispose of  Heather in the stairwell.

[vesperholly]

I'm underwhelmed. I kept checking the time left on the last episode, waiting for some big crazy twist. The characters all moved around and ended up in basically the same place at the end, except Claire. Was it really necessary to make previously successful strong woman turn incompetent to provide drama? Doug's arc should've taken 3 episodes max to resolve.

 

The British series wrapped in 3 seasons so I expected HOC to do the same. Guess they don't want to let go of their critical darling quite yet, so this season got dragged out. Placeholder season.

Edited March 1, 2015 by vesperholly

[dohe]

 Doug's arc this season should have been zero episodes.  That plotline should have been done with last year.  As for us not being "allowed to have the final payoff of watching him kill her", I sure as heck don't want to watch a psychotic freak kill a woman.  If I want to watch that trash, I would watch Criminal Minds.  I wish I could say the show didn't show the death out of some integrity but that is doubtful.  In all likelihood, they didn't show that because they want people to still care about the scumbag that is Doug and watching a man in the act of killing a poor woman who is scared and trying desperately just to survive kind of makes that difficult.

 

 

Wow, that season was a hot-mixed mess, with some enjoyable moments and way too many slogs.

 

Doug Stamper:  He better turn into a much more interesting character, because we just spent nearly 1/3 of this season on his "arc," which journeyed from failing to kill Rachel to succeeding and then Rachel Getting Buried.  Yeah.  (Btw, can someone remind me why Rachel needed killing? It was so damn long ago, and it's hard to keep straight all the attractive twenty-something women Frank needs dead.  She Knows Something, right?)

 

Claire:  What exactly is her talent or skill set, besides abetting ruthlessness?  She botched being ambassador, has no common touch with the people, has a short fuse in front of Senate confirmation committees...so, what has she got?  She looks fabulous, but then so does Heidi Klum.

 

Frank: Kevin Spacey is apparently melting before our eyes, and I hope it's part of his character work and not just letting himself go, but it really showed this season.  Still, it's fun when he's down, and that's the problem with Frank being President.   

 

Heather Dunbar: I like this character, but the actress looks and sounds so much like Alison Janney (who I think played on some other TV show about politics, maybe, right?) that it distracted me.  And her bluffing about Claire's diary before she had it in hand was a rookie mistake.

 

Someone said this about Fincher's other films, but it applies here to the look/lighting of the interiors: This show looks like it takes place in the saddest Starbuck's ever.

 

  Good pointing about the killing of twenty-something women.  I wonder if the show runners figures it has an audience that loves watching young women be murdered and is trying to appeal to that group.  There was one tweet I saw that which seemed to think it was a great triumph that Doug killed Rachel and only seemed annoyed it was not done sooner.  I just recoiled at that.  Is there such anger to twenty-something women, that people actually applaud their murders while thinking their murderers have accomplished something awesome?  And was the show aware of this and playing down to these people?  It certainly seems that way.

Edited March 1, 2015 by dohe

[Chaos Theory]

Honestly the Doug Stamper stuff was probably the least interesting stuff this season (although well acted)  but I did find the ending to be fitting for this character arc.  (That doesn't mean I condone the killing  of 20 something women I just like a good story arc))   I liked his feeling of alienation from Frank and how it progressed over the season.  Rachel was the cause of that (at least in his mind) There was just no way he could let her live.  It just makes sense story wise.  

 

OK:  I have my review for the season.  I was looking for a place to put it and I don't really have a website so I will put it here.    It is short and no really spoilers anyway.  Just feelings and that I really did enjoy the season and felt it was the best of the three so far. 

 

Season 3 is so much better then the first two seasons which of had too much wordy exposition.  . Season 3 is leaner and time passes in a cleaner fashion.  . It is interesting to see how everyone views Frank..No one buys his bull in season 3. While Claire and Frank's plans are just as diabolical as in the past, everyone else on the show seems to have grown up and wised up. This, as well as the lack of the over the top mind games, may be why a certain portion of the audience may be giving this show such low reviews (although HIGHLY undeserved) The show is actually more complex now that Frank has to deal with people with real power who know how to wield it and not just political straw men. Of course there will always be those who will hate the show for stepping on their personal political issue. This season took on several from Homosexuality to job inequality and even touched on gender inequality. It dealt heavily with Russian politics and what that means to the united states as season 2 dealt with China. The breakout performance this season however was Elizabeth Marvel as Heather Dunbar who was merely a tiresome annoyance last season but this season has become a threat to Frank's power. I have been calling her the anti-Frank. Someone who is just as charismatic and cunning as Frank but with a conscience. I have read more then a few bad reviews of the third season and I disagree completely and utterly. I found the third season to be the best of the bunch. Watching the Underwoods grab for power was of course entertaining but watching their marriage crumble was fascinating.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[dohe]

Chaos Theory, this is a consistent problem.  The lives of twenty-something women being a prop for stories about men.  And in this case, the life of a bisexual woman (and her death) being the prop for a story about a man.  The death of another lesbian or bisexual woman being done because it is important to the story of a straight male. 

 

This show has countless straight characters and it has countless male characters that are duplicitous and conniving.  Why in the world would Doug need to be brought back from the dead and why in the world would the show need to have the bisexual woman killed at his hand. 

 

It makes no sense.  There is no legitimate defense for this disgusting, exploitative and vile treatment of lesbian and bisexual woman on shows.  And always the same excuse - that their death is needed for a straight person's storyline.  Enough is enough.  Or as this article said.

 

Hogan, who covers “Arrow” for AfterEllen, said in response to the two most recent character deaths, “Two weeks ago we lost Leslie Shay from “Chicago Fire.” Her death, like Sara’s, was explained away as a necessary catalyst for action in other people’s storylines. And we lost Isabelle Hartley from “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.“, a character who was a lesbian in the comic books but never got to explore her sexuality on the show because she was killed by a bad guy in the final minutes of her first episode. Again, her death was shrugged off as a sad necessity. It brought the team closer together and caused her work partner to join up with the good guys. The message here, whether it is intended or not, is that lesbian and bi characters are useful only as props, as steps other characters can use to get where they’re going. It’s almost 2015, man. It’s time for TV writers to knock it off.”

 

http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2014/10/09/killing-off-queer-women-on-tv-response-to-arrows-latest-character-death/

 

Edited March 1, 2015 by dohe

[vibeology]

That moment in the Oval Office where Frank drops his folksy aww-shucks accent and rips into Claire is one of the best things Kevin Spacey has ever done and its not like we're pulling from a short list. He was incredible. The season had some uneven moments for sure but that's what I'll remember. It was claustrophobic and intense. Best scene of the entire season.

[HyacinthBucket]

It is interesting to see how everyone views Frank..No one buys his bull in season 3. While Claire and Frank's plans are just as diabolical as in the past, everyone else on the show seems to have grown up and wised up.

 

 

This was my favorite element of Season 3.  It has to be a huge blow to his ego to find that his fellow politicians are not only refusing to kowtow to him, but are often a step or two ahead of him. 

 

 

[shelley1234]

The thing I love and hate about Netflix shows is the binge watch aspect.  I love being able to get more and more and more, but at the same time....it doesn't build the tension in the same way of having to wait for the new episode.  I can remember wracking my brain for a whole week about what will or won't happen next while watching True Detective.  This show has the ability to do that, but my brain only needs to wait 10 seconds before getting MORE!!!!  

 

Well there goes my plan to NOT bindge.

 

 

 

<---Edited to add.   I think heather Dunbar is the Anti-Frank.  Someone with high moral and ethical standards who Frank can't buy or blackmail.  Who is just as savy and has just as much charisma as him.  The show actually does need someone who is a genuine threat for season 4.  Especially now.

 

Heather Dunbar started out as the Anti-Frank, but I think it also made the point, purposely, that even those who have high moral and ethical standards need to get down and dirty and compromise in order to win.  In the beginning Heather wanted no part of the journal Doug brought her, but in the end...she wanted it and was ready and able to use it.  She may not be Frank, but the want of the office brings her to do some Frank like things.  

 

Honestly the Doug Stamper stuff was probably the least interesting stuff this season (although well acted)  but I did find the ending to be fitting for this character arc.  (That doesn't mean I condone the killing  of 20 something women I just like a good story arc))   I liked his feeling of alienation from Frank and how it progressed over the season.  Rachel was the cause of that (at least in his mind) There was just no way he could let her live.  It just makes sense story wise.  

 

 

 

Agree.  I may not like, but it makes sense to me.  Doug killing Rachel showed his profound loyalty to Frank above everyone else.  When he came to him with the journal to buy his way in, he also knew that he needed to build trust.  In an earlier episode he said that when he found Rachel he would make sure no one else ever did again.  It wasn't about avenging what she did, but about Frank.  Everything for Doug is about Frank.  It also showed that Doug is just another version of Frank, albeit a less powerful one.  There is no redemption for Doug and I didn't think the show was ever trying to.  

 

As for Claire....her leaving at the end of the season is a twist, at least for me.  I have always felt that this show has shades of the Clintons, with a powerful political couple who is willing to do whatever it takes to get the win and get through.  (No, I do not believe the Clintons killed people, but other than that...they'll do anything to get to the end game).  I felt the seasons continued with the parallels....having Claire have individual core agendas that she tried to push through the political influence of her husband, how she in many ways felt like a "co-president", how she had dreams of being in office on her own, etc.  Hillary could have walked away from Bill during the cheating/perjury scandal, but would she be a Senator and then Secretary of State and then a probable candidate for President without it.   IMO...probably not.  Claire on the other hand...took that roll of the dice.  I also think that Frank who can usually read a person and the room....didn't read Claire.  In that moment, threatening her and telling her to play her role was not the right play.  Claire had all the cards.  Without her, he is going to have a hard hard time getting the nomination, let alone fighting a Republican candidate.  IMO, what Frank should have done to keep Claire in the fold is to remind Claire of what her end game is...and how staying in this political sham marriage can get her to those goals, etc.  

 

I didn't like this one as much as the other seasons, but I did think it was interesting to once again see Frank and Claire try to swim through the muck of politics and see how the slug finally ripped them apart.  In previous seasons, even while they were doing horrible, horrific things...they were a bonded, strong team.  What this season showed is that Claire no longer feels like a part of a team, she feels like a piece of the puzzle for Frank to use when it was convenient.  Big mistake Frank.

 

Interestingly, I somehow was under the impression that this was the final season of House of Cards, but clearly not.  So....give me more Netflix!  

Edited March 1, 2015 by shelley1005

[Chaos Theory]

I think Claire leaving Frank is a twist but it is a logical one that has been coming all season.  Season 1 & 2 they were more or less equal partners.  But season 3 they were less and less so.   Like she said Claire had to "ask" for every little thing and in mind that we a horrible terrible disgusting thing and Frank made it no better for her.  I thought all the scenes with Claire were wonderfully done both with and without Frank.  

 

As for Doug killing Rachel I really don't want to get into the politics of Doug killing a bisexual character because that is opening a can of worms that I really don't want to get into.  In this case I think it made sense.  And that is the only Thing I am going to talk about because honestly I think Doug's storyline only got interesting when he started interacting with Dunbar. but the Rachel stuff needed to be dealt with. The show could have just let her drift into nowhere but that wouldn't have worked and left a loose end but Doug AND Frank are not two people who do well with loose ends.  And she's not someone with any real power or stake in brining either of them down so that wouldn't really work either.  Now if she survives.....that is a different matter.  Hell if Doug did......

Edited March 1, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[I-Kare]

Disappointed in the season and I'm not even sure if I can articulate why. 

 

I did like Lars' role and pretty much everything to do with the Russion storylines. And my favorite part of the season was Thomas York and the many layers the character brought to the season. Particularly how he seemed to both profoundly care about the Underwoods, and yet also subtly manipulate them. It was fascinating. 

 

I loved that there was a lot of Claire in this season, but didn't like the Underwood marriage unraveling. To me, the very best parts of both S1 and S2 was their marriage and partnership. Especially their unorthodox relationship involving love and sex, and how entwined their affairs were with their marriage. Not sure if I can explain it well, but I liked how their affairs weren't only sanctioned by each other, but seemed to enhance their marriage. So that was missing this year. 

Which leads me to Meechum. I didn't expect him to have a huge role or anything, but I did  want to see more of him and know if their night was a one off or if anything continued. They showed him as protective throughout (in his very brief, scattered appearances), but they didn't really indicate one way or another if anything more occurred. I thought that was a missed opportunity, and it was honestly distracting because I kept watching anticipating *something* to happen with him more than a throw away line every once in a while to show, yes, he's still loyal.

 

Oh, and we could have had half the Stamper and I'd been fine. 

 

I don't know. I guess I'd still give it a B, but I'd expected an A. 

Edited March 2, 2015 by I-Kare

[PalmettoExpat]

When Remy and Jackie got back together, I knew Frank and Claire were done. Can't have 2 power couples. Also, I'm kind of obsessed with Remy and Jackie. I think those crazy kids can make it. And by make it I mean they'll end up hating each other by he end of Season 4, but what great fun we'll have with them in between!

Edited March 2, 2015 by PalmettoExpat

[CleoCaesar]

I really liked season 3. Definitely more than season 2, which got way too convoluted towards the end.

 

WAY too much Doug, though. He sucked up so much screentime that it all felt very unearned. I felt bad for Rachel's grisly end, but I think it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that she was targeted because she was a bisexual character. Russo and Zoe were also killed off and that had nothing to do with their sexuality. And on this show everyone's death is to prop up someone else's story (Frank's).

 

The Russia storyline was pretty tasteless and the Pussy Riot crap was just as asinine as it/they are in real life, but Lars Mikkelsen really did a lot with Putin's character (let's just call it what it was). A fine match for Frank Underwood.

 

A pity one can't say the same about Claire. Holy incompetence, Batman. She really got played more times than seemed believable. She wasn't some naive farmgirl, but seemed totally out of sync with the UN/White House world.

[Boundary]

I too think Remi and Jackie can make it, now that she's dropped plans for being Vice President (for now). He can't leave Washington, we know that. She's got a reputation to rebuild but it was only one debate's damage, and together they could become a power couple with a conscious. In addition, we could reverse the dynamic and make him the prop this time. 

 

As for Claire, I can't believe the crap she took from Frank this season, she used to be the stronger one. There were glimpses, she would ride him in the kitchen or tell him off for entertaining self doubt, as needed, but she was way too insecure for my liking. I like my Underwoods ruthless, with no obvious conscious.  Even Francis seemed to be sincere in his AmWorks, which was ... disturbing. Where was the cynicism?

 

I understood the need to bring back Doug and to highlight his devotion to Frank and the need to be realistic with his injuries that meant he couldn't just walk back into his old job. But that meant we lost what I liked about Doug: his quietly-get-the-job-done ethos. Even his obsession with Rachel last season was underplayed but having it front and centre this season didn't work for me. Rachel had two options as a character: either Doug stops searching for her and she becomes an non entity or else she becomes the little character that eventually brings down the most powerful couple in the world. The middle house they opted for risks pissing more people off just to service Doug's obsession, who admittedly has only few sympathisers, me included.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Boundary

[dohe]

I too think Remi and Jackie can make it, now that she's dropped plans for being Vice President (for now). He can't leave Washington, we know that. She's got a reputation to rebuild but it was only one debate's damage, and together they could become a power couple with a conscious. In addition, we could reverse the dynamic and make him the prop this time. 

 

As for Claire, I can't believe the crap she took from Frank this season, she used to be the stronger one. There were glimpses, she would ride him in the kitchen or tell him off for entertaining self doubt, as needed, but she was way too insecure for my liking. I like my Underwoods ruthless, with no obvious conscious.  Even Francis seemed to be sincere in his AmWorks, which was ... disturbing. Where was the cynicism?

 

I understood the need to bring back Doug and to highlight his devotion to Frank and the need to be realistic with his injuries that meant he couldn't just walk back into his old job. But that meant we lost what I liked about Doug: his quietly-get-the-job-done ethos. Even his obsession with Rachel last season was underplayed but having it front and centre this season didn't work for me. Rachel had two options as a character: either Doug stops searching for her and she becomes an non entity or else she becomes the little character that eventually brings down the most powerful couple in the world. The middle house they opted for risks pissing more people off just to service Doug's obsession, who admittedly has only few sympathisers, me included.

The show definitely should have taken one of those two options instead of indulging in the continued practice of killing off lesbian/bisexual female characters to serve the plots of straight people.  Also interestingly they undermined one of the best things from last year which is showing a case of a woman being treated like a bird in a cage by a man running away when sensing danger and killing her stalker.  Well apparently killing him. 

 

This disgusting trend of bisexual women/lesbians being killed to serve the stories of straight characters has been called out repeatedly and nothing is being done because of a complete lack of respect for bisexual female/lesbian representation on television by some of these show runners who see those characters as props.  When questioned they show an almost staggeringly naïve comprehension, or is it arrogance?, of the situation going we are just treating them like any other character.  Clue to these people - when representation is minimal, you have to have to have a bit more common sense than that.  It reminds me of when gay men were often the murderers in films.  I would say this idiocy has to end only to have people go well gay people have killed people.  A gay man being a murderer in a movie was not the problem.  It was the constant representation of gay men as murderers that was the problem.  Same goes here.  What is it about bisexual women and lesbians that they are killed off on tv at such a high percentage? 

 

However this ending also plays into another problematic area.  That is the woman who at some point is promiscuous or is/was a prostitute must die for her sins.  The man obsessed with the woman killing her and that the storyline is shown as a triumph for Doug, overcoming his obsession to rid the world of the former prostitute, is beyond troubling.  It is rank misogyny, reprehensible on every level, and no amount of other strong female characters can overcome it's disdain for young women.  This is the second time a twenty something woman has been murdered and in both cases the woman was punished for her trespasses as a woman.  If Rachel had not been a prostitute she would be alive and if Zoe had "known her place" she would be alive. The show's contempt for young women could not be more blatant.   

 

I also have not seen a convincing argument Doug was needed back.  The character had worn out his welcome last year and his ending had been fitting if he dies last year.  Instead the show undermined something they had actually got right.  Shame on this trashy show. 

Edited March 2, 2015 by dohe

[WearyTraveler]

Sorry, I don't see it.  I think that's reading too much into things.

 

Peter (remember him from S1?) was a straight, promiscuous, white male and he was killed too.  By Frank. I agree with the poster above that every character in this story is a prop to Francis and, to a lesser degree, to Claire's stories.  The series is about them, and I think we're lucky if we get to see glimpses of the lives of other characters because they are certainly not the protagonists of this particular story.  The writers do try to give them some depth, so that we are not bored, but it was never about them (the other characters).

 

Rachel's story was never about a young woman who realizes her worth, sees an obsessive captor for what he is and regains her freedom.  Her story was always about the lengths Frank would go to in order to gain power, and what his loyal followers (i.e. Doug) would do for him.  That she happened to be a woman or bisexual had nothing to do with it as Frank and Doug (in his loyalty to Frank) have killed and destroyed all kinds of characters in this story: males, females, straight, gay, rich, poor, healthy, sick.... you name it.

 

I don't think there's a bias when everyone, not just the female and/or bisexual characters, is a victim of Frank and Claire's hunger for power.  IMHO, off course.

[wrestlesflamingos]

Claire = Skyler. Maybe even Claire Fisher.

[dohe]

Sorry, I don't see it.  I think that's reading too much into things.

 

Peter (remember him from S1?) was a straight, promiscuous, white male and he was killed too.  By Frank. I agree with the poster above that every character in this story is a prop to Francis and, to a lesser degree, to Claire's stories.  The series is about them, and I think we're lucky if we get to see glimpses of the lives of other characters because they are certainly not the protagonists of this particular story.  The writers do try to give them some depth, so that we are not bored, but it was never about them (the other characters).

 

Rachel's story was never about a young woman who realizes her worth, sees an obsessive captor for what he is and regains her freedom.  Her story was always about the lengths Frank would go to in order to gain power, and what his loyal followers (i.e. Doug) would do for him.  That she happened to be a woman or bisexual had nothing to do with it as Frank and Doug (in his loyalty to Frank) have killed and destroyed all kinds of characters in this story: males, females, straight, gay, rich, poor, healthy, sick.... you name it.

 

I don't think there's a bias when everyone, not just the female and/or bisexual characters, is a victim of Frank and Claire's hunger for power.  IMHO, off course.

Yes, I remember Peter.  As you say, Peter was a straight white male.  There is not a dearth of straight white males on television.  There is a dearth of bisexual females and lesbians on television.  If someone says, can you name the straight white male characters on television we would all laugh.  We would be here all day.  The same does not hold for bisexual female and lesbian representation on tv (well besides the interesting anomaly of ABC Family and the show Orange is the New Black*).  So an astonishingly high percentage of lesbian and bisexual female characters being killed off does mean something very different just as, years ago, the revelation of the LGBT killer in a film when LGBT characters in film were receiving low representation meant something very different than a straight white male being the killer.   

 

*The only thing not making this far more despicable, as with incidents such as Arrow and Chicago Fire, is that Netflix does have the show with the most lesbian and bisexual female representation on tv.  Anyways seems like this discussion is not going to change either of our minds.  We will have to disagree and I will have to say goodbye to this show. 

Edited March 2, 2015 by dohe

[hincandenza]

Jeez, could we drop the derail about some imagined anti-lesbian agenda in the media or this show? It seems like a long-standing crusade at this point that's more fitting for a personal blog.

Anyway, just wrapped up the season, and while I thought it was good and more emotionally "meaty" now that Frank doesn't win every battle, I'm not wild about the Doug story line; as someone said above, why have all that arc and humanization, just to end back where we started? He's a monster, but we already knew that; now instead of the humanized but ruthless and competent operative, he's just a deranged killer. And yeah, while we know Frank sent him out, didn't anyone else at the White House think the chief of staff disappearing for 3-4 days in the heat of a primary was noteworthy or odd?

Claire also seemed off as a character all season. I never felt I understood at any point why after 28 years she's npw so resentful. She didn't have power imbalance issues when she was running a non-profit and he was a powerful US Senator? She knew the score, knew what they were doing, and certainly didn't shy away from the trappings of wealth and influence as they piled up. She even tried to play Eleanor, and screwed up so badly she nearly started a war in her brief stint at the UN. Frank did nothing but support her and bail her out, so why the rancor? Frank is an evil, evil man yet I found myself agreeing with him in almost every argument; she was uncharacteristically childish and naive all year, which is not the same canny Ice Queen we saw in S1 and S2.

I do think people worried about dragging on to a 5th season or beyond can take solace that 4 is a natural number for this show: Four suits in a deck, then the house of cards tumbles down. I expect one more season which wraps everything and (fingers crossed) sees the final and sweet comeuppance of Frank Underwood.

[Pike Ludwell]

I thought it was elegant at the end of season 2 when Rachel, the victim, fought back and killed the villain. This took it several notches above the typical formulaic cheap thriller show. But then we find out in season 3 they are using one of the oldest, most tiresome and annoying cheap thriller devices: the victim does not quite finish off the villain, and he comes back and kills her. And I don't like this show going the torture porn route. I thought it was above that. My view from the beginning was the only valid reason to bring back Stamper was so that he suffers constantly, tries to kill Rachel again, and she kills him conclusively this time. I am reluctant to watch any further seasons. It insulted my intelligence this season in that and several other ways.

 

And what's the deal with the writers thinking Stamper is some sort of sex symbol. He has one beautiful woman after another jumping into bed with him, with him showing minimal personality of any good sort. His looks are that great? ROFL And why show the actor in a nude scene. He's supposed to be hot? I think I hear Twilight Zone music playing in the background.

Edited March 2, 2015 by riverclown

[truthaboutluv]

I don't think there's a bias when everyone, not just the female and/or bisexual characters, is a victim of Frank and Claire's hunger for power.  IMHO, off course.

 

 

Completely agree. Certainly to each his own but I too am a bit baffled by this huge moral outrage over Rachel's death when my feeling is "what show have we been watching again?" As you stated, this show from day one has been about these awful, horrible people, hungry for power who will step on and destroy any and everyone in their quest for it. Nothing has really changed. 

 

As others noted, we had Russo's character in Season 1. A guy who Frank saw as the perfect tool because he was weak and vulnerable. And so Frank used him and made him his pawn when it benefited him and when Russo became too much of liability, he killed him. Zoe, who thought she was actually controlling the situation but instead was pretty much Frank's pawn as well and when she became an annoying bug to him, he threw her in front of a moving train. 

 

Rachel's story, sad to say, was always going to end badly. No, I'm not saying her death was warranted and not awful, just as Russo and Zoe's were. But just that we all knew, or at least I did, where it was going to go. She stayed alive a lot longer because Stamper developed some twisted love/hate thing for her and hid her entire existence from Frank because had he and Claire known about her all this time, she'd have been dead a lot sooner. 

 

And murders aside, look at all the other people destroyed like that poor journalist guy, the President, etc. This whole show has been all about these horrible people and the lives and tragedy they leave in their wake in their quest for power. There's no morality anywhere there. It's a show about unlikable, horrible people doing horrible things. And the main appeal of watching till the end, at least for me, is for when the delicate House of Cards they've built come crashing down and they do get their just end. Unfortunately it's clear it won't come until the show is ending.

Edited April 5, 2015 by maraleia
removed the sentence containing lifestyle because the use of that word is problematic

[dohe]

I thought it was elegant at the end of season 2 when Rachel, the victim, fought back and killed the villain. This took it several notches above the typical formulaic cheap thriller show. But then we find out in season 3 they are using one of the oldest, most tiresome and annoying cheap thriller devices: the victim does not quite finish off the villain, and he comes back and kills her. And I don't like this show going the torture porn route. I thought it was above that. My view from the beginning was the only valid reason to bring back Stamper was so that he suffers constantly, tries to kill Rachel again, and she kills him conclusively this time. I am reluctant to watch any further seasons. It insulted my intelligence this season in that and several other ways.

 

And what's the deal with the writers thinking Stamper is some sort of sex symbol. He has one beautiful woman after another jumping into bed with him, with him showing minimal personality of any good sort. His looks are that great? ROFL And why show the actor in a nude scene. He's supposed to be hot? I think I hear Twilight Zone music playing in the background.

Excellent post!  The show did something right and then completely upended it going down the predictable and misogynistic path.   But goodness knows we need more Doug Stamper, a duplicitous male character on a show loaded with them, for some reason instead of depicting that the unconventional path of a woman overcoming a predator which the show had ended on last year.  I will pass on watching what ever twenty something woman they decide to kill next year and I agree that it came across as torture porn. 

 

Hincandenza, a bisexual twenty something female character was killed off in the episode.  So to discuss how that fits into significant and definitely not imagined problems concerning violence against twenty something women in the media - something this very show has done before, the destruction of women who have sex with people they are not attracted to -something this show has done before, and the trend of killing off bisexual women and lesbians on tv is relevant.  The show went there.  They made the discussion relevant to this episode by indulging in such a repellent, done to death storyline. 

 

That said, I certainly don't want the entire thread to be a discussion of that.  I am replying to persons who disagree when they give their explanations but I am being respectful.  It is fair that if someone states why they think I am wrong, I explain why I don't agree on that point.   

Edited March 2, 2015 by dohe

[Guest]

Hey,

 

Let's table the discussion of the trend of killing off bisexual women and lesbians on TV. 

 

If you'd like a more in depth discussion of this trend in general, you can post here or here.

 

Please keep in mind

 

• You don't have to respond to every member that does not see things the same was as you. 
• Be polite to each other, if you think a member is acting inappropriately use the report function and do not respond in the thread.
• You can always fall back on the handy-dandy ignore feature.

 

If you have any questions, please PM me and include Athena in the conversation.

 

Thanks,

 

CP

[Slider]

Honestly, towards the end with all the "Claire polls better" and "Everyone loves Claire" business, I was half expecting them to kill of Underwood either via a health issue or Claire poisoning him (or something to that extent) and have Claire ascend to running for President, a la Sonny Bono's wife and a few others who have been in similar circumstances.  Then I realized this show would die with Underwood dead.

 

I REALLY need to see Frank get his due, and I hope that it is exactly what happens in a final Season 4.  The absence of the press this season really bothered me, and kept me from feeling any continuity from the previous two seasons.  I need key Season 1 players who are still alive to have something to do with the storyline now.  I need... closure.  And not the dead Rachel kind.

 

Also, Remy is amazing. 

[india wilkes]

I liked the last episode. at least quality wise, that is. the other episodes? NO

 

I was also confused by Claire's feelings towards Frank. It obviously started after that man hanged himself in Russia and she went off in that press conference. what confused me was after that, she and frank seemed to come to an understanding again and then that stupid author comes in and.....what? it was so bizarre. 

 

I love claire and i always thought she and frank saw eye to eye. this season was so weird. 

Edited March 2, 2015 by india wilkes

[Slider]

 

I was also confused by Claire's feelings towards Frank. It obviously started after that man hanged himself in Russia and she went off in that press conference. what confused me was after that, she and frank seemed to come to an understanding again and then that stupid author comes in and.....what? it was so bizarre.

Actually, I thought it started when she found him crying in the residence.  She saw this "powerful" man displaying what could be considered weakness and just kind of rolled her eyes and then sexed him up to get him to stop feeling sorry for himself.

[Trichromatic]

I was also confused by Claire's feelings towards Frank. It obviously started after that man hanged himself in Russia and she went off in that press conference. what confused me was after that, she and frank seemed to come to an understanding again and then that stupid author comes in and.....what? it was so bizarre.

 

 

Claire has been given the short end of the stick by Frank. They were always in it together. They would sit by the window,have a cigarette and plan world domination. They would go running together. She knew there was one chair, but she was valuable in planning how to get there in S1 and S2. This season, she could do not do anything outside of Frank's shadow. Claire was never going to be a tea-sipping, pearl-wearing, egg-choosing First Lady. 

There was no understanding after the protester (blanking on the name) committed suicide. They never once talked about how she felt about it, beyond the non-constructive fights they had. Because of both their prides they ended up in a cold war. The scene where she flinches when the he touches her shows that Frank has become unfamiliar to her. The scene where Doug is re-employed is another example: he barely gives her a chance to get her head round the fact that her secret is not in fanger of getting out anymore and he blindsights her with Doug's employment. As Pres he doesn't have to consult her, but as Frank, she expected him to. They are not partners in crime anymore and I think she always needed to feel part of it, a sense of control. 

 

The writer comes in and writes his chapter about the marriage of two equals, and describes them as a force to be reckoned with TOGETHER. He sees them as she once saw them, but she also understands that they are not that anymore. She takes a look around her and realises that she is, as Tom says, literally giving her blood to Frank's mission and she is getting nothing in return. So she leaves.

Now having said this, has Claire fucked up? Yes, and not once. That whole Russia speech was a fiasco that could have been avoided if she had only shut her mouth and been a diplomat as opposed to a bleeding heart. She became a liability to Frank simply by having that ambassador job that imo she should never have gotten to begin with (causing Frank to be manipulated by not!Putin). 

 

[shelley1234]

 

And yeah, while we know Frank sent him out, didn't anyone else at the White House think the chief of staff disappearing for 3-4 days in the heat of a primary was noteworthy or odd?

 

Doug wasn't going to be announced as the replacement for chief of staff until after the Iowa caucus, so no one would think it was suspect because he didn't have the job yet.  

[cali1981]

I recall that Rachel, even as a hooker, was heavily involved with Congressman Peter Russo and knew a lot about him and his various foibles.  You remember Old Pete and how Francis faked his death by carbon monoxide poisoning in his garage but actually did kill him.  Didn't Doug get close to Rachel because she represented a dire threat to his boss.  He did become obsessed with the girl which probably saved her the first time around. Even after she nearly killed Doug in the woods that night, I'd always felt that his constant search for her had more to do with her threat potential than it did personal vengeance. He also told Frank earlier that she had been taken care of and now that he was back on the payroll he had more incentive than ever to see to that.  I actually thought that his feelings for Rachel spared her again and when I saw the van approaching her at first I thought that Doug was going to take her into town but then thought that she was going to get run down like V did in Orange is the New Black.  It was still a bit of a shock when in the next scene you saw her head being covered with dirt.  Doug could not afford to fail another loyalty test so in the end, Rachel/Cassie had to go.

[Pike Ludwell]

Unless he had a gun, I am amazed that Doug would have been able to overpower Rachel, when she was untied and knew he was coming. She had plenty of notice he was coming. She was young, fit and healthy. He was partly crippled. She should have just run through the field and there's no way he could have gotten her, unless he had a gun. Even if he walked close to her, she should have been able to overpower him the instant he acted suspicious, with a quick jab to his throat or elsewhere, followed up instantly by repeated quick punches till his head was a bloody pulp.

Edited March 3, 2015 by riverclown

[truthaboutluv]

Rachel wasn't really close to Russo. She was a hooker he picked up the night he was pulled over by the cops and arrested for being drunk and high. Rachel was let go and later Frank had the police chief or whoever who was in his pocket, drop the charges against Russo. He did it because he had his own reasons for needing Russo at the time. I don't think Frank was even aware that there had been a woman in the car, so he didn't know about Rachel's existence. 

 

Rachel later, all on her own, sent a letter to Doug threatening to go public about Russo's arrest that night because that was the point where Frank was pushing Russo in the House, again for his own selfish purposes. The journalist guy too at that point had already started investigating the arrest and wondering why it just disappeared. Doug saw the letter, did not tell Frank and met Rachel on his own.

 

He basically told Rachel she was delusional if she thought she could threaten them or had any power. Rachel basically said she just wanted money because she didn't want to keep living the life she was. At that point, Doug developed this creepy paternal like feelings towards her while also sort of being attracted to her. And at that point she trusted him fully when he set her up in Frank's assistant's home, helped her get a job and later got her her own place. She trusted him enough to help set up Russo when he asked because Frank no longer needed Russo and was ready to throw him to the wolves. 

 

This is why I said above that Rachel's story honestly in my opinion, ended much like I expected it to. Rachel stepped into fire the minute she sent that letter threatening Frank and company and as I said, she only stayed alive as long as she did after that because Doug had his creepy obsession with her. Because that's why he never told Frank about her and what was going on because he knew if Frank knew about her existence, he would say get rid of her permanently. Things worked when she was completely grateful and even somewhat devoted to Doug which means he had power over her. Once he started losing that power, things got ugly and her death was imminent.

Edited March 3, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[dohe]

Unless he had a gun, I am amazed that Doug would have been able to overpower Rachel, when she was untied and knew he was coming. She had plenty of notice he was coming. She was young, fit and healthy. He was partly crippled. She should have just run through the field and there's no way he could have gotten her, unless he had a gun. Even if he walked close to her, she should have been able to overpower him the instant he acted suspicious, with a quick jab to his throat or elsewhere, followed up instantly by repeated quick punches till his head was a bloody pulp.

Yes, it makes pretty much no sense.  Maybe that is more the reason they decided for the cut for it would look comically unreal for Doug to overpower Rachel when she is aware he is coming for her.  Once she began running in the field, he is not catching her.  The sheer idiocy of the torture porn can't even rival this loophole in plot logic.  I hope next year when they show a twenty something women being killed they aren't as idiotic and unbelievable as the deaths of Zoe and Rachel.   

Edited March 3, 2015 by dohe

[Cthulhudrew]

I can't recall whether it was in this episode or an episode or two back (Darn binge watching...), but what was up with Yates' forgetfulness at the grocery store? That seemed like it was leading somewhere, but didn't get followed up on.

[DrSpaceman]

All done!

 

Really Claire?  I find her sudden intolerance for Francis being the one in "the chair" sort of ridiculous.  She got her chance - totally underserved chance - to show her worth independent of Frank and she blew it from the jump.

 

Her behavior at her confirmation hearing was a disaster, having her husband do an end around recess appointment, her handling of the Corrigan situation, getting played by the Russian UN ambassador - all of those missteps she made on her own.

 

After I digest everything, I may feel differently but this was my least favorite season - by far.  

 

I feel like nothing happened except Rebecca/Cassie is now dead and Claire left Francis.  Everything else resolved into nothing of consequence.

Completely agree.

Very underwhelmed by it all.

Way too much focus on Claire/Frank and not enough on the other characters.

And Claire got her chance and screwed up, majorly, then seems she blamed Francis for it.

Dragged out the Rachel story far too long.

Overall I found this whole season pretty dull.

I did like that this season was more realistic and less sensationalistic, more believable, but then it became dull as well.

I guess you can't have everything.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I can't recall whether it was in this episode or an episode or two back (Darn binge watching...), but what was up with Yates' forgetfulness at the grocery store? That seemed like it was leading somewhere, but didn't get followed up on.

 

I know that Kim Dickens' character later said "You need to get some sleep".

 

And they basically spelled it out that the author had an addiction to men's confessions (snickers).  So.  You know.  He was in withdrawal (snickers).

 

No one seems to be posting in the other episode threads, so I would love to know what you all thought of this actor who played the author!  I thought he was so bland for most of the season, then he kinda got interesting in the back 5.  I dunno.  I felt he was so lacking in charisma or anything special that I kept being distracted as to why he was cast.  I don't know any authors in real life I guess.  I know someone who reminds me of him, but that person I know lacks the focus it would take to actually be a novelist.

 

I thought Season 1 was fantastic, 5 stars.  I absolutely hated Season 2.  This one was okay.  I don't think I'll ever feel as good as I felt about the show in that first season again.  I mean this season was episode after episode of me waiting for something good, for a shoe to drop.  And the shoe is that Claire is leaving?  My god, I didn't need 13 hours for that....

 

They really took all the fun out of the Doug Rachel story.  There were so many great ways it could go, Rachel running off into the fields, into town.  WHO WOULDN'T BE RUNNING IMMEDIATELY in that situation, especially her?!  She is a survivor....... plain and simple!  I wanted her to kill him "again" -- that would have been satisfying. It would have been what he deserved.

 

Whatever... the only spark in this show is Remy and Jackie... and the show is determined to not them happen... except for those fleeting seconds..... instead... we get that Boring dude....

Edited March 3, 2015 by Ms Blue Jay

[DrSpaceman]

That moment in the Oval Office where Frank drops his folksy aww-shucks accent and rips into Claire is one of the best things Kevin Spacey has ever done and its not like we're pulling from a short list. He was incredible. The season had some uneven moments for sure but that's what I'll remember. It was claustrophobic and intense. Best scene of the entire season.

As much as I didn't think this season was that good, that scene and the episode in Russia with the negotiations were the highlights of the season. That was Spacey's "I am the one that comes knocking" scene.

[DrSpaceman]

Also I am not sure what the point was of some of the scenes and stories.

what was it that Doug learned from being around his brother and kids, other than it allowed him to get sober? He went right back to Underwood and his old life afte

What was the point of Doug sleeping with his physical therapist, who then left?

Remy getting pulled over, just a moral epiphany about how much he loves Jackie?

As someone else mentioned, the moment of lapse of the author in the store?

Even the tibetan monks, I think they were, it was a beautiful structure they made, amazing, but still not sure how that brought he and claire together again briefly. Just a shared experience?

[hincandenza]

The monks existed for the metaphor of the beautiful creation that intentionally is destroyed- because nothing last forever. A bit heavy handed, but eh.

Wrong thread for it, but since Mickey Doyle/Thomas Yates was mentioned, what was with the homoerotic scene with Frank; Frank is bi, yet you'd think he wouldn't be dumb enough to even subtly flirt back with the guy. I get Claire has denied him affection for a while, but it's still too huge a risk at his station. Get a mistress, or you know... that's what the loyal pit bull that is Meechum is for, Frank! :)

Actually... given how Meechum lashed out at Yates when he left, and his "take a bullet" line of fanatical loyalty, are we supposed to assume there's been continued hookups with one or both Underwoods ever since that threesome scene in Season 2?