The landscape of entertainment is vast and complex, often mirroring the intricate and flawed nature of humanity itself. Today, my thoughts are drawn to a series that, for a time, captivated critics and audiences alike with its dark brilliance, yet now exists under a pervasive shadow: House of Cards. This isn’t just a review; it’s an exploration into the uncomfortable question that many of us grapple with in the modern era: Is it okay to like the show if it turns out the lead actor is, in real life, a deeply flawed and morally compromised individual, a creep? This question probes the very heart of how we separate art from the artist, and whether a performance’s power can endure when the performer’s reality is abhorrent.
House of Cards, premiering in 2013 on Netflix, was a groundbreaking series in the nascent world of streaming prestige television. It launched Netflix into the realm of original content giants, demonstrating that a streaming platform could produce a show of cinematic quality, with A-list talent, capable of competing with traditional networks. Its initial seasons were a masterclass in political intrigue, psychological manipulation, and raw ambition.
The Hypnotic Pull: A Masterclass in Power and Deception
The show plunged viewers into the Machiavellian world of Frank and Claire Underwood, a power-hungry couple in Washington D.C. Frank, a ruthless Congressman, manipulates his way to the presidency, breaking the fourth wall to confide his dark schemes directly to the audience. It was a chillingly effective narrative, brilliantly written and impeccably acted, creating an atmosphere of constant tension and moral decay.
House of Cards was a show that seemed to understand the darker undercurrents of ambition and corruption in politics. Its strengths were undeniable:
-
Sharp, Cynical Writing: The dialogue was biting, intelligent, and often unsettling in its portrayal of human depravity. It painted a grim, yet compelling, picture of power for power’s sake.
-
Intricate Plotting: The series was a chess match, with Frank and Claire always several moves ahead, orchestrating betrayals and leveraging weaknesses with chilling precision. The sheer cunning of their plans was captivating.
-
Atmospheric Visuals and Direction: The show’s aesthetic was dark, moody, and cinematic, perfectly complementing its themes. Washington D.C. felt like a stage for ruthless machinations.
The Uncomfortable Truth: The Flawed Nature of Kevin Spacey
However, the question of liking House of Cards became deeply complicated with the very public revelations regarding Kevin Spacey, the actor who portrayed Frank Underwood. Accusations of sexual harassment and assault surfaced, culminating in his eventual removal from the show and a dramatic shift in its narrative trajectory. This real-life exposure forced a reckoning with the art he created.
It became clear that Kevin Spacey was not just playing a morally bankrupt character on screen; he was, by all credible accounts, a severely damaged human being whose alleged actions inflicted real harm. This stark reality forces us to confront a difficult truth: Can a person be both very talented and riveting as a performer, but also a severely flawed and damaging human being in their personal life? The answer, uncomfortably, is often yes. History is replete with examples of brilliant artists whose personal lives were marked by abhorrent behavior. Talent, unfortunately, does not equate to morality or virtue. The raw power of a performance can be distinct from the personal failings of the performer.
The Ethical Dilemma: Must We Hate Everything They Did?
This leads to the core ethical dilemma: Must we hate everything they did because now we detest them? For me, the answer leans towards a nuanced “no,” but with significant caveats. It’s a complex, deeply personal decision, and there’s no single “right” answer.
-
Separating the Art from the Artist (With Acknowledgment): It is possible to acknowledge the brilliance of a piece of art (the show House of Cards in its early seasons) and the power of a performance (Spacey’s Frank Underwood was undeniably captivating before the revelations) while simultaneously condemning the actions of the artist. The artistic creation takes on a life of its own, forged by the contributions of hundreds of people – writers, directors, crew, and other actors – whose work should not be erased by the actions of one individual. The show, in its early form, was a product of collective talent.
-
The Intent of the Creation: House of Cards itself was about power, corruption, and the dark side of human nature. Spacey’s character was a villain. There’s a difference between consuming art that glamorizes harmful behavior (which House of Cards arguably did in its portrayal of Frank) and art that is produced by a harmful person. However, the discomfort lies in the fact that the actor’s real-life actions mirrored the depravity of the character he so convincingly portrayed.
-
The Viewer’s Responsibility: As viewers, we have a responsibility to be discerning. We can choose not to support new projects by individuals accused of misconduct. We can recognize that enjoying past work doesn’t equate to endorsing their personal behavior. It’s about being aware, acknowledging the harm, and making conscious choices about where we direct our support and attention moving forward.
The Enduring (Yet Clouded) Rewatchability
Despite the controversy surrounding its lead, House of Cards in its initial seasons remains a remarkably well-produced and compelling show. For those who can separate the art from the artist (or at least view it through a critical lens), its rewatchability still exists, though it is undeniably clouded by the real-world revelations.
-
Its Historical Significance: The show was groundbreaking for Netflix and dramatically shifted the streaming landscape. Its early seasons truly demonstrated the potential of direct-to-streaming prestige content.
-
Robin Wright’s Brilliance: Frank Underwood’s reign was undeniably compelling, but the true standout performance, especially as the series progressed, was Robin Wright as Claire Underwood. Her icy control, her ambition, and her chilling evolution were a constant source of fascination. After Spacey’s departure, the show pivoted to focus solely on Claire, and while the final season struggled with the abrupt shift, Wright’s performance remained consistently riveting.
-
A Political Thriller Masterpiece (Initially): For its first few seasons, House of Cards was a taut, suspenseful, and intellectually stimulating political thriller. Its exploration of ambition, betrayal, and power dynamics was often brilliant.
So, is it okay to like it? For me, yes, with a heavy asterisk. It’s okay to acknowledge the brilliance of the show’s initial conception and execution, to recognize the collective talent that brought it to life, and to appreciate the powerful performance delivered. But it is not okay to ignore the painful reality of Kevin Spacey’s alleged actions. We can condemn the individual while critically analyzing the art. The rewatchability exists, but it’s a rewatchability that carries a distinct, permanent shadow, a lingering cloud that reminds us of the messy, uncomfortable truths lurking beneath the surface of even the most polished performances. It forces us to confront the difficult intersection of talent and morality, reminding us that genius doesn’t grant immunity from accountability.
What are your thoughts on separating the art from the artist? Have similar situations changed how you view beloved shows or films? Share your perspectives below – let’s navigate these complex waters together.