Politics and Politicians in Contemporary US Television - Washington As Fiction

Politics and Politicians in Contemporary US Television; edited by Betty
Kaklamanidou and Margaret J. Tally

Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: A; Font: Sabon;
Dir: //integrafs5/kcg/2-Pagination/TandF/PP_RAPS/ApplicationFiles/
9781472486042_text.3d;
Politics and Politicians in
N
Contemporary US Television
IO
Washington as Fiction
UT
RIB
Edited by
Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret J. Tally
IST
RD
FO
OT
SN
OF
RO
FP
T&
9781472486042_text.3d;
First published 2017

by Routledge
N
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
IO
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
UT
© 2017 selection and editorial matter, Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret J.
Tally; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret J. Tally to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
RIB
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
IST
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
RD
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
FO
[CIP data]
ISBN: 978-1-4724-8604-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-315-60128-1 (ebk)
OT
Typeset in Sabon
by Taylor & Francis Books
SN
OF
RO
FP
T&
9781472486042_text.3d;
1 The political TV shows of the 2010s:

showrunners, reality and gender
N
IO
Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally
UT
RIB
Since scholarly works on the totality of contemporary political shows in the
United States are not published regularly, at least to our knowledge, we begin
IST
this collection with an overview of three sections we believe elucidate their
construction and impact on the viewers: their showrunners, that is the people
who conceived the central narrative arc; the proximity of their fictional stories
RD
with real events and its meaning; and the significant place female characters and
female showrunners play in this specific genre.
Themes and showrunners

FO
In the context of New Film History, originated by Thomas Elsaesser in the

mid-1980s, cinematic texts should not constitute the only object of study by film
historians, in isolation from other contextual factors, such as modes of pro-
OT
duction, marketing, studio strategies, censorship guidelines, etc. In their attempt

to define New Film History, James Chapman, Mark Glancy and Sue Harper
(2007, 5–6) write that its defining traits include more attention to the “complex
relationship between films and social context,” the understanding that “films
SN
are shaped and determined by a combination of historical processes […] and

individual agency […], the importance of primary sources,” […] and a new-
found attention to “the ‘look’ and ‘sound’ of films.” Consequently, historians
should adopt an approach that encompasses all the relevant metatexts – to use
OF
Gérard Genette’s 1972 term regarding each text that criticizes and/or comments
on a previous one. Genette wrote about literature and his metatext referred to
reviews and criticism of literary works. However, his categorization can be
RO
applied to film and television for that matter, and thus a metatext can also
include studio documents, archival material, interviews with artists, etc.
Although, as its name clearly states, New Film History focuses on cinema, its
FP
methodology can directly apply to television texts and their metatexts. As this
chapter is an overview of recent political television shows, we believe that a
discussion of some of the metatexts related to these narratives is necessary to
properly contextualize them in their time of production. Of course, our work
T&
cannot be as exhaustive due to word restrictions; that is why we have chosen to

focus primarily on interviews of the shows’ creators. Based on interviews and
9781472486042_text.3d;
18 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

media profiles, we present how they conceived of the main story arcs as well as
their inspiration and/or intentions as we believe this can lead to a number of
interesting conclusions regarding the relationship between reality and fiction;
N
the subversive power of television and the potential effect of representational
IO
politics on the real political arena. In addition, the showrunners’ recent emergence
as powerful industry individuals poses new questions regarding television
authorship. As a show’s season unfolds and one succeeds another, a number of
UT
directors, cinematographers, editors, etc. work on different episodes. Never-
theless, the shows manage to retain a unique audiovisual style that cannot be
easily attributed to the director, as he/she was discussed in traditional “auteur”
RIB
theories. Is, therefore, the showrunner responsible for the unity of the show and
can he/she be considered its auteur or should the theorist abandon the search
for a single individual responsible for every aspect of what we watch onscreen
and instead look for the specific traits that make the series unique and recog-
IST
nizable and then attribute the auteur role to the group of individuals that make
it happen? Obviously, these questions – however intriguing and theoretically
important – cannot be answered in this chapter. Yet, we wanted to stress here
how the figure of the showrunner in contemporary American television has
RD
acquired a status similar to the cinema’s director that should be studied and
contextualized in future studies.
Homeland, one of President Obama’s favorite TV shows (Zezima 2014), is
FO
based on the Israeli series Prisoners of War (Israeli Channel 2, 2010–present)

and was adapted for HBO by Alex Gansa and Howard Gordon. As the two
seasoned and acclaimed producers – they have previously collaborated on such
series as 24, The X-Files, and Beauty and the Beast (CBS, 1987–1990) – note,
OT
because of the rather significant cultural differences between the two countries,
what they basically retained from their source was “the idea of a soldier coming
back from being in captivity,” and “some of the [familial] dynamics” (Milzoff
2011). Gansa notes that “the essential premise was an invention” since the ori-
SN
ginal did not deal with either terrorism or the CIA, while Gordon adds that
“The Israeli show is really a drama about returning soldiers, and we think of
our show as a psychological thriller” (Milzoff 2011).
In a 2014 Hollywood Reporter video interview about “TV’s Super Producers,”
OF
Gansa and Gordon reveal that their main intent while building Homeland was
to be subversive. They talk about how 24, as a product of the post-9/11 era,
became “a lens” through which the audience dealt with their collective trauma.
RO
Yet, Gordon points out that when the U.S.A. entered new wars and revelations
about Abhu Graib and Guantanamo started circulating, he questioned whether
24 was contributing to Islamophobia – the show had already been characterized
FP
as a “decidedly predictable celebration of the War on Terror” (Hirschbein 2015,

187). Gansa adds that Homeland came as “a reaction formation to that
experience [24],” and that’s how Carrie (Claire Danes) became the opposite
hero of Jack (Kiefer Sutherland) not only in terms of gender but also in terms
T&
of professional conduct (THR Staff 2014). While Jack was the alpha male,
ready and capable of saving America, Carrie belongs to the other side of the
9781472486042_text.3d;
The political TV shows of the 2010s 19

spectrum, reflecting at the same time the changes in the nation’s collective
psyche. In the words of her co-star in the first three seasons, Damian Lewis,
Carrie “is a broken-down, polarized person who represents a broken, polarized
N
America” (Carter 2012).
IO
Scandal premiered on ABC in April 2012, a couple of weeks before the
comedy Veep debuted on HBO. Created by Shonda Rhimes, Scandal was
inspired by the real-life crisis manager Judy Smith. Having spent a lot of time
UT
with Smith, Rhimes explains that the Scandal stories are not exactly replicas of
real situations that Judy has lived. They are rather an amalgam of reality and
fiction, assisted by Judy herself regarding the solutions she used during a variety
RIB
of crises (Furlong 2012). In another interview, Rhimes, just like Homeland’s
Gansa and Gordon, admits that elements of the Scandal fictional cosmos are
drawn from reality. For instance, regarding the choice of Republican President
Fitzgerald Grant III, she explains: “I made [him] a Republican president because
IST
it felt like right now within the Republican Party, with what’s going on with
the Tea Party – there was a lot of drama within the party” (Porter 2012). Rhimes’s
reference to the conservative political movement is important if one considers
RD
the Tea Party’s instrumental role in the Republican victory during the 2010
midterm elections (see Skocpol and Williamson 2012). More importantly,
however, Rhimes’s decision places Scandal in a specific sociopolitical context,
which informs its fictional universe, at least during its inception.
FO
HBO’s Veep is the brainchild of Scottish showrunner Armando Iannucci who

came to Hollywood having already been successful with the political satire The
Thick of It (BBC Four/BBC Two, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2012) and its film feature
spin-off In the Loop (2009). In a 2012 profile, Iannucci maintained that his show
OT
was not inspired by real events has and that it does not have a specific political
message. For instance, he denied that his main character Vice President Selina
Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) was inspired by Sarah Palin, and “insists that the
decision to make the character female was to avoid comparisons to previous
SN
Vice Presidents” (Burstein 2012). However, in a 2013 interview, Asawin Suebsaeng

referred at length to Iannucci’s interest in politics, and especially American
politics, ever since he was a young boy in Glasgow. Suebsaeng also discussed
OF
the British showrunner’s inspiration from real current affairs, adding that a Veep
subplot in Season 2 “involves a political standoff that mirrors the debt-ceiling
fight” (Suebsaeng 2013).
Two more political shows were welcomed in 2013. The Americans premiered
RO
on FOX on January 30 while the first 13 episodes of House of Cards were

simultaneously made available online by Netflix two days later, on February 1,
radically altering not only the modes of television releases but also viewing
FP
habits. Interestingly, the two shows constitute the debut for both showrunners,
Joe Weisberg and Beau Willimon respectively. The significant financial invest-
ment of two novice creators can in part be explained by the acclaim and success
of earlier political shows, like The West Wing, and especially Homeland, which
T&
in a way facilitated the green light process for similar shows by different com-
panies – writing in March 2016, it is clear that both FX and Netflix made the
9781472486042_text.3d;

right decision. Another interesting trait of The Americans and House of Cards
is that their showrunners did not have an extensive background in show busi-
ness. The Americans’ Weisberg was a retired CIA officer while House of Cards’
N
Willimon, having worked for a number of political campaigns, became a play-
wright; His first screenplay was actually an adaptation of his play Farragut
IO
North, and was eventually released as The Ides of March in 2011.
The Americans was inspired by the actual arrest of a group of Russian sleeper
UT
agents in 2010 who had led a double life in a suburb in the United States,
exactly like the protagonists of the show. Weisberg comments on The Americans’
proximity to reality:
RIB
“Even in this show, which has a lot of fun with espionage, there were
stories we could tell that could feel real,” Mr. Weisberg said. (Just not too
real. As part of his C.I.A. nondisclosure agreement Mr. Weisberg must
IST
submit his scripts to the agency for approval).
(Egner 2013)
RD
On the other hand, House of Cards, like Homeland, is based on the same-titled
1990 BBC mini-series. Willimon is the only creator among the ones discussed
that is openly vocal about the political nature of the show, although he does
admit, in a Telegraph interview that “House of Cards is an extreme view of
FO
politics and power” (Harvey 2014). He elaborates:
All politicians are murderers or have to be willing to be murderers. Here

you have a dramatisation of that thing in them which allows them to do
OT
the unspeakable, whether that is facilitating the death of a congressman or

sending 100,000 troops to war.
(ibid.)
SN
Willimon explains this rather extreme view and wonders: “with thousands of
American soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands of people abroad dead, is
that more or less heinous than what we see Francis Underwood do?” (ibid.).
OF
Madam Secretary is the second political show of the 2010s created by a woman
and also the second show that is broadcast by a “traditional network,” in this case,
CBS. In fact, the show that stars Téa Leoni as Secretary of State began as a female
collaboration. During the 2014 TCA Summer TV Press Tour, executive producer
RO
Lori McCreary shared the narrative of the show’s inception. McCreary and CBS
chairman Nina Tassler had discussed the production of a scripted series for the
network, and they were trying to “come up with a great character” during the
FP
time of the Benghazi hearings. The real life Secretary of State at the time, Hillary
Clinton, thus inspired the two women about building a show around a fictional
female Secretary of State. This idea was proposed to writer/creator Barbara Hall
and Madam Secretary premiered on September 21, 2014 (Moraes 2014).
T&
Madam Secretary differs from the current group of political shows in that its
heroine, Elizabeth McCord, is a decent and ethical individual despite a few
9781472486042_text.3d;

instances of acquiescence to the actual practice of politics. As such, she can be
viewed as the continuation of popular cinematic political narratives, such as
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, whose protagonists were morally irreproachable.
N
Barbara Hall explains:
IO
[…] I certainly think it’s a little refreshing to have someone who has a dose
of true believerism and idealism and a desire to really fulfill a belief about
UT
how a job like that should be done. But when you create that character,
you have to get them a little bit of darkness or they will flatten out and
become unbelievable.
RIB
(Faye 2014)
What all the showrunners share is their sense that their stories are a product of
their time and that their intention – besides being successful and becoming
IST
wealthier – is also to contribute to their political environment. In other words,
the clichéd statement of how films and by extension television narratives reflect
and/or comment on their sociopolitical production context – which is generally
unaccompanied by actual information of the said production side – should be
RD
treated as a fact. The question then becomes how these fictional stories use
their narratives; what are the prevailing narrative elements and film techniques
and what is their meaning, and what is the underlying commentary these shows
FO
include about reality?
The spectacle of reality vs. the spectacle of fiction: the politics

of political shows
OT
In the fourth season of House of Cards, released on March 4, 2016 – when

most of the chapters of the collection had been written and edited – Frank
Underwood plans to have his wife, Claire, run as candidate for vice president
SN
with him. In order to do so, and resorting to his usual schemes, in episode 8 he
nominates Catherine Durant (Jayne Atkinson) – his Secretary of State – to the Party
leadership and asks that she be chosen by an open Party Convention. He justifies
OF
his decision by not only praising Durant’s abilities but also by underlining that
the Convention would be the dominant news item. When current House Minority
Leader Bob Birch (Larry Pine) expresses doubt about the whole situation
becoming a “circus,” Frank calmly argues him down, saying: “Oh Bob, I’m not
RO
sure if you’ve noticed or not, but politics is no longer just theater, it’s show
business; so let’s put on the best show in town.” Reviewing this episode for The
New York Times, Jen Chaney observes that this line “resonates pretty loudly in
FP
the real world” (Chaney 2016).

I would argue that Frank’s quote links House of Cards with the actual 2016
presidential race in the USA, positing ontological questions regarding the truth
of fiction and the truth of reality. It also reinforces Douglas Kellner’s theory of
T&
media spectacles, that is “media constructs that are out of the ordinary and
habitual daily routine which become popular media events, capturing the
9781472486042_text.3d;

attention of the media and the public” (Kellner 2009, 716) and his application of
the term to contemporary political life. In his article on Obama and celebrity
spectacle, Kellner likens the 2008 primaries of the Democratic Party to a number
N
of reality shows, such as Survivor (CBS, 2000–present), and The Amazing Race
(CBS, 2001–present), which generate “a compelling spectacle of race and gender
IO
as well as a campaign spectacle in the incredibly hard-fought and unpredictable
primaries.” Charting his course from the 2008 primaries to the election and
UT
concluding with his first 100 days in office, Kellner explores how Obama’s use
of social media, his politics and demeanor as well as his strategic speeches and
visits made him a global celebrity. The author also acknowledges the power of
RIB
the fictional stories of the past and in particular the 2000s, in which he finds
instances of “anticipations of the yearning and acceptance of a figure like
Barack Obama” and argues “media culture helped prepare the conditions to
elect a black president” (ibid., 733).
IST
Kellner’s theory of the political spectacle couldn’t have proved to be more
timely than it has during the 2016 presidential race that is nearing its end as I
am writing these very lines. The two Parties’ frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and
RD
Donald Trump, and especially the latter dominate news cycles with their stump
speeches, tweets and public appearances. At the same time, Obama’s historic
visit to Cuba became a worldwide event and the first news item on almost all
TV news in the western world. In addition, the President dancing the tango in
FO
Argentina just days after the terrorist attack in Brussels in March 2016, polarized
pundits and media professionals alike and generated an unimaginable number of
online articles – suffice it to say that the googled key words “Obama’s tango”
generated 2,200,000 results on March 28 – in all types of news outlets; from
OT
respected papers (The New York Times published three articles on the subject as
did Politico.com) to entertainment and gossip sites, and even fashion magazines
(The Hollywood Reporter, People, Vogue, PerezHilton.com all published the news).
Obviously, celebrity culture had been in existence for a few decades before
SN
Obama entered its ranks – as Ellis Cashmore notes, it “became a feature of social
life […] during the late 1980s/early 1990s” – but politics was not necessarily
suitable or sensational enough for the kind of stories it needed (an exception, as
OF
Kellner (2009, 717) observes, is Clinton’s sex scandal in the 1990s). The evolution
of the Internet and the unprecedented proliferation of social media in the 2000s,
however, along with the development of news into a merger of information and
entertainment, led to politicians and politics becoming part of the celebrity
RO
culture and increasingly being mediated in such a way as to be viewed as

alluring spectacle, culminating in what Kellner calls Obama’s “supercelebrity”
(ibid., 717). Politicians and political decisions and/or scandals compete nowa-
FP
days almost equally with similar news about A-list Hollywood stars, TV reality
personas and other sensational stories. This all-encompassing status that celebrity
culture has taken in the 2000s and 2010s can also explain the emergence and
subsequent appeal and popularity of political shows in the 2010s. No longer are
T&
political shows deemed boring or unappetizing. The merger of stories that may
“photograph” real events and people with new and successful narrative
9781472486042_text.3d;

elements, such as the anti-hero/heroine and the somber and decadent atmosphere
have created a series of political shows that not only entertain viewers but have
the potential to ignite interest in and/or even educate them about current political
N
affairs.
IO
After all, the main political concern in all the 2010s political shows, with the
possible exception of Veep, is US international relations and terrorism. The
source of terror predominantly originates from the Middle East (Homeland,
UT
Madam Secretary, Scandal) and secondarily Russia (House of Cards, The
Americans), trailing the newest arena of actual international relations that was
created in a post-9/11 world.
RIB
There is a notable distinction, however, that separates the political shows
during the Bush years and the ones that appeared after Obama took office. That
difference lies in the complex and much more nuanced representation of the
“Other,” as well as the depiction of the American protagonist. Take Home-
IST
land’s three first seasons, for instance: not only is Carrie a troubled yet brilliant
CIA officer who is continuously threatened by fits of mania that stem from her
bipolar disorder, but Brody is not represented as a simple case of an American
soldier who “was turned” during his long captivity by a Middle-Eastern terrorist.
RD
In her thesis on Showtime’s show, Maia McCabe rightly observes that Brody is
portrayed as “a logical, traumatized, and angry man,” an individual “easy to
sympathize with,” and “an unusually complicated and deeply examined terrorist
FO
compared to other terrorists on television including those who plague Jack Bauer.”
McCabe continues, stating that Brody’s “qualities are enlightening and effectively
counter larger discursive narratives, which dehumanizes terrorists completely,”
concluding that “The central issue pushing Brody to terrorist tactics is based in
OT
politics, and Homeland makes a specific effort to dispel the idea that Brody was
coerced into a violent position” (McCabe 2015, 36).
With Brody’s death at the end of season three, Homeland’s next season
moved the action to the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, but not accidentally.
SN
Drawing part of the plot from a 2014 US drone attack that killed several innocent
people that were about to celebrate a wedding in Yemen (Friedersdorf 2014),
Carrie’s main target is Taliban leader, Hassaim Haqqani (Numan Acar), who is
OF
thought to be planning a terrorist attack to avenge a drone strike that killed

most members of his family during a wedding ceremony. Similarly, Season Five,
“Thanks to a Prescient Focus on ISIS,” has “become a crucial dark mirror of
our times” (Wolcott 2015). Wolcott argues that Homeland has managed to
RO
foresee terrible events and after presenting a dialogue that Quinn (Rupert
Friend) has with an unnamed CIA employee, he concludes:
FP
Quinn’s analysis resonates because of its power of prophecy, not prescription.

It’s as if the show’s writers […] were dictating the newspapers of tomor-
row. Here we are seven weeks after the Season 5 premiere and the front
pages of The New York Times this weekend feature an interactive tour of
T&
Raqqa, capital of ISIS, and an article on the cognitive dissonance implanted

into intelligence reports regarding the ISIS upsurge.
9781472486042_text.3d;

Indeed, as I watched Homeland’s season five unfold, I was equally surprised at
how the writers were able to anticipate such terrible events as the November
2015 Paris attacks, their in-depth analysis of the Western intelligence failures, as
N
well as the Western role in the Syrian Civil War. Nevertheless, what strikes me
IO
as the most important aspect of the show is best described by Sophie Gilbert in
The Atlantic, when she writes that Homeland is “offering a remarkably
insightful take on the compromised morality of everyone involved in the war on
UT
terror, regardless of allegiance” (2015). Almost no situation in Homeland is
depicted in a black and white context. Islam is not denounced a priori; instead
representations of Muslims range from family men and women to hard-core
RIB
jihadists and the same goes for the representation of American CIA officers,
politicians, and in season five German characters.
Another show that draws inspiration from real-life international relation
events is Madam Secretary. After the season one finale, The New Yorker pub-
IST
lished an article commenting on how the fictitious deal that Madam Secretary
Elizabeth McCord signed with Iran was not “likely to happen anytime soon” in
real life despite the scheduled negotiations that were to begin that week (Wright
RD
2015). Yet, on July 14, 2015 (226 years to the day after the Storming of the
Bastille), a deal of historical proportions was signed in Vienna between Iran
and the group of nations known as the P5+1 (the permanent members of the
UN Security Council and Germany), preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon (Economist 2015). In addition, Sulagna Misra writes that its “universe
FO
can often feel like a surreal look into a parallel reality” (Misra 2014). Having
viewed half of the first season, Misra pinpoints specific cases of how the show
not only informs viewers about international relations they probably were not
aware of – i.e. “The dispute between China and Japan over islands in the South
OT
China Sea,” or the political ideology of the new Prime Minister of India – but
also comments on instances where she feels the writers could have done more –
i.e. the episode on the fictional Republic of West Africa, who Misra considers
SN
another case of “conflating [African countries] into one vague idea of ‘war-torn
Africa’” (ibid.).
OF
Gender politics in contemporary political shows

One of the questions that immediately come to mind in thinking about the
many political television shows that are now being produced is why this is
RO
happening now, in our time period? After Watergate and 9/11, some speculate
that what our leaders have been telling us is no longer believable on the face of
it. T.A. Frank (2013) has speculated that the public has lost faith in our “gov-
FP
erning elites,” and we no longer can suspend our disbelief in what politicians
are telling us.
This disillusionment with politics may also have paved the way for seeing
more women playing a prominent role in the fictional stories about Washington,
T&
D.C. on television right now. One of the reasons that this shift has occurred is
that viewers may be becoming more comfortable with women as leaders.
9781472486042_text.3d;

Rosemary Neill (2014) cites Laura Sivis from the non-profit group Women in Film
and Television, who notes that women are now entering politics in increasing
numbers, which has led to an acceptance of seeing women play political roles on
N
television and film. As of this writing, the United States is gearing up to possibly
elect its first female president, Hillary Clinton, and the television shows that
IO
feature women prominently as leaders may be a reflection of this possibility.
Perhaps because of this historic opportunity, viewers may be looking for dif-
UT
ferent kinds of politicians and different stories about Washington than have
been previously told from a primarily male perspective.
A third reason is that we are now living in a television Renaissance wherein
RIB
women are now finally beginning to be the storytellers in Hollywood in numbers
rarely seen before. They have become showrunners in a variety of genres, including
those that involve a storyline about Washington, D. C. This may perhaps explain
why there are now increasing numbers of women who are leading television
IST
series as the main character, whether as politicians or wives of politicians, as well
as investigators, prison inmates, former captives, twenty-somethings, doctors and
so on. The year 2015 saw as well the addition of several new shows with female
RD
leads who range from a female superhero to a ballerina to a woman who runs a
reality show as well as an Asian-American woman leading a situation comedy.
These women, furthermore, exhibit a range of character traits, from heroic to
evil to anti-heroic and everything in between. On HBO’s satirical Veep Vice-
FO
President Selina Meyer (Julia Louis Dreyfus) plays in a parody of Washington,

D.C. as consisting of people who are obsessed with their status and image. On
CBS’s Madam Secretary, by contrast, which drew 14.8 million viewers for its
debut episode, Téa Leoni plays Elizabeth McCord as an earnest, well-meaning
OT
secretary of State, drawing comparisons to Jed Bartlet of The West Wing, an

earlier incarnation of a television President with integrity. Cold and calculating
Claire (House of Cards), brilliant yet troubled Carrie (Homeland), manip-
ulative and detached Elizabeth (The Americans), and “warrior” Olivia (Scandal)
SN
are among the exemplary and multi-faceted female characters which dominate
the contemporary political universe on American television.
Regarding political television shows, two women, Shonda Rhimes and Barbara
OF
Hall, have brought to life two different yet equally interesting female central
characters. Rhimes, a 46 year-old African American woman, has created a
number of highly successful series, including the ABC’s medical drama Grey’s
Anatomy (2005–present), it’s ABC’s spinoff, Private Practice (2007–2013), as well
RO
as ABC’s How to Get Away With Murder (2014–present), and along with other
prominent showrunners, is literally changing the face of nighttime television. In
fact, Rhimes’ shows have become part of a phenomenon whereby ABC’s
FP
Thursday night line-up features two hours of her shows, which they have
capitalized on by using the promotional tag line, “Thank God It’s Thursday.”
Rhimes’ most popular Thursday show is Scandal (2012–present), a series tangen-
tially based on the life of Judy Smith, who serves as a crisis manager in
T&
Washington. On the one hand, Scandal can be viewed as a procedural with soap
opera elements. The main character, Olivia Pope, who is African-American, is
9781472486042_text.3d;

having an affair with the president of the United States, a Republican named
Fitzgerald Grant, who is played by Tony Goldwyn. Willa Paskin writes that the
show is a “brash, addictive mixture of Douglas Sirk and real politick, and TV’s
N
most outrageous spectacle” (Paskin 2013). The show has over 8 million viewers,
IO
including those from the coveted 18–49 year old demographic. In 2013, Scandal
was the number one rated show on the 10pm time slot, and has such a loyal fan
base that it has generated a large group of people who are connecting via social
UT
media, tweeting each other at least 190,000 times per episode (ibid.).
Yet, despite its popularity, Scandal has received negative criticism. Verne Gay
(2012), for instance, believes the show portrays Washington, D.C., as a “city of
RIB
dirty, little secrets,” although he admits the show is anything but boring. Other
writers have reacted in starkly negative terms to the soap opera aspects of the
show. Michael Starr (2015), for example, refers to Scandal as a “bloated day-
time soap masquerading as a trailblazing cultural gamechanger.” Other writers
IST
such as Jen Winston (2014) directly counter this by saying that, despite its
melodramatic format, it is one of the most progressive shows on television.
When Rhimes herself addresses this criticism, she speaks to the kind of
sexism that lay behind the descriptions of the show as either “ridiculous,” or “a
RD
guilty pleasure.” She bristles at the ways in which the show has been reduced to
a form of “chick lit” for female television viewers simply because it is perceived
as being made for women. She observes that “It’s superinsulting that because
Olivia is a woman, and the girl who wrote ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ wrote this, it
FO
must be for chicks… Like if it’s geared for women, it’s somehow not as serious
as if it’s geared for men” (Paskin 2013).
For some critics, this kind of easy dismissal on the basis of gender is a
OT
symptom of a larger kind of sexism which dismisses Scandal as a kind of soap

opera, and obscures the ways in which it follows in a line of other shows that
are about Washington politics and are given much more of a positive critical
appraisal. Paskin (2013), for instance, offers the following “test” to viewers:
SN
Try this blind test: A politician and a workaholic have a passionate extra-
marital affair that endangers their careers and national security. A scheming
OF
Washington insider murders an innocent and makes it look like a suicide to

further his own career. A person assumes a false identity after a gruesome
incident and uses that identity to build a new life. To protect his legacy, a
man preemptively murders a former ally once essential to his success.
RO
Paskin then reveals that these plot descriptions are from Homeland, House of
Cards, Mad Men and Breaking Bad. However, when they are on Scandal, they
FP
are viewed as outrageous and soap operaish. As male auteurs, the showrunners
of the other programs have received critical praise, but Rhimes has been treated
with skepticism and outright scorn.
This is not to say that Rhimes does not embrace the melodramatic elements
T&
of the show that make it so popular with audiences. However, what makes
Scandal innovative is that it reverses the usual characters who wield power,
9781472486042_text.3d;

white males, and instead puts women, gays and African-Americans front and
center. Olivia is an African-American female who is the spin expert who helps
the president and then the first lady get out of trouble time and again, while the
N
president’s chief of staff is a gay man who orchestrates the wheels of power,
IO
often without the president’s knowledge.
Yet, Rhimes has played down the role reversals that these characters
embody, saying: “I think it’s sad, and weird, and strange that it’s still a
UT
thing” (Paskin 2013). Perhaps because of this, the character of Olivia is
treated in similar terms as other soap opera or melodramatic characters might
be treated, rather than as a symbol of racial politics. Rhimes is clear that she
RIB
didn’t want her characters to serve as mouthpieces that are somehow sup-
posed to represent how all black people or gay people feel. She has said that
her characters, like herself, live with their race and sex every day and in this
way, don’t walk around mouthing dialogue about how they feel as a black
IST
person (ibid.).
On the other hand, Rhimes has created a show that both voices and also
questions traditional tenets of feminism. For example, Rhimes offers female
RD
characters with different body shapes, and in this way, radicalizes the notion
that women are only attractive if they fit into one set body type. Her women
are career women, stay at home women, Republican pro-life women and feminists.
Their politics in terms of gender are all over the map, rather than representing
one fixed position on feminism, and the characters voice critiques of sexism in
FO
politics in a way few other shows on television currently do.

For example, Lisa Kudrow as Senator Josephine Marcus gave a monologue
on Scandal cataloging the ways that Americans “speak in code” about gender.
OT
During an interview, Senator Marcus speaks directly to the question of whether

there is coded language about her as a woman in the election campaign language
of not only her opponent, Governor Reston, but of the interviewer and the
media more generally:
SN
“I know what prejudice looks like… It’s not about experience, James. It’s
about gender. Reston’s saying I don’t have the balls to be President, and he
OF
means that literally. It’s offensive. It’s offensive to me, and to all the
women whose votes he’s asking for.”
(Stewart 2013)
RO
More generally, the fact that gender features so prominently on Scandal, and in
particular, the experiences of female characters who are both powerful and
weak; who are political and yet have personal life backstories, may explain why
FP
the dominant audience for the show are women. Whether it is considered a
nighttime soap opera, a melodrama or a political thriller, the fact that the central
dynamic of the show is not only about the ways in which power works in
Washington, D.C. but also how the ongoing love affair between Olivia and the
T&
president continues on each season through various twists and turns, may perhaps
explain its appeal to a female audience.
9781472486042_text.3d;

For example, in the 2012 season, only 26% of Scandal viewers aged 18–49
were male, which some attribute to its melodramatic elements. This is similar
to what happens with Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy, which is why the showrunner
N
has said that she no longer pays attention to the ratings. However, Rhimes
IO
believes that Scandal is about much more than romance, and while it does deal
with the romance between the president and Olivia, it also offers a satirical
look at how the government is run as much for image control as for creating
UT
and executing policies (Martin 2013).
To summarize, Rhimes has created a show that, while some have accused it
of being simply a soap opera, which has in turn led to accusations that the new
RIB
golden age of television is “over” (Ross 2015), others view it as a “gleeful
reduction ad absurdum of post-Watergate politics […]” (Bass 2015). In fact, for
some critics, Scandal offers a much more perceptive view of Washington than
other contemporary shows. T.A. Frank (2013), for example, describes the show
IST
as evolving from a soap opera into “a full-scale exploration of a post-apocalyptic
society,” and observes that “its strength is that it portrays powerful people
telling themselves that the dubious things they’re doing, like killing off enemies,
RD
are defensible in the name of some higher purpose.”
Barbara Hall’s Madam Secretary

FO
Scandal stands in stark contrast to CBS’s political drama Madam Secretary,

created by Barbara Hall, who also created Joan of Arcadia (CBS, 2003–2005)
and Judging Amy (CBS, 1995–2005), and also worked on Homeland. Hall was a
political science major in college and then had originally wanted to be a journalist
OT
or a political writer. However, she ended up writing television shows about law
and created Judging Amy, which explored the legal world of juvenile justice.
While she was interested in politics, she didn’t describe herself as an expert, but
rather as an “informed voter,” who was therefore able to tell a compelling story
SN
about the world of politics because she was able to research it with ideas that
weren’t “pre-formed” (Horn 2014).
Other scripted political TV shows such as Veep, House of Cards, Homeland
OF
and Scandal have a cynical attitude about how people in government work.
Madam Secretary – which has been renewed for a third season as of March 25,
2016 – by contrast tries to portray the people who hold government jobs as
hardworking and dedicated to making Washington, D.C. responsive to the
RO
needs of the country. The program, produced by Hall, Morgan Freeman and
Lori McCreary, revolves around the life of female Secretary of State, Elizabeth
“Bess” McCord (Téa Leoni), who works on issues of international diplomacy at
FP
the same time she is portrayed as trying to navigate her family life with her
husband and three children as well as office politics. McCord was a college
professor and had served as a CIA analyst for twenty years but eventually
retired from the agency because she had ethical qualms with the work as well as
T&
because it conflicted with her family life. She is chosen for the job by the Pre-
sident of the United States, Conrad Dalton (Keith Carradine), who was her
9781472486042_text.3d;

previous boss in the CIA and who wanted her precisely because she wouldn’t be
a regular “politician,” as well as because of her expertise on the Middle East,
and her ability to think “outside the box.” (Season 1, Episode 1, “Pilot”). Her
N
husband, Henry (Tim Daly), is a military man who now works as a philosophy
IO
professor. The weekly plot usually revolves around international crises, punc-
tuated with office politics and then side stories of family conflicts, often in the
wake of Elizabeth’s job.
UT
One of the themes that unites Hall’s earlier works with Madam Secretary is
the fact that it tries to grapple with the reality of being a woman in a man’s
world, which is something that she herself experiences as a female showrunner.
RIB
In fact, Hall is clear that female showrunners are still a relatively new phenomenon
in an industry that until recently had an overwhelming amount of men telling
their stories. Because of this, Hall wants to be able to tell different stories,
portraying women who are confronted with ethical choices and who inhabit all
IST
kinds of leadership roles, including hopefully one day, a female president of the
United States. As she observes:
Of course, right now, we’re adjusting to the idea that – Elizabeth McCord
RD
will be the fourth female secretary of State – but of course we want all of it
to be one day that somebody’s kid will say, “What’s the big deal about a
female president,” you know?
FO
(Horn 2014)
While there have been female Secretaries of State in real life in the United
States, including Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton,
OT
Hall is clear that she did not model the character specifically on any one of
them. McCord’s character is in many ways a fantasy of what Hall would want
a politician to behave like. Unlike many contemporary political shows, McCord
is routinely confronted with attempts to compromise her integrity, and she
SN
invariably responds by doing the right thing, going so far as to quote her husband
Henry’s advice that “when everything seems to be lacking in integrity, you find
it in yourself”(Season 1, Episode 22, “There But for the Grace of God”). At
another point, she says, “I’ve never met a situation where I didn’t have a choice
OF
in the matter” (Season 1, Episode 1, “Pilot”). On the official website for the
show, there is an explicit link between McCord’s character traits and what it
means to be a leader, titled “Eleven Great Traits of a Leader Like Elizabeth
RO
McCord.” Interestingly enough, there is also another section that includes the
“Ten Best Family Moments on Madam Secretary,” which highlights ideas like
“strength in family,” where McCord and her husband Henry are shown navi-
FP
gating tense situations but still managing to keep “their marriage and family a
priority.” The “team McCord” as they often refer to themselves, are portrayed
as able to “stick together,” through difficult events such as Elizabeth being
asked to be Bureau Chief abroad early in her career or being subpoenaed before
T&
the Senate, which could impact her family. In fact, this event is understood
under the family title “Not Keeping Secrets,” which portrays Elizabeth and
9781472486042_text.3d;

Henry trying to be open and communicate with their children about the Senate
investigation in the episode “There But for the Grace of God” (Season 1, Epi-
sode 22). In this way, Hall attempts to show how female leaders, unlike male
N
leaders, are “tasked” with making sure that their family life remains intact even
IO
as they are called on to help the leader of the Free World keep peace and avert
crises around the world. Gender is infused in each and every scene, whether we
are watching McCord confront a difficult subordinate or seeing her struggle
UT
with her guilt over keeping her position even as two of her children on “team
McCord” tell her that they want her to quit her job because it is making their
lives so miserable.
RIB
In these and other ways, Leoni has commented on how Hall wants to be able to
create something different from other political shows. In addition to the question
of negotiating work and family roles for women, there is also the question of the
way in which Washington culture is now increasingly polarized. Hall wants to
IST
elevate the conversation by portraying how difficult it is to make Washington
work, and how the people who work in government are trying to do a good job
nonetheless, and with integrity. The gendered aspect of the show is revealed as
RD
McCord attempts to confront various political crises by seeing both sides of the
situation, and trying to work collaboratively as a leader and let her subordinates
have a large role in framing international policy. As Leoni notes:
FO
I really enjoy that this show is… I’m not going to say it’s more realistic
(than other political shows) […] But I do think there is a truth behind
people who are willing to give everything they have, including a kind of,
yes, magnificent integrity. That’s what they strive for every day.
OT
(Harris 2016)
By moving away from a polarized view of political discourse, Hall is aiming for a
different kind of way of representing politics, and of portraying the work of the
SN
secretary of State in particular as one who is able to see the other parties’ per-
spective on an issue. Above all else, Madam Secretary tries to show that a woman
can lead the country, even as she is being held to an arguably much higher standard
OF
than men are. Former secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who made a guest
appearance on Madam Secretary (Season 2, Episode 1, “The Doability Doctrine”),
told her fictional counterpart: “Look, there is plenty of room for mediocre men.
There’s no room for mediocre women. And so you have to lead.”
RO
Bibliography
FP
Bass, Warren. “‘House of Cards,’ ‘Scandal’ and the State of Politics on TV.” The Wall
Street Journal. February 25, 2015. Accessed April 3, 2016. http://blogs.wsj.com/spea
keasy/2015/02/25/house-of-cards-scandal-and-the-state-of-politics-on-tv/
Burstein, David D. “‘Veep’ Creator Armando Iannucci On The Real Comedy Of Politics.”
T&
Co.Create. April 20, 2012. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.fastcocreate.com/

1680639/veep-creator-armando-iannucci-on-the-real-comedy-of-politics
9781472486042_text.3d;

Carter, Bill. “‘Homeland’ Raises the Anxiety Level.” New York Times. September 12,
2012. Accessed March 6, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/arts/television/
homeland-returns-for-second-season-on-showtime.html?_r=0
N
Cashmore, Ellis. Celebrity Culture. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Chaney, Jen. “‘House of Cards’ Season 4, Episode 8: Politics Is Show Business.” New
IO
York Times. March 9, 2016. Accessed March 28, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/
2016/03/09/arts/television/house-of-cards-season-4-episode-8-politics-is-show-business.
html.
UT
Chapman, James, Mark Glancy and Sue Harper. “Introduction.” In New Film History.
Sources, Methods, Approaches, edited by James Chapman, Mark Glancy and Sue
Harper. New York: Routledge, 2007. 1–10.
RIB
Egner, Jeremy. “Those Cute Spies Around the Corner. ‘The Americans’ With Keri Russell
as a K.G.B. Agent.” New York Times. January 24, 2013. Accessed March 7, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/arts/television/the-americans-with-keri-russell-as-a-
kgb-agent.html
IST
Faye, Dennis. “Madam Showrunner.” Writers Guild of America. October 31, 2014.
Accessed March 26, 2016. http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5665
Frank, T.A. “America’s Least-Favorite City Has Become Television’s Favorite Subject.”
The New Republic. November 25, 2013. Accessed April 3, 2016. https://newrepublic.
RD
com/article/115690/washington-tv-politics-scandal-homeland-veep
Friedersdorf, Conor. “The Wedding That a U.S. Drone Strike Turned Into a Funeral.”
The Atlantic. January 9, 2014. Accessed March 12, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/
international/archive/2014/01/the-wedding-that-a-us-drone-strike-turned-into-a-funeral/
FO
282936/
Furlong, Maggie. “‘Scandal’ On ABC: Cast And Creators On Real-Life Inspiration,
Taking On The White House And More.” The Huffington Post. May 15, 2012.
Accessed March 6, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/scandal-abc-cast-in
terviews_n_1397394.html
OT
Gay, Verne. “Shonda Rhimes’ ‘Scandal’ Premieres on ABC.” Newsday.Com. April 3,

2012. Accessed April 4, 2012. http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/shonda-rhim
es-scandal-premieres-on-abc-1.3641090
SN
Genette, Gérard. Figures III. Paris: Seuil, 1972.

Gilbert, Sophie. “A Whole New Homeland.” The Atlantic. October 2, 2015. Accessed
March 16, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/homela
nd-season-five-showtime-review/408595/
Harris, Bill. “Tea Leoni of Madam Secretary Aims for Edgy, Not Trashy.” Toronto Sun.
OF
com. March 24, 2013. Accessed April 4, 2016. http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/24/

tea-leoni-of-madam-secretary-aims-for-edgy-not-trashy
Harvey, Chris. “House of Cards’ Creator Beau Willimon: ‘All Politicians Are Murderers’.”
RO
The Telegraph. February 11, 2014. Accessed March 8, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

culture/tvandradio/10629159/House-of-Cards-creator-Beau-Willimon-All-politicians-are-
murderers.html
Hirschbein, Ron. The United States and Terrorism: An Ironic Perspective. Lanham:
FP
Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Horn, Josh. “Madam Secretary Creator Barbara Hall on Being a Female Showrunner
and Creating a Reluctant Hero.” September 22, 2014. Accessed April 3, 2016. http://
www.vulture.com/2014/09/madam-secretary-creator-barbara-hall-on.html
T&
Kellner, Douglas. “Barack Obama and Celebrity Spectacle.” International Journal of

Communication. 3, 2009. 715–741.
9781472486042_text.3d;

Martin, Denise. “Shonda Rhimes Talks Scandal’s Brutal Season 3 and the Issue of Lik-
ability.” Vulture. December 6, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2016. http://www.vulture.com/
2013/12/shonda-rhimes-talks-season-3-of-scandal.html
N
McCabe, Maia. “Marine to Muslim: Islam, Terror, and United States Foreign Policy on
Homeland.” Senior Capstone Projects. Paper 428. Vassar College. 2015. PDF.
IO
Milzoff, Rebecca. “The Showrunner Transcript: Homeland’s Alex Gansa and Howard
Gordon on Last Night’s Big Reveal and What’s Next for the Series. Vulture.
November 21, 2011. Accessed March 6, 2016. http://www.vulture.com/2011/11/show
UT
runner-transcript-homelands-alex-gansa-and-howard-gordon-on-last-nights-big-reveal-
and-whats-next-for-the-series.html
Misra, Sulagna. “Geopolitical Fictions: Fantasy, Reality, and International Diplomacy on
RIB
‘Madam Secretary’.” Flavorwire. December 2, 2014. Accessed March 13, 2016. http://
flavorwire.com/490799/geopolitical-fictions-fantasy-reality-and-international-diploma
cy-on-madam-secretary
Moraes, Lisa de. “TCA: CBS’ ‘Madam Secretary’ Sprang From Hillary Clinton And
IST
Benghazi, Exec Producer Says.” Deadline. July 17, 2014. Accessed March 9, 2016.
http://deadline.com/2014/07/tca-cbss-madam-secretary-sprang-from-hillary-clinton-and-
benghazi-exec-producer-says-805476/
n.a. “A Historic Deal.” Economist. July 14, 2015. Accessed June 23, 2015. http://www.
RD
economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21657654-nuclear-deal-marks-milestone-
irans-relations-world-details-matter-wary-hope
Neill, Rosemary. “Leading ladies call the shots in TV dramas such as Madam Secre-
tary.” The Australian.com. November 29, 2014. Accessed April 2, 2016. http://www.
FO
theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/leading-ladies-call-the-shots-in-tv-dramas-such-as-ma
dam-secretary/news-story/db5cde02eef117f2438badb78eab7e34
Paskin, Willa. “Network TV Is Broken. So How Does Shonda Rhimes Keep Making
Hits?” The New York Times. May 9, 2013. Accessed April 3, 2016. http://www.nytim
es.com/2013/05/12/magazine/shonda-rhimes.html?_r=0
OT
Porter, Rick. “‘Scandal’: Shonda Rhimes and Show Inspiration Judy Smith on the ‘Juicy
Mystery’ of Season 1.” Zap2it. April 5, 2012. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://zap2it.com/
2012/04/scandal-shonda-rhimes-and-show-inspiration-judy-smith-on-the-juicy-mystery-
SN
of-season-1/
Ross, L.A. “The ‘Empire’ Effect: Networks Bank on Primetime Soaps Over Prestige
Dramas.” TheWrap.com. March 5, 2015. Accessed April 3, 2016. http://www.the
wrap.com/empire-effect-networks-banking-on-primetime-soaps-over-prestige-dramas/
OF
Skocpol, Theda and Vanessa Williamson. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican
Conservatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Starr, Michael. “‘Scandal’ is the dumbest show on TV.” New York Post.com. October
19, 2015. Accessed April 4, 2016. http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/scandal-is-the-dumbest-
RO
show-on-tv/
Stewart, Dodai. “Lisa Kudrow Goes HAM in an Epic Speech on Sexism in Politics.” Jezebel.
August 8, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2016. http://jezebel.com/scandal-lisa-kudrow-goes-ham-
in-an-epic-speech-on-sexi-1460876002
FP
Suebsaeng, Asawin. “‘Veep’ Creator Armando Iannucci on Why He’d Never, Ever Allow Joe
Biden on the Show.” Mother Jones. June 15, 2013. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.
motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/06/armando-iannucci-interview-veep-hbo-joe-biden
THR Staff. Alex Gansa and Howard Gordon on What Inspired ‘Homeland.’ The Hol-
T&
lywood Reporter. August 22, 2014. Accessed March 6, 2016. http://www.hollywoo

dreporter.com/video/alex-gansa-howard-gordon-what-726875
9781472486042_text.3d;

Website for Madam Secretary. http://www.cbs.com/shows/madam-secretary/photos/
1005951/11-great-traits-of-a-leader-like-madam-secretary/105038/have-a-sense-of-humor-/
Winston, Jen. “7 Reasons to Shut Down Anyone Who Says ‘Scandal’ Is Just a Soap Opera.”
N
Arts.Mic. February 26, 2014. Accessed April 1, 2016. http://mic.com/articles/83403/7-rea
sons-to-shut-down-anyone-who-says-scandal-is-just-a-soap-opera#.LanLVCr8m
IO
Wolcott, James. “Homeland Is Back, Thanks to a Prescient Focus on ISIS.” Vanity Fair.
November 23, 2015. Accessed March 12, 2016. http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/
2015/11/homeland-season-5-review-isis-europe
UT
Wright, Robin. “‘Madam Secretary’ and the Real Iran Deal.” The New Yorker. May 5,
2015. Accessed August 16, 2015. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/madam
-secretary-and-the-real-iran-deal
RIB
Zezima, Katie. “Presidents Have Favorite Television Shows, Too. Here’s a List.”
Washington Post. June 27, 2014. Accessed March 6, 2016. https://www.washingtonp
ost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/06/27/presidents-have-favorite-television-shows-
too-heres-a-list/
IST
RD
FO
OT
SN
OF
RO
FP
T&
9781472486042_text.3d;
7 The Cold War (re)-visited in House

of Cards and The Americans
N
IO
Betty Kaklamanidou
UT
RIB
As noted in the introduction of this collection, the majority of political shows
on millennial American television share a dystopian view of politics, one
IST
fraught with scandal, incompetence, fraud and exploitation, irrespective of their
satirical/comedic or dramatic narrative modes. Despite the fact that the dark
side of politics is always present in every fictional representation to create the
RD
necessary narrative conflict between good and evil, in the past it was usually
reserved for secondary characters. The 2010s, however, introduced a narrative,
which dared question the integrity of the American political protagonist. Shows
of the second decade of the 2000s went as far as to depict the president as a
murderer (House of Cards and Scandal), creating a fictional political cosmos
FO
that is populated by astonishingly flawed individuals, with the possible exception

of Madam Secretary, whose protagonist has not yet made her dark side apparent –
if she even has one. Yet, despite the overwhelming darkness of both characters
and plot, and the questions they raise in both the media and academia, I find
OT
that all the shows share a narrative parameter; the idea of the USA. as the only
political system that can save the world from evil powers and bring prosperity
to humanity.
SN
In this chapter, I therefore argue that despite the obvious and oftentimes
unforgivable transgressions of the majority of these shows’ main characters,
and the representation of the unseen illicit workings of the political arena, the
OF
narratives still promote American exceptionalism, interventionism, and capitalist

ideology. Thus, I see contemporary political shows as the continuation of classic
films and TV shows of the past in that they safeguard the core of American ideo-
logy, despite having assimilated the fact that modern viewers are more sophisti-
RO
cated and certainly more informed and could not easily accept a simple good vs.
evil dichotomy. Yet, even in the present television landscape with its multi-faceted
and complicated characters that operate in-between good and evil – usually leaning
FP
towards the second pole – Russia or the ex-USSR has re-emerged as a major
antagonist. Interestingly, this narrative choice enforces not only the cultural
verisimilitude of the shows, bringing fiction one step closer to real life, but it
enforces the shows’ nuanced underlining of American uniqueness and superiority.
T&
This chapter concentrates on the relationship between Russia/ex-USSR in

House of Cards and The Americans, two shows I view as exemplary of
9781472486042_text.3d;
106 Betty Kaklamanidou

contemporary political narratives and also promoters of American exceptionalism.
My methodology includes a macro-narrative analysis of the shows’ seasons in
order to extract the main narrative arcs. I aim to show that despite the corruption,
N
darkness and perversion that reign in the representation of US political tactics
in these two fictional universes, a parallel narrative maintains if not empowers
IO
the major policies and decisions of the US government. I am borrowing the
term American exceptionalism from the rhetoric of the GOP but I am using it
UT
in this chapter as a politically neutral expression for the following reasons; first,
although there is no translation of the word “exceptionalism” in Greek, its
paraphrase is well understood in the Hellenic and I would add European context
RIB
as a rhetoric of uncontested superiority that the USA promotes irrespective of
whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in power. I consequently argue
that most political TV shows insist, albeit indistinctly, on the nation’s exceptional
character, so much so that it has become a trope repeated in a great number of film
IST
and television narratives, irrespective of genre, perpetuating a type of political
theory that finds the structure of the USA as exceptional and unfaltering.
RD
American exceptionalism as myth and cultural channels
of dissemination
Before I move to the analysis of the shows, a brief presentation of the notion
FO
and history of American exceptionalism is needed to elucidate its many facets, as

well as the meanings it has acquired diachronically. The “exceptional” character
of the United States may have been spread worldwide through Alexis de Toc-
queville’s Democracy in America (1835–1840), but its birth is situated earlier.
William V. Spanos finds the origins of American exceptionalism “in the American
OT
Puritans’ divinely ordained ‘errand in the wilderness’ to build ‘a City on a Hill,’

as John Winthrop put it in his sermon on board The Arabella in 1620” (Spanos
2008, 65). America’s “exceptional” character was soon transformed into “[t]he
SN
metaphor of the sheriff/posse,” deriving “from the history of the American

West” (ibid., 5). Spanos argues that this metaphor is “a late variation of the
exploitative pacification process of westward expansionism,” and carries with it
OF
the entire baggage of the teleological metanarrative of the American frontier, from
the Puritans’ “errand in the wilderness” through de Tocqueville’s identification of
“the gradual development of the principle of equality” in America as “a provi-
dential fact” to the discourse of “Manifest Destiny” and beyond (ibid., 5). Spanos
RO
concludes that the insistence on the United States’ uniqueness “has saturated the
cultural discourse of America, both high and low, since its origins,” informing
literature, political writing, and historiography across decades. This myth “has
FP
always functioned to secure – and rejuvenate – the American national consensus

in behalf of its providentially ordained mission to domesticate (and dominate)
what is beyond the frontier” (ibid., 6).
Michael Ignatieff argues that in the 20th century American exceptionalism
T&
has developed three distinct variants. The first is what he labels exemptionalism,
that is America’s support of “multilateral agreements and regimes,” only to the
9781472486042_text.3d;
The Cold War (re)visited 107

extent they “permit exemptions for American citizens or U.S. practices” (Ignatieff
2005, 4). Examples of exemptionalism include, among others, the 1998 United
States negotiations with the International Criminal Court and their securing
N
“guarantees that its military, diplomats, and politicians would never come
before that court,” as well as the nation’s “withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on
IO
Climate Change” (ibid., 4). The second variation is “double standards.” Ignatieff
claims that “[t]he United States judges itself by standards different from those it
UT
uses to judge other countries, and judges its friends by standards different from
those it uses for its enemies” (ibid., 7). For instance, America “criticizes other
states for ignoring the reports of UN rights bodies, while refusing to accept
RIB
criticism of its own domestic rights performance from the same UN bodies”
(ibid., 7). The last variant in Ignatieff’s taxonomy is legal isolationism, as
“American judges are exceptionally resistant to using foreign human rights
precedents to guide them in their domestic opinions” (ibid., 8).
IST
Ignatieff also notes that exceptionalism was used as a political tool. When the
USA became a superpower after WWII, its “presidents have articulated a
strongly messianic vision of the American role in promoting rights abroad”
(ibid., 13). Of course, the accomplishment of this role would have to come “at
RD
the lowest possible cost to its national interest and with the lowest possible
impingement upon its own domestic rights system” (ibid., 13). Thus, as Ignatieff
concludes, both Republicans and Democrats designed policies “to promote
FO
American values abroad and to safeguard them from foreign interference at

home” (ibid., 14).
As noted, Spanos calls the notion of American exceptionalism a myth, and I
would like to elaborate on his choice of the word. Godfrey Hodgson writes that
“American history has been forced into a distorted and selective narrative of
OT
exceptional virtue” (Hodgson 2009, xvi), that is an amalgam of carefully chosen

stories that woven together create another story; that of a perfect nation, a
country “under God,” powerful and envied by all, with an important mission
SN
that only its people can bring to fruition. Myth has a long history but it was
Roland Barthes (1957, 1979) and Claude Lévi-Strauss (1963) that argued most
comprehensively about its definition and function. The first saw myths as a
OF
discourse, a system of communication, while the latter maintained that these

popular stories were assisting the societies that gave birth to them to deal with
and even solve their inner conflicts. Furthermore, Barthes claimed that no myth
is eternal because once its host-society is no longer concerned with the relevant
RO
conflict, then the myth has no reason to be passed down to the next generation.
Exceptionalism, for example, is a notion that once accompanied other countries,
such as the British Empire and the French Colonial Empire. However, once the
FP
British and the French lost their colonies, the notion and use of their unique
position fell gradually into disarray by their political authorities. Therefore, in
the beginning of the 21st century, it is only the myth of American exceptionalism
that still carries weight, as “it is the last imperial ideology left standing in the
T&
world, the sole survivor of imperial claims to universal significance” (Ignatieff

2005, 16). Spanos rightly observes that the notion of exceptionalism was
9781472486042_text.3d;

solidified, recycled and perpetuated through American culture. It is no coincidence
that Spanos adds the Hollywood western to his list of cultural products that cele-
brate the nation’s superpower. Hollywood’s global domination, especially after
N
WWII, has already been likened to that of a powerful propaganda machine by
IO
British director Alan Parker (Palmer 1993, 9). Westerns and many other popular
film genres not only promote the idea of an exceptional America to its citizens,
but imprint the same idea to millions of spectators all over the world.
UT
In today’s media-saturated world, American television should also be added
to Spanos’ list of cultural commodities as Internet streaming services (both legal
and illegal unfortunately) provide the global audience the opportunity to watch
RIB
the same shows at the same time with their American viewers. As noted, the
contemporary television political shows differ from their past counterparts, but
also from the majority of their cinematic versions in that they revolve around
villainous protagonists. Masters of intrigue and deception, murderers and self-
IST
serving hypocrites, such as President Underwood (House of Cards) and KGB
spies Philip and Elizabeth (The Americans) are the political characters that vie
each week for our attention, admiration, and even love. Although the history of
RD
popular and revered anti-heroes and anti-heroines did not begin with these
characters, it is worth mentioning that millennial American television, and
especially the 2010s is a time particularly responsive to dark, remorseless and
even irredeemable characters, even when they portray fictional versions of the
FO
nation’s actual political leaders.

In order for America to set the example and remain “the beacon of light in
the darkness” (Edwards and Weiss 2011, 1), it has to be superior in both the
way it treats its citizens (domestic policies), as well as behaves abroad (foreign
OT
policies). Foreign policy is, of course, the global arena that best exemplifies
America’s destiny as the ultimate conveyor of truth, justice and liberty. It is no
coincidence that most contemporary political shows prefer to tackle issues of
foreign policy than concentrate on domestic affairs. On the one hand, this
SN
narrative choice can be explained from an industrial and production perspective

as domestic issues, such as racial tensions, education, and healthcare undoubtedly
require severe criticism against politicians and this may deter producers, and
OF
especially networks, from investing on such narratives paths. On the other,

America’s involvement and relationships with other countries, and especially its
dealings with Russia despite the official end of the Cold War era, remain favorite
subplots of a great number of political shows as it not only attracts viewers, but
RO
helps with the nation’s post-9/11 collective trauma and fear of terrorism, and
reaffirms their belief in their Americanism.
FP
House of Cards’ Victor Petrov

The first two seasons of House of Cards focused on Frank Underwood’s ascent
to the position of president of the United States through intrigue, duplicity, and
T&
murder. Netflix’s first scripted drama mesmerized viewers and TV critics alike
since its appearance (see Goodman 2013, Perigard 2013 and McNamara 2013).
9781472486042_text.3d;

Despite its originating from an inexperienced new source – up to its release
Netflix was mainly known as an on-demand internet provider – the show’s first
season consisting of thirteen episodes garnered nine Primetime Emmy Awards
N
nominations and won three. The second season was even more positively
IO
welcomed (see Stanley 2014, Starr 2014 and Romano 2014) and the show’s
popularity was reflected during award season. House of Cards was praised for its
unpredictability (VanDerWerff 2014), its creators’ “storytelling powers” (Molloy
UT
2014), as well as its talented cast (Starr 2014). Stanley (2014) observes that more
than anything, the show’s grim view of politics and its focus on corrupt and
immoral politicians/protagonists, and especially Frank Underwood as a version of
RIB
Lyndon Johnson, give viewers the satisfaction that, at least, there is a fictional
political House of Cards that “assigns order and purpose to what, in real life, is
too often just an endless, baffling tick-tack-toe stalemate.”
Season 3, however, did not seem to strike the same positive chord as the
IST
previous two, and a number of reviewers voiced their disappointment. After all,
Frank had reached his ultimate goal. He had just been sworn in as the president
and could now claim the Oval Office and call the White House home. What was
there left to do? As Richard Lawson (2015) observes “it’s less entertaining seeing
RD
them [Frank and Claire] assert authority than it was watching them manipulate
it, bending it to their will,” while Goodman (2015) finds that the whole season
suffers from “story fatigue.” Nevertheless, I agree with those critics that found
season 3 the most accomplished, “most focused, and most absorbing” (Alston
FO
2015). I would argue that “Chapters 27” through “39” – all the episodes are
called chapters followed by an Arabic numeral – deal more with actual politics,
exactly because the Underwoods are now in the driver’s seat. Dishonesty,
OT
depravity and deception are, of course, woven again into the narrative fabric,
but this time, the viewers get to witness how decisions with immediate effect on
American citizens come about. What interests me, however, in this chapter, is
the use of US-Russian relations as one of the three main political arcs of the
SN
season. Surprisingly, the majority of reviews for season 3 either ignore this
subject entirely, and/or mention it quite briefly, focusing rather on Frank and
Claire’s course from happy allies to sworn enemies or the emphasis on secondary
OF
characters’ personalities.
Narratively speaking, Frank’s three main goals as the protagonists are his
attempt to implement an ambitious work program to combat unemployment to
the detriment of most entitlements, his endeavor to negotiate peace in the
RO
Middle East alongside Russia, and his winning the party’s nomination for the
2016 election. As such, the “use” of Russia as a potential ally of the United
States in the Middle East permeates the whole season, as nine out of the thirteen
FP
episodes either include discussion of the proposed peace talks (episodes 1, 4, 5,

7, 8), star the Russian president (episodes 3, 6, 9, 10) or even take place in
Moscow (episode 6).
In the premiere of season 3, President Underwood is promoting his idea of a
T&
bilateral approach for the Middle East, announcing that the focus of his talk
with Russian President Petrov in Washington is to find a way to address
9781472486042_text.3d;

tensions in the Jordan Valley. It is both timely and smart that the show’s writers
have picked Russia as Frank’s main antagonist in 2014. Premiering in late February
2015, “Chapters 27” through “39” were filmed between June and December 2014,
N
an especially turbulent time for US-Russian diplomatic relations, especially due to
IO
the Ukraine crisis and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in early 2014. On the
other hand, Russia has for a long time provided the film and television industries
with the “evil” pole of the good vs. evil equation. As Ruth Vasey (2004, 324)
UT
observes, in her account of Hollywood’s public relations abroad during the late
silent era, Russia was not a “lucrative” market for the film industry as it did
not impose any restrictions to film imports, and as such it was “never in a
RIB
position to influence Hollywood’s field of representation.” Therefore, producers
could easily “characterize their villains as Russians without worrying about
reprisals and boycotts” (Vasey 2004, 324). The representations of Russians did
change to more positive depictions as the USA entered WWII, but once the
IST
Cold War began, Russians were once again placed in the dark side of the narrative.
In today’s televised and cinematic cosmos, Russians as enemies are frequent
additions in spy thrillers and action/adventures. More than two decades after
the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems that the Cold War legacy “still shapes the
RD
relationship” of the two nations (Stent 2015, ix). Despite Barack Obama’s and
Dmitry Medvedev’s efforts to improve bilateral relations in 2010, Vladimir
Putin’s third election in 2012, a number of strategic actions by both nations,
FO
and Russia’s decision to grant political asylum to Edward Snowden in the

summer of 2013 complicated their relations once again.
In the fictional House of Cards, the USA and Russia meet again as potential
allies this time, and “Chapter 29” anticipates President Petrov’s arrival in
OT
Washington. Even before the credits the viewer witnesses a rally against Russia’s
homophobia and unjust treatment of the LGBT community that takes place
outside the White House. Frank instructs his chief of staff to have the band play
as loudly as possible once his visitor’s motorcade arrives but does not seem
SN
troubled by the protest. Yet, Petrov’s imminent visit is accompanied by negative

feelings even before he makes his first onscreen appearance.
Frank Pugliese, the writer of “Chapter 29”, cleverly imbues the context of
OF
Petrov’s visit with the indignation caused by a federal law that was voted in
Russia in 2013, which banned gay propaganda, imposing fines and making “it
illegal to equate straight and gay relationships, as well as the distribution of
material on gay rights” (Miriam Elder 2013). The law has since provoked not
RO
only a series of heated discussions but also protests worldwide, as well as an

HBO’s documentary Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia (2014). However,
as Marc Bennetts (2014) points out, although this law may be unjust, the public
FP
backlash against Putin following its implementation seems disproportionate to

what actually happens in Russia. Presenting facts from cases where police have
arrested individuals that attacked gay people or where assailants have been
convicted and are currently serving prison sentences, Bennetts compares Russia
T&
with other countries that have imposed much stricter laws against the LGBT
community but do not receive even a fraction of the public condemnation as
9781472486042_text.3d;

Russia does. Bennetts wonders, for instance, why Obama has not similarly
talked against Saudi Arabia, “whose habit of executing homosexuals has done
little to break up what [he] has called the ‘long history of friendship’ between
N
Washington and Riyad,” while the American president “has ‘no patience’ for
IO
Russia’s gay propaganda law” (Bennetts 2014).
Thus, Russia in House of Cards, is also contextualized fictionally as a nation
which discriminates against part of its population, and as such, is once again
UT
placed in the wrong side of the argument, even before the viewer gets his/her
first glimpse of a Russian character onscreen. When Petrov arrives, he shares a
brief scene with Underwood that lasts a little less than 45 seconds. Yet, they are
RIB
enough to reveal the Russian premier as a self-assured, arrogant and powerful
man. First, his portrayal by Danish actor Lars Mikkelsen is a quite suitable
choice. Not only do his stark facial features resemble those of Vladimir Putin
but his tall stature – he stands at 6’ 3½” – make him look down on Kevin
IST
Spacey’s president – Spacey is 5’ 9¾” – creating a clear visual antithesis when they
are filmed standing, and especially during their introduction. When asked by
Underwood if this is his first visit to the White House, Petrov replies affirmatively
but nonchalantly adds that this is “his third president,” underlining the fact that
RD
he has been in power much longer than his interlocutor. As the two men enter
the building, pose for photographs and follow the protocol, Petrov immediately
tells Underwood that despite finding his proposal for the Jordan Valley
FO
impressive, he has no interest in pursuing this plan. The episode’s opening

credits roll just as Frank looks at Petrov frustratingly over his refusal to cooperate.
A worthy adversary is thus born through casting and narrative choices. In an
actual sociopolitical context that witnesses several points of friction between
the two nations, the fictional leader of the country Americans are accustomed
OT
to dislike and/or fear in House of Cards complements and even intensifies

public perception of Russian officials; Petrov is conceited, unjust and unwilling
to work with Underwood.
SN
The two leaders’ second meeting in the Oval Office does not go well either.
Petrov cleverly refers to Claire’s infidelity, insulting Frank – who has just pre-
sented him with a present – and continues to refuse to cooperate on the Middle
OF
East proposal. As the two characters sit across from each other, separated by a
coffee table, Petrov bluntly tells Frank: “Russia has nothing to gain from peace
in the Middle East. And more importantly, nothing to gain from working with
America.” For the second time, the American president looks stunned before a
RO
fade out moves the viewers to the next scene. Interestingly, Petrov’s utterance is
a frank statement regarding the real US-Russia relations. As Stent underlines, aside
from sharing interests on the subjects of “counterterrorism and counter-
FP
proliferation for WMD to working together to stabilize Central Asia and contain
the spread of radical Islam” (Stent 2015, xi), “there is little of a concrete nature
that Russia needs from the United States” (ibid., x). Indeed, as Russia regained
part of its wealth during the Putin years, the two nations find themselves in a
T&
renewed effort to multiply their influence over specific parts of the world in the
21st century.
9781472486042_text.3d;

House of Cards thus, creates an equally sinister and dark adversary for Frank
in season 3. The elaborate and long-lasting state dinner scene that follows in
“Chapter 29” complements Petrov’s portrait. In his official address, President
N
Underwood welcomes his Russian guests by quoting the following passage from
IO
Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal Democracy in America regarding the two nations:
“Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each
seems called by some secret desire of Providence to one day hold in its hands
UT
the destinies of half the world” (Tocqueville 1969, 412–413). President Under-
wood cleverly refrains from including the sentence that precedes the quote he
used, one that clearly demonstrates the basis of the difference between the two
RIB
nations. Tocqueville (ibid.) writes, “To attain their aims [America and Russia],
the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided
strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates
the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal
IST
means of action; the other has servitude.” For Tocqueville and the rest of the
world in the early 1800s, America stands for freedom and individualism in a
free market, while Russian citizens serve their tsar as subjects, have limited
RD
autonomy, but a great cultural heritage and a unifying religious bond through
the Orthodox Church. In the 2010s, the narrative time of the aforementioned
House of Cards episode, however, the choice of this passage by President
Underwood hides simultaneously a sense of superiority and irony, as the end of
FO
the 1980s witnessed the collapse of the former USSR while at present, it is only
America that withstood the test of time, remaining the nation that still upholds
liberty, individualism and free enterprise as its basic structural blocks, despite
the nation’s shortcomings.
OT
In another attempt to unnerve his distinguished guest, the narrative includes

an interesting mixture of reality and fiction, as fictional Frank has invited two
real-life dissidents of Putin’s government, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria
Alyokhina to join the American and Russian officials. The two women are
SN
members of the punk feminist rock band Pussy Riot, and have spent almost two
years in prison after being arrested and convicted for “hooliganism motivated
by religious hatred” (Nemtsova and Walker 2013). Their crime? Singing a protest
OF
song against Putin in a Moscow church in 2012. The two women arrive
accompanied by a male interpreter and seem to enjoy the festivities until both
leaders finish their toasts. At that moment, President Underwood invites them
to also address the party; they stand up, and vehemently denounce Petrov and
RO
his government. The Russian statesman remains perfectly collected and even
asks them politely to stay and drink with them once they have voiced their
grievances. Instead, the two women empty their glasses in protest and leave the
FP
room, along with their interpreter.

Frank immediately apologizes but Petrov does not seem concerned in the least
and continues to chat with Claire who is seated on his left. Although the First
Lady is her usual cool and collected self, Petrov manages to insult her as an
T&
individual and as a professional, expressing his actual thoughts and disregarding

every diplomatic rule that should be applied in such situations. At the end of
9781472486042_text.3d;

the dinner, after two popular songs by each nation are performed by both
statesmen, Petrov’s overall behaviour culminates in him kissing Claire on the
lips while the remaining guests watch in surprise. President Underwood does
N
not comment on the obvious transgression and instead calls for the end of the
IO
party and asks for a few minutes of Petrov’s time to discuss their possible plan
for the Middle East.
Narratively, Petrov’s positioning in the plot is quite intriguing since he is
UT
both a “friend” in Frank’s plan to save the Middle East, solidify his political
position and help him with the upcoming 2016 election, and an “enemy” since
he publicly makes advances at his wife and First Lady, and privately opposes
RIB
Frank’s plan. In a way, Petrov is another Frank minus the public dishonesty.
While Petrov does not hesitate to kiss Claire in front of her husband and guests,
and bring his mistresses in his palace through the front door – as he later confesses
to Frank – the American president prefers to keep his adulterous side hidden –
IST
to all but his wife and confidante. While Frank’s proposal is supposedly a way to
bring peace to the a troubled region in the world while his personal interest is
kept under wraps, Petrov has no qualms, stating that if he has nothing to gain
RD
from their joint venture, he will not be a part of it. In other words, Petrov speaks
his mind, and Frank prefers to address the camera in his asides – a regular trope
employed by the series since the first episode – to tell the viewers the “truth.”
On another level, since Frank represents the USA and Petrov Russia, an
FO
interpretation of the two nations is invited through the narrative relationship of

the two characters. While both are dark and self-serving individuals, Petrov’s
connection to the real Russian president and especially his negative traits
(arrogance, infidelity, autocracy, discrimination) perpetuate the image of Russia
OT
as an inhospitable, discriminatory society, that despite having succumbed to the

rules of the free market since 1989, is still a nation where civil liberties are trampled
and freedom belongs to the few. On the other hand, although President
Underwood is not based on an actual presidential figure, he does represent the
SN
side of politics that is never presented to the citizens, but revealed through
media exposés and scandals.
Yet, through specific narrative parameters, Petrov is a more potent villain
OF
than Underwood. Where Frank murders people to keep secrets and ascend to
power, Petrov does not hesitate to sacrifice Russian soldiers simply to boycott
the American president’s plans for the Middle East (“Chapter 35”); where both
Frank and Petrov do not differentiate between straight and homosexual people
RO
in their private life, it is only Petrov that passes an anti-gay law to appease the
conservatives and arrests a gay American activist in Moscow, which leads to
the latter’s suicide (“Chapter 32”). Representing Petrov as not only similar to
FP
Putin in public behavior and appearance, but also including recent events from
Russia’s political history (the Pussy Riots scandal, the anti-gay law), House of
Cards’ diegetic reality comes a step closer to what Etienne Souriau calls afilmic
reality, “defined as the external reality, the real world, which exists outside of
T&
the filmic realm but functions as a frame of reference for the filmic universe” (in
Thanouli 2013, 17). The insistence on drawing from real events to represent an
9781472486042_text.3d;

alternate fictional plot not only raises questions regarding the boundaries
between reality and fiction, but amplifies the negative characteristics of Russia
and also the public perception of a nation which has traditionally stood against
N
what the USA fights for.
IO
The Americans’ Misha and Nadezhda AKA Philip and Elizabeth
UT
The Americans is set in the early 1980s and for three years – season 4 premieres
in March 2016 – has been inviting its viewers to take a step back to a time
when Reagan was president, the USSR was the enemy, internet did not exist as
RIB
a household staple, and you actually had to leave your house to go shopping,
meet friends and work. Although by no means a recent television practice, it
seems that the past has invaded contemporary television: from the ancient
world (Rome (HBO, 2005–2007)), to the 1920s and 1930s (Boardwalk Empire,
IST
HBO, 2010–2014), the late 1950s and 1960s (Mad Men, Masters of Sex) – the
list is too long – past decades frequently lend their sociocultural context to tele-
vision shows of the present. Their sociopolitical background functions as both a
RD
vehicle of nostalgia that remind viewers of simpler and perhaps better times, as
well as cautionary tales of past historical mistakes that no one seems to have
learnt not to repeat.
The 1980s is currently represented by two popular shows, the sitcom The
Goldbergs (ABC, 2013–present) and The Americans. While the first clearly
FO
functions as a nostalgic remembrance of a more innocent past, focusing on a

loving family’s everyday life, accompanied by the music, films, and events we
remember and mostly loved from the 1980s – especially those people who were
teenagers or young adults back then – The Americans takes the opposite path.
OT
The show follows a couple of Russian spies, who have assumed American
identities since the late 1960s, Philip/Mischa Jennings (Matthew Rhys) and
Elizabeth/Nadezhda Jennings (Keri Russell). Philip and Elizabeth raise their two
SN
children, work as travel agents, having been completely integrated into American
society. This façade conceals their ultimate mission to help mother Russian
defeat the American system of capitalism and the free market. Philip and Eliza-
OF
beth’s secret identity is at continuous risk not only during their frequent KGB
assignments but also in their daily routine, as the pilot introduces a steady rival
in the form of FBI agent Stan (Noah Emmerich), who happens to move with his
family across the street of the Jennings home, in a quiet Washingtonian suburb.
RO
Created by ex-CIA officer Joe Weisberg, The Americans offers a dim view of
the 1980s. The brightly lit scenes of The Goldbergs’ home, the extravagant
blouses with the oversized shoulder pads synonymous with the era’s fashion the
FP
mother wears, and the tunes of George Michael are in contrast with The
Americans’ somber color palette, long takes, frames within frames that convey
a sense of entrapment and a general “imperfect” look that was developed
intentionally by cinematographer Richard Rutkowski to capture the feel of the
T&
early 1980s and to create an authentic period look (Kreindler 2013). Despite
being a period show, however, its creator does draw from current reality and
9781472486042_text.3d;

not only his past CIA experience. In 2010, several individuals were arrested for
being part of “what the authorities called the ‘Illegals Program,’ an ambitious,
long-term effort by the SVR, the successor to the Soviet KGB, to plant Russian
N
spies in the United States to gather information and recruit more agents” (Shane
and Savage 2010). As Weisberg himself admits, the 2010 scandal “was abso-
IO
lutely the inspiration for the series,” and “Philip and Elizabeth are the 1981
version of those espionage officers” (Waxman 2013).
UT
In a 2014 Salon article, Neil Drumming argues that the FBI in The Americans
“is depicted as a cadre of scheming bureaucrats about as desperate and manip-
ulative as the KGB,” and that “[b]oth agencies appear woefully inadequate to
RIB
the task of keeping their respective superpowers cool and home fronts calm.”
Since both agencies appear fraught with incompetence and intrigue, Drumming
therefore wonders, “why not entrust global peacekeeping to a well-meaning
couple from Moscow, by way of the Beltway?” (Drumming 2014). Although
IST
Drumming rightly points out the problems both the US and the Soviet intelli-
gence institutions face, I disagree with his rather positive assessment of Philip
and Elizabeth. The Americans does, in fact, try to depict a more balanced version
RD
of the Cold War, one that does not a priori condemn the Soviets. Yet, there are
narrative choices that result in the perception that the US is superior to the
USSR. The brief structural analysis of the first three seasons regarding mainly
the representation of the main characters and sexuality as a spy weapon I
FO
undertake below, proves how the show actually and most intelligently positions
the USA as the only possible winner in a war that may have ended officially but
is still part of both the US and the Russian culture’s collective psyche.
First, Philip and Elizabeth are anti-heroes as their main narrative object is to
OT
help bring on the destruction of the USA and establish the Soviet Union as the
sole superpower in the world. They rarely question their orders – and if they do so,
they have security reasons in mind – they murder without hesitation, abduct, and
even torture those individuals that can provide them with crucial information.
SN
They are portrayed as professional agents, whether they pretend to be parents,

have dinner with “friends” or they are in the middle of a secret operation. On
the other hand, FBI agent Stan Beeman (Noah Emmerich), Philip and Elizabeth’s FBI
OF
friendly neighbor and unbeknownst to him their number one enemy, is portrayed
initially as a decent family man and a hard-working professional. Contrary to the
coolness exhibited by Philip and Elizabeth regarding their orders and missions, Stan
displays a nuanced vulnerability. That is why, in Season 1, he falls in love with
RO
a Russian embassy employee who provides him with intelligence, further com-
plicating his domestic life as well as his work at the Bureau. Nevertheless,
Stan’s romantic affair is not a simple narrative subplot as it is subsequently used
FP
as an excuse for the agent to operate at the margins of the law. Yet, while
Philip and Elizabeth seem ruthless and cold-blooded, killing people and
destroying lives, Sam’s love for Nina (Annet Mahendru) can justify some of his
questionable and/or illegal actions in the mind of the viewer. After all, Sam did
T&
it for love and not in the name of a communist regime that, according to what
American citizens have been, taught denies people basic freedoms.
9781472486042_text.3d;

Sex is another significant weapon in The Americans’ writers’ arsenal. In the
three seasons, I counted eighteen instances of sex and sexuality as a powerful
means for Philip and Elizabeth to extract valuable information and manipulate
N
people. Naturally, sex has been used a means to seduce an enemy in scores of
spy thrillers and action films as well television shows of various genres. Yet,
IO
The Americans goes a step further. In the pilot and episode 4 of season 3, the
viewer learns that the use of sex by spies was actually part of Philip and Eliza-
UT
beth’s training in the KGB. In two startling scenes in both episodes, we
respectively learn that Elizabeth was even raped by another KGB officer and
Philip had to sleep with young and quite old women as well as men in order to
RIB
learn how to “make it real” in any eventuality. Although harsh and rigorous
physical and mental training is part of several US narratives about the CIA and
the FBI (from Silence of the Lambs (1991) to The Bourne Identity (2002), and
The Recruit (2003), to name but a few examples), nowhere is it implied that
IST
young American agents undergo such threatening and traumatic experiences to
their psyches in order to serve their country. The representation of their sexual
“education” not only completes Philip and Elizabeth’s profiles but most impor-
RD
tantly, emphasizes the lengths the USSR goes to during the last period of the
Cold War. The inhumane techniques employed by the KGB cannot but lead the
viewer to assess the US intelligence world more positively.
At the same time, while the intelligence world of both nations is represented
FO
as a bureaucratic construction that leads to grave errors, American society is

only threatened through nuanced comments by Russian characters regarding the
free market and capitalism. For instance, in the penultimate episode of season 3,
entitled “I Am Abassin Zadran,” Gabriel (Frank Langella) and Claudia (Margo
OT
Martindale), two seasoned KGB officers and handlers of the protagonistic

couple, are about to have a meal at a diner, when looking at the menu, Gabriel
observes, a little annoyed: “Fourteen types of omelets, twenty kinds of ham-
burgers. How does one choose?” Claudia retorts: “The paradox of being
SN
American,” to which Gabriel playfully adds: “Isn’t this a Greek diner?” before
the two start talking business and end up ordering “just hot tea.” The number
of omelet and hamburger variations, not to mention the different teas the
OF
waitress starts listing before they cut her off, seem quite unnecessary for the
two Soviet spies, who are forced to live in exile to help their motherland defeat
the USA during the 1980s. Yet, their brief verbal exchange on food choice is
indicative of their disdain of consumerism, which they equate as one of the
RO
“evils” of American society.

While The Americans invites the viewer to identify with and/or even care for
two Russian protagonists, irrespective of their pretend-life as US citizens, the
FP
surround narrative imbues the overall story with elements of American superiority.
Whether it is Philip’s appreciation of the American way of life and his plan to
defect in the first episode, or a defected nuclear scientist’s comment on how he
“found justice, freedom and baseball” in his new home in episode four of
T&
season 2 (“A Little Night Music”), The Americans take a clear side in their
Cold War revisionist account. Nowhere is this clearer than the finale of season
9781472486042_text.3d;

three (“March 8, 1983”), whose climax witnesses Elizabeth and Philip’s secret
being revealed to a third party but their daughter, while the couple is watching
Reagan speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida,
N
where he designates the USSR as an “evil empire” on March 8, 1983, paving the
IO
way for an escalation of the Cold War.
“Back in the USSR” and contemporary television
UT
House of Cards and The Americans are two political dramas that foreground
the hypocrisy, corruption, and even illegal tactics of contemporary political life in
RIB
Washington. Fraught with flawed and dangerous protagonists, these contemporary
television shows are a departure from political shows of the distant and recent
past and also from cinematic political narratives. Today, viewers seem to enjoy
President Underwood’s machinations the same way the audience abhorred
IST
Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains) in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939),
the narrative that has become the blueprint for myriad political narratives –
irrespective of medium. President Underwood and Senator Paine do share many
unsavory qualities; nevertheless, the first is the star of his narrative, while the
RD
second could not be part of Capra’s fictional universe unless his role was
secondary, aiming at being defeated by the end and providing the perfect
antithesis to the real hero, the decent, hard-working and politically naïve Junior
FO
Senator Smith (James Stewart).

The contemporary political shows have a double identity; as products in a
specific economic structure of a nation’s market, and as cultural works, created
to entertain, excite, and/or provide food for thought. As financial commodities,
OT
the shows are produced by relevant companies and distributed either by networks
which broadcast them and rely on advertisements to earn money or by networks,
which “sell” them directly to their clients (viewers/online users) for a specific
tariff. Either way, the process is based on the most traditional economic principle;
SN
that of supply and demand, situated in the context of a rigorous and well-
established capitalist system. Irrespective of the artistic vision of the individuals
responsible for the shows (showrunners, directors, writers, actors, photographers,
OF
costume designers, editors, etc.), the shows cannot stay on the air unless the
income they generate for their producers and distributors significantly surpasses
their budgets. The viewers’ appreciation of the shows, measured by the Nielsen
company, but also including social media references, online presence, etc., creates
RO
and withholds the demand for new seasons of old favorites and also makes
producers and networks more inclined to green light similar ideas.
As cultural output, these shows are representations, fictional stories with
FP
heroes, heroines and villains that take viewers on a journey for a specific number
of hours every season, from one to usually a few years. As cultural works, these
shows can be analyzed and examined though a variety of perspectives; one can
use tools from gender or genre studies, history, psychoanalysis, anthropology,
T&
and/or political sciences, among others and arrive to interesting conclusion. In

this chapter, I approached them socio-semiotically. In other words, I view these
9781472486042_text.3d;

audiovisual narratives as coherent structures of signs that operate in order to
convey a specific set of meanings to the viewers, and to stimulate and maintain
their interest so that they keep watching. Of course, a mere structural analysis can
N
only reveal patterns and schemas, which however useful have little explanatory
IO
value if they are not combined with their sociopolitical context of production
and dissemination. For instance, the rise of the “villain” as anti-hero, such as
Breaking Bad’s Walter White or Mad Men’s Don Draper, could not have appeared
UT
in the 1930s or 1940s, as the historical circumstances of those decades – mainly the
depression and WWII – dictated that male representations of heroes equated
only with positive characteristics. Unlike contemporary film, recent TV produc-
RIB
tions seem to insist on popularizing problematic characters, and establishing a
trend of murderers (Dexter, Underwood), drug lords (Walter White), philandering
lying husbands (Don Draper), callous and dangerous physicians (Gregory House),
criminals (Blacklist’s (NBC, 2013–present) Ray Reddington), and even spies
IST
who threaten the American way of life (The Americans’ Philip and Elizabeth),
all of whom are immensely popular, liked, and/or even loved by the public.
Along with the anti-hero, Russian characters are back as the antagonist.
RD
Although contemporary political shows usually place the Russian villain against
an American one (House of Cards) or even make them the protagonists (The
Americans), the narrative never implies that there is the possibility of the USA
losing this battle. The addition of diegetic events that are directly inspired by
FO
the reality of the relations between the two nations amplifies US superiority,
maintaining its exceptional character that is never put into question. Edward J.
Hackett may liken House of Cards’ Frank and Claire to Macbeth and his Lady
Macbeth, a couple that “constantly undermine the narrative that truth, justice,
OT
and the American way prevail” (Hackett 2016, 1–2), yet when it comes to
global influence and power, US supremacy is never questioned.
SN
Bibliography
Alston, Joshua. “In its Third Season, House Of Cards Finally Injects Some Passion into
its Politics.” A.V. Club. March 2, 2015. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.
avclub.com/review/its-third-season-house-cards-finally-injects-some–215930
OF
Barthes, Roland. Mythologies & Lesson, transl. Kaiti Xatzidimou & Ioulietta Ralli,
Athens: Rappa (in Greek). Print. 1957, 1979.
Bennetts, Marc. “Russia’s Anti-Gay Law is Wrong – But So Is Some of the Criticism
RO
From the West. Guardian. February 5, 2014. Accessed February 3, 2016. http://www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/05/russia-anti-gay-law-criticism-playing-into-
putin-hands.
Drumming, Neil. “When America’s the villain: Cold War scheming on “The Americans”.”
FP
Salon. February 26, 2014. Accessed October 15, 2015. http://www.salon.com/2014/02/26/

when_americas_the_villain_cold_war_scheming_on_the_americans/.
Edwards, Jason A. and David Weiss. “Introduction: American Exceptionalism’s
Champions and Challenges.” In The Rhetoric of American Exceptionalism: Critical
T&
Essays, edited by Jason A. Edwards and David Weiss, 1–10. Jefferson: McFarland,
2011.
9781472486042_text.3d;

Elder, Miriam. “Russia Passes Law Banning Gay ‘Propaganda’.” Guardian. June 11,
2013. Accessed February 3, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/
russia-law-banning-gay-propaganda.
N
Goodman, Tim. “House of Cards: TV Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. January 26,
2013. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/house-ca
IO
rds-netflix-tv-review-415589.
Goodman, Tim. “House of Cards: TV Review.” The Hollywood Reporter. February 18,
2015. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/house-ca
UT
rds-season-3-review-775215.
Hackett, Edward J. “Introduction: Contemplating a House of Cards.” In House of Cards
and Philosophy: Underwood’s Republic, edited by Edward J. Hackett, 1–3. Malden:
RIB
Wiley Blackwell, 2016. 1–3.
Hodgson, Godfrey. The Myth of American Exceptionalism. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2009.
Ignatieff, Michael. “Introduction. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights.” In
IST
American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, edited by Michael Ignatieff, 1–26.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. 1–26.
Kreindler, Sarv. “Cold War Cinematography: Concealing and Revealing on FX’s Spy
Drama ‘The Americans’.”Creativeplanetnetwork. February 22, 2013. Accessed October
RD
15, 2015. http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/news/news-articles/cold-war-cinema
tography-concealing-and-revealing-fx-s-spy-drama-americans/423138.
Lawson, Richard. “House of Cards Becomes a Workplace Drama in Season 3, With
Mixed Results.” Variety. February 26, 2015. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.
FO
vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/house-of-cards-season-3-review.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology, New York: Basic Books. Print. 1963.
McNamara, Mary. “TV review: ‘House of Cards’ is Deliciously Spiteful.” Los Angeles
Times. February 1, 2013. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/
feb/01/entertainment/la-et-st-house-of-cards-review-netflix-20130201.
OT
Molloy, Tim. “‘House of Cards’ Review: How Do You Raise the Stakes From Murder?
Like This.” The Wrap. February 13, 2014. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.
thewrap.com/house-cards-review-raise-stakes-murder-like/
SN
Nemtsova, Anna and Shaun Walker. Freed Pussy Riot members say prison was time of
‘endless humiliations’.” Guardian. December 23, 2013. Accessed February 5, 2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/freed-pussy-riot-amnesty-prison-putin-
humiliation.
OF
Palmer, William J. The Films of the Eighties. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1993.
Perigard, Mark. “‘House of Cards’ Built on Political Scheming.” Boston Herald. February
1, 2013. Accessed March 2, 2016. http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/televi
sion/television_reviews/2013/01/%E2%80%98house_cards%E2%80%99_built_political_
RO
scheming.
Romano, Andrew. “‘House of Cards’ Season Two Review: Even More Bingeworthy
Than the First.” The Daily Beast. February 12, 2014. Accessed January 17, 2016.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/14/house-of-cards-season-two-r
FP
eview-even-more-bingeworthy-than-the-first.html.
Shane, Scott and Charles Savage. “In Ordinary Lives, U.S. Sees the Work of Russian
Agents.” New York Times. June 28, 2010. Accessed February 13, 2016. http://www.
nytimes.com/2010/06/29/world/europe/29spy.html.
T&
Spanos, William V. American Exceptionalism in the Age of Globalization. The Specter

of Vietnam. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008.
9781472486042_text.3d;

Stanley, Alessandra. “How Absolute Power Can Delight Absolutely.” New York Times.
February 13, 2014. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/a
rts/television/house-of-cards-returns-with-more-dark-scheming.html.
N
Starr, Michael. “‘House of Cards’ Amazes in Season Opener.” New York Post. February
12, 2014. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://nypost.com/2014/02/12/house-of-cards-ama
IO
zes-in-season-opener/.
Stent, Angela E. The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First
Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.
UT
Thanouli, Eleftheria. Wag the Dog: A Study on Film and Reality in the Digital Age. New
York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America, ed. J. P. Mayer, trans. George Lawrence,
RIB
vol. 1(1969). Originally published 1835–1840.
VanDerWerff, Todd. “House Of Cards: Still Deeply Empty, Still Occasionally Genius.”
A.V. Club. February 17, 2014. Accessed January 17, 2016. http://www.avclub.com/
review/house-of-cards-still-deeply-empty-still-occasional-201183.
IST
Vasey, Ruth. “The Open Door: Hollywood’s Public Relations at Home and Abroad,
1922–1928.” In The Silent Cinema Reader, edited by Lee Grieveson and Peter Krämer,
318–328. London: Routledge, 2004.
Waxman, Olivia B. “Q&A: The CIA Officer Behind the New Spy Drama The Americans.”
RD
Time. January 30, 2013. Accessed February 14, 2016. http://entertainment.time.com/2013/
01/30/qa-the-cia-officer-behind-the-new-spy-drama-the-americans/.
FO
OT
SN
OF
RO
FP
T&

Politics and Politicians in Contemporary US Television - Washington As Fiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Politics and Politicians in Contemporary US Television - Washington As Fiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Politics and Politicians in Contemporary US Television; edited by Betty

Kaklamanidou and Margaret J. Tally

Politics and Politicians in

First published 2017

ISBN: 978-1-4724-8604-2 (hbk)

1 The political TV shows of the 2010s:

Themes and showrunners

In the context of New Film History, originated by Thomas Elsaesser in the

duction, marketing, studio strategies, censorship guidelines, etc. In their attempt

are shaped and determined by a combination of historical processes […] and

cannot be as exhaustive due to word restrictions; that is why we have chosen to

18 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

based on the Israeli series Prisoners of War (Israeli Channel 2, 2010–present)

as a “decidedly predictable celebration of the War on Terror” (Hirschbein 2015,

The political TV shows of the 2010s 19

HBO’s Veep is the brainchild of Scottish showrunner Armando Iannucci who

Vice Presidents” (Burstein 2012). However, in a 2013 interview, Asawin Suebsaeng

on FOX on January 30 while the ﬁrst 13 episodes of House of Cards were

20 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

politics and power” (Harvey 2014). He elaborates:

All politicians are murderers or have to be willing to be murderers. Here

the unspeakable, whether that is facilitating the death of a congressman or

The political TV shows of the 2010s 21

include about reality?

The spectacle of reality vs. the spectacle of ﬁction: the politics

In the fourth season of House of Cards, released on March 4, 2016 – when

the real world” (Chaney 2016).

22 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

culture and increasingly being mediated in such a way as to be viewed as

The political TV shows of the 2010s 23

thought to be planning a terrorist attack to avenge a drone strike that killed

Quinn’s analysis resonates because of its power of prophecy, not prescription.

Raqqa, capital of ISIS, and an article on the cognitive dissonance implanted

24 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

Gender politics in contemporary political shows

The political TV shows of the 2010s 25

President Selina Meyer (Julia Louis Dreyfus) plays in a parody of Washington,

secretary of State, drawing comparisons to Jed Bartlet of The West Wing, an

26 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

symptom of a larger kind of sexism which dismisses Scandal as a kind of soap

Washington insider murders an innocent and makes it look like a suicide to

The political TV shows of the 2010s 27

politics in a way few other shows on television currently do.

During an interview, Senator Marcus speaks directly to the question of whether

28 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

Barbara Hall’s Madam Secretary

Scandal stands in stark contrast to CBS’s political drama Madam Secretary,

The political TV shows of the 2010s 29

30 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

Co.Create. April 20, 2012. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://www.fastcocreate.com/

The political TV shows of the 2010s 31

Gay, Verne. “Shonda Rhimes’ ‘Scandal’ Premieres on ABC.” Newsday.Com. April 3,

Genette, Gérard. Figures III. Paris: Seuil, 1972.

com. March 24, 2013. Accessed April 4, 2016. http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/24/

The Telegraph. February 11, 2014. Accessed March 8, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Rowman & Littleﬁeld, 2015.

Kellner, Douglas. “Barack Obama and Celebrity Spectacle.” International Journal of

32 Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret Tally

lywood Reporter. August 22, 2014. Accessed March 6, 2016. http://www.hollywoo

The political TV shows of the 2010s 33

7 The Cold War (re)-visited in House

that is populated by astonishingly ﬂawed individuals, with the possible exception

narratives still promote American exceptionalism, interventionism, and capitalist