For the first time, I would like to write about some serials I watch. The best of them are most undoubtedly House Of Cards and Sherlock. Both of them are very well done shows, but my personal inclination makes me love House Of Cards more. In other words, “I’m not the Commonwealth”, as Sherlock would say. I am not one to watch the more popular serials, (Game Of Thrones and the likes). I don’t prefer action or cliched dramatics. I’m the one person who would walk out of the theatre after The Avengers feeling somewhat unsatisfied for the tastelessness. Probably the only exception to that would be The Dark Knight Trilogy, which may have bits and pieces of error, but one cannot not appreciate Christopher Nolan and the wonderful work he’s done (and the work he’s yet to do i.e. Interstellar!!!). First let’s look at Sherlock.
At the elementary level its a wonderful concept because of how well it connects to the present day. Bringing back a 19th Century detective to the 21st Century and making him relevant without changing his characteristics the readers love so much is no mean feat at all. The writers Mr. Moffat and Mr. Gatiss deserve a lot of credit for achieving such a thing. (For those who don’t know, Mark Gatiss is Mycroft, whom we are led to believe is Moriarty in the very first episode. I nearly thought he would be Moriarty… Oh well, Mycroft becomes really important to the plot in time.) But, a serial cannot become so popular without <seldom> engaging in the infrequent moment of gaseous drama. Season 1 finale standoff? I wasn’t that impressed, with all the pitch-increasing lead-up music. Standoff’s are for either comedy or cliched big-budget films. They aren’t realistic. From what I’d seen before it, I thought there’d be more gravitas in the finale. But I must say, I LOVED the Season 2 finale show-off with Moriarty and Sherlock. That was very well done (Leading on to #SherlockLives). You probably don’t like me now that I’ve expressed what was lacking in a show that you may sincerely love. I cannot change that, but it is the truth. Most of the show however is extremely well done. (It is British after all, you got to hand it to them, they do it better than the Americans most of the time.) Now House Of Cards.
I love politics. Its the reason I have no friends (because smart people are not very common nowadays, but maybe that’s my ego, I’d probably do better to stay alone..) and its the reason I love House Of Cards more than anything. At the elementary level, (using the same construct to bring a meaningful argument as to why I think this is better) it has all the basics in place. Excellent script (“Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that rots after 10 years, power is the old stone building that stands for centuries…”, “When I was asked if I had no faith in God, I told him he had it the wrong way. It was God that had no faith in us..”, unbeatable lines such as these), excellent cinematography, and an excellent cast. Beyond that, the beautiful complex setting, which I always enjoy, is omnipresent. The political vendettas, the conspiring, the planning, along with more human sub-stories like the journalist side complement each other so well. Not so much physical action oriented, like Sherlock, which is however beautifully complemented with some intellectual puzzles as well. It is just my personal preference for on-screen implied action and intellect that gets to me more than explosions and slow motion. It is my curse, and it is my blessing. The latter being due to the fact that it feeds my ego by making me think I’m smarter than everyone else because I don’t really prefer the direct on screen actions as compared to the implied things. Well, its obvious that one needs to be smarter to understand an implied on-screen event as compared to an explosion or a slow-motion event. It is because of this that House Of Cards is the show that I love the most, because I can place myself inside its world and take in every character and their actions, the consequences and implications of those actions.
Now onto the point of the title. On one side, we have Sherlock. A character who got into a relationship with a woman just to be able to break in to her boss’s office. We all know how ‘inhuman’ Sherlock is. On the other side, we have Frank Underwood. A man who would go to any extent to stick to his principle of ruthless pragmatism. For me, the latter proves to be more ‘inhuman’ (I’ll explain why it is in quotation marks later). He was willing to kill people he made friends with so that he could wash his hands clean of them. Sherlock has also killed, but only one person. Charles Augustus Magnussen. Apparently the most dangerous man Sherlock had ever met. Magnussen was the enemy. Frank Underwood killed Russo and Zoe Barnes! He had an affair with the latter! After which he had no remorse or one shred of hesitation on killing her. It is Underwood’s ruthless pragmatism that really appeals more to me, when choosing a more ‘inhuman’ character.
So what is it to be inhuman? Why do we associate the apparently bad acts with inhumanity? Isn’t the human nature itself terrible? Should we not associate all the good values with being inhuman. To be human is to be obsessively greedy, power hungry, territorially dominating, and being able to kill one of their own species, even on massive scales. It is my opinion that being inhuman is a good thing most of the time. You might disagree. But that is merely because you are conforming to the status quo. The expectancy of one to be able to stand out is fast reducing, but I will not let it stop me from being inhuman. Not to KILL or anything!!! Wow! Take a step back and cool off. Things like events of formality, even authority sometimes. I don’t like authority (that is because I have been in a position of authority for most of my school life. <Student Council>) but I respect the law thoroughly, even to the extent of buying music as opposed to downloading it off the net like pretty much everyone else does. My inhumanity has both agreeable and disagreeable sides. But I will stick to both of them with complete resolve. Calling all this ‘inhumanity’ is probably an extreme, but lets extend the definition of non-conformity for just this once.
Thanks for reading and till the next time.