Popular television of the 50s and 60s was very clear-cut. Characters were presented to the audience at face value. If a character seemed like a good person, then they were a morally sound person. If a character seemed bad, then they were a bad person with evil intentions. Television shows were not trying to make the audience guess what the characters on screen were thinking. Television usually reflected whatever the cultural norms were at that time. In the older shows, that was family values and the problems that arose when raising one. All of that has changed in recent times. Modern television very frequently challenges the societal norm. Instead of clearly good and bad guys, characters on todays shows are often in a moral grey area. They can be both morally and ethically ambiguous, leaving the audience wondering whom wants what and why. This major shift in storytelling can be observed in Netflixs House of Cards. This show very unmistakably presents a question of morality because even its good characters make awful decisions supposedly for the greater good as if they all believe in the end justifying the means. Even the shows protagonist is seen making terribly unethical decisions and we are supposed to support him in that. The obvious questions must then be raised. What does this say about our government today? Why do we root for evil characters? Furthermore, what does this political drama present about our current society? The ethical considerations of the characters in House of Cards, more specifically, Frank and his wife, Claire Underwood, speaks volumes about how our society views morally wrong people and how the classical view of wholesome, upstanding protagonists is challenged. One of the first television shows to be aired exclusively on Netflix, House of Cards is the American adaptation of a British mini series of the same name, which was first a novel by Michael Dobbs. The show chronicles the story of American politician Frank Underwood, a congressman from South Carolina. After being passed up as Secretary of State, he sets into motion an incredibly complex plan to gain him decisive political power. His wife, Claire Underwood, possesses the same Machiavellian tendencies as Frank, and aids him in his goals whether or not those goals present difficult situations. Together, the two will stop at nothing to ensure Frank is put into a position of extreme power. The show presents themes about manipulation, political corruption, power, control, and the belief that the end always justifies the means. To best explain these themes, and to answer how they, and the show, relate to our current culture we live in; it is best to give a summary of an episode from the show. Particularly the pilot episode because of its ability to give viewers an immediate first impression of the main characters in it. It is also a very good generic episode that cleanly presents problems for its protagonists without the plot lines becoming too thick, enabling the analysis to be as concise as possible. The pilot opens with the sound of a dog being run over in a hit-and-run accident. Frank Underwood, the main character, exits his D.C. apartment to investigate the noise. He finds a severely injured dog that is clinging to life. He then sends his bodyguard to alert the owners. This is when Frank first addresses the audience during what is called an aside and makes a very important speech that gives the audience a meaningful look into Franks mind. He consoles the animal and says to the camera, There are two kinds of pain: the sort of pain that makes you strong, or useless pain, the sort of pain thats only suffering. I have no patience for useless things. As he finishes the line, he twists the dogs neck and holds it down as he finishes his quote, Moments like this require someone who will act, who will do the unpleasant thing; the necessary thing (House of Cards Chapter 1). This first scene instantly gives the audience a clue into Franks character. Right out of the gate we see that, as he said, he has no time for useless things and is more than willing to be the one to take care of business. It shows that he is a no nonsense type of man. As if to prove to us that he has no hesitation in executing his own philosophy, he puts the animal out of its misery by strangling it with his own bare hands, just before the owner arrives. Frank explains the seemingly cold-blooded and highly calculated action as if it were a necessity dictated by his own ethical specifications. When it comes to understanding a character and what they are thinking, there is no better way than allowing the character to directly address the audience. This tactic, used in both theatre and film, is the best way to convey a characters thoughts to the audience without other characters in the play, show, or movie overhearing. The technique, sometimes also called the theatrical aside is a major reason why audiences identify with Frank. Mario Klarer, a professor at the Unive