Claire

Writing about her first was because of the importance of the character in the show and because she's not as hateful compared to Francis, the male lead. Even though about eighty-seven percent or so of the woman's essence is the same as Francis'; intelligent, rational, and ruthless. As she says to her old lover Adam, she can only love you for a week now and then, whereas with Francis she can love all but that week. Usually, she submits to Francis, and she knows Francis, who can fulfill her smart, hard-hearted, rational qualities, so they are together. Two identical people, who know each other, paired perfectly, seamlessly. That's why she can sacrifice work, time, energy, and even exercise restraint on the possessiveness and jealousy that is a natural part of human nature, Francis's first outing with Zoe, returning overnight, she calmly sips her water, "I can ...... if you don't feel comfortable with that", and "NO". But still, she's a human being and a woman, and it's a bit folksy to say so, but the writers do reveal sympathetic parts of Claire. She rejects her lover Adam at the beginning, "Adam's at the XX Hotel." "Are you?" "I'm here." Francis is at the window where they drink and talk late every night, and Claire shows her loyalty. So when she said "no" later, it was a restrained but immense disappointment. Of course, this little disappointment is not enough to make her betray Francis, career Francis domineering, authoritarian and exploitative is the root cause of her disappointment, so she fled, to the arms of her old lover, the New York artist Adam. But it is escape, and only for a week. As she sits at the window in the pre-dawn hours, learning of Peter Russell's suicide, I'm guessing the truth of the matter, she knows better to whom she belongs. Giving Adam a thousand paper cranes to tell you that my innocence is given to you, an innocence that Francis doesn't need, and then she breaks away from that innocence and goes back to Francis. She is smart, rational, ruthless successful woman.

The complete loser in Peter Russell's movie. The character I most sympathize with myself. Not at all the same kind of person as Francis, not even Francis's henchman, Doug, who is no match for him. Came from the grassroots and climbed to Congress. He's got a disease he can't get rid of. Hard to go along with the power, but his conscience is still intact. There is no doubt that he is not suitable for survival in the environment of it is politics that Francis has emphasized time and again. With his unquenchable cowardice, his alcoholism, his prostitutes, his unquenchable suspicion and betrayal of Francis, he is simply not cut out for the arena of power, but for one thing, he is kind. He was willing to love others despite his power, and he was willing to atone for his sins. His two children, Christina, his friends, the elect, his heart, and especially when Francis's toughness causes him pain, perhaps that's how power is meant to be tormented, that you can't possess, use, or enjoy it without a sinful existence. Francis

The big protagonist, through whom the screenwriter presents a picture of intertwined political and human nature. The role of human nature in the struggle for power, and how power manipulates human nature, is one of the main parts of this political drama.

And while the film's objective point of view works well with Francis's subjective voice-over, the purpose of the scenes becomes clearer. How to create a sound bite to counter his opponents in the education bill, how to use Peter Russell as a pawn, how to alienate the president from the vice president, how to even use his wife's company and her staff to gain the ultimate goal of power and authority with a skillful mastery of human weaknesses, in a film where he's just a 10-percenter kind of guy, totally unsympathetic, and, as his one-time driver put it, he's a bad guy.

Of course, even if you remove the killing of Russell, which pulls the viewer back from the fantasy of the real to the essence of the drama, Francis is a real presence in American politics, and objectively speaking, he is equally subject to constraints. Playing with power within the law, the essence of the existence of this power scaffolding lies in elections and democracy, that is, in elections and democracy, within the legal framework, there is room for human morality to be negotiated. Not breaking the law and getting support by dishonorable means is just to show you that politics is not a glamorous play by nature. However, at least their citizens, there is still the right to choose, and the right to be mesmerized by hypocrisy, and this side, can only watch them do evil, can do nothing.