So I actually had to read into the history of political thrillers to answer this, because how they’ve changed before is kind of the biggest hint. All The President’s Men is around that old, and while of course it was based on real events, it’s pretty modern in the other ways. Technologies, settings and the inspiring fears might change (like all the terrorism-related plots after 9/11), but it could be that not much else does.
The other people mentioning it might not be allowed have a point. House Of Cards was huge in China, and it’s been suggested that that was due to the total impossibility of any depicting any remotely cynical take on politics in Chinese productions. A lot can happen in 50 years, but it’s good to guess that the authoritarian countries won’t be the exact same ones as today.
Edit: A lot of the earlier yet examples Wikipedia gives are really more like spy or adventure stories. That might not be a coincidence; it’s not just China that does self- and official censorship.
For me, a political thriller just has to be about internal struggles within institutions. That’s bound to have elements of truth, since competition and personal advancement never goes out of style, but powerful people using existing institutions for personal advancement is also scandalous as hell. Or, at least is in modern times where we believe institutions aren’t meant for that. Depicting it explicitly, as opposed to “in a dystopian future” or in disguise, is a pretty high watermark for media freedom, and media freedom was just not as strong in the 60’s and earlier.
So I actually had to read into the history of political thrillers to answer this, because how they’ve changed before is kind of the biggest hint. All The President’s Men is around that old, and while of course it was based on real events, it’s pretty modern in the other ways. Technologies, settings and the inspiring fears might change (like all the terrorism-related plots after 9/11), but it could be that not much else does.
The other people mentioning it might not be allowed have a point. House Of Cards was huge in China, and it’s been suggested that that was due to the total impossibility of any depicting any remotely cynical take on politics in Chinese productions. A lot can happen in 50 years, but it’s good to guess that the authoritarian countries won’t be the exact same ones as today.
Edit: A lot of the earlier yet examples Wikipedia gives are really more like spy or adventure stories. That might not be a coincidence; it’s not just China that does self- and official censorship.
For me, a political thriller just has to be about internal struggles within institutions. That’s bound to have elements of truth, since competition and personal advancement never goes out of style, but powerful people using existing institutions for personal advancement is also scandalous as hell. Or, at least is in modern times where we believe institutions aren’t meant for that. Depicting it explicitly, as opposed to “in a dystopian future” or in disguise, is a pretty high watermark for media freedom, and media freedom was just not as strong in the 60’s and earlier.
deleted by creator