It Ain’t Gonna Happen, Bigamist Bob: A Quick Look at Lone Star’s (Offensive) Promotional Campaign

Posted by on Sep 21, 2010 in television | 2 comments

This entry is part 13 of 33 in the series Essays / Analyses.

Lone Star is a new series on Fox about a con man “juggling two identities and two women in two very different worlds, all under one mountain of lies.” Ah, so dangerous, so crafty, so juicy! The week before Lone Star premiered, the social media networks hailed it as this year’s break-out show. “Be sure to set your DVRs,” everyone advised. On one hand, the virtual fortune tellers predicted correctly as Lone Star‘s pilot fared well among critics, earning a rating of 73 on Meta Critic, for example. On the other hand, the show reportedly failed to reach TV audiences, garnering Fox’s second-lowest rating of the night (in its time spot). While some of my colleagues’ are disappointed by Lone Star‘s poor reception, I am not. Here’s why:

I first learned about Lone Star from Entertainment Weekly‘s 2010 Fall TV Preview issue, which features a slightly modified version of the following ad. The only differences between this ad and the one in EW is that the latter plasters the words LONE STAR across the middle of its two-page spread, and a tagline — “One Man. Two Lives. The Perfect Con.” — is centered prominently at the top. As I thumbed through the issue, the sprawling image, with its soothing colors and perfect symmetry, definitely caught my attention — but not for the reasons that Fox’s marketing department probably intended. In fact, nothing featured here made me want to watch Lone Star. (NOTE: I eventually succumbed to the critics’ praises and tuned in to the first 20 minutes of the show. Reaction = bored.)

To start, I have nothing against characters who are con men or those who successfully juggle two lives. For example, I watch Dexter. I like Dexter. I think Dexter is damn fine storytelling (well, seasons 1 and 4 anyway). What I have no interest in what’s depicted in this ad and, thus, what Lone Star (or parts of it) will presumably involve:

  1. Women as appendages/accessories: Unlike other dramas currently on television (e.g., The Good Wife, The Closer, Damages, Saving Grace), the women in Lone Star will apparently function as appendages to or accessories for the primary male character. For instance, look at the way the female characters (played by Lindsay Holloway and Adrianne Palicki) are attached — or attach themselves — to Bob/Robert (James Wolk). Their roles here are obviously secondary; like a necklace or briefcase, they merely add a form of convenience or attractiveness to the primary character’s basic self.
  2. Women as distractions: As Laura Mulvey pointed out many years ago, in classical Hollywood cinema (and thereafter) onscreen female characters often “freeze the flow of action”; their visual presence ultimately “works against the development of a storyline.” In other words, many (attractive) classical onscreen women do little more than distract the male characters (and male spectators) from their goals. Lone Star‘s ad expresses this notion. With their arms (as well as their blatant sexuality), the two women literally hold back their male lover, thus halting his action. They serve as distractions, nothing more, nothing less.
  3. Women as sex objects: Notice who’s clothed and who’s not. Notice whose legs are suggestively spread and whose aren’t. Additionally, the women in these promo shots are not even seen as whole. The viewer is privy to an arm, a leg, a head, a foot — but not a whole person. The females are first and foremost sexual creatures, fetishized and objectified by Bob/Robert as well as the camera. Noticeably, nothing or no one blocks the male body.
  4. Women as victims: Finally, if you’ve read anything about Lone Star including the tagline above, you’ll know that the female characters are oblivious to Bob/Robert’s philandering. Neither knows the other exists, and that’s the way Bob/Robert as well as his father wants to keep it. To this end, the women, the poster implies, will likely emerge as traditional victims, acted upon, kept out of the loop, and played like a fiddle, so to speak.

A critic for the LA Times questions how audiences will react to Fox’s new drama Lone Star, wondering if they’ve “grown so accustomed to watching [television] heroes make reprehensible choices that they’ll love bigamist Bob anyway.” From the ratings/results of the pilot, it appears that viewers aren’t buying this characterization — and its ostensibly rather obnoxious view of wives/girlfriends. And for that, at least for the time being, I’m glad.

Related posts:

Adam Lambert, Going Hetero
Boyz n the Hood, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Hollywood Dads
Jon Stewart Can't Do a British Accent, But Satire?

2 Comments

  1. Interestingly, if it had the same premise and promotional campaign in EW, but a better title, and it was a reality show instead, I could imagine it being a surefire hit on ABC

    • Interesting. You think so? Why?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Where my ladies at? | Seriality - [...] emerged in recent years, I was not initially interested in the series for some similar reasons Kelli Marshall explained ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>