Category: Culture

Superhero comics ditch distressed damsels for leading ladies

Originally published at The Daily Texan.

At New York Comic-Con in early October, Marvel announced its publishing lineup included 23 female-led comic books — its most ever.

By creating new heroes and reimagining classics, Marvel and DC are fully joining in the current trend of gender diversity in superhero comic books, and fans are grateful.

Andrew Friedenthal, a UT alumnus who earned a Ph.D. in philosophy and American studies, said he has noticed consistent mistreatment of women in comics.

“There’s been this kind of constant relegation of female characters into the background,” Friedenthal said. “The main thing that comes to my mind when I think of treatment of
women in comics is the ‘Women in Refrigerators’ trope.”

This recurring trend in storytelling spawned from a “Green Lantern” comic in 1994. In the issue, the villain brutally murders the male hero’s girlfriend and stuffs her into a refrigerator for the sake of revenge. This act’s only purpose within the narrative is to anger the male hero and give him greater motivation in his battle against his nemesis. It has gone on to become a symbol of the objectification of female characters in all forms of media.

Marvel has countered this objectification with female-led series across the board such as Kamala Khan, a new fan-favorite character, created in 2013. Just one year before, the preexisting hero Carol Danvers took up the mantle of the classic Marvel hero, Captain Marvel.

Angie Blackmon, owner of Dragon’s Lair Comics & Fantasy located in Austin, said although women have consistently been objectified, the industry’s current steps are a move in the right direction.

“I think Marvel really gets how to treat a female character,” Blackmon said. “There’s less of a tolerance for objectification and I think that makes a huge difference.”

Blackmon, however, said the turning point for women in comics came in 2005 when Wonder Woman was reluctantly forced to kill another character for the greater good, a theme found in many
male comics.

“It was the first moment where I felt like I was seeing her as a warrior in the same light that you’d see a male superhero,” Blackmon said.

English senior Jordan Tucker, who is writing her thesis on women in comics, said she takes issue with the type of people hired to write comic books.

“One of the worst things is they are writing more about women, but there aren’t that many women writing,” Tucker said.

In February, Marvel employed 18 female creators, but by December, 37 writers and artists will work there.

“There’s been more of a push to have female voices on the creative side of late,” Friedenthal said. “In terms of creating a strong female voice that is wholly identifiable, Squirrel Girl at Marvel is fantastic. It’s one of the best things out there right now.”

With every shift in culture, some pushback is bound to happen. Korey Finch, a comic book fan who has followed the industry for 15 years, has heard complaints about publishers potentially sacrificing the quality of the stories to cater to the demands of the audience. She doesn’t agree.

“I hear people whine about that a lot, and I don’t have a lot of tolerance for it,” Finch said. “Male superheroes have long oversaturated the comic book market, and the thought that some people  feel slighted by women taking more leading roles really angers me.”

Blackmon said she considers these issues growing pains along the way to achieving something greater.

“The important thing to remember is that there are going to be mistakes made,” Blackmon said. “I don’t think the companies are caving, I think they’re evolving.”

‘Ash vs Evil Dead’ stars share experience returning to famous ‘Evil Dead’ franchise

Originally published for The Daily Texan.

“Ash vs. Evil Dead” premiered its second season in Austin this week at Fantastic Fest. The show revives the classic “Evil Dead” franchise, where Ash (Bruce Campbell) fights through armies of the dead with new sidekicks Kelly (Dana DeLorenzo) and Pablo (Ray Santiago). The Daily Texan spoke with the show’s stars about returning to the franchise, adapting to TV and women’s roles in the horror genre.

Bruce Campbell: Ash
DT: It’s been 23 years since “Army of Darkness.” What was it like returning to the role after so long?

BC: It was honestly very startling. It’s a very physical character, and after pulling a couple hamstrings you realize your own mortality. So that part is always difficult. Just doing the same crap 24/7, only 25 years later, is a whole different ballgame. In the movies, he’s not that well-defined. But [with] the dude in the TV show you start to see nuances. Maybe he is the leader, maybe he’s not a total idiot and he will try to cover your back, and maybe [he] is a badass. A TV show allows you to explore it all — the foibles, the weaknesses, the previously unknown strengths he would’ve had.

DT: In our current trend of superheroes everywhere, do you think Ash fits in?

BC: No, not at all. That’s what makes him unique. He’s the only guy that has no skills whatsoever. He’s not CIA, he’s not the FBI, none of that shit. He’s just a schmoe that works in the hardwares department. And now he’s over the hill. He’s middle-aged, he’s tired, he’s worn out, and now he has to save the freaking world. I like that scenario. I want to see that guy try and pull that shit off. But he doesn’t really want to do it, he can’t really do it. He makes mistakes, and he’s a really flawed hero. This guy has a lot going on with him.

DT: So where is Ash going to go in Season 2?

BC: Well, he’s gonna go back home. He’s trying to save his town, but they don’t really want him back. He’s an urban legend, he’s “Ashy-Slashy.” He’s got to save the world but the town doesn’t really want his help.

Dana DeLorenzo: Kelly
DT: The show is a really fantastic way to continue the “Evil Dead” story, as well as start a new one.

DD: Yeah, I think that’s a very challenging thing to do — to maintain what the franchise was built on while also bringing it into a new era, a new generation with new characters and sidekicks. I think it’s a testament to Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell and Rob Tapart for being able to balance that and merge both. It was something that I was a little terrified of. I knew what a loyal fan base this franchise has, and I knew that it was mostly because of one man and one character. To the fans’ credit, they have been so, so kind and attached to these characters. And I think it’s because they are so well written and such a good balance to Ash. I think Ray likes to say that Pablo is the heart, Kelly is the brain and Ash is the brawn. It’s a trifecta of misfits that somehow comes together.

DT: One thing that’s unfortunately consistent throughout the original three Evil Dead movies is that women don’t typically have the biggest roles, and when there is a woman she is treated absolutely poorly. Do you think Kelly’s character is a kind of an intentional reversal to that trend?

DD: The creators have evolved the female character to where we’re at right now. I think the fact that Ash now has these strong women to fight alongside was very smart on their part. In general, women in horror have not been done justice and they’re starting to, thank goodness. I think there is a changing face of horror, and female characters are not naked or being the damsel in distress, they’re the Kelly’s of the world. The incredible men that created the franchise then realized, “Oh, let’s reflect [on] where we are, and let’s evolve these female characters.” I met a fan at a Comic-Con and she said, “Oh, I’m writing my senior thesis on the evolution of female characters in horror and I’m using your character of Kelly as the lead example of how they’re now these kickass women.” And it’s something I’m very proud of that it’s true, that it’s not just another stereotype. Kelly is tough for sure, but she’s human, and I love that.

Ray Santiago: Pablo
DT: Did you watch the “Evil Dead” movies growing up? What was it like working with Bruce Campbell, who starred in all of them?

RS: I’ve always been a fan of horror films, I watched these movies growing up as a kid. I always wanted to be the guy saving the girl from the monster, and now I’m one step closer to being the superhero. I get to be Ash’s loyal sidekick. And I’m the first Latino sidekick to a horror genre on television. Bruce is an amazing leader, and I sometimes still get nervous around him. I still have that feeling in my stomach whenever I show up to set. But we have this thing where we’ll walk on set, everyone will be sort of doing their thing, and I’ll look up and catch his eye and he catches my eye and we just start laughing. You know, Bruce has taught me so much, from learning to hit my mark to learning to speak up. I can only be so lucky to be working with such great company.

DT: What is it like to play a character breaking ground in a popular franchise?

RS: Going into this, I just wanted to be confident. I’ve been dying for an opportunity like this for a really long time. There’s pressure, but the pressure lies more now with what kind of role model I can be both on and off camera. I think with Pablo, the world gets a positive portrayal of a Latin-American. And in the time of today when people are building walls, it’s important to show positive portrayals of Latinos on television, and especially one who wants to be a superhero and save the world from evil.

DT: How similar are you to the character of Pablo?

RS: I think we both want to leave our marks on the world, we both want to be heroes in a certain respect, and they want to change people’s perceptions of what people think of us. I think we both see beyond people’s flaws, but I think Pablo has a hard time believing in himself, and personally I try to make the choice to believe in myself every day. I try to infuse myself into Pablo as much as possible. One of the things I struggle with is how he always just believes Ash is the hero, and he’s always let down by Ash. And I’m just like, “C’mon! Wake up!”

‘Queen Sugar’ and ‘Atlanta’ lead television toward diverse depictions of the South

Originally Published on The Daily Texan.

Television shows such as “The Dukes of Hazzard,” “The Walking Dead,” and Season 1 of “True Detective” are set in the South, where minority population is about 43.9 percent. But in all of these shows, the cast and crew are disproportionately white and male.

“Queen Sugar” and “Atlanta,” two shows which premiered last week, look to break this norm. They find their identity in a Southern setting like so many shows before them, but feature a surprisingly unique trait: a cast and crew predominately made up of women and people of color.

Last year, Hollywood director Ava DuVernay saw the lack of diversity in Southern television, and began working with Oprah Winfrey to develop a television show based off the book “Queen Sugar.” Her idea focused on women and people of color not just in front of the camera, but also behind. While at South By Southwest that year, she made a call to fellow director and then-UT professor Kat Candler.

“She asked if I would like to direct an episode and I said, ‘Hell yes!’” Candler said. “I had been trying to break down the door of TV directing for about a year before that.”

DuVernay hired women to direct every episode of Queen Sugar. The crew is half African-American and the show’s characters range from the black leads to white boyfriends to Latina teachers, all in an encouragingly diverse and close-knit society.

Business senior Juan Fuentes found “Queen Sugar” both refreshing and hopeful. As a Latino, he said he enjoyed the show’s across-the-board representation.

“It was wonderful to see so many communities, including mine, represented on screens across the nation,” Fuentes said.

“Atlanta,” Donald Glover’s passion project since August 2014, features a directing crew and writer’s room consisting only of minorities and two women. It focuses on a black rapper and his two friends as they try to handle their growing fame and life in the South. The show addresses a variety of political topics, including mass incarceration, gun rights and police brutality.

Though a promising step forward, Candler said she believes the root of the problem with underrepresentation lies with those in power.

“The people who have the money and the power and the control are white males,” Candler said. “But just now we’re slowly seeing more women and more people of color come into positions with the opportunity to reflect their world.”

The UT Moody College of Communication held 2016’s Flow Conference this past week where television experts, professors and industry insiders from across the U.S. came together to discuss ideas, opinions and questions about television and new forms of media.

Radio-television-film professor Mary Beltran held a panel at the conference discussing diversity. Beltran conducted recent research on the state of the entertainment industry, and found that executives were not hiring people of color because their educations had often not adequately prepared them.

Beltran said she took issue with the way universities are handling the preparation of radio-television-film students, particularly those of color.

“Why aren’t we putting pressure on our universities?” Beltran asked. “[We should] push our universities to create scholarship programs and internships just for students of color. Our University should try to level the playing field.”

Al Martin, a panelist and University of Colorado at Denver professor, said the problems lie not just with the amount of jobs given to people of minority, but with the quality as well.

“We’re asking for the wrong thing,” Martin said. “You’ll ask for something, they’ll give you just enough to satisfy those needs and then just move on. Hollywood is going to do whatever it takes to shut us up.”

In the end, Kat Candler said she believes the solution is simple.

“It’s not as hard as some folks make it out to be,” Candler said. “Just hire.”

Diversity in filmmaking must be intentional

Originally published as guest editorial in The Daily Texan.

A study performed by USC Annenberg’s Institute for Diversity and Empowerment earlier this year found non-white representation in film rests at about 27 percent whereas the nation’s population is almost 38 percent non-white. And with the Oscars almost exclusively recognizing white men, it’s easy to conclude the American film industry has a diversity problem. These issues are deep-rooted and widespread, but the Austin-based collaborative film industry is a blueprint for a solution.

On a larger level, the problems are more than simply missed opportunities because they also extend to the roles given. Andrew Thomas, a Texas-native black student at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts said he expects “more calls from a Tyler Perry than a Christopher Nolan.”

Now there’s nothing wrong with Tyler Perry movies, and Madea fighting zombies is one of the best ideas of this generation. But Perry’s last directorial effort was a just OK, straight-to-DVD release which grossed just over $9 million, and “Interstellar” was a just OK, IMAX release which grossed $675 million globally.

These problems exist in every facet of the film industry at large, even as recently as DC Comics’ superhero film “Suicide Squad.” The character El Diablo, played by Jay Hernandez, is the only Latino lead in the — admittedly not very good — film. His character has a dark past as a former gang member with a hot temper, playing directly into wider stereotypes. And this is not its only problem, as the character Harley Quinn, played by Margot Robbie, is entirely defined by her adoration of her abusive boyfriend, The Joker — played by a miserable Jared Leto. Why is Warner Bros. in such fear of forging a new path to branch out and have a female Joker or a hispanic Batman?

Where Hollywood is failing, Austin is finding solutions. Pioneer Richard Linklater founded the Austin Film Society in 1985 with local film historian and UT professor Charles Ramírez-Berg, creating a more collaborative and inclusive atmosphere in Austin. Mexican-American filmmaker and former UT student Robert Rodriguez arrived in 1992 with his film “El Mariachi.” The welcome of Rodriguez to the scene is indicative of the atmosphere change spurred on by the Austin Film Society.

“It’s very competitive in Hollywood, whereas here the attitude is ‘Let’s help one another, and see how we can help one another,’” Ramírez-Berg said. “Therefore, everybody is welcome.”

Obviously the city of Austin is doing something right. The evident success of filmmakers like Robert Rodriguez and the positive remarks from people within the industry show a growth within the city not reflected in Hollywood. The city’s intentional desire for a communal atmosphere has obviously lessened the competition, which made the business more inclusive.

The solution for job opportunities for minorities and women is for the Hollywood blockbuster industry to adopt an intentional shift toward an Austin-like communal atmosphere. It is obviously productive in a business model, as “El Mariachi,” the first film by Robert Rodriguez, made its own budget back 285 times over in America alone.

Jones is a journalism junior from Irving. Follow him on Twitter @justjustin42.

 

The Great Film vs. Digital Debate

What is the difference, who supports each side, and which is actually better?

A large debate rages on in the film industry as professionals take sides on whether to shoot movies with either digital film or “true” film.

What may appear to be a slight difference actually affects how filmmakers create movies and the way they appear in theaters. With new technology rising in popularity across the world, the film industry is searching for a way to keep up.

The Facts

Many facets of this debate remain rooted in subjective questions: What format do you prefer? What feels more “cinematic?” They can make approaching the situation daunting, but facts lay hidden within the conversation.

The History of Film and Digital Film

In the 1890’s the Lumière brothers invented the first projected film. Invented in France, it used strips of film to project pictures at 16 frames-per-second, creating the illusion of movement. After being captured, the strips of film had to be developed in a chemical process.

Over time, the industry standard became 24 frames-per-second, still projecting physical strips of film onto a screen. Cameras and projectors both developed and became higher resolution, as well as adding sound and color. Despite these changes, the fundamental tools which captured film and projected it remained largely the same.

Two primary types of film emerged, known as 35 millimeter film and 70 millimeter film. 35mm became the standard, with 70mm reserved for movies with a grander scale and larger budget, such as “Ben-Hur” and “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Once the 21st century came around, studios and filmmakers began looking into digital cameras and projectors. These digital systems took quite a while to catch up to the film industry, but George Lucas ushered in the “digital age” with “Star Wars: Episode II –  Attack of the Clones.”

Lucas was one of the first directors to ever shoot an entire movie on digital film, and “Star Wars: Episode II” helped it gain popularity. Movie theaters began take notice of the technology, and see it as a financially viable option.

By 2016, 98.2% of theaters have converted to digital projectors, according to technology.ihs.com. Many directors, like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, still shoot their movies on film and offer benefits to theaters which project film prints of their movies.

The Difference Between Film and Digital Film

The first distinction to know is between cameras and projection. The most “pure” experience is to shoot a movie on film camera and project it on film. However, movies can still be shot on film and converted to be shown on a digital projector, so the way a movie is shot does not impact how many theaters it will play in.

The objective difference between these formats comes down to two values: cost and resolution. In general, physical film costs more time and money to capture and project, but have a far superior appearance.

Both film cameras and digital cameras have a similar price, but film cameras require purchasing expensive film stock beforehand. Including processing costs, a 35mm 120 minute film with three takes per shot will cost about $25,713. On 70mm, the same film would cost $46,881.

Projecting a movie on 35mm film requires a projectionist dedicated to one to two projectors at a time. Projection of a 70mm film will require two dedicated projectionists on a single projector. Both also need time for preparation and setup of the projector.

Projecting a digital film requires only a digital server which an employee selects. A single employee can run every projector in a theater at once with little to no time between showings.

The debate itself does not revolve around the extra costs themselves, but whether they are worth it. Appearances and preferences can be deeply opinion-based, but also have factual components.

Movies shot on film can be stored more reliably, simply placed away rather than relying on a computer. On the flip side of this coin, film can sometimes age poorly, losing its color and acquiring an overly grainy look.

The resolutions of the movies themselves heavily favor film. The clarity of the projection quality is measured by how many pixels lay along the horizontal, measured in “K.” The average digital projector and HD TV show images in 2K. Higher-scale projectors such as those used at Alamo Drafthouse theaters use digital 4K projectors.

When using 35mm film, the projected images would translate to a 6K image, and 70mm translates to about 18K.

These facts show pros and cons to each side, but it can be hard to see which side has greater pros than cons.

The Sides

Many famous and popular filmmakers have taken public stances on both sides of the issue.

Pro-Film

The pro-film side argues that the authenticity and clarity of movies shown on film outweigh the costs required to capture and show them. The projectionist at Austin’s Alamo Drafthouse Ritz believes the work required is worth it to show such an “amazing” image.

Recently, famous Hollywood filmmakers Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino have come out in a very public support of the option to shoot and project on film. They offered incentives for theaters across the world to show their movies on film projectors.

“I’m not anti-digital in any way, but I’m absolutely committed to getting this choice back into the hands of the director,” said Nolan.

Others argue that film ought to be preserved for the sake of legacy. As the first movies ever made were on film, and continued that way for many decades, some believe it is worth continuing.

“Film has a history, and that history doesn’t begin with digital formats, it begins with film. So yes, I believe it is essential to preserve that choice,” said filmmaker Martin Scorcese.

In an official statement, the Directors Guild of America said they would be pleased if “film will remain a viable option for filmmakers for the foreseeable future.”

Overall, those who advocate for film do not wish for the entire industry to end digital film, but to keep the opportunity to shoot and show movies on film.

Pro-Digital

Advocates for digital film do not wish for the entire industry to shift to 100% digital cameras and projectors, but acknowledge the value of a digital industry.

Andrew Thomas, an AMC projectionist, supports the ease-of-use of digital projectors.

“I can just go up and press a button, or program them. It’s unbelievably easy,” Thomas said.

The cost of filming also opens up many opportunities for low-budget, student filmmakers. Recent UT graduate and local Austin filmmaker Joel Deeter plans to dedicate his life to making movies, but doesn’t believe he’ll ever receive a budget large enough to shoot on film.

Some Hollywood filmmakers even see little-to-no difference between what they can do with digital cameras and film. Academy Award Nominated cinematographer Roger Deakins sees nothing he can’t do on film with digital.

“Whether I’ll shoot on film again, I don’t know,” said Deakins.

The pros and cons of each format eventually outweigh one another, depending on the person.

My Opinions

This week, I saw Brian DePalma’s film “The Untouchables,” presented in a test screening on 70mm at Austin’s Alamo Drafthouse Ritz. The phrase “test screening” refers to the fact that the showing was a test, preparing to show it to the public.

Because it was a test screening in a hard format, the movie had three technical difficulties. While they do not expect to have these difficulties when screening for the public, it only underscored the difficulty of showing a 70mm film.

The projection of the film itself was absolutely gorgeous. Stephen H. Burum’s cinematography absolutely popped with a wider screen, darker blacks, and brighter colors.

A long tracking shot, following a person sneaking through shadows in a single take came to life when projected in 70mm. The foreground and the background appeared in perfect clarity as though it were seeking to singlehandedly prove the superiority of the format.

Some grain appeared on the screen, as well as lines and streaks which served to distract viewers every so often. These were not enough to detract heavily from the overall experience, but served as light distractions.

Having now seen modern and classic films in digital, 35mm, and 70mm, I have enough moviegoing experience to personally form a professional opinion.

Despite the extra money and effort required to capture, develop, and project a movie on film, it is absolutely worth it when a 70mm image is projected on a screen. The costs can be overwhelming, but given the proper budget, I believe the art justifies itself.

Full Disclosure for this section: I am an employee at the Alamo Drafthouse Ritz, which is how I was able to attend this screening. I am, however, only a food runner, and have no stake in the prosperity of the company and was provided no compensation for this article.

What’s Next?

Moving forward, the film industry will continue its general push further toward digital filmmaking. Some niche theaters in local markets will resist the trend and still show classic as well as modern movies on film.

Director JJ Abrams has headed up new “laser” projector technology, said to be indistinguishable from the appearance of film. With this, the ease of digital can combine with the beauty of film, but they are only in select locations.

As technology progresses and becomes more common, it is possible the film vs. digital debate will fade, but until then, it is worth looking into personally.

Sources: American Widescreen Museum, kodak.com, Cinelab, Directors Guild of America, The Austin Chronicle, indiewire.com, slashfilm.com

Austin Outdoor Industry Booms

Many business owners in the growing outdoor industry are choosing Austin to expand and open new businesses due to its location and enthusiastic outdoor- loving communities.

A panel last Tuesday brought together a group of industry executives downtown to discuss Austin’s prosperity in the area. The group included the leaders of Yeti Coolers, who make high-quality steel coolers and cups, and Austin B-Cycle, public bicycle stations. They discussed what makes Austin a great place for the outdoor products business, and listed the city’s climate, culture, and age among its benefits.

“When you’re in the outdoor space you have the ability to build an experience as opposed to a brand,” said Ravi Parikh, co-founder and CEO of RoverPass, an Austin-based camping mobile app.

In recent years, America’s entire outdoor recreation economy has shown strong signs of growth and prosperity. Outdoor retailer REI reported record profits last year, and their competitor Cabela’s shows a five-year increase in profits, according to marketwatch.com. The Outdoor Industry Association reports $646 billion in yearly outdoor recreation spending.

Corey Maynard, vice president of Yeti Coolers, explained the industry’s appeal through his personal experience in the field.

“Being in an environment where people love and believe in what they are doing is pretty special and unique to the outdoor space,” Maynard said.

The outdoor space has many appeals to companies, among them the passion they inspire within their customers. With the opportunity to create such a uniquely positive experience, businesses are creating brand ambassadors. Brand ambassadors are customers who have such a strong love for a company that they advertise the products to the people around them.

However, reliance on brand ambassadors doesn’t crowd out online advertisement. Peter Li, CEO of Atlas Wearables, an Austin-based fitness electronics company, merges online advertisement with their brand ambassadors.

“Our experience is a little bit of a different experience because it’s digital,” Li said. “This company can lead and grow the community through online and social media.”

Not all companies based in Austin in the outdoor industry have experienced

immediate growth. Investors have bases in larger cities and aim their spending toward larger markets. Parikh addressed that most of the capital is located on the West Coast.

Li and Parikh both experienced significant difficulties finding funding. Parikh said Austin is “a smaller market compared to San Francisco and New York. Funding is difficult, but requires more hustle.”

One of the most important elements of these companies is their location in Austin. The panelists listed the location, the community, and the culture as benefits of basing their business in Austin.

The city has not only allowed the growth of the outdoor industry, but cultivated it as well. Elliott McFadden, CEO and founder of Austin B-Cycle, listed Austin’s “laid back culture,” the fact that it’s a pretty location and the University of Texas. Austin B-Cycle, a private company, partnered with the City of Austin to allow citizens rent bicycles for a short period of time.

Ally Davidson, CEO of Camp Gladiator, noted the “great attitude and accepting culture” of Austinites as the reason for the city’s outdoor development. When asked for his opinion, Mark, a San Diego native who attended the panel, said he believes the city has “a lot of passion. Really what it takes.”

All of the executives who attended the panel remain confident about the future of Austin’s outdoor industry, but unsure where it will go.

“Innovation comes from something that is broken,” Davidson said. “24 Hour Fitness, Lifetime Fitness is boring. Whoever can disrupt this, look out for them.”