Chances are that most of us would love to be able to make a living expressing ourselves, whether through art, music, literature or film, and UC Berkeley time and again proves itself an institution that will give us that chance. The Roselyn Schneider Eisner Prizes in Film and Video, commonly called the Eisner Prizes, are awarded to two undergraduate and graduate-student film entries a year based on “creativity.” And while some of the films almost ran rampant with creativity, this year’s winners tempered the unique with the understandable, creating balanced, thought-provoking and carefully unsettling entries.
The films submitted were, in a word, diverse, which shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the award applicant pool. Some were a tribute to the arts — The Daily Californian’s Jeff Capps, for instance, walked us through an underground graffiti art event. Others did without a plot and were more impressionistic. A black-and-white exploration of London comes to mind. So does a near-schizophrenic look at the Chase building near the Downtown Berkeley BART station, shot completely with a negative effect. Whether they convey nostalgia, admiration or even paranoia, the films are variegated in their subject matter so as to appeal to a wide audience.
While one couldn’t help but appreciate most of the films’ messages, the execution in conveying those messages sometimes wanted improvement. The documentaries in particular were somewhat lacking in focus. For example, one film focuses on the campus’s history, featuring a voice-over about our inherited spirit of activism. But the accompanying images are often shaky shots of old photos which do nothing to keep viewers’ interest or — even more confusing — brief video clips that are seemingly irrelevant to the narration. The result is an ironically inactive documentary about activism and UC Berkeley. Another entry seeks to portray an American family but falls short by focusing on too many topics at once: the Vietnam War, biracialism, divorce, mental health disorders. One wonders why these submissions to an award for “creativity” neglected to nuance their films more, both in production style and plot content.
Still other films make little sense whatsoever: One entry follows a wheelchair-bound boy with copious amounts of red lipstick, Cantonese metal music and lots of spray paint. Enough said.
What sets the winning videos apart, then, is that they successfully walk the line between the avant-garde and the intelligible. In particular, “Aye Dee” by Oliver Li and Bastian Michael follows a man, clad in a white, full-body spandex suit, who struggles with physical and social visibility. The theme is straightforward enough, but this is no angsty teen drama. His exploration of clothing and alcohol as paths to social interaction examines what it means to be an individual in a new light. The film poses a tacit question: “Can we ever look beyond the surface?” And — not to spoil too much — the filmmakers’ answer seems to be yes. Erin Colleen Johnson’s “Come In,” meanwhile, gives us separate images on split screens. As a group chants a prayer aloud, a man operates a looming network of machinery and computers. The worshippers’ voices and the computers’ churning are synchronized, suggesting that the two proceedings may even be synonymous.
If anything, this year’s submissions for the Eisner Prize are a sample of the wide interests here at UC Berkeley, showing off the creative (if sometimes convoluted) faculties of the student body. If you’re looking for something thoughtful, off beat or just plain weird, the Pacific Film Archive’s screening of these films, “Artists in Person,” will fit your tastes.
Contact Josephine Yang at [email protected].
Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly described a film called “All Better” as being about a party set to music from the 70s. In fact, “All Better” is a film about the history of the AIDS movement.