1. Jenny Berrisford – PRP Practical Feedback. Practical Grade = 85%
Assessment Criteria for the Practical Project:
 The ability to realise and address your research aims in a practical form
 Creative understanding and application of conventions appropriate to your chosen forms or approaches in creating
the project
 Appropriate application of technical and/or performance skills in the delivery of the final project
 Evidence of appropriate professional attitude with the technical team and supervisor (including submission of
technical requirements)
Jenny this was always such an ambitious project and at times I was concerned that you had just
taken on too much; too many ideas, too many screens, too many exits and entrances, too much to
edit etc. But your full commitment, drive and ability to keep your aims in sight paid off. What an
accomplishment.
You blended concepts of the digital double (or digital treble in this case) neatly around a narrative
that played on our desire to stay connected to technology and to leave behind some evidence or
trace of ‘liveness’ even when we’re dead. You were able to creatively apply your initial aims whereby
key theories of ‘Self-Schema’ were evident not only in the narrative, but perhaps weaved themselves
into the rational of each screen. There could have been some more consideration of how these 3
Self-Schema’s related to each screen and therefore each character. This would be a useful point to
discuss in your essay; the relationship to the screen and Self-Schema; so for example, how you
played on the desires of Steph and Stephanie to ‘live’ (and the paradox here) whilst considering
where each character embodied notions of each Self-Schema.
The project was technically very ambitious making it difficult for you to rehearse until all the footage
was filmed and edited. Even though there were some technical difficulties on the day, you managed
this professionally without breaking the illusion of the world you had created; treating the audience
like the ‘clients’ here worked well. You dealt with the problem as best you could and moved on,
interestingly demonstrating how we need to build in (human) contingency when working with
technology – ironically within your narrative, technology won out overall!
The 2nd
marker commented on the surprises in this work. She was unable to predict the outcome,
leaving the audience uncertain of the journey gives credit to your re-working the script. If you
remember the first draft, you gave away too much too soon. You took on feedback and were able to
translate this into a script/performance that allowed your small audience to feel part of something,
we were implicated. We were genuinely ‘gutted’ that the ‘real dying’ you had to live in the virtual
space while the ‘ideal self’ or the virtual creation got to live the life you wanted. An ironic paradox
that brought a tear to my (and the 2nd
markers) eye. Some really interesting creative application and
translation of Baudrillard, Auslander and Langlois theories interweaved within the story and
relationship to screen self and ‘real’ self.
You have been professional from the outset with the demands of the project Jenny; in fact you
couldn’t have achieved what you did without running a tight schedule; making sure you were
communicating with the team at MCUK, getting scripts to me on time, being flexible with the set and
its configuration, filming and editing systematically to give yourself enough time to rehearse and
lastly getting a cast of 9 other people to come and work on the project was an extraordinary
achievement. It’s been a pleasure working with you. Well done.