AS Video Vault

An archive of various videos made during previous AS courses - skills development, preliminary and final pieces. It includes the opening sequences from the last few years, including the mark they were given. Please note - marks from 2010 and 2012 were brought down in moderation, so my marks were slightly generous. Apologies for the aspect ratios in some cases.

Projects from 2015

Ben White

Benefits Of Crime - Final Cut from Ben White on Vimeo.

Rhiann Quinn


Antonia Hendry


Laura Greenley


Rebecca Wilkinson




Elleah Stanton


Amelia Pickering


2014
Projects from 2014

Amy Washbourne/ David Smith

Final FINAL Cut from Amy Washbourne on Vimeo.


Freddy Allen


Final Project. Final Cut from Freddy Allen on Vimeo.

Charlotte Greaves




Zoe Crick



Sophie Wilson

D:Sophie WilsonparadoxPARADOX01 1 from Sophie Wilson on Vimeo.



2013
Comments/ marks will be added later

Kathryn Dowson
Opening Sequence

Missing - FINAL FINAL CUT from Kathryn Dowson on Vimeo.

Leanne Owens
Opening Sequence:

Leanne Owens - Untitled (AS Final piece) from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Continuity Project:

Songs in Real Life from Leanne Owens on Vimeo.

------- Sean Scott
Opening Sequence:

Sean Scott - Winter - AS Media Studies Final piece from Chris Earl on Vimeo.


Continuity Project
Not available


-------
Esther Wade
Opening Sequence:

Road to Damascus - Revised Version from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Continuity Project

Esther Wade - Continuity Project from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
-------
David Smith/ Jack Stokoe
Opening Sequence:

pc edit from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Continuity Project:

The Prisoner Reprisal from David Smith on Vimeo.





2012
Here are the AS projects from 2012, with comments below. Please note - all the marks were taken down by about 5.

DECYPHER (Barry Stubbs, Katie Boal, Reece Wilkins) (58/60 - my mark)


Decypher (working version) from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Comments
Katie and her group have produced an excellent piece of work. Choice of material eminently appropriate and carefully selected; whole piece has well-rounded, slick feel. Every aspect of  production carefully considered in order to create desired effect, particularly more challenging elements such as lighting; these are effective from artistic as well as technical point of view. Titles demonstrate clear industry conventions, including correct order of production roles; clearly designed using more than the in-built transitions. Used in places to emphasise moments of impact (literally in case of the well-staged attack); have clearly been carefully integrated. Sound is weakest element: some imbalance in volume during some of interegation sequences, although music effective and appropriate to genre. Editing mostly excellent, adding to rhythm and general clarity/ mood of sequence; little that does not need to be there and all material included appropriate. Use of camera excellent, with clear attention to framing during both interogation and attack sequences. Full variety of shot distances used from BCU to ELS; some interesting use made of camera angles in order to develop "noir" influence of piece. Mise-en-scene effective: locations clearly appropriate and thought put into how to shoot them - framing genereally very good. Costumes, and props also clearly considered. As a whole, hard to see how an AS piece could be much better - this genuinely comes across as the opening to a film. Katie placed at top end of band due to her contribution to the editing.

FORSAKEN (Amir Yahari and Charlotte Patterson) (51/60 - my mark)

Forsaken /Zombie-Comedy\ short film from Amir Yarahi on Vimeo.

Comments
"Forsaken" - Zom Com (e.g. "Sean of the Dead", "Zombieland"). Key issue length - piece overlong, could do with some judicious editing. Mark needs to balance excellence with excess. Material generally appropriate although slightly disjointed as opening to film. Title sequence (opening shots, long tracking shot including superb effects work with credits) outstanding, deserves credit. Sound more of an issue both in terms of (c) music used and poor dialogue recording . Editing generally tight/ creative (e.g. some zooms, edits for comic effect etc.); some continuity errors (e.g. light in toilet). Content appropriate for genre, some thought put into elements of comedy (broad in places - toilet gag - relevant for comedy aspect). Camerawork clearly major strength - depth of field, focus pulling, full range of shots, excellent inventive composition, grading of image all contribute to genuinely filmic quality. Attention to framing generally detailed (opening shots work particularly well, as does centerpiece tracking shot). Variety of shot distances from ECU to ELS (of planet!). Mise-en-scene generally good, effort put into zombie make-up and deserted streets appropriate to genre. Connotations of costumes/ character thought through (e.g. use of red jacket, subversion of "dumb blonde"/ "action hero" stereotypes).  Meaning generally apparent although some subtleties lost due to sound. Some nice touches (e.g. teenage zombie attack). Shot transitions/ other effects exceptional, outstanding use made of After Effects. Best fit places mid-L4.

SCIENCE BOYS (Flossi Ward and Kirsty Smith) (51/60 - my mark)


Science Boys from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Comments
"Science Boys" (Teen Britcom - influenced by "Inbetweeners", "Skins", "Trainspotting" etc. Clearly creative L4 piece. Choice of material eminently appropriate linking directly to identified audience, uses limitations of location/ casting as advantage. Institutional aspects appropriate (e.g. Film 4/ Optimum). Entire piece solid and creative as film opening, clearly influenced by e.g. "Hot Fuzz", "Trainspotting". Titles well done - "low-fi", humourous approach relevant for genre; timing works well. Institutional conventions followed (slight mis-ordering of credits in some places). Sound works well - balance of V/O to music slightly high, but little hiss/ distortion; music appropriate, general approach slick. Editing generally strong, creative use made of frame holds and crash-cuts. Some title shots might have been edited slightly more slickly and timing on character vignettes (e.g. "Matt"). Continuity subtle, some nice touches (e.g. character vignettes). Little erroneous material; piece quite tight. Crucially, accurately captures comic style. Camerawork generally good - perhaps a little pedestrian in places but inventive in others (e.g. shot of "Matt" through door) - framing works well, composition generally good, tripod used well, variety of shot distances/ angles evident from LS to BCU, reasonable choices for genre although ES at the start might improve (credits sequence acts as something of ES in itself). Slight issues with white balance. Mise-en-scene makes creative use of limitations of location/ casting, deserves credit. Meaning apparent. Economic use of shot transitions/ other effects, again appropriate. Best fit safe low L4, balance proficient/ creative aspects.

WHERE'S MY MR RIGHT? (Catherine Kirk, Ellie Snowdon, Sarah Hewitt) (46/60 - my mark)


Where's My Mr Right? from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Comment

"Where's My Mr Right?" (Rom-com/ Chick Flick - influenced by e.g. "Bridget Jones' Diary etc)
Fair to describe as proficient with an example of excellence. Piece reasonably creative in most key areas. Material generally appropriate, demonstrates knowledge of audience (e.g. casting)/ genre. Works reasonably well as intro/ title sequence, setting up main characters and situation effectively albeit with somewhat pedestrian quality (mainly linked to aspects of camera-work). Titles generally appropriate (both institutional/  production conventions, although one or two errors);  colour/ typeface both relevant for genre; transitions used add further level of creativity and verve. Song eminently appropriate for genre, well-edited into sequence; diegetic sound (a real problem linked to cameras used) weaker - attempts made to boost this and edit audio accordingly, but still flawed. Some aspects of camera-work inventive (e.g. fridge shot) and some framing is interesting, but problems linked to some camera movements (e.g. jerky pan), issues linked to low light during kitchen sequence, some weaker composition (e.g. top of head being cut off) . Variety of shots somewhat basic, with range of shots limited to LS-CU due to restrictive location. Editing a little more successful (apart from one or two odd cross dissolves with use of  split-screen being perhaps the most interesting aspect of this -clearly creative and adds cheeky, idiosyncratic quality making piece a little more memorable. End particularly good, tails sequence well and sets up narrative making this successful opening sequence and allowing upper L3 mark to be awarded.



DAY 1 (Louise Browbank and Kelly Senior) (38/60 - my mark)

Day One from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Comments

Day 1 (spoof spy/ action movie)
Has done enough to be regarded as proficient, at least on a technical level, some evidence of creativity. Institutional considerations are valid (use of major studio with independent producers) Range of shots evident from ELS to ECU as well as creative shots (e.g. POV shot, Sergio Leonie-inspired shot) although lack of "typical" shots (e.g. ES or, particularly, shot/ reverse shot during confrontation at end) weakens. Chase itself reasonably well put together, continuity good, editing creates pace/ energy although general feel somewhat pedestrian, lacks finish; little obvious narrative consideration. Attempt at end to add interest with editing somewhat misfires. Most framing proficient/ creative (e.g., shooting through wall, some composition of ELS) - use made of different angles/ heights of camera set-up, demonstrates reasonable level of consideration/ creativity. Embedding of titles, choice of fonts demonstrate generic verisimilitude although somewhat flat in places; proficient not exciting. Transitions fairly effective here. Choice of music odd, but some impact. Heartbeat effective. Debatable how appropriate material is in places - confrontation at end seems tagged on. Slightly unclear what narrative is about - another scene might have made this clear - although opening with chase generates audience interest and is itself proficient. Mise-en-scene interesting in places (some striking locations used and in places used well to create energy for chase). Uneven, but certainly better than basic - proficient in places. Best fit suggests placement lower end of L3.

REVELATIONS (Sean Scott) (37/60)

Revelations from Chris Earl on Vimeo.

Comments
Final piece - "Revelations" (thriller/ spy). Piece is, in general, proficient although one or two elements basic. Choice of material (audience/ task) - attempts made to produce piece with edgy/ alternative style appropriate for teenage cineastes, although does not quite hang together. Institutional aspects, use of effects appropriate for aim although not quite successful. Titles - design is effective (font/ transition) but limited to actor and basic production credits. Proficient in terms of style, basic in terms of content. Good bookending of sequence. Sound - some proficient usage (music at start), less successful in some places (dialogue). Editing - generally proficient with some attempt at creativity (e.g electric shot inserts). Continuity generally good. Appropriate material - interogation scene reasonably well shot although inserts of "terrorist" not quite as successful. Use of the camera - some inventive shots, particularly uses of CU during interogation; terrorist in final insert is also interesting, although some less successful moments as well. Attention to framing reasonable, most shots well composed although slight lack if variety of shot distance - favours CU/ MCU although examples of MS/ LS. Mise-en-scene - reasonable in places although some questionable decisions (background for interrogation, corridor for terrorist). Meaning apparent - attempts made to construct two viable narratives sequences using conventions for flashback (transition effects, treated images) although the whole does not quite hang together. Sits on the cusp of basic/ proficient so benefit of doubt given; placed at bottom end of L3. A reasonable technical exercise.





2011
Here are the AS projects from 2011.

58/60
Final piece - "Animus Messor" (horror/ serial killer, influenced by "Se7en", "Hannibal" etc.)


Holding shots – generally excellent; shots are steady and well-realised (only issue is impact of auto-focus) with good range (incl static and follow). Final shot strong (see below). Upper L4. Framing – some excellent framing, particularly not revealing killer's face; many of the CU's are well-positions and manage to denote action without losing meaning. Some particularly effective shots (e.g. dead girls arm falling into shot, coupled with music. A range of angles is used, creates texture, develops interest. Reflection in final shot slight issue. U L4. Shot distances – generally, CU/ MS used (influenced by "Se7en", but effectively contrasted with outdoor LS/ ELS; pull back from door at end is effective. Shot range appropriate for genre and generally well-realised (see Framing). U L4. Appropriate material – use/ adaptation of Lionsgate ident, creation of own studio ident eminently appropriate; very few shots which do not work or fit in. U L4. M.-en-scene – generally good; normal world contrasts with horrror. Locations work well. ML4. Editing – excellent, creating clear and understandable rhythm for piece. There is a complexity which generates tension; this is a very rich piece of work, with a lot packed into 2 minutes. Effects – piece is very effects-heavy, although this is appropriate for genre and style. Some slight glitches, although clearly deliberate, effectiveness debatable in places. Generally, the use of effects enhances the mood and tone (particularly some double-exposure and time-warping. Use of b&w is also effective when contrasted with the colour sections and the titles, slightly inconsistent in places). Minimal use of fade-to-white effective. Mid/ upper L4. Sound – editing of sound to image excellent (e.g. overscore of ident; use of heartbeat, music etc., sting on revelation of dead body), demonstrates a clear understanding of effectiveness of comb of sound/ image. One or two editing glitches (e.g. before hand falls into shot) but nothing to impactson effectiveness. Some obvious invention (e.g. reversal of heartbeat sound). L4 (upper). Titles – well thought-out, effective and approriate; execution is excellent and inventive although order and range slightly limited. Use of effect to create movement effective. U L4. Overall - clearly high L4 evidence of invention/ excellence in most areas (despite slightly cliched subject matter). Placed towards top to reflect few weaknesses (highlighted above) coupled with obvious strength and skill in editing, camera operation and ambition. Hard to see how 2min AS piece could be much better.



48/60
Final piece - "Linked" (psychological horror/ thriller)


Holding shots – weaker element - quite a few shots include some shake or tripod/ camera "click". In some cases mitigated by use of e.g. frozen frames, clearly an issue with project. Similarly some camera movement works, but sometimes shakey (e.g. zoom at 0:39, pan at 0:55). Ambitious in places, moments of proficiency but inconsistent. Bottom L3. Framing – some effective shot compositon (e.g. mirror shot at end), but sometimes shots disorganised, with frame being crowded/ broken. Other significant weakness apart from hold. Low L3. Shot distances – range used from ELS to ECU; effective in places (e.g. initial establishing shots, some CUs on main girl, ECU of phone). Some good contrasts (e.g. opening section cutting from CU on "ghost" to ELS on main girl creating mood and sense of isolation). Bottom L4. Material – nothing really inappropriate although clear that in some places stills have been used (e.g. some CUs of "ghost"); does not markedly effect quality although does imply a lack of footage. Some shots held too long, although could be argued this fits mood of piece. L3/4. M.-en-scene – domestic/ normal setting clearly effective for narrative and used well; costumes etc perhaps a little unimaginative but fit in with agenda/ representation (c.f. evaluation). Lighting perhaps a weakness although again eval argues why. L3/4. Editing – generally effective, with some good shot/ countershot and attempts to use reverses. Continuity generally works; the use of titles to break up narrative is effective and creates a textured opening. Despite long takes, creates an effective narrative build, particularly towards end, and meaning clear. L4. Effects – ripple effect on titles works well; fades are appropriate and well-timed. Some attempts to use focus, sometimes effective. Generally support mood/ tone of piece. L4. Sound – music is appropriate, although found (non-copyright) but appropriate for mood and tone; fits action. Diegetic sound weaker, although echo effect on "ghost" is effective and subtle. Some unsettling uses of sound to generate mood (e.g. undertone for "ghost"). L3/L4. Titles – excellent and imaginative (e.g. range, effect, use of colour etc.) Clear application of research. "Ripple" technique effective, generates interest. Order appropriate. Use of blackouts to display titles adds to tension. L4. Overall - many L4 elements, but fundemental weaknesses in shooting preclude safe L4 mark. However, apart from shots, most other elements L4 tendencies, just, so v. bottom L4 mark awarded.



48/60
Final piece - "The Lowest Majority" (genre - horror/ zombie apocalypse, based on e.g. "Dawn of the Dead".


Holding shots - works well within opening "news" section, with some attempt to create verisimilitude (not totally successful, but proficient). Mostly irrelevant during main body - attempts to create kinesthetic quality of e.g. "28 Days Later" are somewhat successful. L3/4. Framing - mostly proficient, some occasionally excellent shots (some of "zombie attack" footage; 360 degree shot of the "saviours"; shot of "saviours" with sun behind them on ridge (2:54), opening slow zoom) although some weak framing also (a couple of incidences of camera operator shadow in shot) and less successful camera movement (pan/ tilt from the "hero/ zombie" at about 2:10). Some imaginative framing (e.g. the first zombie attack; some of the angled shots ). Proficient, even excellent uses of POV to develop audience response. L3/4. Shot distances - range from BCU to E/LS, appropriate for this genre; clear sense of research being applied. L4/3. Appropriate material - all elements, despite occasional weak framing or slight continuity glitches, clearly appropriate - an obvious engagement with genre. Slightly better execution would improve final scene, but actual material itself is proficient, again with some excellence use of lingering "zombie attack" shots to create tension; "shocks" (seeming hero being killed and turned into a zombie early in narrative). L4/3. Mise-en-scene - good contrast between "normal" world (news reports, home) and "apocalypse" world (wild countryside) generates sense of tension; some attempt made to use make-up to create appropriate "look". Final location seems a little out of place, although a geographic logic. L3/4. Editing for meaning - most editing is excellent, with clear sense of rhythm and attempt to create logical narrative structure, continuity generally successful (some shot/ reverse shot combinations particularly); use of blackouts and titles to generate moments of excitement (e.g. 2:41). L4/3. Effects - minimal but appropriate (treatment of the Lionsgate ident, creation of news report sequence, movement of titles) - does not impede narrative, maintains sense. L4. Sound - music specially composed, clearly inspired by e.g. original "Dawn of the Dead" diegetic audio less well recorded (e.g. news reports). L3/4. Titles - relevant distributor used, original studio logo created. Some attempt at originality with titles, slight issue with order, countered by use of colour/ typeface/ style. L4/3. Overall - generally proficient with some excellent features. Placed high L3 to reward strengths but recognise flaws.



46/60
Final piece - "Funhouse" (horror/ slasher, influenced by "Halloween" etc.)


Holding shots - initial shots of streets are well held, although a little over-done; sense of atmosphere created which links well to genre; some effective, moody shots. Pan at 0:33 not quite successful. Better pan at 0:43. Mostly L3 (upper). Framing - in general, shots well framed; opening sequence manages to create sense of isolation and fear within the "ordinary world" context, reminiscent of e.g. "Halloween"; some inventive framing within dialogue sequence (ECU of phone, S/RS through the window; shot of clown entry; POV sequence); however, the whole does not quite hang together and some weaker framing - best fit L3 (mid). Shot distances - range of shot distances used - LS/ ELS during opening establishing section; MS/ CU/ ECU/ 2S during dialogue section. Appropriate with regard to creating mood, although a little more imagination within both sections would improve. Some shots held too long (e.g. opening curtain). Most shots in themselves appropriate - L3 (upper). Appropriate material - proficient attempt to create studio ident. Too much of streets, although would work better if film were to be longer, since sense of mood/ place relevant. L3 (upper). Mise-en-scene - appropriate for genre and style - opening sequence develops sense of encroaching dark whilst domestic setting for clown attack reflects tropes of genre (e.g. "Scream", "Elm Street" films). Clown costume and delivery effective. L3 (top). Editing for meaning - piece flows well, with a good sense of continuity (no obvious glitches or camera errors). Sense of menace created by flow of shots in opening section (but see "Effects" for transition issue). L3 (upper). Effects - some good attempts to use effects (sound/ visual) on studio ident; cross-dissolves between titles and between shots during intro sequence are a little fast in terms of creation of mood. L3 (upper). Sound - music is appropriate and effective, creating a good sense of tension. Some of the sound mix is weaker (e.g. dialogue/ footsteps) based on limitations of camera. Some inventive attempts to use software to deal with limitations of sound (e.g. use of eq to create internal/ external sound of screams; looping of screams etc.). L3 (mid). Titles - effective and cover a good range of roles; use of effect is justified and use of movement creates interest. Uniform and generally appropriate; title of film itself takes a little while to come up. L3 (top). Overall - not a top L3 project, but close - placed at the very upper end of the marks band to reflect an uneven outcome.



42/60
Final piece - "The Unknown" (thriller/ stalker/ serial killer.)


Holding shots – opening shots are well done, and use of slow zooms creates effective mood. Some attempt to use camera movement proficiently (e.g. establishing pan), not always succesful but ambition evident. Some jerky shots L3. Framing – some interesting framing (e.g. opening shots, shots of attacks, shot of horse running at 01:37 etc.) Generally proficient. Use of slow zooms and handheld proficient and effective, with one or two moments of excellence (e.g killer POV shot, unconcious second girl). L3/4. Shot distances – range of shots from ECU (door handle) to ELS (establishing shots) used; also a range of angles, sometimes very effective (e.g. unconcious girl). L3/4. Appropriate material –piece is more like trailer than opening, sense of narrative disconect, although clearly attempting to capture appropriate generic tone. Some footage is basic in terms of creating effective intro to film (although in itself being reasonable) whilst much is proficient, just. L3 (bottom) . Mise-en-scene – use of countryside creates sense of isolation, an interesting and effective location. Opening scene is less successful w/r to press briefing - generally proficient. L3. Editing for meaning – some reasonable attempts at creating narrative flow, although sometimes confusing to follow - takes a couple of watches to understand plot. Continuity is generally reasonable, although a couple of errors. One or two excellent reverses (e.g. 02:05) Use of fades/ cuts during "attack" sequences effective, as is use of blackouts for titles (apart from note below). Some editing slightly off, with camera jerks at end of takes being evident. L3 (lower). Effects – sepia tone informs chronology, although a little hard to decode; use of fades is effective and creates tension for audience. Some attempts at applying effects to generate interest and develop narrative (e.g. slo-mo at 02:22). L3. Sound – music fits in some places, although does not quite fit with editing in places (e.g. faster piece at 02:23) . Diegetic sound is weaker (e.g. echoy dialogue at start) and is basic in some places, although proficient in others. Some inventiveness (e.g. repetition of police officer dialogue to create mood. L3.

Titles – generally effective and appropriate, although an odd gap at (02:12 ) breaks flow. Studio ident is effective. L4.

Overall - this is clearly an L3 piece; although some aspects are basic, many are proficient, with ambition being outweighed by lack of skill. Occasional flashes of excellence. Mid-L3 mark awareded to recognise uneven quality.



38/60
Final piece - "Regret" - (drama/ teen)


Holding shots – few shots used, but generally well held - tripod clearly used and most are steady. Pan at 00:58 effective Proficient due to lack of range. L3 (upper). Framing – some inventive framing (e.g. O/S shot at start, creates dramatic opening; graveyard sequence). No real issues - proficient again, with most shots in themselves being effective (apart from 2-shot during conversation - off-centre) - but lack of range precludes L4 mark being awarded. L3 (upper). Shot distances – some range at start (e.g. CU cut to ELS mixed to LS in graveyard effective; limited range used later (mainly MS, with overlong 2 shot) although explained in eval; all scenes would benefit from greater range, limiting effectiveness. However, generally proficient. Low L3. Appropriate material – clearly limited considering number of held shots and lack of range; piece would benefit from more footage. Conversation sequence is somewhat banal as a result - primary weakness. In themselves just proficient, although with basic aspects. L3/2. Mise-en-scene – both scenes effective in terms of setting (graveyard well used) although conversation scene less well-shot. No glaring errors. Other aspects proficient. L3. Editing for meaning – limited due to lack of range of shots; generally continuity works and use of time-jumps creates a clear narrative focus. Use of fades and cuts is effective and proficient. 2-shot for conversation is held too long and would benefit from more imaginative construction. Mid L3. Effects – use of b&w to denote flashback is effective, and feather effect to denote memory is quite original and sustained. Both a quite subtle and unobtrusive. B&W also helps develop melancholy mood. Use of date in corner is perhaps less effective. L3 (upper). Sound – original music has been commissioned, eminently appropriate for genre/ mood; well integrated into edit (e.g. reprise at end of clip, use within b/o and at end of first section). Use of voice-over at start, incl reverb effect, is strong. Dialogue scene is weaker, with clear variations in volume and limited mixing. L3 (best fit). Titles – original studio ident designed and commissioned; the few titles are generally proficient, although they are (to a certain extent) limited. L3. Overall - a difficult piece to categorise since in itself works reasonably well, but does not really showcase a technical range. Clear weakness is over-long shots, but countered by integrity of individual elements. Basic with proficient elements, so placed lower L3.


2010
Jess - 53/60






Rob - 46/60




AS Media Project by Rob Cansino



Ruth and Alahnna - 55/60


AS Media Studies project by Ruth Trigger and Alahnna Gow



Nelson and Adam - 35/60


AS Media Studies final project by Adam Pepper and Nelson Cheng




Jamie Lee and Abbas - 42/60



AS Media Studies Project by Abbas Tajik and Jamie-Lee Carr




Emily and Beth - 51/60



Final AS piece by Bethany Stone and Emily Smith. 2010 Finals

The Prisoner Videos (2011)
Videos are hosted by Vimeo


Chloe, Hannah and Holly's Prisoner Video from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
Video based on the Prisoner script produced by Chloe, Hannah and Holly as part of their Media AS course


Craig, James and Peter's Prisoner Video from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
Video based on the Prisoner script produced by Craig, James and Peter as part of their Media AS course


Emma, Lauren, Hannah and Callum's Prisoner Video from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
Video based on the Prisoner script produced by Emma, Lauren, Hannah and Callum as part of their Media AS course


Hannah and Emma's Prisoner Video from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
Preliminary project by Hannah and Emma based on "The Prisoner" script, produced as preliminary work for the AS Media Course


Immy and Steph's Prisoner Project from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
Video based on the Prisoner script produced by Immy and Steph as part of their Media AS course


James and Greg's Prisoner Video from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
Video based on the Prisoner script produced by James and Greg as part of their Media AS course


Manny, Beth and Nat's Prisoner Video from Chris Earl on Vimeo.
Video based on the Prisoner script produced by Manny, Beth and Nat as part of their Media AS course