Nigel directed the two professional actors that were present to act out the same scene many times but in different tones and styles to show us how instructions and terminology from the director can make such a difference to the mood and impact of the scene and thus the importance of being clear about what you want from the story. What stood out to me was at one point Nigel directed the male actor to 'play the scene as if he wanted the girl to disappear.' This resulted in the performance being very aggressive between the two characters. Afterwards the actors were instructed to re-do the scene but 'play it as if he wants the girl to leave willingly.' A more empathetic, quieter performance resulted and it astounded me just how such a slight difference in wording/ terminology from the director could make such a huge difference in the outcome of a scene. It definitely made me think more about how I direct people and to think very carefully about how exactly I want the scene played without miscommunication to the actors.

He also arranged little acting exercises for us to do, in order to get a better understanding of how actors and directors work. 

The first exercise split us into two groups, each group then forming a circle. We had to then count from one onwards, and whichever number we were on the same amount of people had to walk into the centre of the circle. For example, at the count of one, only one person would step forward to the centre and at the count of four, four people would have to step forward. If more or less people than the exact number we were on stepped forward, we had to restart the game from the count of one again. The key point was that none of us were sure who was going to step forward at what time/ number, so perfecting the game taught us to carefully pay attention and watch each other very closely to gage the next action/ performance.  

The second exercise involved getting a few of us to actually participate in acting to a certain extent. Two students were selected - one told to become a god like character that was protecting a valuable stone and the other a thief aiming to steal the stone. They were meant to imagine that the scene was set in a very dark place in which they couldn't see anything. The first time this was acted out, Nigel told the participants to keep their eyes open, so that even though they were acting like they couldn't see they still knew where each other was. This resulted in the thief easily obtaining the valuable stone, and the god easily being able to find the thief and nudge them with their (pretend) sword. It was also noted that the students playing the role of the god would talk, screaming out and trying to be funny. Nigel told the pair to re-enact the same situation but with their eyes closed this time. Becoming essentially blind, both students were silent, focussing more on listening for the movement of each other in relation to themselves so 

• The thief could try and find the stone (an old coffee cup placed on the floor)
• The god could catch the thief and kill him/her with a sword (cardboard tube)

Both were also paying more attention on navigating their way around the studio without the use of their eyes than trying to be just comical or entertaining. The whole scenario became a lot more tense and serious, and the whole exercise taught us about how to get the most realistic results from actors. Putting our pairing in better circumstances that are actually relating to the scene, such as taking away their sight to allow them to experience what the characters would be feeling, creates the best way to get the most believable performance. 

In exercise three Nigel firstly made us walk only in straight lines, before telling us to change to only walk in curvy lines. The straight lines were a lot easier, more focussed and serious, whereas when we walked curvy everything became very chaotic, more fun and we could only get glimpses of the surroundings rather than a clear visual. When walking in only straight lines it was easy to navigate and avoid others around you as acknowledging where every one else's next move was more obvious but when walking in only curvy lines this was not the case, many of us bumping into one another as where people were going to move next was completely random and uncontrolled. Nigel then proceeded to get the actors to demonstrate the scene making them act using curvy and straight line walking - when walking curvy it made the character seem like they were avoiding something etc whereas walking about the set in a straight manner created more of a controlled, serious tone. 

We were also taught about the hierarchy of characters in a production. Each person was given a character to represent from the movie 'Out of Sight' and every time a character's social status was put down in the particular clip we watched, the person representing that character would make themselves lower by bending their knees. Likewise, when a character's status was benefited, the person representing them would make themselves taller/ remain upright. The professional actors then re-enacted the scene that they had previously done, using the same method of bending lower when they were being empowered by the other one and staying tall when they had the upper hand. This let us see as spectators a definitive line between social status, character internal feelings and how it can effect the outcome of the performance. 

We were also recommended to read the following books to help us understand how to correctly and most efficiently direct actors: