NAVIGATION:

Reading Drama the Stanislavski Way, or Using the Magic "If"

Shakespeare did not write plays so that people could read them. He wrote plays so that people could hear and see them. He was an actor -- in Greene's term, a "player" -- and it is often clear that he has very specific ideas about just what his audience is hearing and seeing; for instance, let's look at this scene this scene in Hamlet:

When you read a Shakespeare play you will understand and like it better if you try to do some of the work of the missing element: the acting. The best way I know to do this, is to use the ideas of Constantin Stanislavski (1863 - 1938), the originator of what is now known as the "method," which has been the dominant theory of acting in the U.S. since WWII.
Though Stanislavski made his mark with the plays of Chekhov, particularly The Seagull, the method applies to both tragedy and comedy; Stanislavski himself played both Benedick, from Much Ado About Nothing, and Othello.
Here's my condensed version of Stanislavski's method:
The actor actually acts, does/says things to get a result. Therefore the actor never plays a quality, such as old age, or innocence, or being in love; that's called "indication" and results in boring stereotypes. The actor plays only himself / herself, acting as he/she would do in the "given circumstances" of the play. For instance, Hamlet is often described as melancholy (which is a quality), but if you are an actor (or a reader reading the Stanislavski way) you should ask yourself what you would do in these given circumstances: after learning that your father suddenly died, you go home, open the door, and see on the couch with his arm around your mom, your least favorite uncle, and that uncle says, "come on in, son, and don't look so sad."

Brief response, discussion: -- What would you want to say? -- What would you actually say? -- Compare to Hamlet, 1.2.64-67

This makes things a lot simpler; the actor doesn't have to think if Hamlet is melancholy, or think about what a melancholy person would act like. The actor simply has to react to the given circumstances, and the actor's reaction may be interpreted as a sign of melancholy--or not--but the actor's job is done.
An exercise in reading the Stanislavski way:

Discuss the common idea that Petruchio's initial motivation for wooing Katherine is the money that would come with her. (See the Wikipedia article on this topic.) This assertion is largely based on what Petruchio says in Act 1, Scene 2, lines 65 - 76.
1. Warm up [i.e., imagine what you would do in similar circumstances]. To play this Kahoot, go to Kahoot.it [Only I go to the Kahoot control panel.
2. Discuss what we learn about Petruchio's character from the opening sequence of the scene (lines 1 - 44).
  - Is Grumio really stupid or is he teasing?
  - What is Petruchio's reaction to Grumio? Anger? Annoyance? Amusement?
3. In his second speech of this sequence, what is Hortensio's action? [That is, what does Hortensio hope to accomplish, and how does he go about it?]
4. Track the sequence of Petruchio's answer to Hortensio's question, "what happy gale / Blows you to Padua here from old Verona?"
  - What's the very first thing he says?
  - What does his father's death have to do with his voyage away from home?
  - What is his attitude towards money?
  - Is Grumio's first speech (lines 77-82) in this sequence straight or mocking? (For background, see how Grumio interacts with Petruchio in the opening of this scene, and at other places in the play.)
  - Put everything together in order to challenge the common idea that Petruchio is motivated primarily by money.