the thing i love about shakespeare is that it’s up to the actors and directors how much indirect characterization a character can have. like, good ol’ billy shakes had very sparse stage directions, sometimes none at all, and there weren’t exactly write-ups or character bios that gave people insights into what the characters were like.
for example, i’ve seen two productions of romeo and juliet. in one version they made it seem like romeo was a creep that just wanted to have sex with juliet but masked it with pretty words but then eventually fell in love with her, and then in another version he was a young and hopeful kid caught in an adult world who still believed in things like love-at-first sight and soulmates. and both of these things were conveyed with how the different actors chose to carry themselves, interact with other characters, and deliver their lines while playing this character. and don’t get me started on their cast members, because in the first version they had me believing romeo was an older guy whereas in the second they had mercutio and benvolio treat him like a younger brother. and, idk, i think that’s amazing.
Somehow, each play tells the same story every time you see it, and also a different one.
Shakespeare’s texts allow for so much flexibility. We don’t acknowledge or celebrate that quality as much as some other ones, but we should. It’s another reason for his timelessness, his endurance. His plays are geodes. They look different from every angle. But they’re always entrancing,
