History AlternativeCharacterInterpretation / WilliamShakespeare

* ''Theatre/HenryIV'' parts one and two: Is Falstaff a sad, old, cowardly man looking at the Crown Prince as a meal ticket, or is he an indefatigable mound of life and bombast who genuinely loves his Hal like a son? Is Hal a defiant, young hedonist living out the last flames of irresponsible youth before the weight of the crown comes crashing down on him, or is he a cold, calculating politician using the denizens of Eastcheap to craft his public image so he can appear so much finer in his reformation? Does Hal's rejection of Falstaff fall under SugarWiki/MomentOfAwesome, NecessarilyEvil, or KickTheDog? Do Hal and Falstaff even really like each other? There are so many ways to play both characters. Compare the scene where Hal and Falstaff practice Hal's future encounter with his father the king: the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8k1Fg_Oquk&list=UU3On2n4-IiMVbuqxhVEITXA&index=6&feature=plcp 2012 BBC production]] and the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmSvaSes7U 2010 Globe Theatre production]].

* ''AlternativeCharacterInterpretation/{{Hamlet}}'':

* ''Theatre/{{Hamlet}}'':

** The 1953 movie adaptation interpreted Mark Antony as vaguely sinister, sporting both a KubrickStare and later a PsychoticSmirk whem he had finished his famous "friends, romans countrymen" speech at Caesar´s funeral. The smirk shows itself when he turns away from the crowds, rioting behind him. He is also ColorCodedForYourConvenience, sporting a toga that is slightly less dark than that of Cassius. In this respect, Brutus stands out as a TragicHero, played by both Cassius and Antony in due order.

** The character of Shylock is open to lots of AlternativeCharacterInterpretation, largely because he's not drawn as unambiguously evil as other Jewish characters of the same time. Is he a greedy bastard who cares for nothing but money? Is he a hard-nosed business man who knows that his only protection from those who would like to see him ruined is his reputation as a bastard? Is he the victim of repeated bullying and abuse who finally gets what he believes is a chance to take revenge on the person who has abused him the most - and do it legally? The famous "hath not a Jew" speech in particular humanizes Shylock well beyond most Shakespearean villains, who tend to be ForTheEvulz or mad for power. Revenge killings were still common in Shakespeare's day, and still often considered legally justified. Shylock's also the only character in the play who doesn't try to twist the law or back out of bargains freely entered, despite these traits generally being ascribed to Jews centuries before and since, implying Shakespeare may have intended the character as a Deconstruction.

** Is Isabella a {{sh|rinkingViolet}}y [[SugarAndIcePersonality but sweet]] {{Chaste Hero}}ine who learns about chaste love in the end, or the play's ''[[NotSoDifferent other]]'' KnightTemplar who's so obsessed with her saintly image that she'd sacrifice her brother to maintain it?

** Hector is far more viscous to his wife whom he loves very dearly in the Iliad. Interesting to note that the Iliad portrays women far more equally than Shakespeare's play.

* ''Theatre/HenryIV'' parts one and two: Is Falstaff a sad, old, cowardly man looking at the Crown Prince as a meal ticket, or is he an indefatigable mound of life and bombast who genuinely loves his Hal like a son? Is Hal a defiant, young hedonist living out the last flames of irresponsible youth before the weight of the crown comes crashing down on him, or is he a cold, calculating politician using the denizens of Eastcheap to craft his public image so he can appear so much finer in his reformation? Does Hal's rejection of Falstaff fall under SugarWiki/MomentofAwesome, NecessarilyEvil, or KicktheDog? Do Hal and Falstaff even really like each other? There are so many ways to play both characters. Compare the scene where Hal and Falstaff practice Hal's future encounter with his father the king: the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8k1Fg_Oquk&list=UU3On2n4-IiMVbuqxhVEITXA&index=6&feature=plcp 2012 BBC production]] and the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmSvaSes7U 2010 Globe Theatre production]].

** Another essay goes the other way around, claiming that, as a catholic (the play doesn't specify when the action takes place, it could be in medieval times), Hamlet would avoid killing Claudius before he knew for sure Claudius would go to hell. That's why he needed to be sure Claudius was the killer, and, after he was sure of it, he held his strike when Claudius was praying for forgiveness.

* ''Theatre/HenryIV'' parts one and two: Is Falstaff a sad, old, cowardly man looking at the Crown Prince as a meal ticket, or is he an indefatigable mound of life and bombast who genuinely loves his Hal like a son? Is Hal a defiant, young hedonist living out the last flames of irresponsible youth before the weight of the crown comes crashing down on him, or is he a cold, calculating politician using the denizens of Eastcheap to craft his public image so he can appear so much finer in his reformation? Does Hal's rejection of Falstaff fall under awesome, NecessarilyEvil, or KicktheDog? Do Hal and Falstaff even really like each other? There are so many ways to play both characters. Compare the scene where Hal and Falstaff practice Hal's future encounter with his father the king: the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8k1Fg_Oquk&list=UU3On2n4-IiMVbuqxhVEITXA&index=6&feature=plcp 2012 BBC production]] and the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmSvaSes7U 2010 Globe Theatre production]].

** An alternate AlternateCharacterInterpretation: Petruchio has no interest at all at taming Kate (as he says early on, he actually likes her for her wit), but all his friends expect him to try to. Therefore he makes an absurdly big show of taming her to hint to her that he's not serious while he looks like he's trying really hard to his somewhat dumber friends. The scene where she comes over is where she finally gets it and starts to play along. The moral of the story, and especially the ending scenes, is not therefore "wives, submit to your husband" but rather "a happy marriage is built on trust and not the man and woman struggling against each other."

** The play's script explicitly says that Hamlet's 30. Whether he acts his age is another matter (his immaturity might be part of the problem), as is whether the play treats him as an adult. (Some critics say that Shakespeare might've changed his mind about Hamlet's age and just forgot to take out that line).
** The play's script as it exists today has contradictory information about his age. He's said to be in college; but Hamlet also says he knew Yorick, who ''died'' 30 years ago. Just shows that even in Shakespeare's time WritersCannotDoMath. (Although this may also be a case of a reference to 13 being changed to 30 when the play was reprinted. Numbers got messed up in a few plays of the time because the original author's handwriting was illegible in some places.)

* ''Theatre/HenryIV'' parts one and two: Is Falstaff a sad, old, cowardly man looking at the Crown Prince as a meal ticket, or is he an indefatigable mound of life and bombast who genuinely loves his Hal like a son? Is Hal a defiant, young hedonist living out the last flames of irresponsible youth before the weight of the crown comes crashing down on him, or is he a cold, calculating politician using the denizens of Eastcheap to craft his public image so he can appear so much finer in his reformation? Does Hal's rejection of Falstaff fall under CrowningMomentofAwesome, NecessarilyEvil, or KicktheDog? Do Hal and Falstaff even really like each other? There are so many ways to play both characters. Compare the scene where Hal and Falstaff practice Hal's future encounter with his father the king: the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8k1Fg_Oquk&list=UU3On2n4-IiMVbuqxhVEITXA&index=6&feature=plcp 2012 BBC production]] and the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmSvaSes7U 2010 Globe Theatre production]].

* ''Theatre/HenryIV'' parts one and two: Is Falstaff a sad, old, cowardly man looking at the Crown Prince as a meal ticket, or is he an indefatigable mound of life and bombast who genuinely loves his Hal like a son? Is Hal a defiant, young hedonist living out the last flames of irresponsible youth before the weight of the crown comes crashing down on him, or is he a cold, calculating politician using the denizens of Eastcheap to craft his public image so he can appear so much finer in his reformation? Does Hal's rejection of Falstaff fall under MomentofAwesome, NecessarilyEvil, or KicktheDog? Do Hal and Falstaff even really like each other? There are so many ways to play both characters. Compare the scene where Hal and Falstaff practice Hal's future encounter with his father the king: the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8k1Fg_Oquk&list=UU3On2n4-IiMVbuqxhVEITXA&index=6&feature=plcp 2012 BBC production]] and the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmSvaSes7U 2010 Globe Theatre production]].

* ''Theatre/HenryIV'' parts one and two: Is Falstaff a sad, old, cowardly man looking at the Crown Prince as a meal ticket, or is he an indefatigable mound of life and bombast who genuinely loves his Hal like a son? Is Hal a defiant, young hedonist living out the last flames of irresponsible youth before the weight of the crown comes crashing down on him, or is he a cold, calculating politician using the denizens of Eastcheap to craft his public image so he can appear so much finer in his reformation? Do Hal and Falstaff even really like each other? There are so many ways to play both characters. Compare the scene where Hal and Falstaff practice Hal's future encounter with his father the king: the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8k1Fg_Oquk&list=UU3On2n4-IiMVbuqxhVEITXA&index=6&feature=plcp 2012 BBC production]] and the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmSvaSes7U 2010 Globe Theatre production]].

Lots of Creator/{{Shakespeare}}an characters receive AlternativeCharacterInterpretation. The scarcity of stage directions creates even more space for this.

* ''Theatre/RichardII'': Is Richard a capricious tyrant or a sheltered twit who, either way, places too much value in his divine right to rule? Was Bolingbroke after the crown from the start, or was it something he fell into, as the circumstances surrounding his motives changed? Was he right in taking the crown from Richard and ahead of Mortimer? Did he order Richard's death, or was he genuinely regretful? And more generally, was he an unscrupulous usurper, or England's great hope brought low by the deadly politics of the age? It's worth noting that the real Bolingbroke was a real life KnightInShiningArmor, a principled administrator, a forceful and decisive ruler, and hailed by people from all walks of life as England's savior when he took the throne. History paints a picture of a deeply conflicted king, assailed on all sides by rebels and traitors, and terrified for the state of his soul in light of the NecessarilyEvil sins he committed in restoring order to England.

** In the Creator/AgathaChristie novel ''Cat Among the Pigeons'', another alternative is offered: Lady Macbeth was someone who liked the idea of being a power-hungry bitch willing to kill anyone who got in her way but wasn't really one: once she got a taste of what that was like, it drove her mad. Macbeth, on the other hand, thought of himself as the hero and needed a push to get started. Once he did, however, he found that he was in fact a power-hungry bastard willing to kill anyone who got in his way without remorse.
** Then there's Macbeth himself and the witches. Did Macbeth kill Duncan because the witches prophesied he would become king? He admits that he had already been fantasizing about killing Duncan before he ever met the witches ("whose murder is yet but fantastical"), and that if their prophesy is true, he'll become king without killing Duncan ("then chance will crown me"). Has he perhaps already decided, subconsciously, to kill Duncan and seize the throne, and the witches have come to him to ''warn'' him? Likewise, does he kill Macduff's family and try to kill Macduff because the witches warned him to "beware Macduff," or had he already decided to do it; Macduff was already plotting against him, after all, which is why Macduff was in England when the assassins came.
** In some productions the Third Murderer is Macbeth in disguise. In Creator/RomanPolanski's film adaptation the Third Murderer is Ross.

* The character of Claudio in ''Theatre/MuchAdoAboutNothing'' is consistently portrayed as a [[KidHero fresh-faced]] young ball of {{Wangst}}, whose willingness to be fooled by Don John and public rejection of Hero makes him look all the more callow and culpably gullible. If one takes Benedick's description seriously though, Claudio is better seen as a [[DumbMuscle huge, raging moose of a professional warrior]], genuinely unused to female attentions, socially clumsy, and inspired to flights of language that aren't natural to him. He doesn't trust his good fortune; he's afraid of looking like an idiot, and half-prepared to hear that he's been taken for a fool all along. This combustible mixture doesn't make his [[WoobieDestroyerOfWorlds meltdown and public treatment of Hero]] less horrifying, but it puts the character into focus and helps one understand why Hero might be prepared to forgive him.
* An alternate interpretation of Iago's actions in ''Theatre/{{Othello}}'' are those of a scorned lover. Iago manipulates the situation to destroy everyone around Othello except for Iago himself. If his plan had gone correctly the only person left that Othello could trust, and thus who he would naturally turn to, would be Iago.

** A little more on Caliban: he has one line about how Miranda wasn't exactly refusing his affections. Creator/BrianAldiss expanded this into a short story, with the two genuinely in love and Prospero forcing them apart for his own reasons.
** Prospero himself can be subject to this, largely depending on how justified one believes his revenge against his brother Antonio to be. Though Prospero seems think that Antonio is just a lying, opportunistic scumbag who wrongfully usurped the dukedom of Milan out of sheer lust for power, Antonio can alternately be read as a pragmatist with a far better understanding of the responsibilities of ruling than his sorcerer brother - who outright admits that he cared more about his mystical studies than about his duties as duke.
** Doing a GenderFlip on Prospero, as Julie Taymor did in her 2010 film and Joe Dowling did at the Old Globe in 2018, has a profound effect on the sorcerer. Prospera as a mother relates differently to her daughter, Miranda, with more understanding of what she's going through, and when she returns to Milan, she gives up a great deal more freedom than her male counterpart.

Lots of Creator/{{Shakespeare}}an characters receive AlternativeCharacterInterpretation.
* ''Theatre/{{Hamlet}}'' is a classic example of this - is he a disturbed soul pretending to be crazy to trap the "sane", or is he honest-to-goodness bonkers? Modern interpretations generally agree that he isn't completely right in the head, but debate continues on how far this madness extends and on whether it resembles schizophrenia.

* ''Theatre/{{Macbeth}}'': Was Lady Macbeth a manipulative and power-hungry bitch steering her weak-willed husband into regicide, or was she a feminist hero overcoming the role society had built for her and asserting her strength?

* The character of Shylock in ''Theatre/TheMerchantOfVenice'' is open to lots of AlternativeCharacterInterpretation, largely because he's not drawn as unambiguously evil as other Jewish characters of the same time. Is he a greedy bastard who cares for nothing but money? Is he a hard-nosed business man who knows that his only protection from those who would like to see him ruined is his reputation as a bastard? Is he the victim of repeated bullying and abuse who finally gets what he believes is a chance to take revenge on the person who has abused him the most - and do it legally? The famous "hath not a Jew" speech in particular humanizes Shylock well beyond most Shakespearean villains, who tend to be ForTheEvulz or mad for power. Revenge killings were still common in Shakespeare's day, and still often considered legally justified. Shylock's also the only character in the play who doesn't try to twist the law or back out of bargains freely entered, despite these traits generally being ascribed to Jews centuries before and since, implying Shakespeare may have intended the character as a Deconstruction.
** The character of Portia from the same play is one of Shakespeare's very best villains. After getting Shylock to give up his demand for the pound of flesh she, along with the Duke and Antonio twists the law around so much that Shylock has to give up all his wealth to the state and his ungrateful daughter (who by the way left his house by stealing his money), and also has to convert to Christianity, or die. Then she tricks her husband's ring from him, just so she can hold it over him as being "unfaithful."

* Creator/ChristopherMarlowe's ''Theatre/TheJewOfMalta'' is seen by many to be even more unsympathetic than Shylock, but consequently authors find that he's far less problematic since the EvilVersusEvil setting of the play, the fact that Barabas blames his villainy, like Shylock on the Christians and that SocietyIsToBlame, and that Christianity or any other religion is not depicted as being more merciful than Judaism, makes him far more convincing a DracoInLeatherPants than Shylock.

* Then there's the battle between people who believe ''Theatre/RomeoAndJuliet'' were really, deeply in love, and those who think they were just [[HormoneAddledTeenager dangerously hormonal]].

* ''Theatre/TheTamingOfTheShrew'': No way Katherine's speech at the end about women needing to submit to their husbands is meant to be taken literally. She doesn't gradually weaken under Petrucchio's mind games but suddenly, out of sheer exasperation, grits her teeth and starts agreeing with him to get him to do what she wants. Who really "tames" the shrew here? Katherine seems to be the one who tames herself and learns self-control, which reaps more benefits than tactlessly bitching at the world.

* In most productions of Shakespeare's ''Theatre/TheTempest'', Caliban is a savage at heart, acting only on emotion and instinct, devoid of compassion; meanwhile Ariel is a pure creature of the spiritual realm, incapable of malice. However, some productions go as far as reversing the two - noting Prospero's vicious mistreatment of Caliban, they see him as a tragic creature, whose 'rape' of Miranda was a simplistic, disastrous attempt to express his love for her, for which he has been cruelly abused ever since; while Ariel is shown as an evil spirit who is kept in check by Prospero (why was he imprisoned in that tree in the first place, hm? Why does Prospero keep changing his mind about freeing him? Is it possible that a being who describes so poetically how he whipped up a massive storm and dashed a ship to pieces is a little dangerous?).