Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are characters from "Hamlet" who, in this movie, are allowed to explore their own existence as fictional characters. They begin their life one morning being summoned to Hamlet's castle, but have no memory of any life before that morning. There's also the fact that every time they toss a coin in the air, it comes up heads, clear evidence that somehow "reality" isn't operating as usual around them. Yet neither one of these facts bothers them too much.
They meet the Player, step onto his stage, and find themselves transported to Hamlet's castle faster than you can say "Scene 2". Shakespeare's story unfolds around them and they find themselves falling right into the old English dialect when they're interacting with other characters, then right back into modern English once they're alone again. The Player performs the story of "Hamlet" before their eyes, but they don't recognize themselves in it. And all this time they never know for sure which of them has which name, because Shakespeare always treats them as a duo and never distinguishes between them.
Ultimately, of course, they die. Hanged by the King of England, thanks to a forged letter from Hamlet, because that is their purpose in life -- or rather, purpose in the story. The Player understands it, because he is a performer and exists to act out the play rather than as a part of it. He often tries to explain it to them (albeit rather cryptically), but it's impossible for them to understand. They are part of what's happening; they can't see the greater purpose of the play. One is smart, the other stupid, but neither one comes out at the end with a better understanding of what's happening to them.
It's a hilarious work of absurdist existentialism, because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern may as well be any two of us. We go through life not knowing what our role is, our purpose in existing, and the harder we look the more we're forced to give up and let things happen around us. And in the end we're just part of a greater story, one which we couldn't fully grasp even if someone explained it to us right to our faces.
A remark that haunts Stoppard, so I shouldn't repeat it here, is that someone asked him what it was about, and he answered, "It's about to make me rich."
As it opens, Ros and Guil are playing a simple game of chance. Guil takes a coin from his dwindling stock, tosses it, it comes up heads, and Ros wins it. They had played this game many times before, but ninety heads in a row is a new record, and the run started just when the messenger summoned them to the court. Guil isn't bothered by the loss of money, but is aware that something definitely odd is going on.
Another game they play to pass the time when they're not in the play of Hamlet is questions.
GUIL: What good would that do? ROS: Practice. GUIL: Statement! One--love. ROS: Cheating! GUIL: How? ROS: I hadn't started yet. GUIL: Statement. Two--love. ROS: Are you counting that? GUIL: What? ROS: Are you counting that? GUIL: Foul! No repetitions. Three--love. First game to...
There are plenty of nice quotable lines, like "There is an art to the building up of suspense" at the beginning; and towards the end, "The sun's going down. Or the earth's coming up, as the fashionable theory has it".
The use of language is one more way in which one can see a transformation. There are some obvious differences from the outset in that Hamlet is mostly written as poetry, in blank verse, with an elevated tone, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead uses some passages from Hamlet, and then is written as prose at a colloquial level (giving the effect of deflation). The sections from Hamlet that are integrated into the second play are recognisable as they are faithfully quoted in their original form. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is laden with rhetorical questions, repetition, witty repartee, biblical references and references to literature. In Act 3 one observes the breakdown of language and communication as a reminder that the end is near; it is short and preoccupied with death. Stoppard makes very effective use of cliché to illustrate how ordinary Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are.
There are also dramatic techniques and theatrical conventions that are a key point of comparison between these two texts. In Hamlet the presence of the audience is not recognised, and yet in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead we witness the self-conscious use of stage where actors go down to the footlights and bring in the audience to identify with the main characters' predicament. Stoppard's play makes use of lighting and blackout, music, unreal sets, conjuring tricks, silences, pauses and beats, word games, and stage directions, which shows awareness of being trapped in a theatrical situation.
The first scene, which opens with Guildenstern flipping coins and Rosencrantz predicting which side the coin lands on, is really the crux of the way in which this play is different from Shakespeare's Hamlet. This is because although the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are more comprehensive and are much more dynamic, they are still simply supporting roles. The play isn't at all about them and they don't make the action. They merely go wherever they are led. From the very beginning Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are conscious that they are in an odd, controlled world. We can see it as the characters explore the boundaries of the stage; we can see it as chance is misshapen as the spun coin persistently comes up heads. Guildenstern's perseverance in spite of this matches the struggle we, in reality, must ultimately face, of trying to come to terms with our surroundings, and make sense out of our circumstances. Guildenstern is tense about this situation and tries to rationalise it scientifically, while Rosencrantz is indifferent. He is of the "Que sera sera" mentality.
The portrayal of Shakespeare's characters changes. From the perspective of Stoppard's play, Hamlet seems prosaic, very self-obsessed and uncaring. Likewise, many critics suggested that Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were calculating and crooked, and indistinguishable, yet Stoppard painted them as disorientated and ingenuous, as well as maintaining their own clear persona, quite separate from each other. Although in the play, other characters can never tell the difference between the two, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent illusion vs. reality, they are essentially polar opposites. Guildenstern's bag is nearly empty and Rosencrantz's bag is nearly full. This labels Rosencrantz as the optimist (down-to-earth, imperceptive, simple-minded, and perplexed), and Guildenstern as the pessimist (intellectual, conceptual, idealistic, quizzical).
Where, Hamlet asks the question, "To be or not to be," and contemplates whether he should take "arms against a sea of troubles" in his most famous of soliloquies, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ask questions such as "What are our choices?"
"How can we control our destinies?"
"Is anybody listening?"
In the typical production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, a miniature stage and theatre is used. (So small and intimate that perhaps it might only house at best two dozen audience members). In a play dealing with small scale characters, it would seem that a small theatre is the ideal setting for its staging. The barren environment with no real props and scenery provides little interest; this is to reinforce the sense of existentialism and meaninglessness.
Just like their speech, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have some control over their actions in the play as well; however, this control amounts to very little and is of no effect on the actual plot of the play. In the beginning of the play, they are free to toss coins, talk to the players, and discuss their purpose and direction. But they cannot decide on, and much less choose, a direction to go or something to do that would actually advance the action; they have to rely on Claudius and his entourage to burst through and give them a mission before they do anything. Even afterwards, though they want to find Hamlet like Claudius has asked them to, they do not take any action themselves and instead find an excuse for staying put and waiting for the action to happen by itself:
Ros: We could go. Guil: Where? Ros: After him. Guil: Why? They've got us placed now - if we start moving around, we'll be chasing each other all night. (41)
Again, they sit around and pass their time with idle chatter, until Hamlet comes and talks to them at the end of Act I. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's inability to take action is seen as well in Act II, when Rosencrantz decides to speak to Hamlet (p. 74-75). Though he comes next to him, his nerve fails and at the last minute he backs away. This is also a demonstration of the fact that the story has already been written; since Rosencrantz never spoke to Hamlet in that scene of Hamlet, he does not speak to him here. In p.86-88, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's lack of free choice is showcased even more when they attempt to go find Hamlet as per Claudius's request. Whenever they take more than a few steps in any direction, they decide it's the wrong one and turn around, until, eventually they settle down and decide to let Hamlet come to them. They are throwing themselves to their fate and surrendering control of their lives. In Act 3, R & G's lack of free will is emphasized even more through the symbolism of the boat. Though they are free to act on it, no matter what they do, their ultimate destiny will not change, since the boat will inexorably carry them on to England. This is why they can read the letter sentencing them to death on the boat - there is nothing in Hamlet that says they didn't - but cannot throw it away and change their destiny. In an absurdist universe, free will does not exist, and this is why Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have none.
node your homework
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
cooled by Jinmyo
