Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

My sisters and I were kind of obsessed with this play (and movie) when we were younger. So when I saw this book at a garage sale for ten cents, I had to buy it. Then I spent most of the afternoon in a lawn chair in my yard, reading it.

It was, of course, every bit as clever in this later reading. But it was perhaps more biting in its commentary on how much control we have over our own lives -- and when do we know if we're living our own stories, or are just side stories in someone else's play?

But as my friend Heather points out, "at least there is the comfort of companionship."

"... we move idly towards eternity, without possibility of reprieve or hope of explanation." (pg. 88)

An odd, oh-so-clever play, and at times I thought I ought to hate it. The dialogue is drawn out and regurgitative, and the jokes are sometimes laboured, like a misfiring comedy sketch. It's hard to piece together what Stoppard is trying to do at times – it can seem a bit throwaway.

Nevertheless, once you do piece together what the play's trying to do, it becomes much more interesting. It takes two bit-part players from Shakespeare's Hamlet – the titular Rosencrantz and Guildenstern – and focuses on them as they wait in the wings and the plot of Hamlet whirls around them. Shakespeare is good material for this – "every exit being an show more entrance somewhere else," Stoppard reasons (pg. 22) – not least because the Bard often referenced plays and parts and players within his plots. He was meta long before that was a thing. Stoppard not only does well to identify this fruitful territory, but has fun with the more obvious jokes too (for example, Ros and Guil are bemused by the fact that Hamlet talks to himself – i.e. in his soliloquies).

Stoppard also takes the opportunity to use his premise to get rather existential. Our two bit-part players are trying to figure things out – what their purpose is, their motivations and loyalties and so on, as kings and princes scheme dramatically around them. They're not given direction, not as characters nor as human beings. "We have not been picked out simply to be abandoned... set loose to find our own way... We are entitled to some direction, I would have thought" (pg. 16). Don't we all feel that way, in life? All the world's a stage, as I believe someone once wrote – though the name escapes me.

Again, this is in the tradition of Hamlet, which gave us those famous lines "to be or not to be", among others. For all his misfiring absurdist tempo, some of Stoppard's own inclusions (such as death being "just a man failing to reappear" (pg. 62)) prove him worthy of his source. Life, and the play, are only bearable due to "the irrational belief that somebody interesting will come on in a minute" (pg. 31), and Stoppard does enough to keep this interest going until the final curtain. That's all any of us can do. show less

Once again, I thought that I should redress my education and read some of the famous modern playwrights. Tom Stoppard was high on my list because I'd attended a performance of his "Travesties" and been very impressed. (In fact, it might have been watching this play that inspired me to try my own hand at playwriting....and I did have a play produced). But I'm not sure that Rozencrantz and Guildenstern really live up to their fame. I've heard a lot about this play. I think it might have been designated for study by High School students. Hence the fame. But I found it, overall, a little disappointing. Sure, the idea of a play about a play with a play inserted in the original being duplicated in the current play ......gives it a certain show more complexity and layering. But, for me, anyway, it is a bit of a cheat....just using Shakespeare's plot and super-imposing on it extra lines. Yes the introduction of the idea of probability into the plot was a new twist. and yes, there are some great lines there....such as the (wry, gentle...to Alfred) "Thank you we'll let you know". And: "no one gets up after death--there is no applause----there is only silence and some second hand clothes, and that's death". And, another from Rozencrantz...."Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all."
So, yes, some good lines, and some good material with the players imitating life...but more so in imitating death. And this line from the Player: "Don't you see? We're actors---we're the opposite of people". Yes...it does make me think occasionally but, overall, I was underwhelmed. A lot of tricky stuff there from the super-imposition of R&G on Shakespeare's Hamlet. But maybe too much reliance on Shakespeare's ideas. I give it just three stars ...it was going to be two but as I've written this review, I realise that maybe there is a bit more in it than I originally thought. show less

Works like this are proof that the boundary between fanfiction and independent art is completely arbitrary, and perhaps totally meaningless. Yes, this play is a derivative work of Hamlet, but not only does it not really require you to have read its famous forebear (although you certainly should, for many reasons beyond giving this some context), but Stoppard's reflections on mortality, chance, and the contingency of life stand on their own. There is no reason whatsoever that philosophy can't be funny, and even on the page the dialogue and action is hilarious, as poor old R & G wander through this frequently metafictional work that fills in the gaps of Hamlet, meeting their ultimate fate in a way that's both inevitable given what happens show more without their knowledge in Hamlet as well as poignant purely on its own. I could go on and on about how skillfully Stoppard uses tropes like the play-within-a-play, or how he nods to other famous existentialist works like Waiting For Godot, but this is about as close to a perfect comic play as it gets these days. show less

Tom Stoppard has been writing plays for more than a half century. Some that I have had the opportunity to read or see in performance include Arcadia, Travesties, The Invention of Love, Night and Day, and his great trilogy The Coast of Utopia. But before all of these he burst onto the world theater scene with a dramatic masterpiece titled Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Both a tragicomedy and a parody of sorts, it focuses on the two courtiers, Ros & Guil (for short), whose existence we owe to William Shakespeare and his tragedy Hamlet. Stoppard's play exists behind the scenes of Shakespeare's play as we follow the two courtiers on their predicted way to death.

As the play opens we meet Ros and Guil in "a place without any visible show more character". Guil is tossing coins and Ros is calling heads, which is unusual only in that the coin keeps coming up heads and apparently has been for some time. This leads them to a brief discussion of the law averages and the law of diminishing returns. One wonders, they wonder, about the nature of reality and time. Has it "stopped dead"? Can they remember what just happened not too long ago. Guil asks:

"'What is the fist thing after all the things you've forgotten?'
Ros: Oh I see. (Pause.) I've forgotten the question.
Guil: Are you happy?
Ros: What?
Guil: Content? At ease?
Ros: I suppose so." (p 16-17)

Guil speculates that they must be operating under supernatural forces and proceeds to provide a lengthy scientific commentary that is as much designed to ward off fear as it is to convince Ros of Guil's point. But instead of reassuring Ros it leads into a discussion of death and what it is like to be dead. Guil's reassurance to Ros: "But you are not dead." is lost among their speculations. Their tenuous connection with reality is quickly established and with the imminent entrance of a group of theatrical players, "The Tragedians", this theme will be expanded through metaphor and wordplay to the point that the whole play appears as a dream, or more likely a nightmare ending in death.

The nature of their existence as characters reminds one of Godot's Vladimir and Estragon. Indeed, the absurdity of their condition and even some of their dialogue demands such comparison. Stoppard’s play goes beyond the hopelessness of Vladimir and Estragon’s absurd condition and provides much more comic entertainment. The two are shown whiling away their time on the fringes of the “major play”, whose echoes they are eager to absorb but whose significance remains enigmatic. Hence, despite all their efforts to “act”, when the crucial moment comes and it rests upon them to warn Hamlet, they fail. They thus fall short of having the text “rewritten” in their favor, and prepare their own untimely, yet (inter)textually predestined, deaths.
The theme of appearance versus reality is sustained by a profound metadramatic discussion on art versus real life. This begins with the entrance of the Tragedians and their playful invitation for Ros and Guil to be not only spectators but, if they are willing to pay a slightly higher price, participants in the performance of a tragedy--performed for their sole benefit. While they do not join the players the question of appearance versus reality which was suggested even earlier continues to vex the two courtiers. Throughout the play their are comic moments, usually redounding from word play. One moment was reminiscent of an Abbot and Costello routine with Ros and Guil going back and forth with confusion over "what" and "why" (p 68).

The play’s enormous theatricality is afforded by the playful handling of Hamlet as well as the abundant use of (comic) reasoning. We even find Guil mimicking Hamlet with the comment, "Words, words. They're all we have to go on."(p 41) But one wonders what value the words are when the existence of the characters is as fragile as it seems in this play. By foregrounding epistemological uncertainty as ethically relevant, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead announces one of the abiding preoccupations of Stoppard's own future writing. It also entertains the happy reader with a delightfully intellectually stimulating play. show less

Hamlet retold through the point of view of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two extremely minor characters who end up dead for no particular reason. Stoppard uses this rich canvas to closely examine themes of time, memory, and mortality. What is it like to be caught up in the torrent of a story and to be swept along without choice or understanding. There is much to relate to in this absurd, surreal, and thoughtful play.

It’s been a really long time – almost a decade – since I’ve tried to decipher the hidden meanings behind a play. But I’m going to try! I’m pretty sure that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is about … death. I suppose that shouldn’t be a revelation, since it’s in the title, but man I struggled with this one?

Honestly, this play just made me feel stupid. I feel like there must have been some exciting and deep conversation to be had about this play. Maybe it’s the sort of thing that’s a bit lost in translation? Maybe it’s better with group discussion and guidance? I know plays come across better when they have been seen and not read, but I actually had more trouble figuring out (what I thought) the point of show more Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead was than any other play that comes to mind. But, like I said, it’s be a while?

Also, I don’t suppose it helped this used copy had copies notes on the backside of the front cover about modernism in theatre and the world of the play.

Okay, outside of the confusion about the characters (who were constantly trying to remember who was who and what was happening) I enjoyed the concept of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I think it’s so cool that Stoppard took two minor characters out of Hamlet in order to explore the story more. It’s almost like fan fiction – as a reader, I know there’s been many times where I wanted to know more about a minor character, or else the story abandoned a storyline I really enjoyed and I wish I had gotten to learn more. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is great for that. Especially if you’re a fan of Hamlet! It’s always cool to get more.

A lot of this play focused on philosophical conversation. There was talk about the meaning of death, the way other characters mourned, and the knowledge of mortality. The speeches were interesting to me. The idle, repetitive conversation was not. Again, this is something I think would probably come across better in the stage performance as opposed to just reading the lines.

I can see where this could be a good play, and I can see where it would be amusing in person. I don’t think this is the best one to translate to simply reading the play however. If you like Shakespeare, meaningful dialogue, and a smidge of comedy, I do recommend taking in a performance! show less