Update (31 March 2024):

Just watched a live performance of this play in Toronto, with the lead roles played by Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd (Merry & Pippin from Lord of the Rings!), and I have decided to update my rating to 5 stars. This is a brilliant play, all the more so because Tom Stoppard wrote it when he was 29. Watching the play being performed brought out nuances that escaped me when reading it on the page.

Some additional thoughts:
- Truth is a matter of agreement and trust, not verifiability, because it is rooted in observations that are ultimately subjective.
- Language obscures as much as it reveals. Language can either be a garden exhibiting a profusion of delights and beauties, or a casket which seals them shut/entombs them from the naked eye forever.
- Life/art imitates art/life imitates life/art...in an eternal chain...
- Our actions are driven not by conscious choice, but by passion, desire and attachment. Only a few of us ever manage to tame these to live consciously, and even are at the mercy of forces and events we can do nought but respond to. If the world is a wave, each man is born at a different height of the crest, to differing levels of clarity. Some of us are born to be lead characters, and others extras. But the faith we place on the written and spoken word is immense. Ultimately we all want to believe or accept that things are proceeding a certain way for a certain reason, because it brings us relief.
- All that we do - art, scientific reasoning, religion - is but a response to and an attempt to rationalize the fear of death.
- A single word or timing of chance and circumstance can seal our fate.

--

Quotes from the play: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes...

A rambling satire about the alchemy of time and chance, probability and determinism, destiny and free will, morality and hypocrisy, and the struggle to find truth and beauty amidst society's cruelties and injustices.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are minor characters from Shakespeare's Hamlet, sent on a quest that proves to be their doom. In this play, Stoppard attempts to weave a profound exploration of life and existence out their brief appearance.

While Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can sense that they are part of something bigger that they can't fully see and haven't been told about, they lack the courage and imagination to do anything about it, to break out of the grip of what feels like destiny. Character indeed turns out to be fate. Even when presented with a warning of what might befall them, they fail to see the message. They see and discuss everything but the obvious. Neither Rosencrantz, for all his slippery guile, nor Guildenstern, for his sincerity and tendency to over-analyze, are able to determine the wider context and trajectory of the seemingly absurd events unfolding around them. On several occasions, they sense an ending coming but fail to realize its full import.

Perhaps this play is meant a satire on the plight of the marginalized who are usually excluded from the grand narratives of history and opportunities to shape society, by way of R and G's confusion at not knowing the full extent of the forces that shape, toss, turn and ultimately extinguish their lives.

Or maybe it's about hierarchy and exploitation: R and G exploit the minor characters in their play as much as they themselves are exploited by the major characters in Hamlet. But while Rosencrantz remains cheerfully dense and self-involved throughout, it is only Guildenstern who comes to appreciate the fragility of life when his own life is forfeit.

Maybe it is also a sideways satire of the acting profession itself: how it attempts to recreate the dramas and deep rhythms of life, but in attempting to pay homage to it in recreation, also parodies it and makes a mockery of its attempted seriousness. Human beings need an audience to feel alive and on their best behavior, and so perhaps that's why they invented religion and the performing arts.

To fully appreciate this play, it helps to be familiar with the plot of Hamlet. But I guess postmodern plays may not be for me. Like Waiting For Godot, I found hard to stay interested, with only the knowledge that this is a classic keeping me going. The absurd, seemingly meaningless dialogue belies a profundity that is not easily discernable in a first reading, but it does bring to mind Wittgenstein's rants about the vagaries and imprecisions of language: that nobody ever really knows if we're speaking the same language to one other and truly understanding each other, or just associating meaning to sounds and riding off the consistency of constant conjunctions between word and response that we observe in the world.

Either way, not the easiest or most interesting read, but it does have its moments of clarity, pathos and profundity.

color me dead!

I find it really hard to rate plays since they're not supposed to be read, but rather be seen. I feel bad giving this only 3 stars since I may love it if I see it on stage. I have a feeling that this play would be very good on stage, I mean, it is critically acclaimed, I just didn't love it when I read it.

I'm actually sad that I didn't get to study this when I was in high school. I'm okay at analyzing books by myself, but I'm awful at analyzing plays. It would have been very useful to have someone explaining the themes of the play to me. I probably would have appreciated the play a bit more.

Even though I didn't love the play, I will say that it had its moments. There were a few scenes where I audibly laughed out loud. It was also interesting to see how Hamlet played out from Ros an Guil's perspective. They literally had no clue what was going on for the entire play

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, 1966, Tom Stoppard

An ambassador from England arrives on the scene to bluntly report "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" (Hamlet. Act V, Scene II, line 411); they join the stabbed, poisoned and drowned key characters. By the end of Hamlet, Horatio is the only main figure left alive.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز هفتم ماه جولای سال 2016میلادی

عنوان: روزن‍ک‍ران‍ت‍ز و گ‍ی‍ل‍دن‍س‍ت‍رن‌ م‍رده‌ان‍د؛ نویسنده: ت‍ام‌ اس‍ت‍اپ‍ارد؛ مت‍رج‍م‌ م‍ص‍طف‍ی‌ اس‍لام‍ی‍ه‌؛ تهران، نیلوفر، 1381؛ در 144ص؛ شابک 9644481828؛ موضوع نمایشنامه های نویسندگان بریتانیایی - سده 20م

روزنکرانتز و گیلدنسترن مرده ‌اند؛ عنوان نمایشنامه و فیلمی کمدی-درام، نوشته ی «تام استاپارد» است؛ نمایشنامه، دو شخصیت فرعی نمایش «هملت»، اثر «ویلیام شکسپیر» را پی می‌گیرد، آنها که خودشان را در مسیر« قلعه الزینور» می‌یابند؛ پیش از رسیدن به قلعه، آن‌ها با گروهی از بازیگران، برخورد می‌کنند، و دربارهٔ فلسفه ی وجودشان، پرسشهایی برایشان پیش می‌آید؛ فیلم برنده جایزه «شیر طلایی» چهل و هفتمین دوره جشنواره فیلم «ونیز» شده است این اثر، یکی از ماندگارترین و پر اجرا شده ترین نمایشنامه ها در تئاتر معاصر است، و توانسته به جایگاهی ثابت در میان برترین آثار نمایشی دست یابد؛ این شاهکار مدرن، در دنیای نمایشنامه ی «هملت» اثر «شکسپیر» میگذرد اما توسط شخصیتهایی سردرگم و ره گم کرده روایت میشود که در داستان اصلی «شکسپیر»، کاراکترهایی فرعی بودند؛ «روزنکرانتز» و «گیلدنسترن» در این اثر به یاد ماندنی، بالاخره فرصت پیدا میکنند، تا نقش اصلی را بر دوش بگیرند، اما باید آن کار را در جهانی به انجام برسانند، که بسیار یادآور نمایشنامه ی «در انتظار گودو» اثر «ساموئل بکت» باشد؛ در جهانی که واقعیت و وهم در هم میآمیزند و سرنوشت، دو قهرمان داستان را، به سوی پایانی تراژیک اما غیرقابل اجتناب هدایت میکنند

گاه خوانشگری دست بالا میزند، و برایم مینگارد، که چرا، این فراموشکار در ریویوهایم دیدگاه خویش را، درباره ی کتاب و داستان نمینویسم؟؛ راستش را بخواهید، قضاوت کردن درباره نویسندگانی که عمر خویش را، با واژه ها بگذرانیده اند، کار آسانی نیست؛ اگر از خوانش کتابی مشکلی به دیده ام بنشیند، شاید در متن اصلی کتاب، آن مشکل نباشد؛ ولی هر کتابی هماره برایم، جهانی نو را باز میگشاید، و هماره خوانش واژه ها، دلم را به تپش وامیدارد؛ هر چند این روزها، بیشتر از پیش، خشکیده ام، و تپشی در کار نیست؛ هیچ اندرزی را، به فرزندان خویش نیز، نمیگویم؛ چون: «زندگی آتشگهی دیرنده پا برجاست؛ گر بیفروزیش، رقص شعله اش در هر کران پیداست»؛ پس هر کدام از ما باید خود زندگی کنیم؛ و از زندگی خویشتن خویش پاسخ رازها را بیاموزیم؛ جهان به گستردگی بینش مردمان بگذشته ها و امروزیان و آیندگان نیز هست

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 27/12/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

Description: Hamlet told from the worm's-eye view of two minor characters, bewildered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Echoes of Waiting for Godot resound, reality and illusion mix, and where fate leads heroes to a tragic but inevitable end.

A revisit via youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4SVV...



Youtube is handy but in this case I crave the DVD to play on the eight foot screen.


HEADS HEADS HEADS HEADS HEADS HEADS HEADS HEADS HEADS etc. etc.

yo read this overly caffeinated to go into another realm

This was the play that put Tom Stoppard on the map, where he has been ever since. I remember one of my high school English teachers laughing as she told us about it in Shakespeare class. This is a lively, sharp, hilarious send-up that focuses on two minor characters from "Hamlet" and retells the story from their point of view.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are supposedly old buddies of Hamlet's from way back. They are enjoined by King Claudius to keep an eye on his errant stepson and try to figure out what is troubling him, a task which they are not up to. This play focuses almost entirely on them, and Stoppard presents them as a couple of comic goofballs who go around flipping coins, making dumb jokes, and being generally useless. It is fun and games, but the humor occasionally strikes an oddly philosophical note. It seems safe to say that "Waiting for Godot" was an influence.

Stoppard works into the play (or builds the play around) actual scenes from "Hamlet." Some of his interpretations of Shakespeare are a hoot, such as when Hamlet, just using hesitation and not altering the words of the bard, fails to recognize which one is Rosencrantz and which is Guildenstern. The play takes off into strange territory in the final scene, wherein the two protagonists find themselves on a boat to England with Hamlet in their charge, and more twists and turns on the way. In Shakespeare's version, Hamlet never boards the ship, and Ros and Guil simply disappear from the narrative. This is a very clever and enjoyable bit of post-modern(?) theatre.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are dead......then why write a 93 page play about them? I get it, it was the 60's people were high and found most things intellectually amusing, witty and necessarily redundant in an avante-garde sort of way. But seriously why? I found the play dragged and it didnt make me laugh.

My advice only read this book if you are a hipster as it is much easier to roll a copy of this up and cram into the back pocket of your skinny jeans than a copy of A Confederacy of Dunces.

Non è facile parlarne, a cominciare dai nomi. Va bene Rosencrantz, che non so perché mi suona meglio e l’ortografia è più potabile ma è dura con Guindnstein o Guinnestein o… vado a controllare…ecco Guildenstern, quello giusto finalmente. Non sono riuscita a districarli dignitosamente dall’Amleto di Schachespeare.

Stoppard affida a uno dei due di presentarsi (confondono loro stessi i loro nomi) come Sciachespeare li ha concepiti : “Noi, Rosencrantz e Guildenstern, allevati con lui fin dall’infanzia, svegliati da un uomo ritto sulla sella di un cavallo, siamo convocati, e ci presentiamo, e ci viene ordinato di capire cosa lo affligge e di indurlo a distrarsi, per esempio con una recita, che sfortunatamente, come si vedrà, viene interrotta tra lo scompiglio generale a causa di una qualche sfumatura al di là della nostra comprensione... e questo, insieme ad altre cause, provoca, insieme ad altri effetti, una forte, per non dire omicida, esaltazione in Amleto e, di conseguenza, noi lo stiamo ora scortando, per il suo bene, in Inghilterra. Bene. Adesso ci siamo. La plausibilità è la mia sola presunzione! La vita è un gioco d’azzardo con pronostici spaventosi... se fosse una scommessa non l’accettereste” .

Stoppard non si chiede perché Sciachespeare li metta in scena, due inutili spioni, nè, soprattutto, perché non li dimentichi nella nave abbandonandoli al loro destino di personaggi superflui all’economia della tragedia.
Non lo fa perché nel finale Sciachespeare ci tiene a comunicarci, già agghiacciati dalla carneficina consumata sotto i nostri occhi, che Rosencrantz e Guinonricordo sono morti in Inghilterra: vite inutili, illuse di vivere una vera vita, come se ne consumano da millenni ma che meritano almeno un epitaffio: scarti della storia che vivono l’assurdo, reale più del dolore esibito degli altri attori sulla scena.

A volte sembra di leggere, nei dialoghi di Stoppard, Camus e il suo Sisifo.
Se uno dice:
” Sii felice... se non sei nemmeno felice cosa c’è di tanto bello nel sopravvivere? Andrà tutto bene. Suppongo che andremo avanti e basta… La condizione umana: dipendere da ciò che non si conosce ma che si intuisce non si potrà schivare…
L’altro risponde:
Agiamo sulla base di informazioni frammentarie... cercando di vagliare istruzioni che ricordiamo solo a metà e che non riusciamo neanche a separare dall’istinto… Liberi di muoversi, di parlare, di improvvisare e quant’altro. Noi non siamo liberi… Il tempo ci spinge alla deriva, aggrappati a dei fili di paglia.
E entrambi convengono: Ci terranno qui a ciondolare finché non moriremo. E forse anche oltre.
E il tutto mentre “si sfidano a testa o croce e si scambiano vaneggiamenti, doppi sensi, insinuazioni, giochi di parole. Come se fossero alla mercé di un impenetrabile mistero.”

L’Amleto non è per nulla uno spunto della commedia. Richiami buoni a permettere allo spettatore delle ultime file, quello non allittrato, di ridere ma piuttosto punta l’obiettivo sui retroscena del dramma scespiriano mentre è rappresentato: due allestimenti su un solo palcoscenico contemporaneamente, entrambi volutamente grotteschi, perché anche l’Amleto grottesco lo è.

Non sono riuscita a ridere come sembra avvenga in teatro, forse perché il teatro nasce per essere ascoltato e visto: “ A cosa serve la pantomima? … Beh, in effetti è un espediente... rende l’azione che segue più comprensibile; voi capite, siamo costretti ad un linguaggio che compensa la mancanza di stile con la mancanza di chiarezza.”

I watched this movie years ago and thought it was hilarious so I thought I'd check out the play that inspired the film. It's the ramblings of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while Hamlet goes unnoticed, or at least misunderstood, by them in the background. In far over their heads, both in thematic prose and plot progression, what makes this play so hilarious is the irony. One of the few times irony can truly be claimed: the reader is aware of a humor lost on the characters when we have the foreknowledge of the well-known fate of Rosen & Guild. My favorite part is the detached and indifferent discussion of death between Rosen & Guild when they think it's Hamlet forthcoming end but we the readers all know that it is their deaths they are tumbling towards unknowingly.

Their part-insightful, part-idiotic discussions on chance, fate, death, friends, and word play is amusing. One of my favorite lines "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself" is humorous because it is spoken by a seemingly nonsensical insane Guildenstern trying to appear intelligent about a Hamlet who is "stark raving sane" trying to appear unintelligent. The humor of self-evaluation in "talking nonsense not to himself" is lost on Guild.

I loved the questions game they played where they weren't allowed to make a statement, only ask questions and the rhetoric it produced. The incorrect assumptions they take on the mundane, taking nothing for given, even previously established facts was amusing as well. Such as: "The old man thinks he's in love with his daughter" received questions such as "He's in love with his daughter?" and "The old man is?" going back and forth until "Hamlet in love with the old man's daughter, the old man thinks" sets them straight. While their conversation is often idiotic, it is sometimes insightful, and amusing in both instances.

But while very witty, it was a little bit hard to follow at times, particularly the stage directions. It made me want to pull out Hamlet and reference the correlating scenes. It may be useful to have read Hamlet recently. I forgot what a great play that is. With the quick conversation and the double plays, I think the movie is a better forum for this and I'm putting this movie on my queue for a rewatch (and it was excellent once again). But what an original idea. Very funny. Give it a read or better yet go watch the movie.

A few of the quotes that struck me:
We're actors! We're the opposite of people.
A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself. Or just as mad. . .Stark raving sane.
Shouldn't we be doing something... constructive? ... What did you have in mind? A short, blunt human pyramid?
A Chinaman of the T'ang Dynasty - and, by which definition, a philosopher - dreamed he was a butterfly, and from that moment he was never quite sure that he was not a butterfly dreaming it was a Chinese philosopher. Envy him; in his two-fold security.
Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume?
In reponse to I don't believe in England: Just a conspiracy of cartographers?
We're still finding our feet ... I should concentrate on not losing your head.
Life in a box is better than no life at all, I expect. You'd have a chance, at least. You could lie there thinking, "Well, at least I'm not dead.
We move idly toward eternity without possibility of reprieve or hope of explanation.
If you're not even happy, what's so good about surviving?
Death is not...not. Death isn't. You take my meaning. Death is the ultimate negative. Not being.

«Ничего непонятно, но очень интересно»
Чтение пьесы совпало с очередной учебой на экзистенциальной специализации - тема смерти, переживание ужаса смерти, невозможность разделить этот опыт.
Ну и конечно, слова, слова, слова

“One must think of the future.”
“It’s the normal thing.”
“To have one. One is, after all, having it all the time. Now. And now. And now.”
“It could go on forever — well, not forever, I suppose.”


Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is absurd and profound. It’s tragic and comic. Its actors are idiot philosophers sparing over meaning, identity, purpose and death, and finding only the last. In other words, this play is a fairly good mirror of life. All the world’s a stage and all that.

“We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us with nothing to show our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke and a presumption that once our eyes watered.”

Our protagonist are two minor characters from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, aware only of their petty roles, lacking any other awareness or knowledge of what is going on around them. Between their scenes on stage, they use rapid fire word play jousting with each other and other minor characters (the players) trying vainly to deduce meaning and purpose, and to struggle against the determinism of their roles. Yet the grim truth of play’s ending is inexorable.

“No! It is not enough to be told so little, to such an end, and still finally to be denied an explanation.”