Like ‘Shakespeare in Love’, ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead’ mines the Elizabethan epoch for dramatic and comedic effect

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are two trivial characters in Hamlet, a play written around 1600. Shakespeare's most famous tragedy tells the story of the prince of Denmark, Hamlet, who may or may not be going insane. As the play opens, the specter of Hamlet's father visits Hamlet to say that he was murdered by Claudius, Hamlet's uncle.

Claudius has not only become king of Denmark but has also married Hamlet's mother, Gertrude. Hamlet pretends to be insane to trick Claudius into believing that he is safe, but, as the play progresses, Hamlet's resentment and retribution fantasies may actually drive him insane.

Claudius sends for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two childhood friends of Hamlet, to watch over Hamlet, but Hamlet does not unburden his heart to his friends. He, instead, confuses them with riddles, and finally sends them to their deaths. Hamlet also convinces a group of actors to execute a play that personally mimics the murder of Hamlet's father, and the play very much disturbs Claudius, who decides to send Hamlet to England under the care of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Hamlet escapes, goes back to Elsinore, and dies, as do most of the other characters.

Stoppard borrows heavily from Shakespeare, not only re-imagining the play's plot but also quoting unswervingly from Hamlet whenever his Rosencrantz and Guildenstern characters speak to Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet or Polonius.

The story underlines the illogicality of the world in manifold instances. Stoppard emphasizes the arbitrariness of the world.

In the beginning of Act One, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern bet on coin flips and Rosencrantz wins with heads ninety-two times consecutively. Guildenstern creates a sequence of syllogisms so as to interpret this phenomenon, but nothing truly coincides with the law of probability.

The impossible becomes possible through exploiting the minimal chance of a coin flip turning up heads ninety-two times in a row.

The action is illogical, but possible. This incident demonstrates the ridiculousness of humans basing many of their actions on the probability or likelihood of an event to happen. The random appearances of the other characters, which often confuse the title characters, contribute to the same idea.

Metatheatre is a vital structural element of ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead’. Metatheatrical scenes, that is, scenes that are staged as plays dumb shows, or commentaries on dramatic theory and practice, are prominent in both Stoppard's play and Shakespeare's original tragedy Hamlet.

In Hamlet, metatheatrical elements include the Player's speech, Hamlet's advice to the Players, and the meta-play "The Mousetrap." Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are characters from Hamlet itself, Stoppard's entire play can be considered a piece of Metatheatre.

However, this first level of metatheatre is deepened and complicated by frequent briefer and more intense metatheatrical episodes; see, for example, the Player's pantomimes of Hamler in Acts 2 and 3, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's obsessive role-playing, and the Player's 'death' in Act 3.

Bernardina da Silveria Pinheiro observes that Stoppard uses metatheatrical devices to produce a "parody" of the key elements of Shakespeare's Hamlet that includes foregrounding two minor characters considered "nonentities" in the original tragedy.

Stoppard alters the focus of Hamlet's "play-within-a-play" so that it reveals the ultimate fate of the tragicomedy's anti-heroes, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

However, this modification eventually culminates in an absurdist anticlimax that runs counter to the effect of "The Mousetrap" in Hamlet, which effectively reveals the guilt of the king.

While Rosencrantz and Guildenstern confront a mirror image of their future deaths in the metadramatic spectacle staged by the Players, they fail to recognize themselves in it or gain any insight into their identities or purpose.

An absurdest play with two idiot main characters and one of the most profound quotes of all time “We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.”

My oldest needed this for an advanced Language Arts class so I snagged it and asked for it afterwards. I love that there are some marks in here (presumably from the guidance of the teacher or for my kid's parts?) and I love that they add to the story. I can also imagine this being a fun read listening to each person read out a part and actually hear it played out a bit. As it is, it's a short read but I can't say I got the full enjoyment out of it that I would have a play.

This was another charming variation on a Shakespearean theme, a dissonant song cycle extending out from familiar material. One rife with pauses and silence. Beckett in Elsinore.

I did not think this the genius to which many have ascribed.
Then again, I am old.

I did find the humor deft and the existential exploration of the verb to act most effective, a playful weaving of definitions underscored by a plaintive glance at the heavens, waiting for stage directions. George Bernard Shaw was an Irishman, not an atheist as was famously said. Less popular is the anecdote that Tom Stoppard's stepfather once growled, I made you British, boy.

There has been occasion enough this week to ponder personally what the cosmic Script has in mind. I would like to hunt down the film version of this while the material is fresh.

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

I have seen this play, Tom Stoppard’s first major play, I think three times over the years and twice on the same day as Hamlet, with actors playing their parts in both plays. Since I had just heard a production of Hamlet on audiotape, I decided to reread this play, which is a kind of comic/existentialist/absurdist commentary on the great tragedy. Or drama as extended reflection on what Shakespeare was exploring in Hamlet.

One shouldn’t read or see Stoppard's play without having seen or read Hamlet, I think. They both comment on death and fate and family and identity, among other things, though Hamlet is a Prince and that play takes place as do most Shakespearean tragedies, among royalty, on a grand stage, and Stoppard’s play takes as its central characters two minor figures who had been childhood friends of Hamlet. Maybe they are more like most of us than Hamlet; in other words, what is the fate of the “common people”? (Answer: Our fates are inextricably bound to decisions that others make; i.e., as Claudius decides to kill his own brother, Hamlet’s father, in order to be with Gertrude and become king, having the domino effect of grief and madness for Hamlet, so Claudius’s decision to spy on and eventually kill Hamlet has effects on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:

“. . . we move idly toward eternity, without possibility of reprieve or hope or explanation.”

If that sentiment seems relevant to the anguished but also rich and privileged Hamlet, imagine how it might also pertain to the more vulnerable Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are essentially pawns of the royal realm.

“I don’t begin to understand. Who are all these people, what’s it got to do with me?”

Also, we in the peanut gallery and the balcony all come to the same end, basically, though with perhaps less fanfare: “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.”)

The two characters, whom nobody can really tell apart---they aren’t even sure what their own names are half the time--obviously owe much to Vladimir and Estragon of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, who owe something to two characters Beckett loved, Laurel and Hardy. As Ros says, “we just go on.” We are left to meditate on what it's all about, of course.

To summarize: R and G were early requested by the King Claudius to spy on their friend Hamlet, presumably to find out why on Earth he is so sad, and they later accompany him to England at the request of the King, carrying a letter to the King of England to have Hamlet killed there, but Hamlet finds the letter and pulls the old switcheroo on them and. . . we get that title. And Guildenstern justifiably complains (not expecting to die, but still):

“What did we ever do to these people to deserve all this?”

I like the way we weave in and out of the Hamlet story to see it from the perspective of “minor” characters, and I like the way the actors from the play within the play reflect on fate and performing/deceiving. I like all the meta-fictional reflections on playing our parts:

“We're actors — we're the opposite of people!”

I like, too, the way Stoppard uses R and G to reflect on existentialist themes that he sees in both Hamlet and Waiting for Godot.This early play may not in fact be his best play, but it is one of my favorite, for sure. There's even a contemporary reference!:

"Give us this day our daily mask."

The author has taken two unimportant [dare I say expendable?] characters from Hamlet, turned Hamlet on its head and made these two [Ros and Guil, as the author calls them] the main actors: more than a mere plot point as in the original. Also, the Player [leader of the travelling theatrical troupe of tragedians] is very important in moving the action [such as it is] along. Ros and Guil are clueless throughout: why have they been summoned to Denmark? What does the king want them to do? What and why is Hamlet's 'transformation'? What will be their fates? Surreal humor, absurdism, silliness, a touch of sadness, and fantastic wordplay make this play--interspersed with relevant scenes from Hamlet--a modern classic. It's a play within a play within a play... I thought it was hilarious. It would help to know at least a basic synopsis of Hamlet.

It was most witty and I loved the rapid-fire patter, especially when Ros and Guil "play at questions", along with each keeping score [like a tennis match--e.g., "two---love"; "foul"] on the other. I read this play with text in hand watching the movie, written and also directed by Tom Stoppard. The movie had visual elements the play did not; and the play had dialogue that had been cut from the movie. So together, they were a good fit. Later, I read the text aloud. Seeing a theatrical performance would not go amiss. This play is most highly recommended.

This really worked for me, probably because it felt very much like the other books and movies that were fundamental to what I think is funny. I need to go back and watch Lion King 1 1/2.

3½

Commedia dell'assurdo in cui due personaggi minori dell'Amleto di Shakespeare, Rosencrantz e Guilderstein appunto, assurgono al ruolo di protagonisti in un opera che è contemporaneamente commedia e dramma esistenzialista. All'inizio dell'opera Rosencrantz e Guilderstein si ritrovano in viaggio verso la corte di Danimarca, impegnati in una partita di "testa o croce" che sembra non avere inizio nè fine. Da quanto tempo giocano? Perchè sono in viaggio? Chi li ha convocati e perchè non hanno ricordo di chi erano prima dell'incontro con il messaggero del re che ha dato via a tutto? Stoppard gioca con la sovrapposizione tra vita "reale" e vita sul palcoscenico; è chi sta sul palco l'attore che segue un copione prestabilito oppure è quella la vita vera? Questo tipo di interrogativi innesca una serie di conversazioni tra i due che si risolvono ben presto in esilaranti corto circuiti, giochi di parole che si mordono la coda nell'insensatezza dell'essere.

Certo per apprezzarlo appieno andrebbe visto recitato, soprattutto nelle parti più comiche la semplice lettura non ha il "ritmo" giusto anche se l'effetto umoristico si avverte in ogni caso.

I think Hamlet is a prerequisite to understand a lot of this play, and I suspect it's probably a lot easier to appreciate on stage than reading it.

This play was funny in a non-sensical Alice-in-Wonderland kind of way - but too much was lost in translation.

Each of us is the star of our own life. You may be a bit part in someone else’s narrative, but in your own mind, yours is the story that matters. Or you may struggle to find meaning in your own life, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in this play by Tom Stoppard.

Last night I attended a live broadcast of the National Theatre production, starring Daniel Radcliffe and Josh McGuire. The set was very simple and the dialog was copious and delivered rapidly. I couldn’t help but admire how well they knew their parts.

There was definitely a “Waiting for Godot” vibe to the production, as R & G wait for some kind of sign or direction as to what they are supposed to be doing.

A knowledge of Shakespeare’s Hamlet isn’t necessary to appreciate this play, but I think it enhances the viewer’s appreciation.

Recommended.

It's Sunday and i have things to do so I am gonna procrastinate on those chores and review this play which I have procrastinated on reviewing.

This play is a not so much behind the scenes look into the world of The Prince of Denmark but a beside the scenes look. The two main characters (of this play) are not simply faceless generic plot devices but are our guide and almost Greek chorus into this world that we (presumably are familiar with and) are in. The examination of the world and how it works when the action is not involving them is very clever and the way that Stoppard so easily ties the action of Hamlet into the mix makes the play seem that much more natural. It also I think may have had an influence on a certain 1994 for gangster film which goes into the underworld of crime through the eyes of two low level hired hit-men. So if you have read Hamlet I suggest checking this out to get another perspective on how the World of Hamlet (and by extension plays in general) are seen by the supporting cast that is subjected to its whims.