Weird dont read

Если бы мне надо было назвать одну самую-самую любимую книгу, то это была бы она. Пересказ Гамлета от лица Р. и Г. — которые, как известно, умирают в конце. Поэтому на самом деле это книга о том, как жить, если знаешь, что в конце неизбежно умрёшь. Касается нас всех. Ну и при этом куча смешных шуточек.

Монолог, кажется, Гильденстерна про смерть — самое сильное на эту тему, что я читала.

This re-read could not have come at a better time deep in the midst of existential crisis #522. This is the clever tragicomic meta-play of two minor characters from Shakespeare's Hamlet. They are summoned, they bumble about, they play questions, they are entirely confounded by the hubbub surrounding the "much transformed" Prince of Denmark, and then they are sent to their feeble deaths as demanded by the grand scheme of the play. While the dialogue and physical antics of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and the Tragediens are comical and laden with puns, the play serves as a philosophical musing on life, the futility of it, and the cruel haphazard nature of creation (and death). But... um... all in good fun of course.

I can't imagine this being particularly interesting reading if you haven't read Hamlet or if you don't enjoy pointless witticisms and humor in the absurd.

The play always leaves me thinking that maybe we're all just minor characters summoned from nothing to pass the time idly waxing philosophic and idiotic while we wait to fulfill our minor role after which we make our sad, pathetic exit without applause or encore. But... um... in a fun(ny) way, I promise you...

December of Drama 2015, day eighteen

"There's definitely, definitely, definitely no logic
To human behaviour."
--Human Behaviour, by Bjork

This is obviously genius material, original "metatheatre" that still somehow reads like it always should have existed. Theater geeks may love it for the repackaging of Hamlet, presented from the viewpoint of two of the minor characters who are nevertheless killed off near the bloody finale, but it's also great for the absurdist and existentialist touches. I normally don't raise this issue with plays I read, but I feel like I'd need to see it performed to fully appreciate it. The third act, with its discussion of death in terms of the art vs. reality theme, was what I enjoyed the most.

Stoppard does Beckett

A lot less funny than I thought it was gonna be - almost devastating in a very quiet way. Can imagine the last act kills onstage.

I LOVE the movie that was adapted from this play. Reading the play was equally enjoyable to watching the movie. There are, of course, some slight differences between the two, but the play is an amazing work that employs such a nuanced use of the English language, while being a heck of a lot of fun.

Probably the profoundest of all modern plays that I have read... pondering if I can manage to write a review that will do it justice.

3.5 stars

A very clever play full of humour, witticisms, absurdities, and philosophical introspection.

Guil: No, no, no ... you've got it all wrong . .. you can't act death. The fact of it is nothing to do with seeing it happen - it's not gasps and blood and falling about - that isn't what makes it death. It's just a man failing to reappear, that's all - now you see him, now you don't, that's the only thing that's real: here one minute and gone the next and never coming back - an exit, unobtrusive and unannounced, a disappearance gathering weight as it goes on, until, finally, it is heavy with death.

The play also had "metadrama" elements.
It was a unique perspective on Shakespeare's Hamlet from the point of view of the overlooked ‘side’ characters of Rosencrantz and Guidenstern, who are caught unaware much like rabbits in the headlights, among the crazy events occurring at Elsinore. The sharp and witty dialogues between Ros and Guil are funny as well as deep, hitting upon existentialism, fate, and so on.

Here is one exchange of Ros and Guil on Hamlet,

Ros: A compulsion towards philosophical introspection is his chief characteristic, if I may put it like that. It does not mean he is mad. It does not mean he isn't. Very often, it does not mean anything at all. Which may or may not be a kind of madness.
Guil: It really boils down to symptoms. Pregnant replies, mystic allusions, mistaken identities, arguing his father is his mother, that sort of thing; intimations of suicide, forgoing of exercise, loss of mirth, hints of claustrophobia, not to say delusions of imprisonment; invocations of camels, chameleons, capons, whales, weasels, hawks, handsaws - riddles, quibbles and evasions; amnesia, paranoia, myopia; day-dreaming, hallucinations; stabbing his elders, abusing his parents, insulting his lover, and appearing hatless in public - knock-kneed, droop-stockinged and sighing like a love-sick schoolboy, which at his age is coming on a bit strong.
Ros: And talking to himself.
Guil: And talking to himself.

We are questioning the two characters' reality throughout, are they dead or heading towards their death?

And here's a crux of Hamlet in words of Rosencrantz and Guidenstern.

Guil: I think I have it. A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself.
Ros: Or just as mad.
Guil: Or just as mad.
Ros: And he does both.
Guil: So there you are.

Pretty brilliant. Love the title. Reading the massive biography of Stoppard by Hermione Lee now and I mean to reread this play soon since I’m now learning more about the evolution of the play.

Updating this to give five stars after seeing the play last night at Chicago’s magnificent Court Theater. I was reminded how beautifully Stoppard overlays Hamlet with existentialism, postmodernism, and absurdism. The fit between the two plays is nearly perfect. And like Hamlet, the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, has important things to say about the close correspondence between life (and death more than life) and theater.

This is a genius play of the behind the scenes of Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The plot follows two minor characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as they engage with the main characters of the play. From the first page to the last, Stoppard offers us new perspectives to one of the most read plays in the world. What I enjoyed the most was the sophisticated dialogue and the subtle humour that permeate throughout the play. While Stoppard remains true to the original, he adds a new dimension to otherwise two forgettable characters.

i actually really liked this play. i thought it was really funny but also had super emotional and serious points with the existentialism and inevitable tragedy. this actually helped me understand and appreciate hamlet more (even though i still think it’s overrated) but this play is absurd no doubt. i felt just as clueless as rosencrantz and guildenstern in the beginning

Uvek se trudim da prvo pročitam delo, pa da onda gledam film, ukoliko postoji, naravno, jer sam veliki ljubitelj obe umetnosti. Međutim, ovaj film sam gledala davno i to neposredno posle čitanja "Hamleta" (prvo čitanje), jer me zaintrigirao naslov. Oduševila se idejom, dva sporedna lika najpopularnije tragedije na svetu postaju glavni likovi tragikomedije apsurda. Hmm, hajde da vidimo šta to Rozenkranc i Gildenstern zapravo rade iza scene, da li opravdano stradaju jer izdaju prijatelja, ko su oni, i zašto ne mogu da se sete gde su pošli i šta treba da rade (jeste, podseća na Vladimira i Estragona), da li se njihova sudbina može promeniti ili je predodređena već postojećim, davno napisanim ulogama... Ako vam se čita ili gleda nešto neobično, i ukoliko niste davno posvetili pažnju fenomenalnom teatru apsurda, ovo je pravo delo za vas. Elem, da se vratim na početak, čitajući delo posle filma, bilo je neizbežno da sve vreme čujem glasove Tima Rota i Geri Oldmana, jer su im uloge u filmu odlične!