This has been on my TBR since high school, and I probably would have enjoyed it more then. Its humor and message would have felt fresh and funny instead of like things I’d already encountered only better, or techniques that have already had the shine worn off of them. Self-referential humor is only funny the first dozen or so times, and then you realize that it’s everywhere and it’s only about half as clever as it thinks it is. There are some undeniable similarities to Waiting for Godot as well, and it seems like a solid addition to the absurdism canon. It’s not a philosophical bent that helps me get through my day, but not everything is for everyone.

The thing I liked about this play is its comment on minor characters, and that’s where I think the self-referential angle really works. It shows what happens when a character is obviously not the hero of the story. What happens to them when they’re not being summoned by people with actual roles to play? The answer is pretty much nothing. They’re left waiting in the wings struggling to make sense of who they are and what’s going on, which isn’t the worst metaphor for life (though it’s not the most useful either). R&G Are Dead is good at what it does; I just never felt any particular way about it. The 1990 film is currently free on YouTube, written and directed by the author, which provides some helpful context.

I review regularly at brightbeautifulthings.tumblr.com.

This play is tremendous fun as it spoofs the theatre of the absurd while paying hommage to genius of William Shakespeare. Stoppard tells the story of two minor character from Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who bear an unquestionable ressemblance to Vladimir and Estragon from Beckett's "Waiting for Godot". There is a also a discussion of the relationship between reality and the theatre which reminds one of "Six Characters in Search of an Author" by Luigi Pirandello. Stoppard is clearly of the opinion that neither Becket nor Pirandello had thought of anything that Shakespeare had not already discussed over 300 years earlier. Stoppard is probably corret in this regard. His play is hilarious.

My brain is a bad actor.

I know it's a bad actor because I read this play and the performance it gave totally fell flat. It messed up all the punchlines. Often it had to go back to read parts that it misread. It even got bored during the middle part and totally phoned in the performance of the first half of the third act. It totally ruined this play for me with its terrible one-note performance. Stupid, stupid brain.

Luckily for me, Tom Stoppard directed a moving pictures version of his play, starring the magnificent Gary Oldman, Tim Roth, and Richard Dreyfuss, and it's available on Netflix. So after I finished reading this play, bewilderedly wondering what about it I should have liked, I pressed play on my computing device. What I saw before me on the screen was a hilarious, creative, meta, terribly intriguing story of two lovable weirdos romping through the world of Hamlet. The tedious coin-flipping scene so dully enacted by my brain was brought to glorious life by the good Sirs Oldman and Roth.

In short, I was just too stupid to see the brilliance of this play simply by reading it. But after seeing the movie, I was able to go back to the written work and appreciate some excerpts with gusto. Your brain is probably a better actor than mine, but if you have any doubts regarding its talents, I'd suggest watching the movie first. That's something I would almost never recommend, but after all, it is a play, something meant to be acted out in front of you rather than just inside that noggin of yours.

«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

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.

ROSENCRANTZ: Here we go again.

GUILDENSTERN: But I thought we were...?

ROSENCRANTZ: Were what?

GUILDENSTERN: Well, dead.

ROSENCRANTZ: No such luck.

GUILDENSTERN: Are you positive? This doesn't look much like Elsinore.

ROSENCRANTZ: Of course it doesn't. We're in a different play.

GUILDENSTERN: What play?

[Enter DONALD TRUMP and HOPE HICKS]

TRUMP: Jesus Christ, how could you say that? Little white lies? Are you completely stupid?!

HICKS: [weeping] I couldn't, they were so, I didn't know what to—

TRUMP: You're fired!

HICKS: Oh, please, please Mr Trump, I promise I'll—

TRUMP: You heard me!

[They exit. HICKS's sobs diminish in the distance]

GUILDENSTERN: What play? Are we the stars this time?

ROSENCRANTZ: [peering upward] I can see the title.

GUILDENSTERN: So are we the stars?

ROSENCRANTZ: It says "Kim Jong III part 2".

GUILDENSTERN: We're not the stars then.

ROSENCRANTZ: 'Fraid not.

GUILDENSTERN: I never really believed we were.

[A pause]

GUILDENSTERN: What kind of play is it?

ROSENCRANTZ: [peering upward again] "A nuc—"

GUILDENSTERN: What?

ROSENCRANTZ: "A nuclear tragedy".

GUILDENSTERN: What does that mean?

ROSENCRANTZ: "Will the world end tomorrow? It's a coin toss."

GUILDENSTERN: I still don't get it.

ROSENCRANTZ: I think I'm starting to understand.

GUILDENSTERN: I'm not.

ROSENCRANTZ: [Taking out a coin] You call.

GUILDENSTERN: Tails.

ROSENCRANTZ: Heads. Shall we do it again?

[GUILDENSTERN nods, ROSENCRANTZ flips the coin]

GUILDENSTERN: Tails.

ROSENCRANTZ: Heads. A third time?

GUILDENSTERN: Tails.

[ROSENCRANTZ flips the coin and looks at it with a despairing expression]

ROSENCRANTZ: Heads.

GUILDENSTERN: [Pointing at the sky] What's that? I think it's getting closer.

ROSENCRANTZ: Uh-oh.

CURTAIN

Just a fantastic look at the world of Hamlet through the eyes of two minor characters from the play.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are a dynamic duo of characters. They are the Gilligan and Skipper, Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy of literature.

Without giving too much away, the opening sequence of consecutive coin flips is hysterical, as is Rosencrantz's monologue about learning about death.

At the same time, it is so well written and introspective that it offers a real insight into the lives of two guys who are no different in many ways than the young men of today.

A must read.

First time I've had to read the summary to understand a play. I think there were so many combinations of styles I couldn't figure out what was going on up until the end.
It was interesting to see some side characters' perspectives, though.

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.

Shakespeare's two poor dumb bastards, caught up in words. (Now I want to watch the movie again)

“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."

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.