stoppard's play is a wonderfully witty, charming, absurdist, existentialist love letter to hamlet. i don't even want to say anything else about it. i'm incredibly impressed that he managed to tackle hamlet and create something with true meaning and profundity that doesn't simply echo what shakespeare has already said. i read it once and immediately re-read along to a filmed performance. that alone should be a testament to my enjoyment of it. i highly highly recommend to anyone, but especially those who feel a reverence for hamlet.

I see no difference between these “absurdist” characters and you and me. Hmu if you want to reenact the play

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.

Meh--

There are moments, for sure, when the dialogue soars to lyrical beauty and the absurd situation Rosencrantz & Guildenstern find themselves in go beyond just the metatheatrical commentary on minor characters in a major play not getting any explanations: are we not all in this boat headed to England, not knowing why we are on it, without anyone giving us any explanations? In this vein the play reminded me of Kobo Abe's The Woman in the Dunes a bit. And then there's also the poignant rumination on death through the mockingly un-serious acting of Player (who, by the way, is my favorite character in the play, really).

But for me, the play is too squarely in the modernist style of absurdism a la Beckett or, to some extent, the Russian absurdism of Daniil Kharms—meaning, while I can appreciate the absurdist/nonsensical elements in it, it's not the kind of work I enjoy to my heart's content. Plus—and this has to do with my sense of humor—I found none of Guil and Ros's antics funny (though I might have to see them acted out on stage).

A good play if you love Beckett. Not so much if you don't.

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.

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

Hey kids look, characters questioning the nature of their createdness! This really does wear its postmodernism on it's sleeve. I remember being impressed as hell when I read Arcadia years ago, Stoppard was just so damn erudite and witty. But this is more in the style of Beckett's stage work, the absurd, almost clownish dialogue and the little tableaux that reoccur over and over again, and all of it masking something desperate and chilling. But Stoppard seems too passionate, or maybe just too persistently curious to really engage with that unspeakable nothingness on the same level that Beckett does. It's too bad that this is the play most associated with Stoppard, it's sort of what made his name as a young playwright, but his work even a few years later is stronger by leaps and bounds than this.

background characters.

you don't think about them much.
(unless you're a harry potter fan i guess)

but they're seething.
writhing.
riveting.

they have their own stories.
they have their own explorations, philosophies, existential breaks.
all this goes unnoticed.

but worse! but more importantly! ----
because who cares about the thoughts of a background character, come on come the fuck on come ON ----
they have their own perspective on the real story

and it is not what you expect.
and you have no idea.
no idea.


this has been in me for 8 years.
a reread:
books that scream your name precisely.

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.

Absurder geht es kaum. In Shakespeares "Hamlet" nur blasse Randfiguren finden sich Rosencrantz und Guildenstern in Stoppards Drama unfreiwillig in einer Hauptrolle wieder. Die Handlung bewegt sich innerhalb derer von Hamlets, nimmt jedoch Bezug auf die Aktivitäten Rosencrantz' und Guildensterns, die nicht bei Shakespeare zur Sprache kommen. So werden die beiden ahnunglosen Herren wie Marionetten durch unsichtbare Hand durch das Drama geführt. Sie irren und stolpern von Szene zu Szene, ohne sich in Raum und Zeit zurechtzufinden und zu wissen, warum sie beide auserkoren sind, herauszufinden, warum sich der Prinz von Dänemark seit dem Tod seines Vaters so verändert aufführt. Ohne Wahl und Entscheidungsfreiheit stecken sie im Strudel der Ereignisse fest. --- Trotz diesem tragischen Umstandes lebt dieses Drama von ebenso zahlreichen komischen Elementen wie dem legendären Frage-Tennis. Eine grandiose Idee von Tom Stoppards in meinen Augen, ein solches absurdes Werk zu erschaffen, das so unsagbar viele Ansätze zur Interpretation bietet. --- Beim ersten Lesen ist es durchaus günstig, mit dem Hamlet-Stoff vertraut zu sein oder ein Exemplar zum Nachschlagen bereitliegen zu haben.

Brilliant. It's fitting to choose the British designation for how wonderful I think this play is, I believe. This play manages to be absolutely stand on its own hilarious, as well as a thoughtful meditation on many issues at the same time. It pushes neither on the viewer/reader on its own, nor predominantly. The satire is executed near flawlessly, and the comedic sensitivity (even in the saddest moments of the farce) could not be more on target. I very much usually wish to have some criticism to make, even of the classics that I review, but after having read this about five times, I still have none. It makes its points, delivers them well, and involves every audience I have seen when attending a production of it.

The only point I would make here is that if you can have some familiarity with Hamlet, I would imagine the play becomes much more funny. I saw it after knowing Hamlet quite well, so I haven't had the opposite experience. However, this is what I am told, and given the context of the play, I don't doubt it.