Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

Rating:
Summary: What's going on?
Review: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is definitely a book for those people who like to analyze the text. You really have to pay close attention to what is going on to stay with it. To me, it was really confusing and I couldn't understand why they kept skipping around to different places without an explanation. The short, clipped sentences didn't help either. Half of the time, I couldn't tell who was saying what. One of the downsides of reading this book is that you have to have read Hamlet in order to understand the whole idea of it. I think it was an interesting idea of Stoppard's to write about the bird's eye view of Ros and Guil, but it was just a little too confusing . I would definitely not recommend this book for someone who looking for a just "a good read". You'll end up so frustrated by what's going on that you probably won't even finish it. All in all, I would say this book is something you could miss reading.

Rating:
Summary: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, by Tom Stoppard
Review: Tom Stoppard does excellent job of keeping the reader on the edge of their chair wondering what hilarious thing his characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are going to do next. Stoppard does a great job of slipping pieces of Shakespeare's Hamlet in so those who have never read Hamlet know whats going on. I overall rate it as a very good book!!!

Rating:
Summary: Good Direction, Little Follow-through
Review: Of course, I must begin with saying that reading Hamlet is a must to recognize the brillancy of Stoppard choosing and developing these two minor players on Hamlet. It was a great idea. The themes of death, illusion and reality and the "masks that we all wear" were insightful, as well as the unique sense of time in the book.

However, it was too short to develop it's own depth (it is worthless if you have not read Hamlet) and the true motives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Their two word sentences in wannabe-Hemmingway-style started to bore me after a bit, the novelty of the game wore off. There was definately an element of confusion on how the Player could see the future, and why. That concept was also touched upon but not examined. Perhaps I am just "missing things," but in my opinion Stoppard could have done a much better job. It has no merit on it's own, except for the concept listed above.

I suggest that if you are so compelled to view their story, watch the film.

Rating:
Summary: Stoppard at his Best
Review: Despite the many Stoppard plays that have read this remains my favorite. Like Waiting for Godot, R & G are Dead depicts two characters who feel trapped within their own fate. This feeling of entrapment makes powerful statements concerning the struggle between fate and self determination. What separates this play from Godot is Stoppard's wit and cleverness. While Godot was a powerful play that made important points concerning the helplessness of a life defined by external forces, it sometimes seemed to drag. While this might at first seem unnavoidable given the need for repetition for which this theme calls, Stoppard manages to avoid this pitfall admirably. His characters have a self awareness that Gogo and Didi lacked. They seem aware of their helplessness, but unnable, or unwilling, to do anything about it. This makes their characters more interesting, and, ultimately, makes the plays statement all the more powerful. Thus, Stoppard creates a script that is as interesting as a piece of entertainment as it is as a piece of literature. For this reason it is worthy of the Shakepearean ply that frames it.

Rating:
Summary: A Hamlet Tangent
Review: The first time I ever read Hamlet in school, I was disturbed - and not just because of what happened to Ophelia and the general atmosphere of corruption. I kept rereading over and over to figure out exactly what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had done that was so horrible.

At first I thought I must be naieve, because Hamlet is the hero and he has to be right. Reading Shakespearean criticism as an adult, I found that I am far from alone. If Ros and Guil are toadies, then they deserved what they got. But if not, there is the terrible possibility that Hamlet killed two young men who were innocent - or, even more unbearably - actually trying to help him. Tom Stoppard's play is for those who are open to this second possibility.

In this version, Ros and Guil have distinct personalities. Guil is the swifter of the two, sensing where they're headed without quite being able to figure out how to get out of it. Ros is a nice nitwit who tries to make everything better by constantly starting up a game of some sort as their world crumbles.

Many moments of the play are extremely funny, especially if you've read Hamlet - highly recommended before reading this play to get the full effect - so funny, in fact, that you almost forget how it's all going to end. Then, suddenly, Stoppard reminds you as the play nears the inevitable conclusion - and you stop laughing as the shock hits you.

After this, reading Hamlet is never the same again.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful post-Absurdist logodaedaly
Review: Borrowing two minor functionaries from Shakespeare's _Hamlet_, Stoppard runs with them, handing them some truly hilarious jokes and plays-on-words. However, as the play is influenced by the Absurdist tradition of Samuel Beckett (_Waiting for Godot_, _Endgame_) and Edward Albee(_Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?_, _Zoo Story_), the play has a significant tragic bent which cannot be ignored. The two hapless courtiers search to understand their identity outside what is given to them by the _Hamlet_ characters. Rosencrantz's discoveries in the film version, while humorous, also reveal attempts to understand the rules of the particular world into which they've been thrown.

Yet for all their exploits, we know they will die. One needs merely to turn to Shakespeare's text to find them both hanging from trees in England. They are driven inexorably to their graves; they take this as an axiom. What all of this means remains, of course, an exercise for the reader. :-)

Having directed R&G and seen Stoppard's film version, I heartily recommend the play. While the film (starring Gary Oldman and Richard Dreyfus) is rather a bad production (many of the jokes are badly played, and the ending is not nearly as heavy on tragedy as the script warrants), it is worth buying or renting if one is directing the show; Stoppard adds dialogue which improves parts of the script, and Rosencrantz's antics (discovering gravitation, making paper airplanes, etc.) are both hilarious and ideologically significant.

Pick up a copy of the script, and search for a production in your area. It is a very rewarding show and worth coming back to (I plan to do the show again when I have the opportunity).

Rating:
Summary: Just when you thought they were gone
Review: In this play Tom Stoppard has pulled two minor characters from Hamlet and given us a glimpse of what may lie behind the common exteriors of everyday life. What is important about this is that Stoppard is showing us that the lives of common people can also make for some great literature too.

First of all I am not going to slam other reviews, I am simply going to state my opinion of the play. I think that I understand existensialism and its major philosophical trends, therefore I would tend to say that this play definately fits into what has been called the Theater of the Absurd, which in turn owes much to the thinking of Camus. Having said this I have to say that this play has some definate similarities with the works of Beckett, especially Godot, but also that of Harold Pinter's, "The Birthday Party", especially in terms of dialogue, plot direction, and character development.

R & G despite these similarites, and probably because of them seems at times to be conscious of breaking new ground and testing the limits of absurdity and understanding. Symbolism, while not as obvious in this play, seems to be, nonetheless, much more important to the action and meaning of the play than it is in other works of this genre. Whereas Godot seems to stress the repetitiveness of dialogue, R&G is suggestive of just the opposite. It is instead in the lack of confidence of what each character says, and the way that their opinions seem to cahange with the situation, which illustartes the uncertainty of meaning and life. Although all these plays seem to be focused on the nature of existence and its meaning to humanity, the differing ways that it is approached and interpreted make them all vastly unique, puzzleing and intriguing reads.

The thing that is perhaps most different, is the way that Stoppard utilizes the thought of Artaud and his idea of the Theater of Cruelty, to at times completely breakdown the barriers between the audience and the actors. It follows then, that if one wants to get the full effect of this play it has to be seen live. But, then again how many people get that chance, thus, this book is the second best thing. I would only suggest paying very close attention to the stage directions, set and scenery, as they are much more important in this play than they are in others.

Finally, simply read R&G for the fun of it, you certtainly will not be disappointed. In this play Stoppard has gone along way in breaking down the barriers between the writer and the average reader. Because, it is only when the reader is interested and involved that a work will be a success. With originality, humor, and an important theme Stoppard has acheived this goal beautifully, giving us all a realistic glimpse into the complex drama of human life.

Rating:
Summary: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Deadly funny
Review: This incredible play by Tom Stoppard is humorous in all ways as the two goofy friends are now the central characters. Stoppard ingeniously sets the story in their point of view, from being summoned by the king, to setting sail w/ Hamlet to England. The book is extremely hilarious. The dialogue is witty and the usage of R&G as the protagonists is creative and allows more comedy to the story. Tom Stoppard is a genious. There is nothing I can complain about this book, it has become one of my favorites. I recommend it to anyone looking for a tasteful parody of a masterpiece

Rating:
Summary: A Tale of Two Bunglers
Review: Stoppard has taken two minor, but important characters from HAMLET and woven a new play that meshes perfectly with Shakespeare's Hamlet without missing a beat.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are put to use (read manipulated) by the King and Queen of Denmark, first to find out what Hamlet is up to, at which they fail, then are asked to retrieve Polonius, body, at which they fail, and then to accompany Hamlet on a boat trip to England carrying a letter ordering Hamlet's execution. At this, too they fail at the cost of their own heads.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern provide serio-comic relief all through the play, but there is nothing comic for them in the results.

That said, I have read all of the other reviews in this section. That they are obviously written by students (probably as an assignment)is obvious. This, in itself is admirable. The fact that almost every one is quoted from web sites on Tom Stoppard is not so admirable. One or two actually quote verbatim from an on site Roger Ebert review of the movie. A great number of these reviews talk of existentialism and make comparisons to WAITING FOR GODOT. These comparisons are also almost word for word from the internet. Do any of you understand the existentialist philosophy, or in what particulars Stoppard's play and Beckett's play are comparable?

ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD is an exceptional work. It deserves thoughtful, original reviews just as it is a thoughtful, original and entertaining piece of theater. Read it again, understand it within your own frame of reference, then review it.

Rating:
Summary: Very Witty and Entertaining!
Review: I found Tom Stoppards'play to be a magnificent combination of wit, humor, and creativity. Stoppard takes you backstage to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are waiting to play their parts in the Hamlet production that is going on onstage. Their utter confusion about making decisions and frequent mentions of death make fun of thier basically inconsequntial parts in Shakespeares' Hamlet. Its length was very short, but there were always plenty of interesting allusions and thought-provoking lines. Overall, Stoppards' play was a witty twist on the orginal Hamlet and I would love to see the play in action.