Rating: 
Summary: absurdly fun
Review: This play was my introduction to the theatre of the absurd, and I was astonished at the clarity of the ideas presented through ridiculous situations. Good plays echo experiences and pull the audience into the story with a certain intensity. In "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead," that intensity draws mostly from Ros's and Guil's utter confusion. Of course, they may simply be dolts, but what can explain the strange things that happen to them? We begin to identify with their confusion--are they, and we, all sane, but reflected in an insane world? The most revered literature addresses a "crazy-world"--much of Shakespeare's work does, and the New York Times bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" does. Even Bible stories address a crazy-world and how to overcome it. I can think of no better example than Job.
"Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is not only intended to be the other side of the Shakespearean classic "Hamlet," but also a supplement to the questions posited by Hamlet's tragic existence. However, it is not necessary to have read "Hamlet" in order to enjoy "Ros and Guil," although it will augment your appreciation of the latter. All in all, "Ros and Guil" is good literature by its own merit. I strongly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant Play
Review: I went out & bought this book after seeing the film version of R&GAD. I liked the movie so much that I had to have the print version of the script to compare with. It's instructive to see how Mr Stoppard took his play to the big screen and to see what he added (AFAIK, he took *nothing* away (as what happens in too many films adapted from another source))
I do have to say that this book makes a most *excellent* companion to the film for reference.
I have read this book many more times than I have seen the film and it's enjoyable from the first page to the last.
Fans of The Bard's work will certainly appreciate this as I call R&GAD, "The Post-It™ Note of Hamlet"!
Rating:
Summary: The perfect play
Review: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is perhaps one of the most perfect plays ever to have been written, but a statement like that needs at least some qualification. In year 12 (that is senior year to those in the U.S), in the state that I completed my final exams, the reading list for the Advanced English contained the comparitve study of R&G Are Dead with Hamlet. Lucky as I was to have an utterly amazing English teacher, we worked through these texts at an unfortunatly necissary speed to complete them on time to go on to new texts, this did not facilitate deep comprehension of the plays but managed to awaken a new interest that reminded me why I loved reading, acting and even words!
R&G is a sublime mix of the absurd, the intellegent and the philosophical. From the first toss of a coin to the reduction of the role of Hamlet from leading man to secondary diversion, you always get the feeling that nomatter how many times you read it (or see it, although this can be problematic due to it very limited stagings) there is another reading to be had, a new meaning of one word or phrase that changes it all. This is a rare thing for any work, and that I am glad to have found not just in R&G but also in Stoppards other work. I would never hesitate to recommend Stoppard to anyone who has ever thought.
Rating: 
Summary: Waiting for Godot meets Abbot & Costello
Review: I've always thought you had to be in a very peculiar mood to truly enjoy and appreciate Waiting for Godot. It's such a fine balance between tragedy and comedy, it's easy to sway one way or the other, either laughing at them and not caring about them or caring about them too much to laugh at them. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead is the same type of play, but much easier on the reader. There are truly funny, funny scenes in this play, many of them, scenes worthy of Abbott & Costello. Perhaps as a result, it is easier to care about the characters, even as you're laughing at their haplessness, and to echo their philosophic cries into the darkness. So I think this play outdoes the play it copies. I would rather watch it, or read it, anyway. A word about the Shakespeare -- sure, it adds to the play to know something about Hamlet, but it's probably not necessary. And I don't really think this "logically follows" after Hamlet, like some kind of sequel. They are very, very different plays. The jumping off point is simply that in Hamlet, "R & G" die deaths that don't really make any sense -- and no one really cares. Perfect philosopical place to start an absurdist play.
|
