Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead blends the laws of nature with the principles of existentialism; Through this 'comedic' duo of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Tom Stoppard gives the audience a clear understanding of the existentialistic lifestyle: no matter what choices they make, they are trapped under the predestined death that awaits them both on the stage and in the film.The similarities between the stage and the cinema can be compared with the similar devices that are used: The camera, much like a stage, is an instrument that is used to see exactly what is placed before it. The objective now becomes not necessarily what to show the audience, but what not to show them. The audience is in full awareness that you have the power to show them anything you want at any given time, and in this case, what not to show them is Hamlet.The film is started with Pink Floyd's soundtrack 'Echos'.And no one showed us to the land And no one knows the where's or why's But something stirs and something tries And starts to climb towards the light -'Echos' by Pink FloydThis musical choice of Stoppard's soundtrack for the film could not be better. 'Echos' begins with faint sounds of radar, which exemplifies Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's search for themselves; however, they are yet do discover that through their inevitable fate, their constant search for identities will never matter. The lyrics (although instrumented for the film) furthermore develops Stoppard's relationship to The Theatre of the Absurd of not knowing how, why, or what they were doing there. This instrumental version of the track shows how Stoppard (knowing that the lyrics are absent) still took on the great integrity to the song's meaning. As far as the echoes go in the film (pun intended), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern shout several different words throughout the movie, and in turn, are faintly heard by the other characters. This phenomenon might just be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern near the edge of breaking through the script, but as much as they try, they are unable to: they simply reverberate and fade back into their state of nothingness: they cannot escape. Guildenstern seems to have an interesting approach to this dilemma, saying that simply choosing 'what you want' overrides the agony of this universal determinism. "There's a logic at work–it's all done for you, don't worry. Enjoy it. Relax. To be taken in hand and led, like being a child again" (Pg 40). This philosophy was distinguished by Davd Hume, commonly referred to as Compatibilism. Compatabilism says that if your not 'enjoying' life, then what's the purpose of living? Stoppard seems to take a stab at Hume's philosophy with this play, showing that regardless of their fulfillment or enjoyment. Throughout the plot, their inevitable death's give them misery and anguish to constantly worry about. The Theatre of the Absurd is not just about existential philosophy, it establishes and questions all the different philosophies as well. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead addresses types of comedy like low, high, farce and even the more philosophical Comedy of Ideas. Between scenes of the film, pages are seen flying across screen, both before and after the scene change. These pages are commonly believed to be script pages; however, when taking a closer look, one would notice that the text originates from the Roman Missal, quite contrary to the anti-religious consistency the play develops. Here, Stoppard is adding yet another element to the play's determinism. Now, it becomes not what is controlling their fate, but who. When adding this religious context, the characters may indeed be controlled by God, and in result may be predestined to death by God himself: He leads us where we are destined to belong. Ros and Guil constantly question their existence throughout the time-frame of the play. With the many layers of philosophical inquiries and comedic ideas, one could agree that the final piece to this existential crisis lies in its many layers of reality. When the tragedians perform the play to King Claudius, Stoppard adds yet another level of existence to this play in the film. The first level, being the story of Hamlet, to the second plot of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern,then on to the Tragedians performance to Claudius, and the final, being the puppet show inside this performance of the Tragedians. This play-within a play-within a play-within a play-within a play exemplifies the many levels of existence and questions the reality of each: which is the real reality? Stoppard uses this clever approach to existentialism to show the true agony and misery Rosencrantz and Guildenstern face throughout their redundant lives, repeating each time the play commences. Both the film and play portray the existential lifestyle Ros and Guil are destined to face. No matter what they do, what they try, or what they don't do for that matter, all result in the same outcome. Even if they decide to enjoy their multi-layered cheeseburger and sail away on boats, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern truly cannot be free, regardless if they are trapped behind the stage, or'boxed' in the screen. Throughout the story, Stoppard ingeniously brought these characters to life–only to let them discover that they ultimately must die.

I produced the play version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead in 1971 for the Poor Yorick Players in Laramie, WY. We did it as a bit of a lark following our production of Hamlet, which I directed with several of the same actors. Thereafter I stayed clear of it, as I'm not partial to absurdist or existential theatre. So I came to the film version recently with a bit of resistance. On screening the DVD my resistance was somewhat allayed when the opening credits showed Tom Stoppard adapted his play for the screen and directed. The jury was out because Stoppard adapted Anna Karenina for the screen in 2012 directed by Joe Wright, which I consider a masterwork alongside the films of Kurosawa, Fellini, Bergman, Iciar Bollarin. R & G starts out with the now iconic coin-flipping scene in which a coin is tossed and lands on heads some 150 times. Absurd, isn't it. However, my existential prejudices were laid to rest with the arrival of the Player King (Richard Dreyfus).On seeing R & G on a forest road less taken, the Player King calls to halt the horses drawing an overlarge caravan filled with a gypsy band of actors and all the claptrap associated with medieval theatre. With many a trick up his sleeve (and the sleeves of all the actors), his troop unfolds the wagon into a veritable moveable feast of theatrical history and machinery. And it is unfolded on this road at this particular time for the benefit of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two minor characters in Shakespeare's Hamlet.So there we are in a forest – possibly in Denmark – the ragtag gypsies ready to perform anything these two amnesiacs desire. Actors need an audience, and these two will do for the time being. With tremendous inventiveness and sleight of hand, the troupe previews every possible permutation in the history of drama. In a terrific demonstration of stagecraft interfacing with film production, a coin is tossed, a bet is made and lost (the coin landing on tails for the first and only time), and we find ourselves in the Great Hall of Elsinore Castle, while Ophelia and Hamlet tentatively grope toward a relationship, which is immediately overshadowed and burdened by court intrigue. This transition is nothing short of pure "theatre magic."I won't go into detail of the many magical moments in this film, except to say that casting is impeccable to such a degree I wanted to see a full production of Hamlet with just this cast. The production values are spot on. Gary Oldman (Rosencrantz) and Tim Roth (Guildenstern) are sturdy, well matched, Oldman giving – in my opinion – his best career performance. I did find some of the existential banter of R & G a let down both in script and execution – particularly the tennis match on a medieval tennis court. It is serviceable, but disappointing.The Crème de la Crème of this film comes with the exceptional variations of the Hamlet story performed by the Players with puppets, masks, and pantomime. These sequences are the most intelligent, compelling interpretations of Shakespeare's masterpiece on screen. And the most daring. I don't know as anyone then or now could have directed his Chinese puzzle-box script as well as Stoppard. Not that we shouldn't continue to try. He not only mastered theatre of the absurd inside the frame of a major English classic, he turned both on their heads. All who view this masterwork are blessed because he did. (Thanks to my beloved for coaxing me into watching it.)

At my last movie night I watched the comedy Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. I have seen and loved other films by director/writer Tom Stoppard, such as Shakespeare in Love and, one of my favorite films ever, Brazil. I have always appreciated these films for the incredibly detailed writing and plot structure that sets them up, so I was pleased to find a film that he created entirely himself. This film was one of the most deftly constructed comedies I have ever seen. I struggled to keep up with the jokes as they jumped from Hamlet references to literature battles of wit to references to scientific properties. The writing was the best part of the film, as it felt like an extended series of in-jokes for the viewer, who would only understand the movie if they had read the play, Hamlet. For example, one of the main jokes in the film is that the characters are constantly getting their names mixed up. You would only understand why that is if you had read Hamlet, as in the play these characters are interchangeable, appearing only in a pair. There was nothing particularly clever about the camera angles or movements, yet the cinematography succeeded by including subtle references, such as the pages that can be found in each scene, containing text from the bible, or the Shakespeare portraits that are located all around the castle. Unfortunately, towards the end the film began to feel tired as the main plots and jokes were constantly repeated while the newer jokes all just seemed to be silly slapstick humor. Overall, I thought it was an interesting picture and a more important supplement to Shakespeare's Hamlet. Grade: C+

Since this is the only film that I have seen that falls into the genre that is known as 'the Theatre of the Absurd' it would be quite premature of me to call it a classic example of the genre, however an example of the genre is what this film is. Based around two minor character's in Shakespeare's Hamlet, the movie moves through the back rooms of Castle Elsinore while Hamlet is played out behind the scenes. The two main characters step into and out of the play as happens in the play, however the entire focus of this movie is on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.To say that this film gives them a voice is a misnomer. We are reminded, constantly, that they are minor characters and nobodies. As is said at the end of the film, the play ends with the death of a king, a queen, princes, and a couple of nobodies. In fact, when Hamlet is acted out before them by the tradgedians we are told that all in all eight characters die. However they point out that only six corpses are noticed, until their characters are hung right at the end. In the play we do not know of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's fate until the messenger arrives and says 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead'.The film is about the meaninglessness of life and the inevitability of death. At the beginning the Tragedian, when talking to the heroes (if that is what one would call them) about what plays are available to watch, he says that the one compulsory theme is the blood 'they all end in blood. Blood is compulsory'. Further, when one of them picks up a coin and tosses it, and it always lands up heads, it is a key to the inevitability of the end. Further, the Tragedian (who provides a commentary throughout the movie, and who, unlike the other characters, cannot die) says that everybody is to die at an appointed time, and they cannot escape it. Even when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern finally discover their fate, it is too late to avoid it. Even though he say at the end 'maybe there was some time that we could have said no' suggests that they had a choice, but in reality, the did not.There is no purpose or plot to the play, which is what one expects from such a play (I should call it a film, but it was originally made as stage play and adapted to the theatre by Tom Stoppard). It simply follows the action of the play that it leeches from. There is direction, and the direction of the play is towards the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. However their entire existence within the play is meaningless, which is what we get from the Theatre of the Absurd, that is the meaninglessness of life.Another aspect of this play is the question and answer. They are always talking about questions and answers, though they do not seem to know what the question is to get the answer that they want. They even play a game on a tennis court called question and answer. The goal is to answer a question with a question, and when somebody asks the wrong question, or gives a statement as an answer, then the other player scores. The scores are the same as with tennis, however this is not a sport or a game that they are playing, but an exploration of life, in particular when the questions we ask are answered with questions, and to give a statement as an answer is incorrect.The final thing that I wish to touch upon (and indeed one could explore quite deeply into this play) is the play within a play. Shakespeare loves to use that technique in his plays, however Stoppard takes it to the nth degree here as in one section of the play, it literally goes off into infinity, and are then brought back to reality with the scream of a guilty king. The whole play within a play is seen with the Tragedian being a major character in the film, but the play that they rehearse and show the king is Hamlet. We know this because we see the ending of the play (the sword fight and the two dead nobodies) before we see the beginning, so that by seeing the ending, we know where it is heading. Further, it is when the scene where the players play the play in front of the king, and it is that point in the play, and in the play within a play, and so on to infinity, that the king reacts (as opposed to the beginning where the the king is killed and his murderer marries the queen, thus denying Hamlet his throne).While I could go on more about Hamlet's motives and such, I feel that this should be left for another time, because this play is not Hamlet, and it is definitely not Shakespeare. The themes in Shakespeare are vastly different to the Theatre of the Absurd, and in fact, the whole concept is anachronistic to Shakespearian literature. However, I will mention that this film does provide a commentary to the play, however it pushes the meaninglessness and absurdity of life to the for front and the question of motive to the background.