rosencrantz_review_2

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead a play by Tom Stoppard This play was written and first produced in 1966.

__Historical Context__

Absurdist thought has many of the same roots as existential thought in the sense that they both arose out of similar historical events. The two major events that they rose out of was World War II and the Holocaust. Europe during World War II was a place of death and destruction. Buildings were being blown up and civilians getting shot. There were rumors of nuclear war, and decimation of entire cities. As usual, great tragedy creates great literature, and World War II was no exception. People began to realize that their lives may not last as long as they thought. They began to beg the most basic questions of life and death. Why do people die? The Holocaust made people wonder about suffering and why certain people suffer while others do not. All of these questions and more helped to strengthen both the Absurdist and Existentialist literary movements.

__Literary Movements__ -"Theatre of the Absurd"

The "Theatre of the Absurd" was a term coined by Martin Esslin in 1962, in his book of the same title. The playwrights that wrote in this movement wanted to show their sense of "bewilderment, anxiety, and wonder in the face of an inexplicable universe" (Crabb). The roots of Theatre of the Absurd can be traced back to the early days of Greek drama, especially in the plays of Aristophanes. However, what brought the Theatre of the Absurd into full throttle was World War II. With civilians dying from gunfire and the seemingly imminent risk of nuclear war, the unceratinty of life became more evident. Around this time, Antonin Artaud, an absurdist pioneer, stated that it was time for a change in the arts. The world could not continue with traditional arts; it needed a return to magic and myth in the theatre (Crabb).

Whereas traditional theatre attempted to create an exact replica of life, absurd drama created a "ritual-like, mythological, archetypal, allegorical vision, closely related to the world of dreams" (Crabb). It is actually a literary movement that is very interconnected with existentialist thought. Some of the basic questions attempted to be answered by absurdists are: why are we alive, why do we die, and why is there injustice and suffering. Dr. Jan Culik writes, “Absurd Theatre can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age, by making man aware of the ultimate realities of his condition, by instilling in him again the lost sense of cosmic wonder and primeval anguish. The Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is mystical experience in confronting the limits of human condition.”

Another major component of absurd drama is the "distrust of language as a means of communication" (Crabb). In these absurdist plays, many times, language isn't even useful in the plot. It is stereotypical and meaningless, containing almost nothing pertinent to the work as a whole. Culik believed that by not using language as a true means of communicating, it is advocating going beyond speech and using more authentic means of communication. Lastly, absurd drama subverts logic. Many writers and even Freud believed that once we leave the boundary of logic, there is a certain freedom that one enjoys. The material for writing is infinite once we break the constraints of logic (Crabb).

Key elements from literary movement that are apparent in the text

Ros: We could play at questions. Guil: What good would that do? Ros: Practice! Guil: Statement! One---love. Ros: Cheating! Guil: How? Ros: I hadn't started yet.

This is a great example of absurd drama. It clearly illustrates the absurdist idea that verbal communication is essentially worthless. There is little that is said in these seven lines, or the next three pages for that matter that is relevant to the plot. During this "question game," Rosencrantz and Guildenstern continuously ask each other questions in hopes of getting a point. Stoppard again reinforces the idea that most human interactions are over frivolous matters.

Ros: Heads Guil: If that's the word I'm after Ros: Seventy six---love. Heads

Another perfect example of "Theatre of the Absurd." Rosencrantz has now flipped 76 straight heads in a row. The only place where this could happen is a dream-like world. It is clear that Stoppard has returned us to a land of myth and magic, a basic characteristic of absurd drama.

Ros: What now? Guil: What do you mean? Ros: Well, nothing is happening. Guil: We're on a boat. Ros: I'm aware of that.

This last example is another example of the dreamlike world that they are in. They are in a boat that is basically going nowhere, and these two main characters have no clue what is really happening. Stoppard is showing us that is nothing is happening through Rosencrantz.

__Major Characters__

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Childhood friends of Hamlet. Claudius requests their assistance in finding out the cause of Hamlet’s apparent “madness.”Often confused, they argue about nonsensical things and their conversations often take them nowhere.

Hamlet Prince of Denmark and childhood friend of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.His apparent madness after his father’s death and his uncle’s taking of the throne troubles and confuses the other characters in the play.

Tragedians Traveling group of actors who are preparing to perform for Hamlet.They enjoy acting out deaths and will perform certain sexual acts for money.

The Player Leader of the Tragedians. Always in control of the Tragedians and willing to do many different things for money.

Claudius Hamlet’s uncle; the new king of Denmark. He enlists the help of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to find the causes of Hamlet’s troubled behavior.

__The Central Conflict__

After being informed by Claudius that they are to find out what has been bothering Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern struggle to find a way to approach him about his “madness.”The conflict is man vs. self, where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern struggle to decide whether or not Hamlet is insane. They throw around several ideas for how to find out, coming to the conclusion that it is simply a game of asking the right questions. They practice by playing a ridiculous game of questions, the rules of which are never explained, that has scoring like that of tennis. This proves to be a foolish attempt at practice, since both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern end up just as confused as they were before they started. Their struggles persist, and they attempt to practice again by role-playing as Hamlet and Rosencrantz, but become confused in that process as well. After finally speaking with Hamlet they conclude that he has beaten him at their own question game, leaving them as confused as before and not sure if he is really “mad” or not.

__Explanation of central themes__

Stoppard articulates several themes which focus upon the ambiguity of verbal communication. His ideas emerge out of World War II era existentialism which regarded human interaction as virtually meaningless and non-substantive. This particular theme is evident within nearly all of the dialogue between Rosencratz and Guildenstern. Rhetorical flourishes are almost always non-sensical and Stoppard employs the literary device of non-sequitir to prevent the audience from ever obtaining deeper meaning from the conversations. Furthermore, Stoppard addresses the duality of fate and free will within the dialogue concerning the coin toss game. The coin game leaves the audience pondering the role of fate and certainty in the universe and how these forces guide our actions and attitude towards inevitable death.

__Key Quotations__

Guil: We shall see. I hardly knew him, he’s changed. Ros: You could see that? Guil: Transformed. Ros: How do you know? Guil: Inside and out. Ros: I see. Guil: He’s not himself. Ros: He’s changed.

This is typical of the play because it reflects the nonsensical conversations between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It relates to the theme concerning the ambiguity of conversation. This conversation takes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern virtually nowhere and they end up in the same exact place that they started in. Most of the conversations between the two are similar to this one in that they are meaningless and tedious.

Ros: Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occured to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it. It never occured to me at all. We must be born with an intuition of mortality. Before we know the word for it. Before we know that there are words. Out we come, bloodied and squawling, with the knowledge that for all the points of the compass, theres only one direction. And time is its only measure.

Rosencratz's quotation reflects the existential undertones of this play. Stoppard communicates that mankind must realize their own mortality at some point. He believes it is how we confront this fate that ultimately determines what makes us as human beings. The morbidity of Rosencratz's tone is emblematic of existentialism's attempt to deal with mortality.

Player: We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.

Stoppard illuminates some important thematic elements concerning what we perceive in art versus what exists in our universe. This is emphasized through the act of dying which is frequently acted out by the players. The players often die in absurd ways and it is often unclear as to who is dying and why -- what is Stoppard saying about death? He ultimately asserts that death is the single uncertainty human beings exist with -- this philosophical gap in understanding prevents us from grasping the finality of death.

Ros: Do you think Death could possibly be a boat? Guil: No, no, no... Death is "not." Death isn't. Take my meaning? Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being. You can't not be on a boat. Ros: I've frequently not been on boats. Guil: No, no... What you've been is not on boats.

Stoppard addresses themes concerning the forces of fate and free will in our lives. Boats and navigation are important symbolic elements in the sense that a boat is guided by forces such as wind that it cannot control. On the same token, human beings are guided towards doom by forces of fate that are ultimately out of their own control.

Pivotal Scenes

A pivotal moment during the play occurs towards the end of Act I when characters from Hamlet rush onto the stage. Claudius and Gertrude ask Rosencratz and Guildenstern to discover the cause of Hamlet's madness. The incident provokes the two to play the questions game in order to prepare for some of the probing questions they will ask Hamlet to ascertain the source of his madness. This scene is important because it sets in motion some of the ridiculous antics between Ros and Guil, such as changing their names with the King and Queen and playing the question games. These antics are truly representative of the brand of absurdist theater presented by Stoppard and enable the audience to access some of the existential questions posed by the playwright in creating this nonsensical frame.

A second pivotal moment occurs in the final act when the Player calls the tragedians to jump out of barrels located on the deck of the boat that Ros and Guil are taking to England. The tragedians form a circle around Ros and Guil and Guil grabs a knife from one of them, stabbing the Player. The player pops back up moments later pronouncing that the knife was actually fake. The scene is important because it elucidates Stoppard's idea revolving around how art conflicts with reality. Humans use plays and other fictitious devices to "fake" death to make it a more palpable subject. By distancing ourselves from the brutality and coldness of death we loss sense of death's finality. The Player's levity in evading death reminds the audience that plays are poor reflections of our lives.

Bibliography

Crabb, Jerome. "Theatre of the Absurd." __Theatre Database__ 03 Sep 2006 28 Apr 2008 http://www.theatredatabase.com/20th_century/theatre_of_the_absurd.html.

Culik, Jan. "The West and the East: The Theatre of the Absurd." 28 Apr 2008 <[[[|http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm%3E.|http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm>.]]