Rye Stevenson

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: A Film Analysis

Two men are riding horses through a winding mountain path. Abuptly, one of them reigns his

horse having spotted something on the ground. It is a shiny coin, and he dismounts to pick it up while

his companion watches. Caught by a moment of whimsy, he spins it in the air, catches it and slaps it on

the back of his fist. Heads. He spins it again. Heads. And again. Heads. His companion checks the coin,

before throwing it back to him. Again heads.

This is the beginning of the brilliantly absurd comedy Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

The story is playwright, author, and now screenwriter Tom Stoppard's retelling of William

Shakespeare's legendary tragedy Hamlet, but with a strange twist. While the main character of the story

is still Hamlet, the story does not follow him, but rather the story follows the two minor characters of

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern thorough their actions in the background. For those who are unfamiliar

with the story of Hamlet, it may be summed up as follows: Hamlet is a prince who is visited by the

ghost of his dead father. The ghost claims to have been murdered by his brother, Hamlet's uncle, who

has crowned himself king after marrying the queen. Hamlet is of course upset by the whole affair and

the story is a masterpiece of tension, drama, and powerful emotions. In the original story of Hamlet,

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were supposed to be Hamlet's friends, but are enlisted to spy on Hamlet

to find out what is his problem. Hamlet distrusts them, and eventually tricks them to their deaths at the

hands of the English king.

In essence, Tom Stoppard has not changed the plot of the original Hamlet, but everything else in

the story is different. The focus of the story is on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instead of on Hamlet.

The movie is absurdist comedy with elements of slapstick instead of tragedy. The characters question

the nature of existence as a sort of confusing puzzle rather than a philosophical challenge. However,

while Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is much lighter in its presentation, it has just as much
depth as its source of inspiration.

The style of the movie is drawn from the theatre of the absurd which explores the powerlessness

of men. In general, characters in these plays are not fighting great conflicts, but simply struggling to

make sense out of the circumstances they find themselves in and trying to gain some sense of control

over their own lives. In this film, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are called into the whirling political

conflicts of Hamlet and his family, but have no idea what is going on. They are fools of fate, and

throughout the entire movie struggle to make sense of their own existence. Unfortunately, they are

given orders, instead of information, and so must attempt to deduce meaning from whatever they come

across. This leaves them struggling with a sort of ever-changing existential crisis, whose only

resolution can only be realized by understanding how unimportant they really are. They are not central

to the action; Hamlet is. Sadly for our confused heroes, he isn't around very often, so they spend a great

deal of time unable to act. In the end, they are brought to their completely unsurprising demise, without

ever really knowing what is going on.

It must be understood that the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are caricatures. They

satirize instead of representing. This is expressed with their predominant characteristics of curiosity,

ambiguity, and confusion. While the characters are driven by the action of the story that is going on

around them, they seem to have no idea of the importance of the situation. Their primary motive when

they have the liberty to act by themselves is the simple curiosity of understanding the world around

them. As characters, they are contrasted by how they express this curiosity; one becoming excitedly

fascinated by the complications of the social dynamics around him while his counterpart seems to

explore his surroundings with a benign childlike innocence. Strangely enough, while the characters are

in some ways different, it is never clarified which one is Rosencrantz and which one is Guildenstern.

This brings us the deep ambiguity of the characters, which plays an important role in the film.

Not only do the characters know virtually nothing about the world around them, they know virtually

nothing about themselves and each other. In fact, in a number of different scenes Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are showed debating who is who. Their lack of ability to create a clear identity is one of

the elements that has caused this film to be seen as existentialist. At the same time, their ambiguous

natures allows the film to function. If they had been decided characters with strong personalities, it

wouldn't makes sense for them to be constantly bumbling along, trying to make sense of the world.

This naiveté also makes them highly likeable as characters.

The characters confusion is probably their most realistic trait, since they are constantly being

presented with enigmatic orders and prophetic commentaries. It seems that everyone in the situation

understands what is happening, save for our heroes. As they are rapidly passed from one person to

another, they struggle to form a coherent picture of what is going on. Their efforts are extremely comic,

made much more so if the viewer is familiar with the story of Hamlet, and so has a deeper

understanding of the conflicts involved.

This may pose the question whether or not someone who is unfamiliar with Hamlet will be able

to appreciate the movie. Since the film focuses on the interactions of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and

not on the intricacies of Hamlet, the answer is definitely yes. The way the movie is presented, we

follow the story of the two title characters with the various characters of Hamlet popping in and out of

the scenes. Tom Stoppard expands the story a good deal by inventing events that would be going on in

the background of Hamlet. The film starts off with the previously mentioned scene where Rosencrantz

and Guildenstern are travelling to Elsinor, the castle where Hamlet resides. On while travelling they

become engrossed with a phenomenon where they find that whenever they flip a coin, it comes up

heads. Unable to solve the mystery, they end up encountering a troupe of travelling players (actors)

who are also on their way to Elsinor to play for the court. Rosencrantz and Guldenstern fall to

discussion with the leader of the troupe who mysteriously vanish after some conversation.

Here the scene shifts to the castle Elsinor, where the two find themselves suddenly transported.

While utterly confused by this turn of events, they set about doing what they have been requested

which is to “find the head and source of Hamlet's distemper”. While trying to do so, they find
themselves repeatedly stumbling upon scenes from Shakespeare's Hamlet. This is further upset by the

arrival of the troupe of players that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had encountered on the road, the

leader of whom seems to know far more than seems natural of the situation. Unfortunately the pair can

do nothing but helplessly watch while events spiral out of control, and our sort-of heroes are eventually

instructed to take Hamlet to the King of England.

Again the scene shifts, and both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern find themselves on a boat

heading to England. They debate the nature of their task, but unable to comprehend, go to sleep. During

the night, Hamlet escapes the ship during a pirate attack, and the two are left without any idea of what

they are supposed to do now. This is further confused by the inexplicable arrival of the players, the

leader of whom takes charge of the situation and apologetically puts Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to

death.

If this seems anticlimactic, it is. Considering the existential nature of the movie, this should not

come as a surprise though. The essence of the movie revolves around the main characters trying to

make sense of a nonsensical world and failing. It has been argued that the climax of the movie is in the

few moments before hanging, where the pair stand with nooses around their necks calmly resigned to

their fate, since this is the moment where they give up trying to understand the world around them. It

has also been argued that the climax of the story is retroactive and takes place with the first flipping of

the coins. This is seen as the trigger of the whole improbable series of events, but can only be truly

understood when you have seen the movie in its entirety.

This sort of ambiguity is normal for works in this style. Absurdist works advocate that life does

not have an inherent logic. The idea inherent in this philosophy is that things happen without any sort

of overreaching sense. It contradicts not just the idea that good must triumph, but also the very idea of

the existence of good and evil exist in any real sense. The characters in absurdist works are simple

people who struggle to understand a complicated world.

Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is the way
that language is played with. In a syllogism presented by one of the two in response to his friends

confusion, we are presented with, “He has never known anything like it, but he has never known

anything to write home about. Therefore this is nothing to write home about.” Something to write home

about is an expression that usually refers to something interesting or out of the ordinary, so in this

passage the speaker is subtly mocking his companion. Another example includes when the two discuss

the meaning of “the king's remembrance” which they have been offered as a reward for their future

services. This is used ambiguously to imply both a simple remembering a sort of valuable gift.

This use of idiomatic expression is especially present when the scenes cross over with Hamlet

who is royalty after all. The language becomes more poetic and the speakers use more hyperbole.

Hamlet remarks that he considers Denmark a prison. This is his way of saying he feels trapped and he

elaborates by saying, that he could be “bounded in a nutshell and could consider himself the king of

infinite space”. This sort of comment should obviously not be taken literally.

Of course, some of the expressions are just made up and can only be understood by context.

When hoping to confound everyone who seems to control Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's lives, one of

them says that he'll kill himself and that “that'll put a spoke in their wheel”. This is a confused

corruption of “that will put a stick in their wheel” meaning that will stop them. Another example is

where the leader of the players says, “For some it is performance, for others patronage, they are two

sides of the same coin [meaning that both sides take place in the creation of art], or being as there are

so many of us, the same side of two coins [meaning that he wants to be paid]”.

This movie is a masterpiece of clever dialogue and amusing antics. While it is not a movie to

watch with your brain on idle, the complex interplay of ideas on interpretations mean that views are

rewarded for watching the movie more than once. It was never destined for mainstream success, but it

fits perfectly on the shelf of any serious film aficionado.