Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - discuss!

Good morning, my dear readers.

Today I want to have a mini-rant about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - and I'm exceedingly sorry for all of you who haven't seen it (in fact, that probably is all of you...) but you really should make the effort...

Firstly - what do you think of that? Isn't it great! Is it a deleted scene or just a bit of backstage mucking about or what?! Pretty wuvvy though.


Did you spot…

…that while the Player spends most of the film dressed as Hamlet, at the end on the boat he’s dressed as Rosencrantz, which is far freakier and prompts the question why? Believe me that is the case - being an expert on said costumes, knowing far far too much about them…eyes are now peeled to spot Guildenstern imitation. Now possibly at the beginning when they meet on the road, their costumes are similar however I wouldn't want to say for sure.

…that those two and Hamlet must have been absolutely maddening as children. Not that they actually ever were children, of course. Being a fan of the “it didn’t happen!” school. As G says, "you've only got their word for it."

…that they must be irritating friends. Think about it – G’s trying to work out what’s going on and R just won’t concentrate; R’s trying to interest his friend in his discoveries and he simply won’t lighten up. I can’t decide which would be more infuriating.

…how Rosencrantz does almost all the talking to the other characters. This just struck me as you'd probably expect the reverse.

…how they apparently vanish to Elsinore? Now pay attention – the play Hamlet the play doesn’t start until they’re in the castle, right? After the player vanishes they’re left alone on the stage – almost as if they walk onto the stage and into the play, savvy? Especially as they’ve just requested a tragedy and won their bet. And if that’s not enough what about the way the tragedians pack up and leave, seemingly having swallowed the world up.

…how the Messenger isn’t credited. Here’s the theory: it’s the Player. It does sound like him. Who else to give them their cue to come on? “Everybody on stage!”

…why Guildenstern loses the game. It’s because he wants answers. Rosencrantz is willing to keep on with the questions without ever settling the matter because it doesn’t matter to him. If you notice, G does get all the clever tricks in, "was that rhetoric?" and stuff.

...G asking R if he's happy, content and at ease is a waste of time because he ALWAYS is.

…that some other people have some curious things to say about the play even if I don’t really agree with it. The most interesting of which is this – “Guildenstern appears to know which he is, and he’s trying to prove a point by the fact that R doesn’t” Well, it’s an interesting one, non? Not that I do believe it.


Now pay attention, this is two theories in one.

To put it really simply, G is the serious one and R is the comic one. I know it’s not entirely true, but I’m close. It’s a different sort of humour.
It's a tragicomedy, it depends on you which half you see - me and one friend watch the tragedy, two other friends watch the comedy.
To link all that together, is it then just a coincidence that the latter are more R fans and the former are slightly more G fans.
Theory two coming off that. Although perhaps it’s just the way I think. G really comes into his own on the boat. He’s calling the shots, he gets the best lines and he just seems to be more at home. Could that be because things take a turn for the dismal from the boat onwards?

…just in case you hadn’t, that the Player’s first play begins with Hamlet on the couch during the “See that yonder cloud which is like a camel” conversation. Cos I only noticed it recently.

...From the point at which they work out something's not right, R has the mortality speech, he points out “there’s something they’re not telling us”, he enquires whether death is a boat – in short, he confronts it as I would by talking about it loudly and at length. G doesn’t. He has a short rant to the Player about it, but apart from that zilch. Presumably that’s why it’s all a bit pent up when they realise it truly is inevitable. And don’t try suggesting it hadn’t occurred to him - of course he knows…

You know, it's not so much they die that hurts, or that they are doomed to an eternity of this and they won't know better next time - it's when the Player gets up again. Not that I'm vicious and I want the Player to be dead...they just look so queasy when he gets killed, and so helpless when he turns out not to be. I mean, they can't influence anything.

I’m sorry if that got confusing, these are the ramblings of a rather sore heart as I’ve only just finished the film and it still hurts, and probably will do so for the next 20 mins more or less. So forgive if it makes no sense, not only am I noticing more I’ve been deprived of the capacity to express myself properly.

My sister thinks it expresses teen angst about “who am I?” and they should show it in PSHE. I most heartily agree…

In other news, Richard Dreyfuss claims to have no memory at all of filming Whose Life is it Anyway? because of heavy drugs use. Wish I had no memory of watching it...