Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead versus Hamlet Essay

Throughout the entirety of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, if one looks carefully, one can see many aspects of Marxist thought prevalent in the story. To effectively analyze a story through a Marxist critical lens, the reader needs to pay close attention to how characters of different classes interact with one another, especially in respect to class oppression and social inequity, particularly if the actions or words of a character talk of rebellion against the upper classes. “To Marxist critics, a society's economic base determines the interests and styles of its literature; it is this relationship between determining base and determined superstructure that is the main

William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is a timeless play which continues to remain relevant across all generations due to its presentation of ideas that are fundamental to humanity. The play highlights aspects that relate to the society of not only Elizabethan England but also that of our modern society. Hamlet, as a character, considers ideas from outside his time and is somewhat relatable to modern day man. By drawing from ideas of archetypes and the human psyche, it reveals that Hamlet relates deeply to the elements of humanity.

In both the playwright, Hamlet, and the movie, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, there are many important characters that are vital to the storyline; however, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are two characters who are both useless and unnecessary to the plot. It would almost seem as if they were stuck in the story just to make it a little bit longer. Although they are the main characters in the movie, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are interchangeable in every instance. One never learns which is which but at the same time, their identities don't really matter. The movie could have cut their parts out entirely, yet the plot would have remained the same.

Individuals questioning the foundations of society were “the minority, [but] numbers were still sufficient and beliefs strong and challenging”, as reflected in Stoppard’s 1966 comic tragedy Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Stoppard satirises religion to reflect the existentialism crisis plaguing the 1960’s society due to the loss of faith in traditional outlooks. A Biblical allusion is employed as the Lord’s Prayer- and hence the basis of Christianity, is ridiculed, asking to “give us this day our daily mask”. This parody marks the loss of blind faith and respect towards those requesting total credence. The conservative and the philosophical stances of the 1960’s are personified through the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, respectively. The audience is permitted an insight into the paradigms of the era, comparing conventional outlooks against the cynical musings of individuals regarding existentialism and fate in the face of impending death. Angela Carter believes that there is no “denying that toward the end of the decade everyday life ... took on the air of a continuous improvisation”. These sentiments are the basis of the 1960’s era, where “all [they] have to go on” are the formation and breakages of archetypes. Characteristics of the 1960’s also include the disgruntlement at the enigma of destiny, each aiming for a fate where “no boundaries have been defined, no inhibitions imposed.” The play allows the audience an insight to the tumultuous era in which individuals were left powerless to determine their own fates, particularly in the face of hollow words from the government whilst the media promoted potential death. Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (1966) reflects the importance of “words [being] all we have to go on” through adopting the absurdist theatre notion of the meaninglessness of the human condition. This is in response to

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent for by the King and Queen to spy on Hamlet and learn why he "puts on

The setting of the play is also critical for the theme of the play. It orients the audience to the crucial elements such as time, place and mood. By stripping the play off these, Stoppard is confusing the audience further about the identity of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. There are minimal props in the play. The few props that are used, like the coins, do not follow the normal law, like the law of probability by falling heads all the time. The stage direction of the play is also important in the sense that it conveys determinism. This is because an actor in a play has a script, a certain posture and a determined pace to be stood at. This leaves no

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are comic reliefs by acting as the fool in the play Hamlet. The duo’s ignorant nature are picked at by Hamlet’s sharp toungue through the play, intensifying it’s ultimate tragic nature. One example is in act two scene two of Hamlet, when Hamlet is questioning Rosencrantz and Guildenstern about the reason they are at the castle. Hamlet offsets Humor in these scenes by his choice of words. Hamlet puts the pressure on the duo and Rosencrantz in an aside to Guildenstern asks what excuse they should make to Hamlet while the whole time Hamlet is aware of their conversation. “(to Guildenstern) What

Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a work of immense depth in character development, most notably the personal, moral and psychological battles

Characters may possess both the ability to intrigue whilst maintaining a commonplace and dry persona, essentially, Hamlet attains the ability to break from his compulsion to abject based on the inept character(s) of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In retrospect, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the same person as they are sparsely differentiated and never are they seen apart from one another—thus the question remains as to why Shakespeare created such characters based on the same superficial mould. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern prove to be a clever satire of the capacity for human conformity, and of course the entirety of their characters is summed upon their agreement to spy on Hamlet for King Claudius. Therein is revealed the essential flaw of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, their otherwise ‘pack’-mentality.

Janet Adelman champions the collapse of boundaries in her psychoanalytic essay. Throughout the criticism she reiterates the collapse of the father figures into one another and the subsequent trials of differentiation Hamlet must undergo to secure his position as a son. She sums up the play as a gradual breakdown of necessary boundaries between characters. The male characters do experience a collapse of boundaries. Each man is coupled or tripled with respect to station in life: Old Hamlet, Claudius, and Polonius; Hamlet, Horatio, Laertes, and Fortinbras; Rozencrantz and Guildenstern; Bernardo, Marcellus, Osric, and Voltemand. The foiling of many men at similar, distinct points in life leads to the breakdown of differences generating a father-mass, son-mass, soldier-mass. Rozencrantz and Guildenstern epitomize the dissolution of boundaries and the mixing of individualities as seen in Act I of Stoppard's, Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead: "My name is Guildenstern, and this is Rosencrantz. / I'm sorry-his name's Guildenstern, and I'm Rozencrantz" (Stoppard 1). Each grouping of men vie for similar positions, are subject to the same desires and are all varying versions of each other, thus differentiation becomes more and more difficult until the men become a mass of masculinity instead of distinct characters.

Throughout my high school career, I’ve never worked with anything that has made me think so much. Sure, you can watch the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead at face value, have a few laughs until it stops being funny, and then go on with your life. But you aren’t getting out of it all that Tom Stoppard intended. This play is so much more than just an accompanying work to Hamlet. It fleshes out the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in a way that makes you consider your own life! And if you really want to take anything from this play, you need to understand the messages it contains. This is a challenge to some, because of how deeply they contrast with the play at face value. But, if you can look deeper, you will a couple

Hamlet is undoubtedly one of the most well-studied and remembered tragedies in all of history. Renowned for its compelling soliloquies and thought-provoking discussions about life, death, and love, the play takes a very serious look at the topics it presents. Based on this famous work is another tragedy, known as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. In this work, which is interwoven with the original, the namesake characters bumble about in the immense world, over which they have no control. Without a sense of identity or purpose, the two merely drift to and fro at the whim of the larger forces around them; namely Hamlet, who eventually leads them to death. The twin plays follow the same story and end with the same result – nine deaths.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet tells them, “I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw,” (II, ii, 368-369). This open acceptance that he may be mad is a good indication that he is not, as people who are genuinely crazy believe that they are perfectly normal. For Hamlet to recognize that he is misaligned with the world around him and to demonstrate conscious awareness that his behavior is sometimes abnormal shows that he is aware of what is socially and culturally acceptable, and he realizes that he is sometimes against the predetermined standards. The lack of consciousness of what is truly normal is a characterizing trait for the insane. Hamlet has no trouble recognizing that his behavior is

This essay will discuss several literary criticisms of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. After skimming through several articles, I ended up with four peer-reviewed journal articles, each a different critical perspectives of the play: feminist, psychoanalytical/freudian, moral, and new historicism. My previous studies of Hamlet, as well as my rereading of the play this semester, has collectively given me a general knowledge of the text. My familiarity of the play made it easier for me to decipher the academic journals and see the connections each critic made with the play.

“To be or not to be – that is the question…” (III, I, 56-) so starts Hamlet’s most famous and well-known soliloquy. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, written in the very late 1500’s, the audience is introduced to two “comical” characters at the beginning of the play; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. These two characters, clearly, had no clue of what is going on throughout the play; in addition, they followed orders without questioning them. Therefore, their role in the play was not clear. Ultimately, their role in the play was to support, as well as spy, on Hamlet, hence them taking orders from greater characters like Claudius. However, the comic duo serves a deeper purpose than just assisting their old childhood friend. Arguably, their role in the play is also to forecast ideas, bring out character traits to help readers understand them more, and come up with solutions to some of the questions that the play has left the readers to deal with. They are capable of accomplishing that due to their disloyal behaviors towards other characters.