Review of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1991) by Philip B — 01 Jun 2007

[CENTER][indent]The sight is dismal. And our affairs from England come too late. The ears are senseless that should give us hearing, to tell him his commandment is fulfilled. That Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.[/indent].

--[i]Hamlet[/i], Act V, Scene ii[/center].

We never do entirely learn which is which. Because it doesn't matter. They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and that is enough. (According to the script, Gary Oldman's character is Rosencrantz; Tim Roth is Guildenstern.) Can you, hearing a line spoken from the original [i]Hamlet[/i], remember which one said it?

Some quarter of the Stoppard is [i]not[/i] Stoppard, but is instead Shakespeare. That's an estimate, of course; I've not taken the time to run through the play and count. However, some of the best of it is the paraphrasing. Guildenstern's excellent "dead in a box" speech is perhaps the best possible interpretation of "To be or not to be.".

It seems traditional to get the best, or at least best-known, actor you can afford who is older than your Hamlet to act the Player King. (Their Hamlet, incidentally, is currently doing [i]Resident Evil[/i] movies.) In the Branagh, it was Charlton Heston (with Aunt May as the Player Queen, yet!). In the Olivier, it was a man not well-known for film (I don't feel like taking the time to look up his probable stage credentials) who then later became one of many Doctors Who. Pete Postlethwaite for the Gibson. Robert MacNeil (as in MacNeil/Lehrer) in the lousy Hawke. George Voskovec (whom we've seen as "Juror #11" from [i]Twelve Angry Men[/i]) in the Burton. (The Player King in the Kline--yes, Kevin Kline!--played Rosencrantz in the Burton.).

However, I will always be partial to Richard Dreyfuss, though Pete Postlethwaite is an old favorite of this journal. It seems to be that he is the best foil for Tim Roth and Gary Oldman (or is it Gary Oldman and Tim Roth?). He is slightly grizzled in this, slightly seedy. He is far from being the young idealist of [i]American Graffiti[/i]. I think his closest role to this one is his dual role in [i]Moon Over Parador[/i], where he plays a down-at-heels actor playing a dictator. In both, he appears to have control over lives when in fact he's merely exploring the control someone/something else does. Or am I overthinking again?

When I was in college, the final quarter of my senior year, I watched a [i]crapload[/i] of [i]Hamlet[/i], and this is still one of my favorites. Its production of Hamlet, its play-within-a-play, its two different dumbshows--and its commentary on the nature of acting and of audiences--endears it to me. I can also quote about as much of it, when pressed, as I can from the original play.