If anyone still wants a sample for the SAC...
---
Ian Johnston’s lecture at MUC on Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead purports that the play is an intellectual foray into existentialism, exploring humanity’s role in the universe but providing no precise answers. Johnston characterises the play as an element of the Theatre of the Absurd; although never truly confirming this statement, his exploration of the styles of Absurdism form the basis of his discussion, wherein he depicts the protagonists’ plight as a post-modern examination of our own lives. In this regard, Johnston is quite acute, identifying the key ideals underlying the play’s action. However, Johnston’s lecture seems to ignore the full extent of Stoppard’s moral substance, instead arguing that the play is only a shallow examination of differing ideas, and by the lecture’s denouement Johnston does not establish any sense of Stoppard’s true intellectual depth. Nevertheless, Johnston’s lecture presents a highly analytical view of the play, detailed and precise in addressing Stoppard’s dealings with existentialist ideas.
Throughout his lecture, Johnston takes careful note of the philosophy embodied within Stoppard’s text, interpreting the narrative of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead as a parallel for humanity’s meaningless existence. At the heart of Johnston’s interpretation lies chaos; Johnston describes the world of the play as “either incomprehensible or just a silly game”, an observation which illuminates the cause for the protagonists’ struggles to understand their situation. In Johnston’s eyes, this creates a context of nihilism – he claims “there doesn’t seem to be a very firm line drawn between life and death” – and as a result Rosencrantz and Guildenstern essentially become “the living dead”. Simultaneously, however, Johnston balances this nihilistic reading of the play with two instances of meaning being created by individuals. The first is the friendship between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which Johnston claims leads to their being “something of value in their lives”; the second, in contrast, is the existence of the players, whom Johnston argues are symbolic of art bringing meaning to human life. As shown by these differing ideas, Johnston ultimately decides that Stoppard does not offer in real commentary on the human condition; rather, Johnston claims, Stoppard’s play only offers “a sense of the wonderful cleverness of the author”, and does not give any clear indication of what is truly the case for human reality.
Whilst clear and reasoned, this aspect of Johnston’s lecture is very much mistaken; rather than simply toying with different ideals, it would be more prudent to suggest that as a whole Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is offering a fundamentally nihilistic view of human existence. As Johnston suggests in his lecture, there is indeed a very clear indication that the world of Stoppard’s play is founded upon disorder; from the play’s outset, the audience is bombarded by surrealism, such as that of Rosencrantz’s repeated result of “Heads” in his coin tossing. Not only this, but in regards to the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern themselves, meaning seemingly amounts to nothing more than being “sent for” by the King and other similarly mundane notions. Where Johnston falls short, however, is his ignorance of the fact that the main characters cannot differentiate between one another in the ending; although they do, as Johnston states, share a friendship, their eventual asking “Which is which?”, suggests that in reality all their relationship really amounts to is a hollowness as fragile as the protagonists themselves. Hence, although the play offers hints of meaning for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the greater evidence would suggest that the protagonists lack a solid grounding in the universe; like the humanity they are meant to embody, they are merely pawns in an unfamiliar and uncaring landscape, incapable of celebration or even individuality.
Johnston furthermore neglects to mention that the world constructed in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead appears to hold deterministic properties alongside its complete lack of intrinsic meaning. As Guildenstern observes in the play’s second act, it is as though “Wheels have been set in motion”; throughout the entirety of the narrative, there is very little to suggest that the titular characters are at all in control of their actions. This notion is similarly purported by the play’s existing parallel to “Hamlet”; the audience knows that the protagonists’ fate has been written down centuries ago, and throughout the play’s events there is never a doubt as to their eventual deaths. Unlike what Johnston purports in the play being “simply a dazzling display”, this would then tilt the play towards confirming a pessimistic view of mankind’s ability to fend for its own individuality. It would be worthwhile to consider that Guildenstern’s line “We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us” is essentially an embodiment of Stoppard’s philosophy; what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead really seems to suggests is that in spite of any delusions of grandeur, mankind is only able to set out on the path the greater forces of the world provide.
Of course, an understanding of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is not complete without an examination of the Players, who are key to Johnston’s reading of the text. The Players’ function is essentially as Johnston interprets; in “[doing] on stage the things that are supposed to happen off”, they act to simulate meaning through fiction and art. Nevertheless, there is a limit to what this verisimilitude of existentialism can achieve; following on from the play’s deterministic world, the main Player admits that there is “no control” to in their actions, no hint of majesty intrinsic to their mode of living. This, coupled with the proclamation that “most things end in death”, would suggest that Stoppard is arguing a case for absolute nihilism; contrary to what Johnston instigates in his reading of Stoppard superficially examining ideals, the text seems to lean heavily towards portraying all the Players’ achievements as empty, akin to the buffoon-like behaviour of the protagonists themselves.
In this light, Johnston’s assessment of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead as merely parading contrasting viewpoints of mankind’s state would be insufficient to acknowledging the true depth of Stoppard’s writing. As made apparent in the play’s consistent reference to determinism and nihilism, Stoppard’s play would appear more concerned with illuminating the dire state of reality and our inability to formulate anything substantial in existing. Nevertheless, what appears undeniable is the sheer wit of Stoppard’s writing; conclusive or not, Johnston is correct in approving of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead as stylish in its presentation of the absurd.
Home
Help
Search
Login
