Essay I wrote for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead:
Stoppard's play explores complex questions about the meaning and purpose of human existence.
Discuss.
In his writing of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Tom Stoppard draws upon postmodern theatrical conventions in an attempt to accurately present the futility of humanity's search for meaning. The play is a part of quintessential absurdist theatre; Stoppard displays a blatant disregard for classical theatre tropes, instead opting to portray a pristine image of mankind's existence within a bizarre and surreal universe. This unconventional setting furthermore complements the underlying thematic exploration of the play's entirety; as the narrative elements unfold the audience witness only the pitifully grotesque, with the central figures of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and the Players obtaining no greater purpose in their unsightly bumbling. The suggestion at an ideological level is that the universe is incoherent, and by the play’s denouement the audience is encouraged to view mankind’s search for any sense of objective value as utterly meaningless. Hence, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is essentially a text endorsing a nihilistic vision of human existence; within his postmodernism, the world Stoppard constructs can only be seen as an uncaring one, driving its subjects away from any resplendence towards an inevitable fate of mortality.
An account of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead necessitates an understanding of the absurdist tradition surrounding the play. Writing in the 1960s, Stoppard found himself in the wake of Samuel Beckett and similarly influential absurdist writers; at this point in time, literature was continuing to eschew classical conventions in favour of the avant-garde (a legacy of modernism), and with the rise of postmodernism, there was a growing disregard for any attempt at realism. Stoppard himself was heavily inspired by this period of defiance, and for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead especially wrote in the style coined “Theatre of the Absurd”, wherein rationality and order was left in favour of surrealism bordering on absurdity. In many ways, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead exemplifies several elements of absurdist theatre; like the plight of the protagonists in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, the central figures of Stoppard’s play lack any real purpose, and being “sent for” serves as their – and the plot’s – only significance in continuing onwards. Similarly, the world presented defies any logical understanding of reality; natural laws are inverted in instances such as the famous coin-flipping within the opening sequence, prompting Guildenstern to echo the audience’s sentiments in saying “A weaker man might be moved to re-examine his faith, if in nothing else at least in the law of probability”. The universe established is clearly one contrary to the audience’s expectations, and it is in this sort of setting which Stoppard’s play finds its postmodern footing.
This utilisation of absurdist theatre, of course, accompanies a deeper intention in regards to Stoppard’s philosophical explorations throughout the play. Logic is inverted throughout the play not simply to signify Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead as a postmodern work, but also to establish the specifics of human existence; an audience with a sophisticated knowledge of philosophy will extract from the play dealings with nihilism, determinism and existentialism, reflected upon in moments such as Guildenstern’s “Wheels have been set in motion” speech. However, even an uneducated audience will understand that Stoppard is illuminating the crisis of human existence in his surrealism; the Players’ and having “no control” parallels the state of mankind’s existence, and the protagonists’ almost comical “disappear[ing] from view” in the play’s ending is obviously emblematic for what is inevitably the end of human life. There is also, of course, the play’s being a palimpsest of Shakespeare’s Hamlet; the literary-minded audience will recognise the inevitable fate of the hapless Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and through Stoppard’s absurdity will also understand that their mundane lives - in comparison to the glorious Prince Hamlet - are reflective of humanity’s meaningless state of reality. Views of human existences are hence embodied within Stoppard’s distinctive style; instead of simply leaning on the theatre of the absurd as a clutch, Stoppard weaves postmodern elements throughout Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead to better establish the unsightly state of mankind itself.
Drawing from background to the text itself, there is a great level of intellectual depth to be found in opting to examine Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead’s essentially nihilist or absurdist ideologies about the world. At its most fundamental level, Stoppard’s play is effectively characterising mankind’s reality as devoid of any objective significance; as Guildenstern relates, words are “all [humans] have to go on”, suggesting an inherent superficiality within the greater context of the universe. The portrayal of the play’s main characters leads to a similar conclusion, and in their more slapstick moments (such as their “holding...belts taut” to halt Hamlet) they are reduced to mere clowns; the audience is thus left to recognise that they themselves are like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, puppets in a world lacking order and any real purpose. Humanity’s futility in attempting to bring meaning to its existence is also exemplified within the ambiguous identities of the protagonists, whose inability to discern “which is which” between the two of them again leads to the condemnation of human life as completely absurd. Stoppard’s play is thus identifying mankind’s existence as a worthless exercise; rather than any eventual outcome of majesty or grandeur, the disorderly state of the world drives life towards emptiness, and nothing else.
The understanding of nihilism brought about is further complemented by Stoppard’s secondary thesis regarding the deterministic state of human life. Throughout the narrative, there is a clear indication that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lack control over their actions; Guildenstern regards the pair of them as “condemned”, and scenes such as the Players’ enacting spies “hoist by their own petard” hint towards an inevitable – and fatal – ending for the two main characters. This sentiment is also directly expressed within dialogue, Guildenstern and the Player remarking “the only end is death” and “in our experience, most things end in death”. The audience is thus given direct insight into the guiding force of fate within Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead; in relation to purpose, however, this also suggests futility on the part of mankind, as a result of its more subtle inability to even control the course of its existence. Comments such as “We cross our bridges…with nothing to show for progress” imply a discontinuity in the entirety of human living; the idea purported on Stoppard’s part is that the meaningless nature of reality is in part a by-product of the eternal power of destiny which permeates life as a whole. The resulting philosophy of humanity’s existence is then essentially a fatalistic one, and what appears to be offered is anything but deliverance for mankind in the realm of its unyielding and all-controlling universe.
Another aspect of Stoppard’s philosophical exploration of humanity’s role in existing is embodied within the Players, whose modus operandi acts as the basis for his critique of existentialism. Unlike Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the Players are not depicted as desperate in search of an objective purpose; instead, they perform “on stage the things that supposed to happen off”, marking them as parallels for the existential creation of purpose in a world devoid of any real value. Nevertheless, as Stoppard views it, this process is effectively futile; although the Players are able to live with a sense of understanding, they are nevertheless shadows of what is real, relying upon the principle “that somebody is watching” to grant them any worth in their existence. The main player’s insistence that they are “the opposite of people” further signifies this, and by the play’s conclusion, the fact that the Players disappear alongside Rosencrantz and Guildenstern has alerted to the audience their complete lack of intrinsic significance to the world. Hence, it is possible to recognise within Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead a complete divide between mankind and the glory which it seeks; even the Players, who are so caught in the act of reaching a greater importance in the landscape of the universe, are reduced to nothing in the wake of nature’s unwillingness to relinquish to them purpose or value.
Ultimately then, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead can be understood to approach humanity’s quest for meaning from a decisively nihilistic perspective; within the absurdist conventions which underpin the play’s entirety, the audience can only recognise the characters as deprived from objective value in the course of the living. Against the glory presented in the parallel world of Hamlet, wherein Horatio hints towards a vision of magnificent and resplendence in his account of Hamlet’s story, the fading stage of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead can only provide a contrasting despair, a reflection of gaping darkness. With regards to humanity, the latter appears to be the case for reality; amidst man’s delusions of grandeur, the only salvation in this empty world is death.
Home
Help
Search
Login
