HAMLET/ ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD

Question: In any transformation, the more recently composed text will have greater appeal towards contemporary audiences. Discuss this statement?

In the process of transforming the older text, Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead is an absurdist plat, which is better adapted to contemporary situations. Tom Stoppard has transformed the once traditional values from Hamlet, presenting them in a comical context with greater appeal among modern audiences. The recent text deals with a number of fundamental issues and presents new ways of thinking or evaluating society. Stoppard shifts the focus away from the world of the court, to that of two ordinary men, who we can relate to much more closely in a modern context. Although relying heavily on Hamlet’s framework, Stoppards’s play has been transformed in such a way that not only has he expanded on Shakespeare’s themes, but he also develops key points of difference. Using the notion of the ‘common man’, Stoppard reveals a dramatic shift of importance as it reflects modern society. In doing so, Stoppard has made the issues in Hamlet much more personal as Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s fate and fears are also ours. In Act one, Guildenstern asks “are we entitled to some direction?”. Rosencrantz who states “we have no control…none at all” later reinforces this. The characters are clearly powerless against their fate, as they have no control throughout the play. Stoppard incorporates the idea of predetermined fate into his play as it largely represents the views of contemporary audiences. Moving the play to the world of ordinary people, allows Stoppard to portray the modern condition of human existence with greater precision. Notions of fate and destiny are central to both plays. Implicit in Shakespeare’s Hamlet is the idea that characters have the ability to control their actions. This can be seen in the case of Hamlet who is constantly faced with a battle of personal ‘choice’. He chooses to avenge his father’s death, to duel with Laertes and not to kill Claudius during prayer. In other words, Hamlet appears to direct action himself and is never influenced by outside forces. This is in direct contrast to Stoppard’s play, where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern rely on other characters for guidance and direction. As Guildenstern suggests, “there must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said – no”. This reinforces the idea that both characters are constantly confused, have no control over their action and are unaware of their purpose. More importantly, Guildenstern’s words highlight the fact that their fate has been sealed. Using dramatic irony throughout his play, Stoppard allows the audience to realise that they too are powerless to stop their fate, as this has already been ordained by higher powers, similar to that of his central characters. Stoppard suggests that we can never have complete control over what happens to us. The player in Act two, states that ‘uncertainty is the normal state’, further highlighting the idea of understanding and accepting one’s fate. “I don’t care…to tell you the truth, I’m relieved”. As Rosencrantz submits to the inevitable, modern audiences also feel frustration and fear, as Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s fate is also our own. Therefore, Tom Stoppard has changed the focus in his exploration of fate and destiny, revealing the uncertainty inherent in life. In doing so, he has made his a play a story about humanity’s destiny. Death in Hamlet is extremely significant and Stoppard’s perceptions of this are somewhat different as reflected in his play. However, both texts agree on the idea of the inevitability of death. Rosencrantz views death as ‘life in a box’, suggesting that he and Guildenstern are also ‘trapped’ on stage. Hamlet too reflects on this, questioning the idea of life being ‘bounded in a nutshell’. Death in Hamlet is viewed as both dramatic and important, as it symbolises the transcendence to another state. Stoppard is also interested in how death is perceived and in the case of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, death is simply an absence. In the words of Guildenstern, “death is simply a man failing to reappear, that’s all – now you see him, now you don’t, that’s the only thing that’s real”. Stoppard’s portrayal of death is simply an absence of presence, an idea commonly shared among contemporary audiences. This is in stark contrast to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which depicts death through duels, blood and violence. In Act two, Rosencrantz speaks of death, stating: “we must be born with an intuition of mortality…there’s only one direction and time it’s only measure”. At this moment, Stoppard confronts his audience with the uncomfortable realisation that we are no more in control of our destiny than the characters ‘trapped’ in his play. Transforming the lead characters in his exploration of death also allows Stoppard to transform the notion of death from the dramatic to the everyday. Tom Stoppard uses comical colloquial language in direct contrast to the rhyming verse and formal prose used by Shakespeare in Hamlet. The difference in language used between the two texts not only marks the points at which the two plays intersect, but also serves to heighten the increasing mental distance between Stoppard’s audience and the character’s in Hamlet. As a result, there is greater appeal for the recently composed text as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are characters who literally speak ‘our’ language. Questions, word games and puns are an integral aspect to Stoppard’s play and further highlight the lack of understanding and direction shared by the two central characters. Examples such “I want to go home” and “over my head body” are used for comic value, and Stoppard’s use of humour as an escape from reality allows him to connect with a wider audiences. As the player states in act two, “audiences know what to expect, and that is what they are prepared to believe in”. Stoppard’s transformation in language acts as a gateway in connecting his audience with new ideas reflecting on modern society. In the first Act we are struck by the contrast between costumes of the characters, Elizabethan in style, and their very modern language. Perhaps in this instance, Stoppard is providing a link with sixteenth century values and traditions. He shows relevance of an old play to modern times. “Words. Words. Words. They’re all we have to go on”. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can’t enforce behaviour or action in other characters, but they can use and control words. They use words to escape the limitations which Shakespeare has placed on them. In other words, language is their point of difference and also shows how Stoppard has cleverly used language to highlight his exploration of fate and destiny. Through language, contemporary audiences have greater appeal for Stoppard’s text, as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are just ‘little men’ who portray a transformation of modern society. In transforming Shakespeare’s play, Stoppard has moved the focus of the themes away from a Prince and towards the lives of ordinary people. He reveals the inevitability of death and our lack of control. Stoppard is telling us that the reality is that life is out of our control, and we can simply rely on things such as uncertainty and death. His play is a comic work portraying the modern condition of human existence and for this reason, it has greater appeal among contemporary audiences.