Captain Jack Sparrow

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem like they could be assembled into one person, if that makes any sense. Guildenstern would be the superego, the philosophizing part of the human, the more intelligent part. Rosencrantz would represent the ID, the follower and the more moral of the two (Guildenstern kills, yells, and rants). When I think of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern I think of a disassembled person, which reminded me of a sequence from Pirates of the Caribbean with Captain Jack Sparrow acting as multiple people in a confined "box". Much like Rosencrantz describes life as living in a box, Captain Jack Sparrow lives in Davy Jones' "locker". Moreover, Captain Jack Sparrow wonders aimlessly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern wonder aimlessly. The multiple Captain Jacks scene is a series of small absurdities, which are directly related to theatre of the absurd. I think there are many more similarities between the two, because they are both absurd, strange, and in some way philosophical and likely psychological (split personalities, etc.). 

Life in a Box

On page 71, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern talk about life in a box. Rosencrantz states that life in a box would be better than no life at all, which I feel is very true. I also think that living in a box is very symbolic of their lives. Their entire struggle and role throughout the play is to accomplish a task for Claudius so that they will be "free" and can "escape the box". I think that through this way of thinking, they both limit what they can do, and feel that this is definitely seen throughout the play. For example, when they're on the boat, they begin to talk about all that they can't do on a boat because they are essentially "trapped" and Rosencrantz even considers throwing himself overboard. He feels that death is the only escape and only relief from the life he's living, "trapped inside a box". I believe that maybe one of Stoppard's motives behind writing a play like this with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern was not only to create sort of a comedy, but to also make readers consider life and if it feels like a box to them. If it does, then he seems to portray the message to do something about it (not death, of course) and make it better. Go out and experience new things, meet new people, and better yourself as a human being.

Sexual Innuendos

Guildenstern and Rosencrantz seem to give impressions throughout the play that exhibit sexual innuendos. In terms of their own bodies, they don’t have a sense of their own physicality. They get up to “stretch their legs”. There are sexual implications as well as Rosencrants of them offering to stretch Guildenstern’s leg. In addition to sexual innuendos they also seem to have a lot of anxiety and are still aimless even when they have been given directions. They are disoriented. Uncertainty pervades. They have no sense of direction and are really just idiots. They don’t know where North, South, East, and West are. They can’t tell where the wind is coming from.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead gives you a new take on the original play, Hamlet

As we have been discussing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I noticed how it really causes you to think about the original play, Hamlet, in a different light.  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not mentioned much in Hamlet but in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, they are the main focus.  In Hamlet, I always thought Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were just simple characters, however, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead caused me to learn a lot more about the characters and actually feel some sympathy for them.  We have seen this same type of thing in literature before.  Last year, we read Beowulf, which was the story about a monster named Grendel attacking a town.  This made Grendel look like a horrible monster.  However, after when we read the actual story of Grendel, we learn more about Grendel himself and actually gain sympathy for him.

Existentialism, hay

When I read Act 3 of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead, I noticed a whole bunch of existential philosophy thrown in. Specifically, there's this one part where Rosencrantz recaps all the information they know so far and tries to decide where to go from there. That reminded me of the existential theory of facticity of situations. In Existentialist theory, one is advised to consider the facts that he or she knows (even though that may not be all of the information), work with what one has, and make a decision as best as one can based on the given information. I feel that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern did this several times throughout the play. Although they rarely make solid decisions, they continually attempt to deal with situations and take the best course of action that they can figure out.

Is England Real?

At NOCCA, we read the Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys. And at one point in the book, the central character, Antoinette, discusses England. She says that she does not know if England exists or not. People have told her much about it, but she has never seen it for herself, so she has no way of knowing if it exists. So when I was reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Rosencrantz says that he does not believe in England to which Guildenstern responds that "You don't believe in anything till it happens." (108) I thought it was interesting that the two novels written in the same year (1966) express the same idea that there's no way of knowing if something is real, even if you've heard so much about the place, except by seeing it with your own eyes.

pg 66, act II

Player: Relax. Respond. That's what people do. You can't go through life questioning your situation at every turn."

Guil: But we don't know what's going on, or what to do with ourselves. We don't know how to act.

Player: Act natural. You know why you're here at least.

Guil: We only know what we're told, and that's little enough. And for all we know, it isn't even true.

The bottom of page 66 in Act II of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead really struck me. The entire play is composed of playful banter and clever puns which often relate to the philosophy of existentialism. But this particular exchange seems to be the epitome of the existentialist view of life. Rosencrantz and Guidlenstern are indeed, actors in a play- who know nothing beyond their actions and duties regarding Hamlet. However, Stoppard uses their situation as a metaphor for human existence. We are born into a world for no apparent purpose. The only instruction we receive on how to "proceed" about our lives is provided to us by the people and environment around us. Which is both subjective and variable. Although some may seek a way to define the purpose of their life or a direction for existence, we essentially, have no purpose or guidance; we are sentenced to an existence that is absurd. Here lies the humor in the play. We laugh at Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's disorientation and confusion because we identify with the absurdity of their situation. We are living it.