First and foremost, directly below are the answers to the movie questions for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead:
1. Plot Summary (3-4 Sentences)
The movie begins with two characters,whom we assume from the title are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They are traveling along and find a coin which they proceed to keep flipping, and it proceeds to keep coming up heads. The odd behavior of the coin sets off a philosophical discussion of fate between the two, which sets up the two characters. They both seem to have memory issues, and are unable to remember why they are traveling, only that they were summoned by the king. Along their way, the two meet a traveling theater troupe, who advertise their services. During the midst of this, the scene cuts and the two companions are suddenly at the castle, where they are covered by curtains. The king, Claudius, welcomes them, and asks the two to help cheer up and spy on Prince Hamlet. The whole time Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem slightly confused, to a point where they aren't even sure which one is which. This is a theme that persists throughout the movie. The two go through their scenes with Hamlet, but in between these 'scenes', the two wander the castle, attempting to figure out what is going on, often overhearing various scenes with other main characters, such as Polonius telling the king about Hamlets love letters to Ophelia. During these interludes, they often have philosophical discussions and Gary Oldman's Rosencrantz often half-wittedly ends up discovering famous physics experiments. They meet up with the actors again, when they come to perform for Hamlet and the king. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern follow the actors, the leader in particular, because they seem to have answers to their confusion. Upon following them they see a dumb show put on by the actors for the common people, which is basically the whole plot of Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not get it, even when they see their actor representations hanged...The end of the movie becomes a bit abstract, deviating more from the play than the rest of the movie. Hamlet leaves in an almost dream like fashion on the pirate ship after it attacks their ship bound for England. The troupe of actors falls through the deck of the ship onto the floor, seeming to appear out of nowhere. Guildenstern then confronts the troupe leader about the meaning of all this. He takes out the letter, and reads it aloud, realizing that they have been duped by Hamlet. The troupe leader then seems to imitate the king of England, where they have a confrontation relating to fate. Nooses appear out of nowhere in the last scene. Guildenstern comments about he feels he should have somehow been able to avoid this, and the two of them voluntarily place the nooses around their necks and jump.
The irony is that I watched the movie with you, so you already know that I have seen the movie, and I therefore had little need to write such a detailed summary :-P. I am just in a wordy mood today I guess...
2. How does this movie adapt, comment on, or relate to what we read in class?
The movie gives an expansion and a critical look at a big theme that Shakespeare liked to play with, destiny. The movie really Deconstructs the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who were essentially minor characters, and creatively fills in a lot of their personalities. Shakespeare was a very meta-critical writer, and this movie played on that idea, by having the acting troupe seem to be all knowing beings, experts at 'playing their part' in contrast to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who just sort of bumble through. Interestingly no matter how much Rosencrantz and Guildenstern try to avoid their fate, or change any major plot lines, they subtly forced back to the plot. The most extreme example of this is how, when they first arrive, they are kept going in circles after their audience with the king, almost as if the castle was a labyrinth biding forcing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to bide their time until the next scene in which they are needed.
3. Does this movie change your interpretation of the text? Why? Why not?
I wouldn't say that the movie changes my interpretation, but it does expand on it. The fact is, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, were minor characters. In the original text, they had little personality lines, though they had enough to establish them as seemingly real people. That is one of Shakespeare's talents, being able to create convincing characters with comparably little dialog, especially for minor characters, while still leaving a lot of room for interpretation. This movie uses that room for interpretation to it's fullest. Without destroying the original plot in any way, they are able to create essentially Shakespearean clowns, in a Shakespeare play devoid of fool characters.
Now to my Blog:
I would like to discuss what I believe to be one of the main reasons Shakespeare is still so popular today. It can be summed up in one word, Interpretation. Specifically, Shakespeare's plays are brilliant in their lack of stage direction. He is able to tell compelling stories and create believable characters using almost entirely dialogue alone. This leaves a lot of room for a stage director, or graphic artist, or film director, etc... to modify the story without changing it's core meaning and values. This is one of the things that I believe gives Shakespeare's works such timelessness. Even within the dialogue, Actors have much room to interpret the lines in how they are delivered; the pauses, the facial expressions they choose to use, even their tone, all affect how we see these characters. It has been said that theater is a living art, and Shakespeare is proof of it.
There are some specific examples of interpretation that I would like to look at. I recently watched the Hamlet production that starred Patrick Stewart as Claudius and David Tennat as Hamlet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1449175/). Aside from the fact that I am a huge Star Trek and Dr. Who fan, this was a brilliant production, with some very interesting interpretations that greatly affected how I saw the play. The first overall change to the play, was the decision to make it take place in a modern setting. This meant modern clothes, a modern castle ball room, and interestingly a use of security cameras to create interesting camera angles. None of the dialogue of the play was changed. It is the same Hamlet we know and love, but just the fact that they are wearing suits instead of doublets, changed how I sympathized with the characters. It could have been a modern melodrama, following the troubles of a modern kingdom. The poetic Shakespearean language coupled with the modern setting actually made the whole thing seem very timeless to me. It could have taken place in any era, this was just the era that I happened to see it happening.
Beyond the clothes and set pieces, the editing and acting choices also had a great effect on my interpretation as well. Let's take good old Polonius, as you know by now, he is my favorite bumbling old courtesan. When I first read Hamlet, I saw him as a cunning old man, who was selfish and misguided, not particularly bumbling. Obviously, most people do not interpret him that way. But, to show how subtly and powerfully presentation can change your opinion of a character, I would like to analyze the Stewart interpretation of one scene in particular. This is Hamlet's final words to Polonius after they have a discussion over Hamlets reading in the hallway:
Hamlet. You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will moreI specifically want to point out the last few words. Hamlet repeats "except my life" three times. I originally read this as Hamlet just feigning his madness, but as I said before, there are no stage directions, which can leave a lot to interpretation. The Stewart version shows it like so:
willingly part withal- except my life, except my life, except my
life,
We cut to Hamlet who says his first "except my life", and stops for a long pause.
We then cut to Polonius, who wears an expression of not understanding, or not hearing.
We cut back to Hamlet, who says the second "except my life", and pauses again.
We cut back to Polonius, who has an even more exaggerated look of confusion.
We then cut back to David Tennant's Hamlet, who mouths every syllable of the last "except my life" with an extremely exaggerated expression.
When we cut back to Polonius, he has an expression of extreme horror and offense.The lines are unchanged, the same exact things are said, the difference is how they are said. In my head, I never saw the scene playing out in this way. By simply extending the pause that is offered by the comma, and placing in some strong facial expressions, the entire tone of the scene is changed. It now emphasizes Polonius's infirmity as opposed to Hamlets madness. The interpretation of this scene in particular had a huge affect on how I see Shakespeare. There are so many places that, when used creatively, can entirely build on and change the words that are directly written. I think this is an amazing thing.
See?! This is why No Fear Shakespeare is a cop out man. All you gots to do is watch Baz Luhrmann and Patrick Stewart and Shakespeare is easy as calculus! Wait...
ReplyDelete