Every high school senior is required to read Hamlet; the tragic tale of the prince of Denmark, whose life is turned wildly upside down by a murder most foul. We know our main characters: Hamlet (our hero), Claudius (the king), Gertrude (the queen), Polonius (the king’s right-hand man), and Ophelia (Hamlet’s beloved). However, there are two characters who are written off as minimal details—Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Tom Stoppard takes us into their unwritten and unseen world. Stoppard wrote the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which was published in 1967, he later directed the movie version in 1990.

Stoppard has written many plays including On the Razzle, Shakespeare in Love, and of course Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. All of his plays are full of witty, fast-paced, back-and-forth dialogue. Most conversations held by characters are full of rhetoric and simple, but funny puns. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead uses theater of the absurd to guide us through their uncharted stories as we see a repetition of extravagant humor, bewildered beings, circular structure, and a man’s position in a world as absurd as ours. Though Stoppard has taken Shakespeare’s characters under his wing, he allows us to see them in a new light; they leap off the page and out of the screen as if they were as real as you or me.

A play is hard to turn into a movie, or at least, into a good movie. We want to leave the theater or our seats remembering something great or feeling different than when the whole thing started. The essence of the theater of the absurd is anxiety, bewilderment, and wonder all wrapped up and turned into one great, big package. Stoppard not only makes the package, but he more than delivers! This clever play takes the theater of the absurd as well as brilliant performances by talented actors to keepyou fully focused and on your toes, while also letting you come to your own conclusions.

While the whole story is a little topsy-turvy, there are some things you can make sense out of. The main thing being that the play is not a current set of on-going events, but rather of a purgatory-like viewing of what once occurred. For some reason Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can’t remember their morning. This, combined with the fact that people fade in and out of the scene implies that these are memories of the past. Another part of the confusion can be solely focused on the characters. In Hamlet, the other characters often confuse Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. However in Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, they characters confuse their identities on purpose almost as if they can’t remember. Thanks to great performances by Tim Roth, Gary Oldman, and Richard Dreyfus, one can make sense of the ultimately upside down and twisted story.

The straightforward and frustrated Guildenstern is played by Tim Roth. We are more familiar with Roth from the movie “The Incredible Hulk’ (where he is the villain) and the well-known T.V. show “Lie to Me” (A lying expert who is as deceptive as the people he studies). However as Guildenstern, he plays another character entirely. Guildenstern is rough and ultimately discouraging. He tries to approach situations logically, but cares little for science experiments or anything that his dear friend Rosencrantz has to say, thus causing him to miss the big picture. He is a character who wants things done and he wants them done as quickly as possible regardless of consequences. He tries to make sense of the senseless and quickly becomes frustrated when he cannot do so. In terms of theater of the absurd he represents repetition, lack of apparent progression, the absurdity of man’s position in the world, and the destruction of individualism. Roth’s acting and overall skill allows this character be revealed as how he truly is, a cynical man trying to make sense of the complicated world around him, He is the perfect the grumpy counterpart to Gary Oldman’s Rosencrantz who is filled with childlike wonder.

Gary Oldman is a talented actor who most of us recognize through his role as Commissioner Gordon in the most recent “Batman” series and through his ragged but lovable role as Sirius Black in the “Harry Potter” Series. This much younger view of Oldman as an actor is pleasing and different, but excellent nonetheless. Rosencrantz is by far the most complex of the dynamic duo. He is very jocular and giddy which is shown threw his witty, rhetoric-filled banter with other characters, especially with Guildenstern. This is revealed through their questions game; at first it is a bit off-putting and hard to follow, but with observation the game makes sense and makes a point of explaining who both characters are. Rosencrantz is also very clever. Several times he is on the brink of great physics discoveries, which are quickly extinguished by Guildenstern’s constant lack of patience. He thinks logically and is quick on his feet (also shown through his conversations with Guildenstern). He isn’t concerned with death or the overall looming and grim sense of time and mortality. He represents circular structure, extravagant humor, people as bewildered beings, the absurdity of man’s position in the world, and the destruction of individualism. Rosencrantz maintains a childlike state of wonder while also giving us the sense that he is much cleverer than he first appears. Both parts of this two person team allow us to understand the theater of the absurd to some extent, but not nearly as much as the Player King and his troupe.

Richard Dreyfuss’ portrayal of the Player King is the epitome of theater of the absurd. Dreyfuss is known because of movies like “American Graffiti”, “Stand by Me”, and “Jaws”. The Player King, while an amusing and puzzling character, is quite possibly his most memorable. The player king IS the sense of bewilderment in the play. His introduction establishes the framework of the play. He is an older man who is extremely flamboyant and ultimately ridiculous. He appears to be a man of chance and is extrinsically motivated by the prospect of turning a coin which is revealed in how he speaks to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, his willingness to take a bet, and how he offers them to “join in on the fun” for a few coins. His extravagant humor, almost incomprehensible behavior, his lack of civility, and his eerie showings of the future and past are absurd. He claims that life is like a stage, sort of like a prequel to the real world and that every choice or action can lead to a different choice or action, and that’s fate. When he becomes the executioner for our beloved leads, the play takes a darkened twist and drives the story home in a final shocking event, pulling us to the edge of our seats.

While I can understand why people may believe Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is a confusing piece; it is arguably the best twist on a classic play. Tom Stoppard both wrote and directed a beautiful masterpiece which is a perfect example of theater of the absurd. I myself have performed in On the Razzle, which was also written by Stoppard. His works are always funny, full of rapid back-and-forth wit, hilarious puns, and deep life-like characters. I fully believe in him as a playwright and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead only added to my confidence in him and his works, it also fully delivers on that classic Stoppard style. This movie is beyond a shadow of a doubt well deserving of any spot in a DVD collection as well as the title of a true classic.