Movie Rosencrantz And Guilderstern example essay topic

This is a portion of an actual Shakespearean play. Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are the minor characters of Hamlet by Shakespeare. This movie is based on the scene where Claudius, the king of Denmark, hires Rosencrantz and Guilderstern to kill Hamlet. Indeed, Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are dead is a typical Hamlet, which zooms in only on one act. As it might be inferred by the title, the movie is not about Rosencrantz and Guilderstern. It is a play where Ros and Guild play a major role, contradictory to Hamlet.

One might think that the movie Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are dead, by Tom Stoppard, is a good example of absurd theater, although it does not qualify by movie standards. The play is a success to the absurd theater. It is a gold key to the performance of illogicality. Tom Stoppard as the playwright directs the movie. It is one of the triumphs that the movie contains a good director.

It is good that he directs the movie in order to give life to his play. No one is capable of putting a play on the scene better than the playwright. Tom Stoppard refers to unreal and the surrealist themes in the movie. He uses themes from different times of period to make the movie inane. There was a big scene in the movie that went totally wrong. The actors for the roles of Rosencrantz and Guilderstern were poorly chosen.

They certainly do not qualify the materials of the absurd theatre. Tim Ruth, as Guilderstern, and Gary Oldman, as Rosencrantz, are good actors, but not for this play. They seem to make the movie uninteresting, by attempting to be absurd and hilarious. Richard Dreyfus, who is the Player, shines in the movie. He is a good actor for a Hamlet play. He presents his role well, and surely takes the stage.

What was the problem with this movie? One might say that the audience does not get emotionally involved with the movie. Yes, it is true that being emotionally uninvolved is a consequence of the absurd theatre, however, in a movie it just makes the audience bored. The movie has neither a strong start nor a strong ending.

Having a non-sense set up makes the audience feel cold and does not grab their attention. As a person who read the play and watched the movie, one might say that the movie does not qualify for movie standards. Though as a play, it is a good example of the absurd theatre. Even though, the movie visualizes the aspects of the absurdity, it does not fit the screen in that sense. This film is worth seeing it if you are a student to allow you to analyze Tom Stoppard's play.

This movie could be the key to the clarification in your mind about the play.