William Shakespeare’s writings have always been a great source of inspiration for many artists. From poems to stage plays to movie adaptations, the world has seen many worthy (and some unworthy) works influenced by the legend of the Bard. One of those came in the form of Tom Stoppard’s 1966 play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead”, which took two minor characters of Hamlet and proceeded to tell the story from their point of view. The play was adapted into a Golden Lion winning film in 1990, directed by Stoppard himself and starring Tim Roth and Gary Oldman as the titular characters. The result is a tragicomedy of absurdist depth that tackles one of the greatest literary works in world history.

As the title suggests (beyond its obvious spoiler), the film focuses on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two old friends of prince Hamlet (Ian Glen), as they are called upon by the treacherous King Claudius (Donald Sumpter) to check on the young prince, for he’s been acting strange as of late. Like in the classic play, Claudius is responsible for Hamlet’s father’s murder, something that the prince is slowly figuring out. Of course, all of this is unbeknownst to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two lovable fools who only want to get their assignment done and go back home. The two engage in ruminations about life, death, freedom and destiny throughout, and even meet a troupe of actors lead by the mysterious Player (Richard Dreyfuss), who seem to have some sort of supernatural knowledge of the events yet to unfold. And even if the two main characters are just pawns of larger schemes, there’s nothing that can ultimately save them from their doomed fate.

“Hamlet” has always been my favourite Shakespeare play (up there along with “Macbeth”). This story about honour, madness and betrayal has always captured my interest, even after graduating high school, where a good portion of the english classes focused on the Bard. Yet, the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern always remained a mystery to me, two players that suddenly come into play and leave their mark on the main events of the story. Yet, they’ve always been framed as treacherous and backstabbing, since they were tasked by Claudius to keep an eye on Hamlet and ultimately deliver him to his death at the hands of the King of England (our teacher even told us that Shakespeare specifically chose jewish names to make the reader associate them with the betrayal of Jesuschrist by the jews; its no secret that Shakespeare has been accused of antisemitism). Hamlet eventually finds out about this and mercilessly condemns them to their own deaths. I always thought there had to be more to the story of these two bufoons, and apparently I wasn’t the only one to think that way. As it turns out (at least in Stoppard’s version) they were just two unknowing commoners that ended up entangled in a web of royal conspiracies.

The strength of the film lies in its writing. Even though I haven’t seen nor read Stoppard’s play I believe it does a good job at capturing the essence of the original story and letting it play out in the background to the misadventures of two of its less recognizable characters. The movie is filled with quirky dialogues about art, fate and death, and even if it may threat to delve too far into this musings for its own good, it does manage to keep strong for the most part. This is in large parts thanks to the strong acting by the main actors. Gary Oldman puts in an early great performance (this came even before “León: the Professional”, 1994, or “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, 1992) in an unexpectedly funny fashion in a very existential sense. Tim Roth is also great as Oldman’s counterpart in an also early role (“Reservoir Dogs” was in 1992), serving as complementary existential dweller. And of course Richard Dreyfuss as the enigmatic Player, a character that serves as a wild card in this tale since he’s almost invisible and intrascendent in Shakespeare play, but here he takes on a whole new meaning.

I’ve read that some of critics at the time thought the story worked on the stage but not as a film, yet I’d like to digress (once again, without having seen the play) since I think it managed to use the cinematic tools at their disposal quite aptly. Its edited in a way that builds tension and lets some things to the audience’s imagination, but it never appears to be overtly flashy. Close-ups and reaction shots, though at times a tad too much, are used effectively to convey a certain mood or feeling. Even the use of slow motion is applied to great comedic effect. All in all it may seem to have a somewhat text book approach to filmmaking, understandable since Stoppard is mainly a playwright and screenwriter and seldomly a film director, and maybe that’s the reason why critics thought it worked better for the stage; however, it is a long way from being inept from a filmmaking stand point, and I do believe it used most cinematic techniques quite well. Alas, the strength of the film lies on its rather “theatrical” qualities, like the writing and acting.

“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead” takes a legendary play from one of the most important writers of all time and makes a cleverly absurd tragicomedy that looks to expand on two minor characters of the original. With great dialogues (some directly lifted from Shakespeare’s play but others coming form Stoppard’s vision) that are both funny and deep and excellent performances from its main cast, the film does a great job at conveying two hated characters as sympathetic fools that don’t know what’s going on around them half of the time. For its cleverness, for its theatrical and cinematic value, and for its updated view on a shakespearian classic, “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead” deserves more praise and recognition than it gets today.

Thanks for reading and I hope you liked this review. If you could leave a like and share this with your friends and family I’d deeply appreaciate it. Also, if you want to stay up to date with the contents this blog produces you can always hit the follow button. Until next time!