Review 126
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)
Honestly, but really, truly, I feel like this semester will destroy me. A minimum of four assignments due every week, one or two lab reports due every week, readings, papers, midterms... I guess I should have expected this, but working on top of this means I have basically no time to sit down and just relax. But now it's our week-long break, and I have even more than usual due after I come back. Yay? Well, it still means I can take this day off to finally review a film. I swear, I've been trying all month, since I first watched Precious at the end of January (it was meh. I was really not impressed), and then watched the seasons of The Boondocks (some episodes were pretty grand, but others, just way off. I stopped at the third season, and that one was falling flat on its ass), and then I watched Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead one Friday evening when my boyfriend stopped by. This film stars Tim Roth, Gary Oldman, and Richard Dreyfuss. What the hell? How have I never heard of this film before? Apparently it was a film that brought Gary Oldman's name to light, but seriously, I had never heard of this one. In fact, my boyfriend was the one who proposed we watch it. Where he got it, I don't know. Anyway, in light of my break starting and out of desperation to finally write a review, onward!
Rosencrantz (Oldman) and Guildenstern (Roth) live in a peculiar world - coins always come up heads, no one is sure where they come from, and it seems like destiny is following them very closely. After an acting group happens upon them in the forest, the leading man (Dreyfuss) attempts to explain their predicament through his acts, but Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are doomed to wallow in ignorance until the end.
It's kind of hard to write a synopsis for this film, which was originally a play by Tom Stoppard. Our protagonists are, in fact, minor characters in the play of Hamlet, who, in the end, are killed after Hamlet finds out they are being sent to kill him. To show off my ignorance, I've never seen Hamlet, so I think it might be better if you're well-immersed in the ideas of the play before watching Rosencrantz and Guildernstern, but you'll also know when their appearances are in the play and not since they'll suddenly be transported somewhere and discussing with the main characters of the play. Even if they don't wish to be there, even if they fully planned out what they were going to say prior to the events, they always follow the play in the end. And it drives them mad.
The movie is obviously directing itself toward this idea of fatalism and our powerlessness to do anything about our fate. Richard Dreyfuss' character is the only one who is aware of what will happen in the end, and even asks the two, after they watch the play of Hamlet, whether or not they "recognise this play". He is the omniscient being in our story. But I guess you would expect that from the man in charge of the play, wouldn't you?
So how did I find Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really and truly? Well, I thought it was an interesting idea, and it had its quirky, cute parts - I really loved the relationship between these so-called "friends" - but I can't say it was all that crazy. I found it went on longer than was necessary, to be honest. I think some scenes could have easily been taken out, although I do understand that the film also had to take all the scenes where the two characters showed up in the play. But nonetheless, some scenes went on for way too long. Already, in the beginning, when Rosencrantz keeps flipping coins and coming up with heads, it didn't need to spend a full ten minutes on discussing and flipping the coins. I think the film could have easily started with him flipping, and skipped to him getting to 180 (or whichever number it was he reached), and then Guildenstern simply pointing out that "something was wrong with reality". Instead, they have a huge discussion, with Rosencrantz appearing completely oblivious. Maybe it was to establish character, but it could have been done a lot better. I'm also not sure I got why Rosencrantz kept inventing things with Guildenstern completely ignoring his innovations, even going so far as to destroy them. Maybe it was just a humorous act, but I would like to think there was a deeper meaning... Whatever it was.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is a cute piece of cinema, but it isn't spectacular. I would like to check out the theatre play because I am curious, and I really must say that the story really takes an interesting turn, but it could have been executed a lot better. Worth a watch? I'd say give it a try, you most likely won't regret it, but whether you ever watch it again is up to you.
