Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead highlights the fundamental mystery of the world. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern spend the entirety of the play in total confusion, lacking such basic information as their own identities. Their confusion stems from both the sheer randomness of the universe, illustrated by the bizarre coin-tossing episode, and the ambiguous and unclear motives of the other characters, who pop onstage and deliver brief, perplexing speeches before quickly exiting.
The play ultimately suggests that the prominent role of chance in our lives, coupled with the difficulty of discerning the true intentions and desires of other people, leads to almost paralyzing confusion. Although this experience may sometimes be amusing or seem funny when it happens to others, in the end it is one of the most dreadful aspects of existence. The constant confusion in which they find themselves leaves Rosencrantz and Guildenstern feeling unable to make any significant choices in their lives.
They are pushed along toward their deaths by what appear to be random forces, and they fail to respond to their circumstances with anything but total passivity. Even at the end of Act II, when they ask each other if they should go to England, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not make a choice but instead merely continue on the path that has been laid out for them. Since they have already come this far, Rosencrantz says, they may as well keep going.
Their passive approach to their lives reflects how difficult it is to make decisions in a world that we do not fully understand, in which any choice can seem meaningless and therefore not worth making. Stoppard demonstrates the danger of this passivity by giving Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the opportunity to make a very meaningful choice, which they fail to do. No one has ever escaped it.
And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invitation of Life. It is Life 's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new" --Steve Jobs. What is death? What death means to you all depends on what life means to you.
Hamlet was one of two inspirations for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I believe the play Hamlet was a little absurd, especially in the extreme role vengeance played, and how almost every character died in the end.
Nothing was really accomplished in the play Hamlet, except how Fortinbras reclaimed his land. There was not a "good guy" in Hamlet or a philosophy that the reader should be able to support, much like in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
The end of Hamlet was surprisingly hopeful. The main theme of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead is the complexity of life, death, and the events that lead to it. It also depicts the theory of determinism vs. These are very similar to the themes seen in Hamlet. Then the lights go up on the closing scene from Shakespeare's Hamlet.
The ambassador announces that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, and Horatio makes his final speech. There is a ton going on here. We'll try to discuss a few of the more complicated aspects, but you might have other ideas to add, too. First, Guil and the Player are arguing about death. Guil is accusing the Player of not being able to capture death in his plays.
As he says, "You die a thousand casual deaths — with none of that intensity which squeezes out life … and no blood runs cold anywhere" 3. Angry and emotional knowing that he is on the way to his own death , Guil attempts to teach the Player a lesson by stabbing him: to show him the difference between his acted deaths and real death. Guil wants the Player to realize the kind death he and Ros face.
In his words, "death is not… It's the absence of presence, nothing more … the endless time of never coming back … a gap you can't see, and when the wind blows through it, it makes no sound …" 3.
He wants to bring home the reality of death to the Player, but, needless to say, if he kills him, the Player won't learn the lesson since he'll be dead.
On the other hand, maybe he will since he'll be dead. Now, the Player, knowing that he has been stabbed with a false knife, pretends to die in front of Guil. Even in their actions, the two are still arguing. By convincingly faking the death, the Player is showing Guil that he Guil, that is cannot tell the difference between a real death and a fake one. For all Guil's talk, he won't actually know what death is like until he's dead.
0コメント