Transformations

Transformations вЂ" “How has the composer of the contemporary text used the earlier text to say something new?”

In effect, it is the changing ideas and values presented in Tom Stoppard’s transformation of Shakespeare’s �Hamlet’ into �Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead’, which allows the composer to convey the idea of man’s lack of purpose and identity in a modern society that holds no absolutes. The contrast between the highly structured context of the Elizabethan era and the undefined secularity of the mid 20th Century is the foundation on which Stoppard expresses his nihilistic attitude towards society’s gradual degradation.

Written in the 1600’s, Shakespeare’s вЂ?Hamlet’ portrays the Elizabethan values of 17th Century England. Based around the ordained Chain of Being, and exemplifying the superlative hero, we see the main protagonist, prince Hamlet, being portrayed as a man who possesses the strength and courage of a “most royal… soldier”. Being a play of the Elizabethan era, and written for an Elizabethan audience, the play tells the grand tale of a tragic hero’s demise when he is thrown into political chaos, emotional turmoil, and bound by a sense of duty to resolve it. Ambivalent towards the idea of killing his uncle, after being prompted by his father’s ghost to avenge his “most foul” murder, prince Hamlet is overwhelmed by the religious and social expectations forced upon him. On one hand he is confronted with the Elizabethan concept of the duty to invoke personal vengeance whilst on the other he is faced with the immorality of sinning against the Lord under Christian scripture. At a certain point, Hamlet even questions whether it is simpler “to be or not to be”, contemplating “whether вЂ?tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune/ Or to take arms against a sea of troubles/ And by opposing end them”. Here we see a Hamlet not only in conflict with the abnormalities of the task at hand but also within himself over a variety of issues. His procrastination is not a sign of recreance, but instead shows that he is a man of reason and morality rather than one of violent action.

On the other hand, we see Stoppard’s transformation depict the meaningless lives of two individuals wandering aimlessly towards “nowhere”, and conversing on topics of little or no significance in a world where “have no control” over their “fate”. It is a play which holds an existential view on the world, questioning whether there is a reason for existence and what our place in the world is. Despite the fact that the play makes numerous references to the original, it could scarcely be more distant in its themes and values. Although, it seems Ros and Guil are all they have in their foreign world, they do not embrace one another, but rather, opt to cheat and trick each other; as seen even in the initial stages of the play where Ros cons Guil into thinking he, against the “law of probability”, has managed to flip heads “Eighty-five in a row”. The fact that Guil is gullible enough to accept such a reality and furthermore attempt to reason it through with such theories as “supernatural forces”, shows his utter lack of insight into himself or the nature of others around him. Their counterparts in вЂ?Hamlet’, however, practise the term “friend” in action and not only in speech. This is evident as they rarely leave each other’s side in any scene depicted in the play. They tend to agree with one another and express the same opinions, often completing one another’s ideas in speech where Rosencrantz begins “Most like a gentleman”, followed by Guildenstern’s “But with much forcing of his disposition.” This is in stark contrast to their transformed character’s who agree on little, even on trivia such as whether or not Ros looked at a coin, “Ros: Oh I didn’t look. Guil: Yes you did.” It is ironic that the transformed Ros and Guil, whilst being centre stage in their play, show less dignity and morality than their counterparts in вЂ?Hamlet’ who play only minor roles.

An integral part of Shakespeare’s play is the inclusion of the play-within-a-play technique which involves Hamlet’s need to seek out the truth about his father’s death. Devising a plan involving a play which reenacts the “rank” offence, Hamlet plans to “unkennel” his “villainous” uncle if the allegations prove to be true. Though probably just as important is his need to find out if his mother is innocent of the “rash and bloody deed”, as his love for her makes it hard for him to accept the fact that she has betrayed his father in epic proportions. During the course of the play, King Claudius exits promptly crying “Give me some light. Away!”, his “stronger guilt” defeating his “strong intent”; and thus Hamlet has his answer. After confronting his mother and finding her innocent, Hamlet realises that his need to act is not only bound by the notion of personal vengeance but an obligation unto the ordained chain of being, and hence God himself. His Uncle Claudius by unrightfully usurping the throne has thrown the Ordained Chain of Being into chaos. Alluding to the deeper moral issues involved in the play, Hamlet now sees it as his duty to play the role of the avenger, and thus the restorer, as “heaven hath pleased it so… That I must be their scourge and minister”. Thus while the utilization of the play-within-a-play in the original text allows Hamlet to find the truth he requires to act, the corresponding re-enactment in вЂ?Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead’ ironically sees the once highly significant motives for the play transformed into a directionless production of “sordid and gratuitous filth”. Stoppard presents theatre merely as one of the many illusions which humans need to distract themselves from the inevitability of their end. It is his suggestion that we as a society no longer concern ourselves with significant grand issues, opting rather to be “entertained” by “demented

...