Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

"That we find out the cause of this effect, or rather say, the cause of this defect. For this effect defective, comes by cause: Thus it remains, and the remainder thus." ... I think I got old, or I'm too tired, or both. To which I can add that I've never been too much into Shakespeare or into lines in iambic pentameter as the intro above (although they have their charm here and there). Enough premises not to be able probably to fully appreciate "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead". Even though it's not exactly Shakespeare, but a bit more close to present = Tom Stoppard. Maybe it's better to start with a more clear description of who bears the exotic names in the title. Shall we begin, therefore ...

The movie is the adaptation of a theater play, directed by the play's author named above. The subject is centered on the ephemeral existence of two secondary characters from "Hamlet": Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In the original Shakespearean version, the two in the title are sort of .. Hamlet's buddies let's say, but under the influence of the usurper king of Denmark. Who asks them to observe and report on the mad prince. There's also a follow up on that, but I would spoil too much from the movie, which naturally intersects with the original play. More important is that in Shakespeare's version Rosencrantz and Guildenstern don't have much action space given (if my memory is not completely failing). Concise, what we have here is an absurd comedy. Which gives us a story of their own, or otherwise said, builds up on the idea: where and what are doing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when they're not present on the stage. Which ranges from absurd philosophy, existential theories, discovering the hamburger, the gravity or a perpetuum mobile .. and others, coming back into the original subject in the parts where they have a role to play. A role that isn't though very clear for them, getting so confused that they don't even know anymore who's Rosencrantz and who's Guildenstern. I don't remember "Hamlet" very well, but at least the current movie puts them in a more neutral light than a negative one. Sort of like the improper persons placed by who can influence them at the supposedly proper place.

In case Tom Stoppard doesn't sound very known, he's the screenwriter of "Shakespeare in Love". But as a better reference for what we have here he also co-authored the script of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". Which for me was easier to grasp. Here we have a bit too much depth in the comic absurdity, or at least I don't have the patience anymore to unwrap all the hidden threads that are supposed to be there between the lines. Normally I appreciate this kind of stuff, but this script is too dense and becomes exhausting to follow. Plus that, I repeat myself, you have to like Shakespeare. On the good side, since I've mentioned Gilliam, I can positively notice the nuance of surrealism (although clearly isn't at the same level as "Brazil"). But the best part of the movie are are the excellent roles made by Gary Oldman and Tim Roth. Which makes me think that the play in a theater, where the acting has a much bigger impact, can be better appreciated than on film. And that shall be all for now ...

Rating: 3 out of 5