Ha, destiny!
"Rosenkranz and Gildenstern are dead." is the last line of "Hamlet."
"Jun" is a new deconstruction of the entire "Hamlet" from the perspective of the two supporting roles of Rosenkranz and Gildenstern. In the popular words, it can be regarded as a kind of fan. Luo and Ji talked and acted according to Shakespeare's script without knowing it, and they kept discussing and exploring their world together when they didn't have their role, although they didn't come up with a reason until they died. The two are like dolls controlled by a string, allowing Shakespeare, or the absurd destiny itself, to lead them to their meaningless death step by step. The two people who were in it were quite incomprehensible about this, but they were helpless. Just like the dialogue between Gildenstern and the "Player" in the movie,
"Who decides?"
"Decides? It is written." (Decides. It is written. )
Absurdity is the keynote of this movie, a face of existentialism. Shakespeare once said that the Goddess of Destiny was a strumpet (actually wronged a prostitute), and the Absurd originally claimed that the world is absurd, so as the product of the absurd writer’s reflection on Shakespeare’s plays, this movie appears in this movie The absurd fate is not surprising. For Stoppard, any hopeful and meaningful ending is impossible. This can be seen from his and Terry Gilliam’s attitude towards "Brazil". Although he later wrote works like "Shakespeare in Love", it was more of a commercial playbook and one of countless "New Romeo and Juliet".
In the movie, the fate of Rosenkranz and Gildenstern is ridiculous but doomed. Oedipus has been tricked by God's will
, killing his father and marrying his mother, abandoning his eyes, and when he wanders around the world, he still says: "I think I am happy." And they didn't understand what was going on in the world they were in until they died. Before his death, Gildenstern asked the "actor" like a prophet: "But why? (But Why?)" The "actor" answered coolly, "Because you are Rosenkrantz and Gilden Stern. That is enough. (You are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That is enough.)" This is fate: no matter what she does or doesn't do, you will end as it said. The strumpet, the goddess of fate, attracts customers by name.
At the beginning of the film, Gildenstern asked Rosenkranz: "What is the first thing you remember?" After a long time, Gildenstern remembered: "There was a messenger. We were called for something. (There was a messenger. We were sent for.)" This is the beginning of their memory and the beginning of their lives. They didn't exist before the messenger arrived. It was Shakespeare who created them, and it was Shakespeare who killed them in the end. Rosenkranz and Gildenstern did not die from Hamlet's frame, nor from the gallows of the King of England, but from the fate given to them by Shakespeare in "Hamlet". Or, the fate of the two is to be framed by the prince and go to the gallows.
When they flipped a coin 156 times (at least), each time they went up, the absurdity of the world jumped out of the screen unscrupulously. This is a crazy and ridiculous world, and there is no reason to say it. In the movie, the "actors" of the gods and prophets hinted to them the truth of the world several times, but they couldn't understand it. It is impossible for them to understand. Ji is a philosopher, trying to explain the whole world in terms of reason, concepts, images, etc., while Luo is a optimistic positivist—in other words, they are all sane—so they cannot understand this crazy and absurd world. The essence of absurdity is that it cannot be understood by reason. Once they followed a group of people through the same stairs, but reached a different place from the group of people, Rosenkrantz reluctantly said: "This is a mad house." And this is their closest approach to the truth.
They have tried to fight and want to get rid of this unreasonable world. But their efforts are so weak and ridiculous. When he was dying, Rosenkrantz said: "We didn't do anything wrong. We didn't hurt anyone. Did we? (We've done nothing wrong. We didn't harm any one, did we?) "Gildenstern replied feebly, "I can't remember." Rosenkrantz didn't understand until his death that it had nothing to do with what they did.
In this world, the only person who has the truth is the mysterious prophet-the "actor". All prophets speak ambiguously, what they say is always the truth, but mortals may not get the truth out of it. Herculesco
My poor children, in order to comprehend an obscure oracle, gave two generations of their lives. In this movie, Rosenkranz and Gildenstern even saw the end of the whole story very early (the performance of the troupe to the villagers), and the two actors in the troupe dressed them as two. Look like one, and then make a hanged posture. They seemed to feel something, so they asked the "actor": "What are they?" The "actor" said in the tone that all the prophets would use when answering questions: "They are dead people." (They are dead.)" Here, fate arrogantly shows them the future or the truth, but there is no worry that they will investigate all this. Fate and them are like the relationship between a cat and a mouse. Before a cat kills a mouse, it always teases. What needs to be pointed out is that this kind of cat-mouse relationship is viewed from an individual's point of view. In fact, in Stoppard's view, fate is not subjective. She does not deliberately target people, she is just absurd. It may seem as an individual to be fooled by God, but in fact, fate is not subjectively absurd, objective and desperately absurd.
Most of the latter part of the movie is on a ship heading for England. And Rosenkrantz and Gildenstern have been discussing whether England is just a conspiracy of the mapmakers. They also talked about the advantage of being on board the boat without worrying about where the boat is heading. Stoppard here uses the ship to compare our world or our universe, in which we live, but we don't know and can't control where it will go. Perhaps this is the origin of all absurdity.
The scientists and philosophers
Rosenkrantz and Gildenstern are actually one person, just as Didi and Gogo in "Waiting for Godot" are actually one person. They are like the wave shape and particle nature of particles, never reconciling each other, but never isolated from each other. In the movie, Rosenkrantz always confuses the names of him and Gildenstern. In addition to showing Rosenkrantz's blundering, it also implies that the two have always been alone. It doesn’t matter what they are called. At that time, as long as Shakespeare’s thoughts were different, Rosenkranz might be called Gildenstern, and Gildenstern would become Rosenkranz, and they might even be called Tom. And Jerry. They are not the point, and their names are not even the point. They are two supporting actors, that's all.
Rosenkrantz is a scientist. He is always full of novel ideas, such as his homemade burgers, and his research on free fall, smashed apples, buoyancy theorem, steam engines, biplanes, etc. However, unfortunately and inevitably, every time his path of discovery was interrupted. Rosenkranz's so-called scientific research activities can be regarded as his betrayal of his own destiny, but his destiny clearly does not allow such betrayal. He can only do his own thing when fate is distracted, but once fate discovers his derailment, those genius thoughts are immediately strangled in the cradle. The most interesting example is that when Rosenkranz and Gildenstern were fighting over wind direction, sun position, direction, and time, Rosenkranz shouted: "
There is no wind at all. (There is no wind at all.) no wind.)" As soon as the voice fell, there was a sudden gust of wind in the quiet house just now. Rosenkrantz is the scientist in this movie, but the world is not scientifically understandable. In fact, here, we can also vaguely see Stoppard's own views on science. He does not like science, nor does he like scientists. In the eyes of the absurd, science is meaningless in this crazy world. Beckett and others even believe that the decline of human status is because human existence is threatened by science. Science creates nothingness, and nothingness makes existence become absurd. In the eyes of Stoppard, most scientists are like Rosenkranz, ignoring the absurdity of society at all, but happily and ignorantly in their own research.
Gildenstern is a philosopher. He is more concerned about the problems of this world. He knew there was a problem in his world, but he couldn't think of what it was. So he is always in pain and always worried. The coin always face up makes him very confused. He thought about a lot of explanations, but was not satisfied. Rosenkranz has no special thoughts on this matter. For him, this may be just a new record (referring to the number of consecutive heads up of the coin). Gildenstern asked angrily: "A new Record? You just thought of this? Is there nothing to ask? No questions at all? (It that what you imagine? A new record? No questions? Not a flicker of doubt?)"
Rosenkranz answered honestly: "It's also possible that I could be wrong. (I could be wrong.)"
Gildenstern then asked: "What about fear? (Fear?)"
"Fear? (Fear?)"
"Yes, fear. (Fear!)"
Gildenstern firmly believes that all of this can be reasonable. Explain, but he couldn't find out how. So he became grumpy, even a little hysterical at times. In the end, his angry and helpless roar at the "actor" was the culmination of his emotional development. He said: "No, this is far from enough. Until now, no one has given an explanation, and in the end, I still don’t want to give an answer... But no one stands up after death, and no one applauds you, only silence and Some second-hand clothes. This is death. (No, it is not enough. To be told so little to such an end and still, finally, to be denied an explanation...But nobody gets after death, there's no applause only silence and some second hand clothes, that is death! )" He even tried to kill the "actor" (maybe the King of England, or destiny itself). When the "actor" stood up again, Gildenstern realized that his yelling and swinging his knife were only acting with the "actor", and his final destiny was still on the gallows. And there is no explanation. At last he seemed to understand a little bit: "We should have been able to say no at the beginning. But I don’t know why we missed it. We will have experience next time. (There must have been a moment at the beginning, where we could have said no. But somehow we missed it. Well, we'll know better next time.)"
Drama and Real
In this film, the boundary between reality and drama has been blurred. In fact, this is also one of Spatold's main styles. Even in popular ones such as "Shakespeare in Love", the interaction between drama and reality is also one of the themes that promote the plot. The play directed by Hamlet may be the most famous play in history. The play is fake, but it tells the truth without mercy. In this movie, drama and reality are already indistinguishable. Are Rosenkranz and Gildenstern acting in a play, or are they in the real world? Is the performance that the troupe gives the villagers the whole play, or is it detached from the outside? Regardless of which play in play, the entire film has been mixing the real and dramatic art worlds, forming a complex and charming logical chain. No matter what you assume, you can make the whole system stand. This is a closed logic system in which the truth cannot be calculated, or it is an absurd world without truth and fallacy.
Movies have the charm of language and action as well as the charm of shots. Obviously, the charm of language action in this film is more than the charm of the lens. Stoppard's ability to control the lens can only be regarded as barely passing. It's possible that Stoppard doesn't want the lens to dominate the audience's thinking, but proper lens symbolism and intelligent cuts will enrich the whole movie. In the whole movie, the best editing is the switch between in-play and in-play, from puppets to masked actors to Claudius, true and false for a time, false and false. Really, it's so enjoyable. I think Stoppard certainly didn't have much trouble cutting this shot. When he wrote this drama in the 1960s, the scene must have been in his head, and he finally had the opportunity to visualize it more than two decades later.
View more about Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead reviews
