A few instances where a man’s naked butt is shown. These instances are played as if they were women until you realize they are men dressed up as women.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead is one of Tom Stoppard’s most famous plays and won the Tony Award in 1968. Now this drama is as famous as waiting for Godot and bald singer, and has become a representative work of the absurd. The play and other works of Stoppard made him “the successor of Shakespeare and Wilde”. In 1990, Stoppard, who had been a screenwriter for several times, changed his famous work into a film of the same name. In China, the name of the film is usually translated into “the death of kings, ministers and villains”, while CCTV translated into “bad luck of friends”. The film starred Gary Oldman and Tim Ross and won the Golden Lion Award at the Venice Film Festival that year.

Ha, fate!

“Rosenkrantz and gildenstern are dead.” It’s the last line of Hamlet.

The gentleman mainly deconstructs the whole Hamlet from the perspective of the supporting roles of Rosenkrantz and gildenstern. In terms of popular words, it can be regarded as a kind of peer. Luo and Ji acted in accordance with Shakespeare’s script, and without their part, they kept discussing and exploring their world together, although they didn’t come up with a reason until they died. They are like puppets controlled by strings, allowing Shakespeare, or the absurd fate itself, to lead them to their meaningless death step by step. The two of them are quite puzzled about this, but they have nothing to do. Just like the dialogue between gildenstern and the “player” in the film,

“Who decided?” (Who decides?)

“Decisions? They’re all written.” (Decides. It is written.)

Absurdity is the keynote of the film, an existential face. Shakespeare once said more than once that the goddess of destiny was a tramp (actually wronged a prostitute), and the absurd school claimed that the world was absurd. Therefore, as a product of the absurd writers’ Reflection on Shakespeare’s drama, it is not surprising that there is an absurd fate in this film. For Stoppard, any promising and meaningful ending is impossible. This can be seen from his and Terry Gilliam’s attitude towards Brazil. Although he later wrote Shakespeare’s love history, it was more a commercial play ticket and one of countless new Romeo and Juliet.

In the film, the fate of Rosenkrantz and gildenstern is absurd but doomed. Oedipus received the will of God

Tease, kill my father and marry my mother, abandon my eyes, and say, “I think I’m happy” when wandering around the world. And they didn’t understand what was going on in their world until they died. Before his death, gildenstern asked the prophet like “actor”: “but why?” The “actor” replied coolly, “because you are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That is enough.” This is fate: no matter what you do or don’t do, you will end as you say. The goddess of destiny attracts customers by her name.

At the beginning of the video, gildenstern asks Rosenkrantz, “what is the first thing you remember?” After a long time, gildenstern remembered: “there was a messenger. We were sent for.” This is the beginning of their memory and their life. They didn’t exist until the messenger arrived. It was Shakespeare who created them, and in the end it was Shakespeare who killed them. Rosenkrantz and gildenstern did not die of Hamlet’s frame or the king’s gallows, but of the fate given to them by Shakespeare in Hamlet. Or, their fate is to be framed by the prince and then hanged.

When they tossed a coin 156 times (at least) in a row, each time up, the absurdity of the world jumped out of the screen unscrupulously. This is a crazy and absurd world. There is no reason to talk about it. In the film, the “actors” of the divine Han prophet have hinted to them the truth of the world several times, but they can’t understand it. They can’t understand. Ji is a philosopher who tries to explain the whole world with reason, concepts, images, etc., while Luo is an optimistic positivist – in other words, they are all clear-minded – so they can’t understand this crazy and absurd world. The essence of absurdity is that it cannot be recognized by reason. Once they followed a group of people through the same stairs, but they went to different places from the group. Rosen Kranz reluctantly said, “this is a mad house.”. And this is their closest to the truth.

They tried to fight and break away from this unreasonable world. But their efforts are so weak and ridiculous. On his deathbed, Rosenkrantz said, “we’ve done nothing wrong. We didn’t harm any one, did we?” Gildenstern replied weakly, “I can’t remember.” Rosenkrantz didn’t understand until he died that all this had nothing to do with what they did.

In this world, the only person who knows the truth is the mysterious prophet – “actor”. All prophets are ambiguous. They always tell the truth, but mortals may not get the truth from it. Hercules can

Pity’s children, in order to understand an obscure Oracle, paid two generations of lives. In this film, Rosenkrantz and gildenstern even saw the end of the whole story (the performance of the troupe to the villagers) very early. The two actors in the troupe dressed like them and then hanged. They seemed to feel something and asked the “actor”: “what are they?” The “actor” said in the tone that all prophets would use when answering questions, “they are dead.” Here, fate arrogantly shows them the future or the truth, but there is no fear that they will uncover all this. Fate and them are like the relationship between cats and mice. Cats always tease them before killing mice. It should be pointed out that this cat mouse relationship is from an individual point of view. In fact, in Stoppard’s view, fate is not subjective. She does not deliberately target people. She is just absurd. In the eyes of individuals, it may be God’s will to fool people, but in fact, fate is absurd without a little subjectivity, objective and hopeless.

Most of the later parts of the film are on a ship bound for England. Rosenkrantz and gildenstern have been discussing whether England is just a conspiracy of map makers. They also talked about the advantage of being on board is not having to worry about where the ship is going. Stoppard here uses the ship to compare our world or our universe. We live in it, but we don’t know and can’t control where it will go. Perhaps this is the origin of all absurdity.

Scientists and philosophers

Rosenkrantz and gildenstern are actually one person, just as Digo and Digo are actually one person in waiting for Godot. Like the waveforms and properties of particles, they never reconcile with each other, but they never isolate each other. In the film, Rosenkrantz even always confused his name with gildenstern’s. This not only shows Rosenkrantz’s confusion, but also implies that they have always been the same person. It doesn’t matter what their names are. At that time, as long as Shakespeare thought differently, Rosenkrantz might be called gilden stern, and gilden stern became Rosenkrantz, and even they might be called Tom and Jerry. They are not the point, and their names are not the point. They are two supporting roles, that’s all.

Rosenkrantz is a scientist. He is always full of novel ideas, such as his homemade hamburger, and his research on free fall, apple hitting the head, buoyancy theorem, steam engine, biplane and so on. Unfortunately and inevitably, however, his path of discovery was interrupted every time. Rosenkrantz’s so-called scientific research activities can be regarded as his betrayal of his fate, but fate obviously does not allow this betrayal. He can only do his own things when fate is distracted. However, once fate finds out his cheating behavior, those genius ideas will be strangled in the cradle immediately. The most interesting example is that when Rosenkrantz and gildenstern are fighting over wind direction, sun position, direction and time, Rosenkrantz shouted, “it’s impossible

There will be no wind. (There is no wind.)” As soon as the voice fell, there was a sudden strong wind in the quiet house. Rosenkrantz is a scientist in the film, but the world is not understood by science. In fact, here, we can vaguely see Stoppard’s own views on science. He doesn’t like science or scientists. In the view 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 and so on. Science creates nothingness, which makes existence absurd. In Stoppard’s eyes, most scientists, like Rosenkrantz, completely ignore the absurdity of society and only exist in their own research happily and ignorant.

Gildenstern is a philosopher. He is more concerned about the problems of the world. He knows there is something wrong with his world, but he can’t think of anything. So he is always in pain and worried. The head of the coin always faces up, which makes him very confused. He thinks a lot of explanations, but he is not satisfied. Rosenkrantz has no special idea about this. For him, it may be just a new record (the number of times a coin heads up continuously), It that what you image? A new record? No questions? Not a flicker of double

Rosenkrantz answered honestly, “I could be wrong.”

Gildenstern then asked, “what about fear?”

“Fear?”

“Yes, fear!”

Gildenstern believed that all this could be reasonably explained, but he couldn’t find it. So he became grumpy and even a little hysterical sometimes. Finally, his angry and helpless roar at the “actor” was the culmination of his emotional development. He said, “no, that’s not enough. Until now, no one has given an explanation. In the end, he still doesn’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” (it could be the king of England, or fate itself). When the “actor” stood up again, gildenstern found that his questioning and waving a knife were just a play with the “actor”, and his final fate was still on the gallows without any explanation. Finally, he seems to understand one thing: “there must have been a moment at the beginning, where we could have said no. But how we missed it. Well, we’ll know better next time.”

Drama and reality

In this film, the boundary between reality and drama has been blurred. In fact, this is also one of the main styles of spatord. Even popular ones such as Shakespeare’s love history, in which the interaction between drama and reality is also one of the themes to promote the plot. The play directed by Hamlet is probably the most famous play in history. It is false, but it tells the truth relentlessly. In this film, it is difficult to distinguish between drama and reality. Are Rosenkrantz and gildenstern acting or in the real world? Is the performance given by that troupe to the villagers in the whole play or detached from the outside? No matter which play is in the play, the whole film has been mixing the real and dramatic art world to form a complex and charming logical chain. No matter how you assume, you can make the whole system work. This is a closed logical system that cannot calculate the truth value, or it is an absurd world without truth and fallacy.

Movies have the charm of language and action, as well as the charm of the lens. And this film obviously has more charm of language and action than that of the lens. Stoppard’s ability to control the lens can only be regarded as barely passing. It is possible that Stoppard does not want the lens to dominate the audience’s thinking, but the appropriate lens symbols and intelligent cutting will enrich the whole film. In the whole film, the best editing is the switching between the play in the play and the play in the play. From the doll to the masked actor to Claudius, it’s true and false, false and true for a time, which makes people addicted. I don’t think Stoppard had much trouble cutting this shot. When he wrote the play in the 1960s, the scene must have been in his head, and he finally had the opportunity to visualize it more than 20 years later.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here