Tom Stoppard Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
When Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern Are Dead premiered in Edinburgh and London in August of 1966
and in April of 1967, Tom Stoppard was immediately recognized as a major
contemporary playwright The cleverness in the concept of the play, its verbal
dexterity, and its phenomenal theatricality brought its first reviewer, Ronald
Bryden, to call it "the most brilliant debut by a young playwright since
John Arden." Later, in London, Irving Wardle, writing for the Guardian, said that "as a first
stage play it is an amazing piece of work," and in New York, Harold
Clurman, reviewing the play in Nation,
echoed the general sentiment by calling Stoppard's play a "scintillating
debut." And Clive Barnes, the
highly influential critic for the New
York Times, asserted in October of 1967 that "in one bound Mr.
Stoppard is asking to be considered as among the finest English-speaking
writers of our stage, for this is a work of fascinating distinction."
However, as enthusiastic as critics were for this dazzling
first effort, they also had some very clear reservations. Generally, they
thought Stoppard's play somewhat derivative, too closely linked to Beckett's Waiting for Godot, for example. Bryden
found the play "an existentialist fable unabashedly indebted to Waiting for Godot" and the
appreciative Clurman called it" Waiting
for Godot rewritten by a university wit." Also in New York, an
appreciative Charles Marowitz writing for the Village Voice added, "my only objection is that without the
exhilarating stylistic device of the play-beneath-the-play, the play proper
would be very much second-hand Beckett," Michael Smith, also writing for
the Village Voice, applauded the
play, saying "the writing is brilliantly clever, the basic trick inspires
a tour de force, and the play is great fun," but added, "the drawback
is Stoppard's attempt to push it to deep significance. The early part of the
play repeatedly echoes "Waiting for Godot" in sound and situation but
entirely lacks its resonance."
Another reservation the critics voiced was the suggestion
that the play's verbal dexterity and ingenious theatricality might have been
all it had to offer, that underneath the dazzling surface there was very little of
substance and that the play was ultimately shallow. This was suggested by
Philip Hope-Wallace reviewing the first London production for the Guardian when he said, "I had a
sensation that a fairly pithy and witty theatrical trick was being elongated
merely to make an evening of it." And despite his generous praise for
Stoppard's play, Charles Marowitz added that "much of its crosstalk is
facile wordmanship that benefits accidentally from ambiguity."
Writing somewhat after the initial critical response to the
play, critics Robert Brustein and John Simon summed up this ambivalent
response. Brustein wrote, "I advance my own reservations feeling like a
spoilsport and a churl: the play strikes me as a noble conception which has not
been endowed with any real weight or texture," and in a now often quoted
remark, Brustein calls Stoppard's play "a theatrical parasite, feeding off Hamlet, Waiting for Godot and Six Characters in Search of an Author Shakespeare provided the characters, Pirandello the
technique, and Beckett the tone with which the Stoppard play proceeds."
Similarly, critic John Simon writing for The
Hudson Review admitted that "the idea of the play is a conception of
genius" but also saw it as "squeezing large chunks of Beckett,
Pinter, and Pirandello, like sliding bulges on a python as he digests rabbits
swallowed whole," finally reducing Stoppard's play to "only
cleverness and charm."
More than 30 years later, this ambivalent assessment
continues to hang over Stoppard's work in general and over Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead in particular. In varying
degrees, critics have leveled similar charges upon successive major plays Jumpers (2972), Travesties (1974), The
Real Thing (1982),Hapgood (1988),
and Arcadia (1993), frequently
assessing them as excessively concerned with
cleverness and the arcane, too cerebral, lacking in genuine emotion, and
ultimately shallow when measured against a very high standard of art and
genius. However, the duration and accomplishments of Stoppard's career has
finally affirmed his status as a major playwright. By the time Stoppard had
written Jumpers and Travesties, Jack Richardson, writing in Commentary in 1974, had to admit
Stoppard's pre-eminence: "since Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern, a play I admired but found a little too coy and dramatically forced in its darker moments, Stoppard has come
closer and closer to a successful wedding of theatrical artistry and
intelligence. He is already the best playwright around today, the only writer I
feel who is capable of making the theatre a truly formidable and civilized
experience again."
In the context of a brilliant career, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead continues to be a formidable
achievement. Even by 1973, Normand Berlin, writing in Modern Drama, could
assert that Stoppard's first major play had "acquired a surprisingly high reputation as a modern classic."
And within a decade of its first appearance, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead had enjoyed over 250
productions in twenty different
languages. Though a number of critics now feel that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Are Dead is perhaps not Stoppard's best play that some of his later work have been more complex, polished, and
mature Stoppard's first major play remains his most popular and his most widely
performed.
No comments