RubyJBrown
New Member
· Both the canonical and derivative texts are products of their contexts. Various techniques are used by both playwrights to develop plot, characterization, issues and values and engage their audience.
· Much from the original text is transformed to highlight different issues, values and characters. Hamlet and R+G illuminate the concept of transformation and how a derivative text can focus on similar issues to allow the text to be appreciated by a different era.
· Hamlet follows the conventional style of revenge-tragedy with a carefully constructed story-line, related issues and poetic, sophisticated dialogue. This reflects the social values and hierarchal structure of society. Similarly R+G is able to reflect social values and concerns of the 1960’s through the conventions of Absurdist theatre.
· In Forgrounding Ros+Guil Stoppard shifts focus from the protagonist Hamlet to characters that responders in the modern era would be able to relate to.
· Using the dramatic devices and style of Absurdist theatre Stoppard is able to represent a bleak society with low morals. Stoppard uses the bawdy comments of the player to remark on the changes occurring within society. “We’ll stoop to anything if that’s your bent.” The homosexual references made throughout the play demonstrate the changing attitudes in this era.
· Constant sexual innuendo made by the player highlights moral decay of society. This could also be linked to Hamlet when it is stated that “somethinig is rotten in the state of Denmark”, a comment that reflects the questionable nature of political power.
· Hamlet is structured and events are linked through murders, madness, and revenge. Stoppards play uses absurdity to link chaos and the erosion of society values. The powerlessness of the central characters leads them to their death. The do not stop or cause their death, it is merely a process. The audience sympathises with Ros+Guil as death is everyone’s eventual destiny. It particularly reflects on the notion of existentialism in a post-war society.
· The issue of death is explored in both texts. In Hamlet death is quite dramatic while Stoppards characters seemingly “fail to reappear”. Because of this representation of death the issue is transformed from being dramatic to the everyday. This allows Hamlet to be accepted by modern audiences as it was written in the post-war era and men who died in war did simply fail to reappear.
· Stoppard simplifies the issues of life, death and reality. The Player summarises tragedy as ‘the bad end unhappily, the good unluckily’. Ros+Guil’s death demonstrates that they could not escape the injustices of their world. They were trapped within the storyline of Hamlet and couldn’t be saved from their fate. Our perception of them changes from henchmen to bewildered innocents.
· Destiny vs. fate, death and reality: Hamlets procrastination delays his revenge plan. He states ‘how all occasions do inform against me’ yet he does accept his fate toward the end of the play. Ros also submits to his inevitable death when he states “All right then. I don’t care. I’ve had enough. To tell you the truth I’m relieved’. Death is foregrounded in both texts. Both Ros and Hamlet decided that to choose life over death is more appropriate early in the plays. Hamlet chooses life in the “To be or not to be” soliloquy while Ros states ‘life in a box is better than no life at all…. You’d have a chance at least’.
· Throughout R+G Ros and Guil constantly seek for purpose yet they can never find it due to their ongoing confusion. Through the text statements such as “But we don’t know what’s going on, or what to do” are made by both characters. The confusion is used by Stoppard to represent the existential theories of his era.
· Hamlet appears to have control in his life while Ros and Guil have no certainty, no answers. The coin tossing demonstrates that nothing is certain for these central characters, with the exception of death.
· Social and historical eras are evident in both texts through form, language and change in audience. Stoppard gives Hamlet a modern voice to relate to a modern audience.
· Much from the original text is transformed to highlight different issues, values and characters. Hamlet and R+G illuminate the concept of transformation and how a derivative text can focus on similar issues to allow the text to be appreciated by a different era.
· Hamlet follows the conventional style of revenge-tragedy with a carefully constructed story-line, related issues and poetic, sophisticated dialogue. This reflects the social values and hierarchal structure of society. Similarly R+G is able to reflect social values and concerns of the 1960’s through the conventions of Absurdist theatre.
· In Forgrounding Ros+Guil Stoppard shifts focus from the protagonist Hamlet to characters that responders in the modern era would be able to relate to.
· Using the dramatic devices and style of Absurdist theatre Stoppard is able to represent a bleak society with low morals. Stoppard uses the bawdy comments of the player to remark on the changes occurring within society. “We’ll stoop to anything if that’s your bent.” The homosexual references made throughout the play demonstrate the changing attitudes in this era.
· Constant sexual innuendo made by the player highlights moral decay of society. This could also be linked to Hamlet when it is stated that “somethinig is rotten in the state of Denmark”, a comment that reflects the questionable nature of political power.
· Hamlet is structured and events are linked through murders, madness, and revenge. Stoppards play uses absurdity to link chaos and the erosion of society values. The powerlessness of the central characters leads them to their death. The do not stop or cause their death, it is merely a process. The audience sympathises with Ros+Guil as death is everyone’s eventual destiny. It particularly reflects on the notion of existentialism in a post-war society.
· The issue of death is explored in both texts. In Hamlet death is quite dramatic while Stoppards characters seemingly “fail to reappear”. Because of this representation of death the issue is transformed from being dramatic to the everyday. This allows Hamlet to be accepted by modern audiences as it was written in the post-war era and men who died in war did simply fail to reappear.
· Stoppard simplifies the issues of life, death and reality. The Player summarises tragedy as ‘the bad end unhappily, the good unluckily’. Ros+Guil’s death demonstrates that they could not escape the injustices of their world. They were trapped within the storyline of Hamlet and couldn’t be saved from their fate. Our perception of them changes from henchmen to bewildered innocents.
· Destiny vs. fate, death and reality: Hamlets procrastination delays his revenge plan. He states ‘how all occasions do inform against me’ yet he does accept his fate toward the end of the play. Ros also submits to his inevitable death when he states “All right then. I don’t care. I’ve had enough. To tell you the truth I’m relieved’. Death is foregrounded in both texts. Both Ros and Hamlet decided that to choose life over death is more appropriate early in the plays. Hamlet chooses life in the “To be or not to be” soliloquy while Ros states ‘life in a box is better than no life at all…. You’d have a chance at least’.
· Throughout R+G Ros and Guil constantly seek for purpose yet they can never find it due to their ongoing confusion. Through the text statements such as “But we don’t know what’s going on, or what to do” are made by both characters. The confusion is used by Stoppard to represent the existential theories of his era.
· Hamlet appears to have control in his life while Ros and Guil have no certainty, no answers. The coin tossing demonstrates that nothing is certain for these central characters, with the exception of death.
· Social and historical eras are evident in both texts through form, language and change in audience. Stoppard gives Hamlet a modern voice to relate to a modern audience.
