Vladimir and Estragon are Dead

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, a play by Tom Stoppard which is very similar to Waiting for Godot. The story follows two minor characters (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet as they weave into and out of stage time. When off stage, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are waiting for something to happen. The plays are both absurdist tragicomedies with existential themes.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are inseparable friends to the point where they forget who is who. While Vladimir and Estragon remember each other’s names, there is a loss of identity when the boy calls Vladimir a Mr. Albert. Estragon answers his name as Adam when questioned by Pozzo. Both pairs of characters have the same back and forth dialog that accomplishes nothing. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern go as far as playing a game of questions to pass the time. The game consists of having a conversation entirely of questions without repetition. It is only when this game is played that important questions are asked, nut are unable to be answered because of the game. Glimpses of ideas and theories are heard throughout both plays, but are lost in a sea of meaningless banter.

A closer look at the characters reveals a similar foil. Estragon and Rosencrantz are easily distracted, mundane characters, while Vladimir and Guildenstern are more intelligent but with equally bad memories. Inadequate memory also plays an important role in the two pairs of characters’ decisions. Because both only have a vague idea of their purpose (waiting for Godot, or being summoned by the king), neither is sure what to do. This inaction leads to their demise, being trapped in a circular play; doomed to replay their lives spent searching in vain for meaning. In the end Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die, like the rest of the characters in Hamlet until the play is performed/read again. 

Both plays bring up the philosophical question of free will. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have fixed predetermined roles in Hamlet, but the characters themselves are unaware of this. The idea did occur to them that someone or something is controlling their lives. However, they are unable to decide on any action that would affect their fate. This is similar to Vladimir and Estragon’s inaction when they decide to leave at the end of act 1. Vladimir and Estragon seem to want to leave, to stop waiting for Godot, but are unable to move and end up repeating their endless cycle of waiting for Godot. 

Both plays also tease at the breaking of the fourth wall. The other reoccurring characters in the play bring to light subtly that the characters suspect they are in a play. Vladimir, after first meeting Pozzo runs off to the bathrooms off the set and “down the corridor.” Pozzo and Lucky’s characters give the audience a hope for something theatrical to happen. Pozzo is a theatrical character but is lost in the nothingness of the play and ultimately forgets what he is saying. Lucky and Pozzo have potential to create drama in the play but are instead reduced to gibberish monologues senseless dialogue. The expectation of the audience makes the inaction of the play more memorable.

The Player and his troupe of actors play a slightly different role in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. They add to the debate of free will. The Player seems to know the story ahead of time, but despite Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s questions, the actors act their part in the play content with their existence. Despite their apparent greater understanding of the inner workings of the play, the players do not change the course of the play to save Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s life. 

The same existential and absurdist idea are present in both Waiting for Godot and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. These ideas and themes are conveyed to the audience who begins to think about their own existence. Do we have free will? What is the nature of our reality? Are we alive or dreaming? What is the meaning of life?