Portrayal of value changes by transformation

05 Jun 2005

I wanted to call this post “The portrayal of changes in social paradigms through transformation [of texts]“, but even I recognised that to be too long a title (and this template is unforgiving – must design a new one sometime!). Without further ado;

“The way a contemporary composer transforms an older text inevitably reflects the way that values in society have changed over time.” Discuss in relation to Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. 1485 words.

The transformation of a text into a new one, whether through appropriation or extrapolation of the original work, inevitably involves the reflection of a different social paradigm that is itself a product of the context in which it exists. The impact of society and cultural influence upon a text’s composition is profound and, without a doubt, may be viewed as reflective of the period in which it was created. This notion may be applied not only to the contemporary transformation, but also to ‘original’ compositions, which are similarly reflective of the values of their period.

In this way, it is possible to determine the societal values implicit in each of the studied texts, Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s transformation, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Separated by several centuries of social change, turmoil, and general upheaval, it should come as no surprise that the values presented within both these texts are hardly congruent. Hamlet is a renaissance figure, a thinker, an intellectual – and resolutely out of place in the context he finds himself. Torn between his conflicting compulsions to enact revenge in accordance with the expectations of the time and his own sense of morality, Shakespeare’s protagonist is depicted in his demise, a spiral of ‘madness’ either contrived or genuine (“When the wind is southerly,/I know a hawk from a handsaw.” 2.2.347). This may be perceived as dissonant with the accepted values of the period, but for closer examination of the catalysts leading to Hamlet’s condition – in typical Elizabethan style, the cause of such turmoil and unrest is no internal condition, but rather the disruption of an established order – the great chain of being.

Shakespeare’s preoccupation with royalty and the lives of those conventionally considered ‘powerful’ presents a stark contrast to the message of Stoppard’s later work. Stoppard takes the royalty, these ‘powerful’, and places them in a role of illusion. The Players in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are these royalty. They are the embodiment of figures from Hamlet, and hold to the values of that period – values critiqued by Stoppard as being outmoded, irrelevant after hundreds of years that saw industrialisation, the rise of ‘freethinking’ intellectual movements, and the demise of absolute values in favour of the individualistic paradigm of which his play appears to be a proponent. This concern is enunciated through ongoing conflict portrayed between the blurred collective identity of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and these “actors” – Guildenstern’s recurring criticism of these actors is that they are “the opposite of people”, and this is a criticism that is sounded in response to the different values they are seen to embody.

Indeed, Stoppard’s assignation of the roles of the original cast in veiled form to these derisively-termed “actors” is itself a device to further this criticism. They are presented as having foresight, with quips such as “I should concentrate on not losing your heads” used throughout the text – this dramatic irony foreshadowing the subsequent demise of Stoppard’s unwitting heroes. Viewed in terms of the contextual insight this grants the responder into the period of both texts composition, this presents a disparity in basic belief systems – the players, the remnant of Elizabethan values in this play, are shown to believe in predestined fate, holding faith in an omnipotent directional force guiding events. Conversely, the protagonists of this transformation question meaning and the nature of meaning, question their direction, and, whilst appearing to at times accept the concept of fate, generally reject the idea that this fate holds any inherent direction. In this way, the values of the text may be, perhaps, considered more nihilistic than existential, although this of course remains open to debate.

As a product of its time, however, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead serves to communicate rather clearly the dramatic change in values between Shakespeare’s period and its own. Nietzsche’s famously decontextualised line, “Gott ist tot” (God is dead) is perhaps reflective of the predicament experienced by Stoppard’s protagonists when viewed against their actor-counterparts in Shakespearean setting – in context, Nietzsche speaks not of the literal death of God, but simply of the apparent decline in humanity’s recognition of God as a reckoning force in their lives. “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

This decline in recognition of the supernatural as a key influence upon humanity at a broader societal level may be viewed as (at least in part) responsible for the change in attitudes displayed between the ‘original’ and appropriated/transformed work. Shakespeare’s play Hamlet revolves around a concern which has arisen as the result of death. Death, not as an abject and pathetic end to reality – although pathos may be a device used by the bardic playwright. It is more than this – it is a catalyst, a driving force for the events of the text. Hamlet may be read as a revenge tragedy, and, in this reading, the consideration of the responder is drawn to the plight of the protagonist, Hamlet. He despairs not for his temporal loss, although that may be a part of it. If that were the extent of the protagonist’s concerns, Claudius would be killed without such extensive procrastination on Hamlet’s part.

In his famous soliloquy of Act III, Hamlet declares in response to the question of killing Claudius or his own suicide – “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all” – He dare not act for fear of damnation. The origins of this morality are important, though not relevant to the present discussion – of greater relevance is the very notion of damnation. Hamlet believes what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not in Stoppard’s creation of some centuries later – consequence in death. “Here one minute and gone the next and never coming back – an exit, unobtrusive and unannounced…”

Stoppard’s protagonists, therefore, cannot understand the apparently ridiculous preoccupation with death held by the players. It is biological. Stoppard reduces it to natural process through the creation of dialogue which discusses death at this level alone – “Another curious scientific phenomenon is the fact that the fingernails grow after death, as does the beard.” This line fits into dialogue as another expression of futility, as Stoppard’s protagonists are also chief protagonists in this work. It is primarily existential in nature, and such trivialities serve to reinforce this notion that meaning is shaped by the individual.

This trivialisation of death throughout the work builds to a great display of poignancy in Guildenstern’s emotive, dramatic display of angst at the players’ portrayal of this phenomenon. Stage directions call for scorn, derision. It is melodramatic, even. And, chiefly, it is a parody. Guildenstern stands, takes to the leading player with a knife. He is convinced he has killed him. The blade goes “in up to the hilt”, and the player falls, Guildenstern making his final statements with conviction – after this point, he is “tired, drained” – “If we have a destiny, then so had he – and if this is ours, then that was his – and if there are no explanations for us, then let there be none for him –”

The player rises. It is a defeat of the melodrama, of the poignancy of death. After this point, that notion is utterly defeated in this work. “Deaths for all ages and occasions! Deaths by suspension, convulsion, consumption, incision, execution, asphyxiation and malnutrition –! Climatic carnage, by poison and by steel –! Double deaths by duel –! Show!” The melodrama of death is sarcastic only in this work – and, according to the stage directions, in perfect conformance with the closing scene of Hamlet. The transformation does not substantially alter the content here, but rather the portrayal of the same. Stoppard’s masterful use of dramatic devices and irony serves to create a work entirely different in nature to Shakespeare’s text; this is not achieved solely through the foregrounding of minority characters.

Stoppard’s work is seen to convey the values of its time and, through this, demonstrate the changes in values witnessed between Elizabethan times and the 1960′s not through vivid exposition and melodrama as seen in Guildenstern’s emotive declaration against the actors, but rather through subtle dramatic devices and techniques. Comment on death, amongst other themes, is delivered instead through crafted silence, confusion, inaction. “And he disappears from view. Guil does not notice.” “Our names shouted in a certain dawn … a message … a summons … there must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said – no. But somehow we missed it.”

Stoppard’s protagonists fall to the unguided arms of fate, and are projected on a course towards their inevitable, inconsequential demise. “And [Guil] disappears.”

Reflection of change is inevitable, as Stoppard’s message is shaped by a social paradigm foreign to the original work, and this disparity in values is inherently conveyed through transformation.