Oldman sees the two characters as very different. In fact, he said that he was asked first to play Guildenstern and wanted to be Rosencrantz instead. He draws the parallel to Abbott and Costello. One is the leader and the other is led. He describes Guildenstern as more intensive, a character who fancies himself to be an intellectual. Rosencrantz, on the other hand, is slower, but with moments of deep philosophical understanding. He's a genius, evidenced by all of his inventions during the course of the film. Plus, he has the speech about life and death, which Oldman wanted very much to deliver.
When asked what the play is about, Oldman replied that it's the story of Hamlet. It's twisted, with a different perspective than Shakespeare's original, but ultimately it's the story of Hamlet through the point of view of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Even in Hamlet, the pair do not know what they're doing. They don't know why they're being put to death, responding that they didn't really do anything. That's true for their roles in Hamlet, though. They didn't really do anything.
Oldman relates that he's always thought that he had a good Hamlet in him. He was asked once to play Horatio, but he declined. He didn't want to be "the vase on stage with the flowers." Obviously Hamlet is the flowers of the production. Oldman admits, though, that the time for that has passed him; he's too old to be Hamlet now. He could be Claudius, though....
As enjoyable as it was to have been part of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Oldman tells about one of the drawbacks. He can never see Hamlet now without thinking of his and Tim Roth's performances. He can't see Polonius behind the arras being stabbed without thinking of himself and Roth hiding with him, tapping Polonius on the shoulder. I can empathize with Oldman. Having seen the film, it's hard to view the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern without thinking of Roth's and Oldman's superior performances.
No comments:
Post a Comment