Not a relation of the royal cubit to the sacred cubit in pyramid technology, but the television film about Solidarity which apparently, and apparently due to Metromedia interference, nearly ended Mike Hodges' career, in 122 scenes (characters Brezhnev, Jaruzelski, Walesa, etc.) divided into four parts ("The First Secretary", "Solidarity", "Congress", "The General").

Tom Stoppard is by far the greatest dramatist of our time and his words flesh this out. His true genius is unknown to him and can only be discovered by seeing great productions of Arcadia, Hapgood, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead--but his words, in this matchlessly edited volume of interviews, reveal how these plays have come about. The book is funny, fascinating, and exhaustively researched. Delaney managed to unearth some interviews that otherwise would have been as lost to history as Thomasina's waltz.

i would read this book on a bus, i would read this book on a truss, i would read this book riding backward on a bicycle sat for two, i would read this book floating lazily down the river in my favorite red converse shoes...i do like this book, i would read it anywhere. it really is that addictive. And yes, you should judge this book by its cover. It stands out! The soft orange, like the setting sun on a countryside and the boy walking into it, silhouted in its gentle hue, you walk into a landscape that is only Stoppard. It is a journey that is beckoned by truly original landscapes, and guided by the soft touch of unique characters, that will leave you by last page saddened by the parting of new found friends...unusual and offset, but yet we miss them, and we may fear of admitting that we are more in common with them than we dare admit. But inside we are laughing unabashedly, at ourselves, and all the while in awe of the splendor of his landscape...our landscape.

Tom Stoppard at his finest, The Real Inspector Hound has to be one of his best works, and when it is placed in the same volume as such other works of lunacy as Dogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth, then you're bound to be on to a winner.

A great book! For all the classes that teach Rosencrantz, this book finally gets after what is really lurking behind the shadows in Tom Stoppard's plays. To read Stoppard and not notice the constant thread of morality (failed or successful) is to look at a bicycle and only notice the spokes. I was lucky enough to take a modern drama class from Paul Delaney at Westmont College, where I was quickly clued in to the coolness of Tom Stoppard (Jumpers being my personal favorite). If for no other reason than the chapter on "Jumpers," you need to get a hold of this book, someway, somehow. Unfortunately, I never got around to purchasing the dang thing. And now it looks like it might be on its way to out-of-printland (right next to tomorrowland at Disneyland). Hello? St. Martin's Press? Are you listening? REPRINT THIS BOOK!

Zurich 1917, a marvellous subject. The meeting point of the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries on one side, and of the new « revolutionary » artists, be they James Joyce and the stream of consciousness writers, or Tristan Tzara and the Dada movement.

The first interest of the play is to situate the dynamic of each revolutionary movement very well. Lenin is the figurehead of the revolutionary politicians, James Joyce and Tzara of the modern literature movements.

Then Stoppard makes them meet. In Zurich it is more or less an artificial meeting though they share most of their ideas (the files that are unknowingly exchanged at the beginning and exchanged back at the end show how identical their ideas are) and yet they have styles, general postures that make them unable to have a real dialogue.

Tom Stoppard goes even further by tracing along Lenin's positions on art. He shows the perfect contradiction contained - as Walt Whitman would say - by the man. On one side (Tolstoy), he understands that a work of art is a reflection (hence not a purely identical image) of social contradictions and therefore of society, and also a reflection of the contradictory artist (all artists contain contradictions) and his contradictory position in society (hence in the social contradictions of this society). On the other side, once in power, he condemns, at first, then wavers on the subject, Mayakovsky and the Futurist mocement, and definitely considers intellectuals as bourgeois individualists. But the artists of 1917 represent exactly a similar contradiction between the absolutely nihilistic approach of the Dada movement, and the mentally realistic movement represented by James Joyce. The former rejects all heritage. The latter rearranges the full heritage within a modern man's consciousness, hence within a revolutionary or disturbing consciousness.

The play is at times funny, at times realistic, at times dramatic, according to the points of view, but the essential one of these is the recollections two (minor) characters have of the period sixty years later. We are forced to accept that historical perspective : what it was then and what we can do of it now.

The conclusion of the play is typical perpetual movement, here perpetual syllogism : « Firstly, you're either a revolutionary or you're not, and if you're not you might as well be an artist as anything else. Secondly, if you can't be an artist, you might as well be a revolutionary... I forget the third thing. » Unfinished of course, like any historical achievement. History is always unfinished, in spite of Marx's dream of a contradiction-free communist society. This is the biggest sham of western philosophy ever dreamed of by a man of the amplitude and intensity of Karl Marx. You can be a genius but reality is more real than philosophy. The proof, as Marx liked to say, of the pudding is in my eating it. Full stop. Period.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

This is probably my favorite Stoppard play. Everything about it is raised to such a level of excellence that it's difficult to imagine how it can be surpassed.

Stoppard showcases his linguistic talents at their most dazzling and expects the reader to keep up intellectually. Not to sound daunting, but in order to enjoy "Travesties" properly, it helps to know some rudimentary German, French, and Russian; be well familiar with Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" and James Joyce's "Ulysses"; and also to have a good factual knowledge of the Great War and the Great October Revolution. If you do not have this background knowledge, you risk missing out on most of Stoppard's witty insight and leaving the theatre/closing the book confused and disappointed.

The most important thing to remember about Travesties is that it is essentially Stoppard arguing with himself. This really shines through in his "derailed" scenes, where the characters have to abort a scene half-way through because it's obviously going in a wrong direction. Basically, it starts out with the characters being themselves, but as it progresses, one can see that they are simply two sides of Stoppard's own mind speaking to the audience through masks. And then it's as if the author remembers to keep his distance from the audience and steps back into the shadows. The effect is rather mystical; it's as if we are granted a brief glimpse beyond the fabric of what we take to be reality. What remains unclear is whether we are now looking into the "true" reality or yet another scene setting.

In short, buy the book, read it outloud, amuse yourself, alarm your neighbors.

This is one of my most favorite plays, and I was lucky enough to see it performed on stage. In 1917 Zurich, James Joyce, Tristan Tzara and VI Lenin are all converging on the movements that define their very careers later in life. The tale is narrated by Henry Carr, an actual historical figure, as an old man in 1972, who was with the three celebs as a young man, and his memory is a bit faulty! He once played Algernon in "The Importance of Being Earnest" which required him to buy some new trousers, and he insists that Joyce reimburse him. Thus starts a legal battle.

Travesties is a non-stop energetic creative retelling of history in its most fantastical setting. Read it, and if you ever get the opportunity, go see it!

Oh tormented people. One may read 'The Seagull' and wonder what's that all those things about death and killing, and failing love stories. So sad! But in Chekov's world this is a comedy, and it doesn't take too much to get why. It is indeed funny in some parts-- well, not the kind of funny we are used to, but nevertheless, it makes us laugh.

The tragicomic play is of paramount importance in modern teather. Rarely has a playwriter written such a realistic piece analyzing the life of an artist and his/her role in the society. In 'The Seagull' Treplieff is a writer wanna be, who is trying to grow over the shadow of her mother --an aging actress--, and to get an actress wanna be to love him. But above all, he has to deal with feeling jelous of Trigorin a youger and successful writer. There aren't many characters, but there is so much going on, personal dilemas, that the story grows to a placeless dimension.

Chekov can write with such a confidence that for not a second you doubt the existence of these people. His words are vivid. More than 100 years later, his play is up to date dealing with issues that are universal and timeless-- that can make you either cry or laugh.

Russian plays aren't for everyone--they are dense, heavy affairs, packed full of ideas and slow moving characters. If you are looking for a fast-paced potboiler with lots of action, etc. then stay away from Chekhov. But if you enjoy reflection and having something to talk about when you finish a book then Checkhov will serve you well--and, most improtantly, if you want to read "The Seagull" this IS the translation to get--Stoppard has done a wonderful job, making this classic even more readable and enjoyable.

"The Seagull," is also about how the constraints of society restrict us from achieving our goals. Constantin is not appreciated by the masses for his "experiemental" writing. Masha (?) feels trapped by her social position and unwanted by Constantin thus marries a schoolteacher who she doesn't love. Although Trigorin achieved success through his mediocre novels, he feels unsatisfied by not creating "real" art and compelled to anihilate anyone who attempts to create real art, such as Constantin. It is interesting to note that Constantin is secretly envious of Trigorin for his success and Trigorin is envious of Constantin for maintaining his integrity in his art. Maybe that's why they're always at each other's throats. Just my two cents.

Stoppard again weaves philosophy, science, history and literature into a drama. Although the play is really about the second law of thermodynamics (which says that the universe is gradually becoming more, not less, diffuse and chaotic), we get a merry dose of literature (Byron). There is an oblique nod to Lady Ada Lovelace, Byron's daughter, who worked with mathematician Charles Babbage in developing the theory of the programmable computer. That nod is manifest as the budding genius Thomasina, who works out theromodynamics and chaos theory (in the early 19th Century!) as the landscape gardeners outside gradually follow romanticism and turn her mother's manicured garden into a more natural (read chaotic) environment.

The real surprise comes when the the early 19th century scene is invaded by 20th century characters who are trying to piece together exactly what happened here nearly 200 years previously. A doomed enterprise, Thomasina could have told them. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says you cannot recapture the past.

One of my classes this semester is a playwriting course, so I turned to Stoppard to give me some inspiration and guidance in the process of creation. I've not seen much Stoppard performed--only Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and Rough Crossing--but I liked both of those very much. A classmate recommended this play, and it was in my AlexLit recommendation list as well.

After reading it, I am not surprised. The basic plot is similar in many ways to A.S. Byatt's Possession, which I waxed effusive about way back in Installment 7. In 1809 in a country house in Derbyshire, Septimus Hodge is tutoring a young woman named Thomasina. In the modern day, some of Hodge's letters and effects are being studied by some academics, one of whom is determined that Lord Byron was present and is responsible for two scurrilous reviews in the Picadilly Review. The academic, of course, hopes to make his career on this.

Stoppard and Byatt part ways, though, in the meaning that they attach to the machinations of academics trying to discover the "truth" of the past. Byatt's entire book was a study of the word "possess," and what it meant both for her fictious poets and the modern day literary detectives. Stoppard, however, is exploring a difference in temperament between the times, but how sex is and has always been a disruptive force. It's a wry commentary on human nature.

I've been trying to get away from the sort of highbrow self-referential philosophical literature that one thinks of when they hear the name Stoppard, but after reading Arcadia I found that this reputation proved to be only half the story.

Don't get me wrong-- Arcadia is an intellectual work of drama. It can be read and analyzed for symbolism and layering and all the fun that one typically associates with "Great Literature". Stoppard demands elementary knowledge of thermodynamics (entropy), modern mathematics (iterations and chaos theory), gardening history (Classic/Romantic), and literary history (Byron, Romanticism, etc.) There is tons of symbolism and contrast and notions about human nature. But despite all the intellectual games and word play, Arcadia manages to retain a profound sense of humanness.

The characters are vibrant and full of desire. They are not merely facades through which Stoppard can show off his literary prowess. Arcadia is simply a wonderful story. In the end, one cares about the characters and this is what redeems the play from mere intellectual showmanship. The plot moves and weaves and twists and if you can follow it, the play is truly rewarding.

My only misgiving is that I never got to see Arcadia in production. The last scene incorporates two different time periods on the same stage as they couples dance side by side in almost mirror image. I would have loved to see it done on stage and I'm eagerly awaiting an Arcadia revival.

R&G Are Dead has much to recommend it. It is the story of two of the bit players from Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. If you haven't read or seen Hamlet, the book will probably not be of much interest, but, in a nutshell, R&G are Hamlet's school chums who are called to Denmark by Hamlet's uncle, the King of Denmark, given the task of cheering him up and, when this fails, and the King realizes that Hamlet is a threat to his life, are given the task of sending Hamlet to his death. Hamlet turns the tables on this plot and has R&G killed instead.

R&G, although bit players, are actually in a surprising number of scenes (most of which are cut out from stage and film productions of Hamlet) and this play, interweaving these scenes with others, produces a rich picture of these two characters, entirely missing from Shakespeare's epic play.

The most obviously interesting part of this work is its attempt to explain why these characters die. When you learn at the end of Hamlet that R&G have died, you are left with a nagging sensation that something is wrong. This play fleshes this out. All of Shakespeare's tragedies are, by definition, bloody (as the Players in this work make evidently clear) but R&G's deaths are not demanded by the plot or by the passions of any of the characters.

We do not dwell on R&G's deaths in Hamlet because more important and tragic events consume us. This book makes us focus on the gratuitousness of R&G's deaths. In addition, it makes their deaths as tragic as those of the main characters in Hamlet by putting them the center of the story. Of course, we do not get any real answers as to why these characters die. Other than by changing the story of Hamlet, there can be no answer to this question. However, simply dwelling for a longer time on these characters' fate at least gives their deaths importance, if not meaning.

On another level, this book deals with themes of fate and luck. R&G have been swept up in events beyond their understanding and/or control. This book takes a philosophical approach to these issues (and definitely is reminiscent of Waiting For Godot). Since we can all identify with this to some extent, R&G's deaths become compelling and as tragic as Hamlet's death.

Finally, much of this work is comedic. R&G do provide comic relief at various points in Hamlet, so this play does well to play up the comedic aspects of their lives. Even if you have no interest in the deeper meanings of this work, you will enjoy it for the comedy.

If this play did nothing else, it forced me to question and ultimately cease to believe that the theory of probability has any relivance beyond theory. This is Stoppard's typical game: twisting reality until nobody -- neither characters nor audience -- can even tell the difference between fact and fiction, between dreams and memory, or between what is and what only seems to be.

Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guldenstern, of the amusing but overrated "Hamlet", star as two victims of circumstance in this hundred-odd page deception. Little or no knowledge of Shakesperian language is required to enjoy this play, and while knowing the original story of "Hamlet" helps, it's not a necessity either. The play's real treasure lies in the essence of the characters' thoughts and actions, not in the significance of them. The Player, a mysterious leader of a troupe of traveling pornographers (no, this play features no graphic sex, or even graphic language), always conveniently shows up to confuse, clarify, and add a little humor to matters... not that the two bumbling heros need the help.

In addition to the brilliant philosophies contained in this work, Stoppard also graces us with absolute gems of characterization, settings that compliment the dialogue rather than crowding it, and a plot that weaves the aforementioned philosophies into itself without making the characters sound like lecturers or idiot children. Truely, this is Stoppard's greatest work -- as satisfying to read as to see on a stage... perhaps even more so.

In this play Tom Stoppard has pulled two minor characters from Hamlet and given us a glimpse of what may lay behind the mundane exteriors of everyday life and more importantly the limits of possibility of meaning contained in the world of literature. What is important about this is that Stoppard is showing us that the lives of common people and minor characters can also make for some great literature too.

Philosophically, I would tend to say that this play is securely grounded in the genre that has been called the Theater of the Absurd, which in turn owes much to the thinking of Albert Camus. Having said this, I have to say that this play has some definite similarities with the works of Beckett, especially Godot, but also that of Harold Pinter's, "The Birthday Party", especially in terms of dialogue, plot direction, and character development. So if you like the work of these playwrights you would certainly enjoy this, which would also be of great interest to Shakespeare students/fans as well as anyone interested in the ideas of existentialist thought.

Despite these similarities R&G and at the same time because of them, this work seems at times to be conscious of breaking new ground and testing the limits of absurdity and interaction with the audience. The symbolism, for example, seems to be much more important to the action and meaning of this play than it is in other works of this genre. Whereas, Godot seems to stress the repetitiveness of dialogue, R&G is suggestive of just the opposite--the seemingly endless play of meaning implicit in each uttered word. This comes out through the characters lack of confidence in what they struggle to say, and the way that their views seem to change with each situation, which illustrates the uncertainty of meaning and life. Although many of the plays of this period seem to be focused on the nature of existence and its meaning to humanity, the discursive ways through which it is approached and interpreted make them all vastly unique, puzzling and vastly entertaining reads.

The thing that is, perhaps, most original in R&G's creation, is the way that Stoppard utilizes the thought of Artaud and his idea of the Theater of Cruelty, to at times completely breakdown the barriers between the audience and the actors. It follows then, that if one wants to get the full effect of this play it has to be seen live. But, then again how many people get that chance, thus, this book is the second best thing. I would only suggest paying very close attention to the stage directions, set and scenery, as they are much more important in this play than they are in others.

Finally, simply read R&G for the fun of it, you certainly will not be disappointed. In this play Stoppard has gone along way in breaking down the barriers between the writer and the average reader. With originality, humor, and an important theme, Stoppard has achieved his goal beautifully, giving us all a realistic glimpse into the complex drama of human life, literature and the mystery of existence.
Also check out the movie version with Gary Oldman, Tim Roth and Richard Dreyfus, which is faithful to the production and a joy to watch.

Tom Stoppard has towering class. His stage business is inspired, his coups de theatre invariably land on the chin, his punning dialogue is fresh, and his plays are rooted into important philosophical and moral dilemmas. Jumpers has dramatic verve, it has the dialogue, it has a husband being berated by a lover crawling out of the wife's bed, but a true Stoppard devotee will walk away slightly disappointed.

A professor of Moral Philosophy, more pecked against than pecking at his college in the middle of academic nowhere, has to deal with a wife and a corpse in the bedroom (a causal link there), a dandy Jack-of-all-trades who is also his superior, a Colombo-like copper, and a janitor who is also an amateur philosopher. Well, of course, this concoction is funny by definition, but philosophy itself, the incisive Stoppard paradoxes resplendent in Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead or in Arcadia, these are sadly missing--and that despite an hour's worth of philosophical lecturing pouring out of George the Moral Philosopher.

This 1972 farce, similar in tone and quality to his Dirty Linen, is far below Stoppard at his best, and yet still quite worthy: few playwrights can be thus described...

As with so many of Stoppard's plays, this one seems to operate on multiple levels of reality. On the one hand we have a network of philosphers looking for the essence of morality, divinity, and community. On the other, a failed actress has comitted murder and is trying to escape the consequences of her actions while committing adultery at the same time. All of this takes place in a reality that is not our own, but isn't far from it. Stoppard treats these subjects as he treats most of the subjects of his plays: with humor, cleverness, and irony. Stoppard creates a philospher who is so wrapped up in preparing a speech on morality that he is completely unaware of the murder and infidelity that are so obviously happening within his own home. A police officer manages to overlook these same problems due to his obsession with the murderer's past career as an actress. Throughout the play these kind of juxtapositions take place as each character seeks to ignore the reality around him/her as he/she seeks desperately to create his/her own reality. Stopard presents all of this with his usual blend of wit and charm, making Jumpers another solid addition to his body of work.

If a dead body was decaying in MY bedroom, I would pause to contemplate the meaning of life. Wouldn't you? Stoppard's treatise on the way we think - as seen through enemies George and Richard - is a bombastic indictment of our pettiness. There are really more urgent matters to address. I'M A POET AND PAINTER AND SCULPT OFTEN WITH DRAMATIC RESULT I LIKE TO RECITE BUT LATE AT NIGHT I'M JUST ANOTHER CONSENTNG ADULT