Existentialism seems to be taking the Cambridge theatre scene by storm this Lent Term, and if Stoppard’s script wasn’t modern enough, then Callum Hill’s version is even more abstract. Bringing two minor characters from Shakespeare's Hamlet to the forefront, the play is bound to have a static feel, centred on the wit and quality of the dialogue. While not a serious interrogation of Shakespeare’s play, it tackles important problems such as life, death, morality and self-protection at the expense of others. However, all these themes are incorporated into improvised games, which are intended to comically emphasise the distance between trivia and the real world of action.

"Callum Hill’s version is even more abstract"

If the original script departs from Shakespearian tradition regarding content, but retains the Elizabethan form, it is to deliberately show the mismatch of old form and contemporary experience, which is its main source of humour. Nevertheless, the director of last night’s performance has found yet different ways to put forward Stoppard’s point.

There were a few striking elements to observe last night. In particular, the setting of the play is specifically designed to draw attention to its own artifice - to the extent that there is no stage design – just emptiness. The only perceivable objects on the stage were a high platform and three neon green barrels, which were in no way influenced by any plays with lighting – the lighting was plain white. The complete lack of discernible costumes, typical of student theatre, was unexpectedly effective in making us even more aware of the artificial environment in which the production takes place. This approach resonates with the play-within-the-play, the mise-en-abyme for which The Player (Esther Nauta) set the scene.

What’s more, and perhaps most shocking of all, is that Hill decided to change the cast for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern twice during the course of the play without any explanation whatsoever. If there is an artistic vision behind this – and I hope that there is – the effect obtained moves the focus onto the actors’ performance and words rather than the play's form, to the extent that it feels almost like a casting session. But at this level of abstraction, doesn’t form actually attract, rather than detract, attention to itself? It depends how much your mind can let go of expectation.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: not dead yet.

Last but not least, I found the acting to be excellent. Three pairs of actors played the main characters last night, among which Rebecca Metzer and Grace England (Rosencrantz), Tom Sparkes, Phoebe Segal and George Booth-Clibborn (Guildenstern) all gave expressive and well-honed performances. The strong delivery of this seriously abstract play of dazzling wit was a pleasing sight on the Cambridge scene and one which I definitely recommend seeing.

"Rebecca Metzer and Grace England (Rosencrantz), Tom Sparkes, Phoebe Segal and George Booth-Clibborn (Guildenstern) all gave expressive and well-honed performances"

Overall, I am glad that the lack of theatrical environment allowed me to enjoy the delivery and performance of the actors completely. It is a play that raises numerous thought-provoking questions both about the meaning of our existence and about form itself. These two levels blend into one another at times: are we to be actors, or spectators in our own lives