corpses all told. It brings out the best innus.” Rosencrantz counts them up, andnsays, “Six!” and the player glares atnthem and insists, “Eight.”nThey don’t know that he’s talkingnabout them. They don’t know, can’tnknow, anything. Indeed, one of thensublime elegances of this film is itsnrepresentation of stupidity, of amazingninvincible ignorance, over and overnagain. It is the signature of these twonoafs, and they are rather sweet about it.nWhat Stoppard has contrived for themnis a series of great moments in thenhistory of physics. An apple falls onnRosencrantz’s head, and he thinksnabout it, considers it quite deeply, andnthen remarks, “I say . . . Would younlike a bite?” He drops a feather and anwooden juggling ball from the gallerynof an indoor tennis court, and ofncourse in his experiment the feathernfloats down much more slowly thannthe wooden ball. He sees a series ofnhanging pots that are arranged in thenmanner of those toys for executives’ndesks. He raises one, lets it hit thenothers, and watches in amazement asnthe energy is transferred to make .thenpot at the other end swing out. “Here,nwatch this,” he says, does it again, butnraises the pot too far so that all it does isnshatter.nIncomprehension is the basis of thenjokes, but it is also a statement of thenhuman condition. At one point, justnbefore the conclusion (which is not ansurprise, if we have been paying attentionnto such hints as the title provides),none of the unfortunate pair says to thenother that there must have been anmoment when they could have escapednthis, when they could havenavoided this whole ruinous business,n”But if there was, we missed it.” Theynmay have missed it, but we catch itnclearly enough, as we watch themnbetray — unthinkingly — their boyhoodnfriend, Hamlet.nLanguage is not what film doesnparticularly well, but even here,nStoppard manages remarkable feats.nHe was obliged to do this, for, in hisnvision of the world, language is notnmerely an occasion for show-off vaudevillenroutines but is itself the snare innwhich his characters are trapped. Theynstruggle in it, only to enmesh themselvesnmore completely. They get referentsnwrong, and do show-biz turnsnthat are entertaining but are also totallynuseless, that won’t get them out ofnElsinore or keep them from the terriblenfate that waits for them like a largenvicious dog. (The sound of barkingndogs is heard over and over again, anlow-comedy leitmotif.) The player tellsnthem, “The bad end unhappily, thengood unluckily — that is what tragedynmeans.” But they are not warned.n”There is something they’re notntelling us,” Guildenstern says.n”What?” the other asks. And of coursenGuildenstern shouts louder, “There isnsomething they’re not telling us.”nThus they persist in their entertainingnand yet pathetic word games, onenof the best of which is the QuestionnGame. On the stage, it was playedndown in one, before the footlights. Innthe film, Ros and Guil are on a tennisncourt, serving and volleying over anbedraggled net, and moving about thencourt in inevitable ways. (The object ofnthe game is to keep talking but alwaysnto avoid declarative statements. Onenmust remain in the interrogativenmode.)nIt is Monty Python-ism but notnsheer, not pure, because it is rooted innTHE WISDOM OF THE PLANNED GIFTnThere are a variety of ways to give to educational and charitable organizations, likenThe Rockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.nMost people make outright gifts which result in a “charitable deduction” from a person’sntaxable income.nAnother option is to establish a Charitable Remainder Trust. For example, supposena person bought some stock at a cost of $20,000 many years ago that is now worthn$50,000 and pays 3 percent in dividends. One way to lock in the current value,navoid capital gains tax, and derive more income would be to create a CharitablenRemainder Unitrust. Pay-out percentages can be fixed from 5 percent to 8 percent,nand the investments are in secure income-producing investments. If the trust earnsnmore than the agreed pay-out amount, that additional money is added each yearnto the trust so that the size of the trust increases. Upon the death of the donor or hisnbeneficiary, the trust would become the property of the Institute or other charitiesnof the donor’s choice. Estate taxes are eliminated and there is a sizeable charitable deduction in the year the trust isnestablished. The amount of the charitable deduction depends on the age of the donor and the income retained.nLegacy Program, The Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street, Rocliford, IL 61103nD Please send me general information on the various “Planned Giving” options.nn Please send me information on the Institute’s Charitable Remainder Trust Fund.nNAME.n.ADDRESS.nCITY _nSTATE ZIP PHONEnIf you have a specific asset, such as stocks, that you are considering for a contribution, and if you would lilce the Institute to evaluate the financialntax implications for your gift, please include the following information:nSS # . SS # (SPOUSE)nCOST OF ASSET ^ ESTIMATED MARKET VALUEnnnJUNE 1991/49n