ice support,” including “provisions ofnsupporting public facilities and infrastructurenimprovements.”nThis bill will only bolster the worstnhabit of state governments: spendingntax dollars on favored interest groups.nThese subsidies are paid for by taxpayersnoutside the state by launderingnthem through various federal grantgivingnagencies. But why should thengovernment loot taxpayers so corporationsncan go on the public dole in theninner city? This will not create prosperity,nonly make a new class of peoplenwelfare-dependent.nIf the original EZ program werenrestored, with its radical overhaul ofnlabor law and rent control, its fullnprivatization, and its strictures againstnwelfare, it probably would deservensupport—but only because it wouldnserve as a metaphor for what the wholencountry ought to be like. As things are,nwhy don’t conservatives drop their supportnof EZs? Many are simply nonlonger interested in fundamental reform.nInstead, they are satisfied tonmake big government “work better.”n”An enterprise zone creates a climatenthat could enhance the effectiveness ofngovernment programs,” says one conservativenEZ advocate. It is a “base fornother policies,” for example a “trainingnprogram,” an outright grant, “or similarngovernment project.”nMany other EZ supporters privatelynrepudiate the program’s associationnwith government spoils but would likento salvage the rest. However, underntoday’s egalitarian democratic politicalnsystem, in which no one’s property isnsafe, it is impossible to isolate thendecent parts of EZs from the corruptnparts. Far better to advocate a revolutionarynapproach that totally dismantlesnthe democratic social welfare apparatus,nand accept no compromise in thenmeantime.nJeffrey A. Tucker is a fellow of thenLudwig von Mises Institute. He livesnoutside of Washington, D.C.n48/CHRONICLESnFILMnAntecedentsnby David R. SlavittnRosencrantz & GuildensternnAre DeadnProduced by Michael Brandman andnEmanuel AzenbergnWritten and directed bynTom StoppardnReleased by CinecomnScenes From a MallnProduced and directed bynPaul MazurskynWritten by Roger L. Simon andnMr. MazurskynReleased by Buena Vista PicturesnIt is usually a reliable rule that whennmoviemakers decide to “open up” anstage play to adapt it to the screen withnits voracious appetite for scenery, theynlose more in focus and intensity thannthey gain in pretty vistas. I worried,ntherefore, about the opening shots ofnTom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz &nGuildenstern Are Dead, a dazzlinglyndepressing panorama of cliffs with annarrow road on which two figuresnappear. Where are we? What’s goingnon?nThe cliffs are, almost certainly,nsomewhere in Yugoslavia, where muchnof this film was shot. And the twonfigures are Ros and Guil, on their waynto Elsinore, where they have beennsummoned by the king who wantsntheir help in understanding the reasonnfor Prince Hamlet’s melancholy andnpeculiar behavior. The Yugoslav scenerynand, indeed, the Brezice Castlennnthat stands in for the seat of the DanishnRoyal House are stark, lavish but primitive,nthe kind of thing that Kurosawanfinds all the time as backdrops for hisnsemi-mythic Samurai epics. The film isncertainly gorgeous (Peter Biziou, whonwon an Oscar for Best Cinematographynfor Mississippi Burning, is thendirector of photography), but thatndoesn’t get in the way of Stoppard’snvision of the funny cruelty of life. Henhas, since 1967, when the play openednat the Old Vic, rethought the wholenmatter, so that now, instead of Rosencrantznand Guildenstern standing innplace as the play rushes past them, theynare racing around, trying to figure outnwhat is going on, popping up at thenwrong time and at the most awkwardnplaces, overhearing snatches of conversation—nlines from Shakespeare’snHamlet mostly — and utterly failing tonunderstand anything at all. Theynhaven’t a clue about the enormousntragedy on the fringes of which theynare darting and feinting, and becausenof their epic denseness they enlarge, asnVladimir and Estragon enlarge innWaiting for Godot, or as the Foolnenlarges in King Lear.nThe film is, on every count, and bynany measure, an enormous success. Allnthe energies and inventive livelinessnof Rosencrantz (Gary Oldman),nGuildenstern (Tim Roth), and thenplayer (Richard Dreyfuss) go to distractingnus, but the vision of the filmnkeeps our attention fixed neverthelessnon its mournful heart. Stoppard seemsnfinally to be telling us that Shakespearendidn’t have it wrong, after all.nAccording to one interpretation ofnthe story in the Bible of Abraham andnIsaac, that whole business about thensacrifice is a kind of charade. God isn’tnreally asking Abraham to do such anbarbarous thing. God knows this, andnAbraham knows it too, even as henclimbs the mountain with Isaac at hisnside. Even Isaac, at some level, understandsnthat this can’t really be happening.nBut for the ram, the innocentnbystander, these theological jokes andngames turn out to be deadly serious. Itnis always the innocent bystanders whonsuffer. This is what happens innStoddard’s play and film. The playersndo a mini version of Hamlet (somethingnlike Stoppard’s own Five MinutenHamlet) and at the end, the chiefnplayer says, “A slaughterhouse! Eightn