Sure Thing David Ives
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sure thing david ives Continue This short, one act play by David Ives (look at an interview in Colombia) is a fascinating spring board in the drama. A lot of it is pretty minimalist. There are only two characters (although they go through some transformations during the plot); The scene is naked, the direction of the scene is minimal; and the language, though quirky and full of fun, is more functional than anything else; but, at the same time, the naked scene, the functional language becomes magically alive on stage. The play explores the encounter between Bill and Betty, common names for the couple. As the game begins we see a classic exchange between them, Bill approaches Betty to see if he can sit next to her: Bill. Forgive me. Is this chair taken? Betty. Forgive me? Bill. Is that accepted? Betty. Yes. Bill. About. Excuse me. Betty. Sure thing. And that's the joy of the play. The occasional flirtation, which should have had so many promises (it's theater after all, not real life), dies a clumsy death, as I'm sure we all wanted at some point. Bill, unable to resist with a clever rejoinder, Betty, is utterly unselfish in Bill's cliche pickup routine as part of a dreadful finality-confident thing. But, of course, unlike real life, this is not the end of the matter. The phrase is a confident thing, in itself a well- chosen, idiotic phrasing agreement, are you happy? Confident thing, but it also has a special meaning in the language of risk. The surest thing is that you can bet on everything and that has interesting implications in the context of romance and relationships. Aren't we all looking for a sure thing? Isn't it love something random time (although when we fall in love with it properly it doesn't feel as if the risk is involved). In a traditional play that may be that, but in David Ives's play, the bell that rings quietly at the end of this first failed attempt signals a second chance, a new opportunity to find the right answer, and the beginning of several new possibilities as the two characters seek the right combination, the right nuance, the right approach that will win the day, and the hearts of each other. Which leads to a very funny sequence: a series of possibilities, near misses, crashing extreme failures as Bill tries to get Betty's attention. Of particular interest is how each character's voices go through tonal shifts, sparking an infinite variety of possibilities-events as much as the comedy of their successive failures, but also talking about the plasticity of the dramatic characters (and the plot they form). The play is instructive for those who study drama (perhaps for the first time), as the reader, as well as the director of the play produced on stage, is responsible for forming a dialogue, which in turn determines the character, controls the plot and dramatic themes. The play is a play that has been interpreted for you. When you read a play, you have to go through the act of interpreting raw language on a page and assigning intonation, expression, gesture, even perhaps context, and ultimately meaning, to it. What's so interesting about Ives' game, and so hard initially, is that the characters seem to be in constant motion as they search for a way through the real maze of this chance of a possible (and sometimes seemingly impossible) romantic encounter. Betty sets a number of initial barriers for a random investigation of Bill, this place is taken, in various incarnations, that the first exchange she replies: Yes, it is so, then No, but I expect someone in a minute, then indecision of the possibility They seem to be quite late ... and the obvious invitation No, it's not. This last answer tells Bill, can you if I'm sitting here? Yes, I would, comes Betty's crushing response. Finally Bill gets off the ground in the next exchange, but the same glitches, research, variability of nuance and quirky response follows the pair throughout the game. Every time the possibility of romance falls and burns, the bell rings quietly and the couple start over and try again. Characters shift and fine-tune themselves, placing different possibilities, even different self (Betty alternately dismissively, or shy, or inviting, Bill reinvents himself as a fool, party animal, everyman, religious fanatic and intellectual in sequence, where he reacts to Betty's book. It's a comic look at the poses we assume and the self-publishing that happens during flirtation, and in relationships, but more than that, it's the clever exposing of the process of invention that a writer takes on in creating any fictional or creative world that makes this game a clever meta-examination or methadrama. The reader is right to feel a little awe of the endless possibilities and variations that are on display here, in that rather masterfully dramatic performance. Ultimately, it reminds us that for all the polishing and permanence of the printed text, whether we're talking about poetry, drama or short fiction, we're still looking at a created artifact that may have sometimes stumbled and stalled before it took its proper fictional or dramatic course: in this case, the traditional denouement of comic drama, romantic mating and exit, Bill and Betty (together). Waiter! And the ending, it really is the beginning. David Ives' game Sure Thing is a play of the same name, the online version of which is also worth looking for on YouTube. The PDF we will read is at: 20Thing%20%28Ives%29.pdf However, like any reading in the course, find another version if the link is not us. Of course the thing is David's short comic game with a chance encounter between two characters, Betty and Bill, whose conversation is constantly reset by the ringing of the bell, starting when one of them reacts negatively to the other. The play was first released in 1988 and published in 1994. The synopsis of the play begins with Bill approaching Betty in a coffee shop and asking, Is this chair taken? The bell rings, and Bill repeats his question, to which Betty says: No, but I'm waiting for someone in a minute. The bell rings again, and Bill puts his question again. This process continues until Bill is finally allowed to take a seat. Bell acts as a buffer against all topics of conversation that are potentially negative for building their relationship, allowing them to try a different line. By the end of the play, their initial differences of opinion (i.e. literature, movie tastes, romance) were reversed to become ideal companions. Both of them finally agree to fall in love and cherish others forever. Ives takes away any words or beliefs that may be offensive, whether it's sexist statements or political affiliations. As in Bill's line: I believe that man is what he is. I'm not a hwe Man - that's who he is. (Bell) I'm not a hwe Man... that they are. As Martin Andrei (professor of theatre, Bates College) wrote: In essence, words create and christen his future as he moves forward. Thus, the language itself takes on the power to define the lives of Bill and Betty. The production of Sure Thing was first presented at the Manhattan Festival of the same name comedy Punch Line, New York, in February 1988. Directed by Jason McConnell Busas. The characters Bill and Betty were played by Robert Stanton and Nancy Opel, respectively. Sure Thing was part of Ives' original six-game collection All in the Timing, which premiered in 1993 on the opening stage and was revived on the primary stages in 2013. Ives won the John Gassner External Circle award for playwriting, 1993-1994. References a b Gussow, Mel (February 17, 1988). Scene: Single-star comedy at the Punch Line Festival. The New York Times. a b c Ives, David (1994). Of course it's a thing. All in timing: Six eponymous comedies. Playwrights Play Service, Inc. p.13. ISBN 0822213966. Martin Andrecki (November 1995). A guide to study. All in time. thepublictheatre.org archive from the original 2014-02-22. All in time-primarystages.org, access to February 6, 2014 - Brantley, Ben (February 12, 2013). Theatrical review. All in time, David Ives, at 59E59 Theaters. The New York Times. - Awards Archive, 1993-1994 Archive 2014-02-21 at Wayback Machine outercritics.org, access to February 8, 2014 Received from (play) Two people meet in cafes and find through a colloquial minefield, as the backstage bell interrupts their false starts, gaffes, and faux pas on the way to falling in love. Showing 1-30 Start your review of Sure Thing Dec 02, 2012 Christopher Rush appreciated it would have liked it would have been a great play if a few lines here and there were edited (which I do for our in class reading it every year). Is it a clever idea somewhat ahead of its time, pre-preparing Whose Line Is It Anyway? for a few years. When children find out when it was written, they are often surprised, since it has a postmodern feel/approach to it without being pessimistic - they usually think it's from the 2000s. This has resonated more with my students in recent years, since we added Sound and F It would be a great play if a few lines here and there were edited (which I do for our in-class reading of it every year).