There is no doubt that Ives gives us inventive scenarios that smartly use language and test our knowledge before we chuckle. But what does it all mean, anyway? What do we gain from the techniques he uses in the one-act plays of All in the Timing? Are they meaningful works, or simply highfalutin vignettes? To answer these questions, let’s consider three of his plays: “Words, Words, Words,” “Variations on the Death of Trotsky,” and “The Philadelphia.By examining these works, it will be clear that the devices Ives uses do little more than facilitate the telling of humorous sketches, and that they don’t generate any substance or lasting meaning. “Words, Words, Words” is an organized riot. It rebels against reason and is highly contrived.
The appeal is its situation: three articulate monkeys who have an ironic wit. Their dialogue is entertaining and makes a good extended joke – if you’re well-read and especially if well-versed in Hamlet.But for all of Ives’ inventiveness with scenario, he doesn’t take us very far beyond a chuckle. The monkeys hardly offer much insight into art, or how it’s created, which seems to be Ives’ intent.
And it’s surprising too, since the monkeys seem to be educated, even though their education is somewhat random. The monkey Swift, for example, fears that they’ll have to write Joyce’s Ulysses, but still has no idea what Hamlet is. The other monkeys don’t either.Swift is also able to speak lines from Hamlet, but not type them, as when he questions, “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely—” (Ives 28). Of course this is meant to be ironic and humorous, considering the monkeys’ situation. This is the first of many clever Hamlet references.
As the play progresses, Swift begins to parody Hamlet. This may be when Ives is at his best and worst. For he’s able to mirror themes from Hamlet, which gives his play some substance; but he also overdoes it with all the Hamlet references.It seems he’s trying to see how many references, and thus, jokes he can make that pertain to Hamlet.
Of course these references are witty, but there are so many of them, that they eventually erode the originality of his work. The play is ultimately an anecdote – a joke for well-read people. Sure you could argue that elements of humanity come to light when Swift “evolves” and comes up with the idea of taking revenge on Dr. Rosenbaum, but all this is diminished in significance by the relentless parody of Hamlet.
In “Variations on the Death of Trotsky,” Ives playfully manipulates time, and uses the breaks in time as a dynamic in his play. This is interesting, and again, this manipulation of time produces multiple doses of anecdotal humor. There is one time when the play goes beyond simple anecdote and gives a profound moment. This is when Trotsky is coming to terms with his death.
He ponders: So even an assassin can make the flowers grow. The gardener was false, and yet the garden that he tended was real.How was I to know he was my killer when I passed him every day? 65) But this does not redeem the whole, or make this play a meaningful work. Though there’s lots of witty dialogue and the punch line (Trotsky dropping dead) is always good for a laugh, it ultimately feels like an exercise for a playwright, as if Ives is experimenting with several narrative paths. True, we get different paths to the same outcome, but it’s always the same end: Trotsky dead.
There is meant to be something in this variation, but it doesn’t seem to be more than novelty. Thus, when you return to a work like this, the joke wears thin.Another very clever play, “The Philadelphia,” attempts to explain the pitfalls and denials of life as the result of metaphysically falling into another city and another state of mind. It opens with Al, who is happily in a Los Angeles; and then in comes Mark, stuck in a state of punishment: a Philadelphia, where “no matter what you ask for, you can’t get it” (72). This is an intriguing explanation for life’s problems, and one that provides a handful of laughs.
It also offers us some interesting thoughts on language, and how effective it is in the world.For we’ve all had days when it seems the words we utter are powerless. But in the end, the play seems more like a comedy sketch or skit that fails to give any insight into life – other than the chance to laugh. Not that laughing isn’t of value, but it doesn’t prove that Ives’ approach has brought any great meaning into the play. How many times can this play be watched or read before its novelty wears off? In conclusion, it’s certain Ives’ work is intriguing and full of wit. What is in question is if the techniques he uses achieve a greater, lasting meaning in his plays.
What’s clear is that these techniques are inventive and clever, but that they don’t generate any truly meaningful plays that people can return to again and again and get something more, something new each time. It’s interesting that “Words, Words, Words” parodies Hamlet, which is a play that is unquestionably meaningful. Hamlet is a play that is dramatically rich, has characters with great depth, and offers many enlightening themes. That Ives’ above-mentioned plays can only be appreciated a few times because of their short-lived novelty, testifies that Ives is better at being clever than at creating meaningful plays.
