Yin and Yang, Spirals and Jekyll.

As the last few rehearsals were similar, I opted for an update on the week, as opposed to nightly as to our progress.

I'll report that I am nearly offbook. I could, with some help, pick may way through every scene but two at this point. Most of Act One is smooth. Its a lot of lines this time. I would prefer to have been off book already, though I am not the only one in the cast who is not. But seeing as how we missed about two weeks potential rehearsal time at the start of the process, and seeing as how I memorize faster when I rehearse, I'd say I'm making progress. If I were this close two weeks ago, (thus making up for the missing two weeks) I'd be fairly happy with myself. Still some work to go, but the end is in sight for lines, I'd say.

Beyond that, I continue to be pleased, and somewhat surprised at how much rich material underneath the text is available for this adaptation. I came to believe that there is in fact an element of Shakespearean or Greek tragedy to the story. What is Hyde, after all, but Jekyll's tragic flaw(s) quite literally personified? At least to a large degree.

In this version, things are less black and white than in many of this tale. Good is at times visible in Hyde, and bad in Jekyll. Yet given that Hyde and Jekyll are essentially as one, you get to the point where you can say that any good you see in Hyde is thanks to Jekyll. And of course any bad you see in Jekyll is thanks to Hyde, which is thanks to Jekyll thanks to Hyde thanks to Jekyll and so on. An infinite spiral emerges, when the plot is viewed in this fashion, the lines of which by the end of this adaptation are more than a bit blurry. Hence the fascination. (If we are doing or jobs well on stage, that is.)

Yin and Yang is another apt visual representation of this script's psychological presentation.

We're forced to ask not only where Jekyll ends and Hyde begins, but whether or not the question itself is a legitimate one. Can we truly determine that there is any line between them? Should we assume that ever there was a thick line between the two? Or are we forced to accept that Hyde both this specific one, and the general concept "Hyde" is kept at bay by less than we'd like to believe? If we conclude this about a character, are we not challenged to conclude it about ourselves?

Consider also the story infers that redemption is possible even for those who we've dismissed as hopeless. And if that is true for Hyde, are we not challenged to consider it is true for real people whom we have dismissed?

I imagine that latter might be more difficult to accept than the former for most people...

Of course, in this adaptation I do not play Edward Hyde, only Henry Jekyll. Four other actors preform Hyde at various times. This conceit has, I believe, allowed me to consider all of the above, and more-considerations I don't think I'd have the time or scope for if I were playing both Jekyll and Hyde. (As actors in this story often do, in other adaptations.) Being Jekyll only is not merely a convenience for costuming. (If you saw how many lines I have you'd know there is plenty of work for me to do despite playing just the one character.) It has also permitting more in-depth considerations and nuance for the character than I might otherwise have had time to explore if I were playing both beings in the time we have in this production. Hence, these thoughts I share with you now.

I've also come to give some speeches near the end in a far more desperate, intense manner. These were always high drama moments, and of course, being off book for them this week made them easier than having my book did. Yet there were certain aspects of the drama leading into it that I just hadn't danced with until this week. They came naturally, though, once the scenes were underway. They could be played other ways, as almost every scene in any play could be. Yet running the whole show every night last week gave me a better notion of what feels best to me. This is different than I had been playing it earlier on, and I am glad the realization for this new option emerged this week.

As for the more literal, physical nature of rehearsals this week, there is improvement over the week before, because we have had more floor space. The set for a previous show, now closed, has been removed, thus allowing us to move about mostly as we will be in the performance. Scene changes are still quite rough, because this show needs a crew of I would say at least five. It has two, with hopefully a third joining at some point. Kudos to who we have working for us at this time for all the frenzied efforts they are putting into a show with huge amounts of scene changes. Even with minimal sets, that's quite a bit to do.

Lights are a huge part of this play, and sadly they were not functioning during what would have been our lighting rehearsal yesterday. Other tech issues were better understood, but it's frustrating to have had no lights. This means we will probably be experiencing them for the first time far later in the the process than is ideal.

Props are still being collected, and I have more to carry with me than anyone else in the show, because I almost never leave the stage. I will feel better when those appear, so I can get used to that.

Costumes are nearly done, though we've not yet worn them to rehearse in.

I'd rather have another week, I won't lie. Yet if we keep at it, and everyone gets off book this week, we'll be fine, I feel.