Jeckyl and Hyde Thoughts

Inspired by the recent movie-viewing, I reread _The Strange Case of Doctor Jeckyl and Mister Hyde_. Some observations follow.

None of the film adaptations have really portrayed the moral weakness of the character as written. Film Jeckyls are all basically working from good intentions, with the creation of Hyde being an unfortunate accident. In the book, Jeckyl deliberately sets out to unleash Hyde.

If each, I told myself, could but be housed in separate identities, life would be relieved of all that was unbearable; the unjust might go his way, delivered from the aspirations and remorse of his more upright twin; and the just could walk steadfastly and securely on his upward path, doing the good things in which he found his pleasure, and no longer exposed to disgrace and penitence by the hands of this extraneous evil.

(emphasis added)

Ok, granted, he also wanted (or claimed to want) to create an angelic self -- but in this, he failed utterly, as he himself realizes.

...although I had now two characters as well as two appearances, one was wholly evil, and the other was still the old Henry Jekyll, that incongruous compound of whose reformation and improvement I had already learned to despair. The movement was thus wholly toward the worse.

There is no mention of any further attempt to create an angel-self. Instead, Jeckyl indulges his Hyde-self to an ever-increasing degree. Unlike most movie versions, he does this while in full control of his faculties, and with each side having clear memories of the other's actions. Though he is thus fully culpable for Hyde, hear how he struggles, ineffectually, to distance himself from his own evil:

When I would come back from these excursions, I was often plunged into a kind of wonder at my vicarious depravity. This familiar that I called out of my own soul, and sent forth to do his good pleasure, was a being inherently malign and villainous; his every act and thought centered on self; drinking pleasure with bestial avidity from one degree of torture to another; relentless like a man of stone. Henry Jekyll stood at times aghast before the acts of Edward Hyde; but the situation was apart from ordinary laws, and insidiously relaxed the grasp of conscience. It was Hyde, after all, and Hyde alone, that was guilty. Jekyll was no worse; he woke again to his good qualities seemingly unimpaired; he would even make haste, where it was possible, to undo the evil done by Hyde. And thus his conscience slumbered.

I note that Jeckyl and Hyde are *very* physically distinct in the book, much moreso than could be portrayed by a single actor, no matter how much makeup he wears. (And there are definite thematic drawbacks to using two actors.) But we now have not just makeup, but CGI and motion-capture. It might be interesting if someone applied techniques such as those used in the last several Robert Zemeckis films to an adaptation of this story. One actor could provide voice and movement for both J&H, while being 'projected' into two radically different bodies.

This line of thought is also inspired by the reactions everyone in the novel have to Hyde. Those reactions bear a strong resemblance to those caused by The Uncanny Valley. Of course, one would want the technical art to have progressed to the point that *only* Hyde was situated in that valley!

"Sleep No More"

Whoa.

I don't know where to begin. I don't know *how* to begin. That was... whoa.

None of the descriptions I have seen have done this show justice. Which is probably a combination of inevitabilty and spoiler avoidance. This show is far better experienced than described. And it is eminently worth experiencing. With some caveats.

Firstly, don't go if you demand your entertainment be linear, or susceptible to easy interpretation. Don't expect Shakespeare's "Macbeth"; this tale has roots there, but is far more weird, allusive, and symbolic. In fact, I would hesitate to even call this Theater, though it is most certainly Art.

Don't go if you're disabled. The show is a feast for all the senses except taste (maybe even that, if you buy a drink at the bar. To be blind or deaf would be to miss a huge amount of the show. Mobility impairments would also be a problem. The show runs three hours, and you will spend the vast majority of that time standing, walking, climbing stairs, and occasionally running. (There is an elevator, but this show is really not about accessibility, in any sense.)

If these vague warnings intrigue, rather than scare you away, then by all means, go. It's running through January 3, six nights a week, so there are plenty of opportunities. (No matinees; this is a night-time show.) Tickets are pretty affordable, at $25.

I think I'll stop here. I recommend not researching further; much of the value here is the joy of discovery. I will probably go again, as I know I didn't discover nearly everything my first time through.

ETA (from comments): I would guess that the space was about 70 degrees; slightly chillier than my 'at rest' comfort zone, but perfectly ok given the amount of activity I was doing. Just after handing my coat to the coat check ($1), I was chilly for a bit, as people were still coming in and bringing outside air with them, but that was no more than a few minutes.

Dress... to be comfortable, with the knowledge that you'll be on your feet for most of three hours, and moving around a lot. Some of the audience were wearing fancy-night-out clothes, but most weren't. I wouldn't wear anything with frills that might get caught on random objects.

ETA: If you go with other people, I recommend not attempting to stay with them during the show. It'll slow you down, and you're not supposed to talk, anyways. Splitting up also gives better coverage of an experience too big for one person to see all of in one show! You can share stories after :)