It is 1865. The American Civil War is finally over, and Lincoln bestows freedom to the slaves.

Overnight, newfound freedom and equality sweep through the nation.

Or at least that’s how it would seem.

In the Indiana Repertory Theatre’s production of Matthew Lopez’s “The Whipping Man,” issues of race, religion and social structure collide to challenge preconceived notions of freedom and equality.

The play begins as Caleb DeLeon (Andrew Ahrens) returns home, injured from one of the final bloody battles of the Civil War.

Suffering infections and barely able to walk, he is cared for by his elderly former slave, Simon (David Anderson), who has remained at the war-torn DeLeon estate throughout the war, awaiting the family’s return.

The two are joined by John (Tyler Rollinson), a young former slave of the DeLeons’ whose head is full of abolitionist literature, faith and a desire to settle a score between himself and Caleb.

The play’s events show us that Simon and John are very different. The hardworking Simon righteously stays with Caleb and cares for the DeLeon estate and persuades John—who prefers a life of leisurely reading and looting—not to leave.

Simon and John remain bound together, however, by their past enslavement and Jewish faith.

One of the play’s first ironies is the realization that the DeLeons, whose ancestors were Jewish slaves in Egypt, had slaves of their own.

Traditional roles are shifted as the emancipated slaves are now in control and the former master is now helplessly wounded.

The stark war-stricken set design by Erhard Rom is a constant reminder of the bleak, crippled state of the South and its inhabitants following the war.

The unfolding drama provides exciting and, at times, humorous twists and turns as opinions about the morality and righteousness of each character are challenged.

These twists and turns are not predictable and cliché. They are refreshingly unexpected.

The music for “The Whipping Man” comes from an impressive original score by Gregg Coffin.

Using period instruments, the recorded sound is a gateway into the gloom and fatigue of the stage and enhances the overall mood of the show.

The show’s many strengths and some weaknesses make it impossible to truly form one solid theme or message at the show’s conclusion.

The show is a commentary on the choices we make and how we deal with the sometimes everlasting consequences.

Caleb is plagued with the guilt of whipping his slaves, and the consequences of his actions are evident in John’s constant taunting remarks toward him, as well as the gruesome scars on Simon’s back.

Similarly stated, the consequences of slavery and a civil war left a visible scar on America that is often painful for us to revisit.

Audiences may feel overwhelmed by the many ideas this play presents, and as a result the true meaning of the show can become unclear.

Still, provocative questions about the bounds of family and faith help “The Whipping Man” succeed in showing that the Civil War’s closing did not grant immediate equality to all.

Rather, the war’s end was the beginning of a bumpy road to equality that is still unfolding today among people of all races and backgrounds.

There’s something about the thought of watching a classic that makes everyone snore. It’s not that the classics are boring; they have been loved for years.

But people are always up for seeing something new, something exciting. In it’s opening production this season, the Indiana Repertory Theatre manages to give the audience the classic story of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” in a way that stays true to the tale people know while also giving us a different way to look at it.

In Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” it turns out to be a huge surprise that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are the same person.  After many film and other adaptations over the years, this is common knowledge even without ever having read Stevenson’s story. So the question going into a classic-book-turned-play is: how are they going to present this surprise if everyone already knows what’s going to happen?

Jeffery Hatcher’s adaption makes it clear from the very beginning that Jekyll and Hyde are the same person. Scene after scene is drenched with dramatic irony that gives a comedic twist to this once-horrendous thriller.

That’s not to say the play loses all the darkness of the original story. It certainly doesn’t. In face, there is something even more sinister about being able to laugh at murder, lies and madness. In the program, the director says everyone has a bit of darkness inside.

The set consists of many mirrors, which, oddly enough, the actors never really look into. Could it be a hint for the audience to look into the mirrors themselves? Does everyone really have a Hyde-like side?

This question presents a theme that runs throughout the production and gives the play strength in parts that would otherwise seem weak.

The costuming gives great mystery and even a toxic feel to actors when they play Hyde. Hats are used very cleverly to keep characters in line for the audience and to maintain the narrative flow of the play

Ryan Artzberger gave a solid performance as a much less good-natured Jekyll than previous portrayals of the doctor. The rest of the cast took turns being Hyde—sometimes all at once—but no one could match the charisma of the lead Hyde, played by Kevin Cox. Together, the Hydes played the many voices in Jekyll’s head, voices which are both friends and enemies.

While at times the many Hydes added a lot to the story and overall direction, their scenes felt flat and false at times. Specifically, the scene in which Hyde and Jekyll do a choreographed mirroring of each other mid-transformation felt overly forced for such a sporadic dual personality.

Overall, the production brings not only the great scenography and costuming that is expected of the IRT, but also a new depth that was not in its performance of “Dracula” last year. “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” is not just about murder, blood or special effects: it is about looking at all sides of a person and giving the audience a chance to define their own lines of good and evil.