無法達成的共識-戲劇評論
資料來源：http://www.thelancet.com/infection Vol 22 November 2022；財團法人台灣紅絲帶基金會編譯
圍繞疫苗提供的風險和益處以及反疫苗運動的激進化的爭論始於幾年前，但在 COVID-19 席捲全球之後，每個人都非常熟悉它們。在某些國家/地區，COVID-19 疫苗接種的執行存在很大分歧，尤其是當必須出示疫苗接種證明才能進入公共場所或讓醫護人員和教師繼續工作時。當焦點從成人疫苗轉移到兒童疫苗時，圍繞疫苗接種的辯論變得更加激烈。然後，在舞台上看到一場真正深入探討疫苗接種辯論的戲劇既不尋常又有趣，並擴大了討論在什麼時候共同利益優先於個人選擇。
戲劇中的問題是 2022 年 9 月 6 日在倫敦老維克劇院開幕的《尤里卡日》。該劇由美國作家喬納森·斯佩克特 (Jonathan Spector) 於 2018 年創作，遠在 COVID-19 大流行之前，但它的主題感覺如此地及時和熟悉，以至於在過去的兩年裡多次和朋友在一起關於疫苗的類似令人惱火的討論之後，它讓我產生了一種似曾相識的感覺。
《尤里卡日》以加州一所進步的私立學校（尤里卡日學校）為背景，一群組成學校董事會的家長聚集在一個教室裡，毫不誇張地討論如何在學校中確保所有孩子的賦權和包容性。（使用中性用詞，在文件中擴大種族之選項被考慮到，採購當地材料之昂貴的男女皆宜性別友善廁所正在構建）。他們透過攜帶來由心理障礙但著名的物理學家所製作的有機甜甜圈和僅根據共識才做出的決定來促進其討論的可持續性。但是，在他們真正努力表現出理解和尊重他人意見的過程中，這些人最終扼殺了他們想要聽到的聲音。其中唐（加拿大演員馬克·麥金尼飾）他是學校的負責人，他喜歡用魯米語錄結束談話，並試圖用搞笑的效果來緩和每次對抗的語氣。蘇珊娜（影劇學院金像獎得主海倫. 杭特飾），她在學校工作了二十多年，用舒緩的話語掩蓋了她的控制態度。 伊萊（班・史奈澤飾）是一位富有的全職在家之父親，他與單身媽媽梅伊（克絲汀·福斯特飾）有染，她瘋狂的編織揭示了她內心的動盪。黑人新人卡琳娜（蘇珊·克勒奇·沃森飾）最初試圖小心翼翼地踏入善意和外交的雷區。但當流行性腮腺炎疫情襲擊學校，縣衛生部門決定未接種疫苗的兒童必須留在家中時，學校董事會和更廣泛社區的和諧開始出現裂痕。
該劇包含近年來戲劇中最搞笑的場景之一：當以唐為首的學校委員會選擇向學校孩子的父母解釋他們控制腮腺炎爆發的計畫時，並組織了一個在 Zoom上虛擬會議以求達成協議並聽取所有聲音時，情況迅速惡化。當舞台上的演員們試圖冷靜而恭敬地調解不同的意見時，家長們在 Zoom 上聊天時的評論，投射在教室的後牆上，情況迅速失控，從對流行性腮腺炎自然療法的隨機式建議轉變為圍繞疫苗和製藥公司公開的侮辱和陰謀論。以至於現場觀眾的笑聲完全淹沒了舞台上演員的聲音。唐的最後一句話「我覺得這種形式並沒有把我們最好的自己帶入談話中」，這讓房子垮了。
在第二幕發生的事情是在伊萊的兒子因嚴重的腮腺炎而住院之後，蘇珊娜和卡琳娜之間的意識之爭，有關什麼是學校和社區的共同利益的正確決定。劇作家斯佩克特對雙方論點的表述非常公平：蘇珊娜在經歷了悲慘的個人經歷後不信任疫苗和製藥公司，這使她得出了不合理的結論；而卡琳娜則相信科學，並希望強制接種疫苗才得以進入學校，以保證兒童的安全環境。但潛在的討論遠遠超出了疫苗的範疇，還涉及數字錯誤信息，謠言和假新聞被不分青紅皂白地視為真相並演變成政治認同。
《尤里卡日》在描繪人物的複雜性方面可能有點輕描淡寫（Eli 和 May 被輕描淡寫），乍看之下可能會覺得這些人並不真實。但由於演員的能力和斯佩克特提出多種可信觀點的能力，該劇非常引人入勝且真實地表現了中產階級自由主義話語中善意的局限性。而且，尤其是在第二幕部分，喜劇離開了這個場所，之前不惜一切代價變得友善之需要而被扼殺的不同觀點進行了更深入的對抗，《尤里卡日》當觀眾他們離開劇院時向其提出了一個重要的問題：如何在不讓某些人不悅的情況下做出有利於大多數人的決定？是否有可能達成真正的共識，或者總是有更強大的因素會影響一個群體的最終決定？
馬可·德·安布羅格評論
The unreachable consensus
The debate around risks and benefits provided by vaccines and the radicalisation of antivaccine movements started several years ago but they have become very familiar to everyone after COVID-19 swept the world. In some countries, enforcement of COVID-19 vaccination has been very divisive, especially when proof of vaccination became mandatory to access to public places or keep healthcare workers and teachers in their job. The debate around vaccination became further heated when the focus moved from vaccines for adults to children. It is then both unusual and intriguing to see a play on stage that actually delves into the debate around vaccination, broadening it up at discussing at what point the common good takes precedence on individual choices.
The play in question is Eureka Day that opened on September 6, 2022, at the Old Vic, in London. The play was written by American writer Jonathan Spector in 2018, well before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it feels so timely and familiar in its themes that it generated a slight sense of deja-vu in me, after many similar exasperating discussions about vaccines with friends in the past two years.
Eureka Day is set in a progressive private school in California (the Eureka Day School) where a group of parents forming the school board gather in a classroom to discuss, rather over-the-top, how to guarantee empowerment and inclusivity for all children at the school (neutral pronouns are used, an expansion of the options for ethnicity in documents is being contemplated, expensive unisex toilets sourcing local materials are being built). They promote sustainability by bringing organic doughnuts made by a mentally disabled but famous physicist and make decisions only by consensus. But in their genuine effort to appear understanding and respectful of others’ opinions, these people end up suffocating the very voices they state they want to get heard. There is Don (Canadian actor Mark McKinney), who heads the school, likes ending his talks with Rumi quotes, and tries to soften the tones of each confrontation with hilarious effects. There is Suzanne (Academy Award winner Helen Hunt), who has been involved with the school for over twenty years and masks her controlling attitude behind soothing words. There is Eli (Ben Schnetzer), a rich stay-at-home father in an open marriage who has an affair with single mum May (Kirsten Foster), whose frantic knitting reveals her internal turmoil. Black newcomer Carina (Susan Kelechi Watson) initially tries to tread carefully into that minefield of good intentions and diplomacy. But when a mumps epidemic hits the school and the county health department decides that unvaccinated children must stay at home, cracks start appearing in the harmony of the school board and in the broader community.
The play contains one of the most hilarious scenes seen in theatre in recent years: when the school committee, headed by Don, opts to explain to the parents of the children in the school what are their plans to contain the mumps outbreak and organises a virtual meeting on Zoom to reach an agreement and listen to all voices, the situation degenerates rapidly. While the actors on stage try to mediate the different opinions calmly and respectfully, the comments from the parents on the chat on Zoom, projected on the backwall of the classroom, quickly spiral out of control, moving from random suggestions on natural remedies for mumps to open insults and conspiracy theories around vaccines and pharma companies. So much that the laughter of the audience at this scene drowns out completely the voices of the actors on stage. Don’s final line “I am feeling like this format is not bringing our best selves to the conversation” brings the house down.
What ensues in the second act is a battle of wills between Suzanne and Carina about what is the right decision for the common good in the school and the community, after Eli’s son ends in hospital with a severe case of mumps. Spector is very fair in his representation of the arguments of both parties: Suzanne distrusts vaccines and pharma companies after a tragic personal experience that made her reach irrational conclusions; whereas Carina believes in science and wants mandatory vaccination to be put in place to access the school to guarantee a safe environment for children. But the underlying discussion goes well beyond vaccines and touches upon digital misinformation, and rumour and fake news getting indiscriminately taken as truth and morphing into identity politics.
Eureka Day may be a bit light in depicting the complexity of the characters (Eli and May are lightly sketched) and at first one may feel that these people are not real. But thanks to the capacity of the actors and Spector’s ability to present multiple credible point of views, the play is an extremely engaging and truthful representation of the limits of goodwill in the liberal discourse among the middle classes. And, especially in the second part in which comedy leaves the place to a more in depth confrontation of different points of view, previously stifled by the need to be nice at all costs, Eureka Day raises important questions that remain with the audience once they have left the theatre: how is it possible to make decisions for the good of the majority without displeasing some people? And is it possible to reach a real consensus or are there always stronger elements who will influence the final decisions of a group?
Marco De Ambrog