司馬勤

我仍在思考幾周前的一個(gè)念頭：每當(dāng)一個(gè)故事在不同的媒介中獲得新生時(shí)，我們都應(yīng)該去關(guān)注新版本究竟如何使原著變得更為豐富。越是偉大的小說，改編工作越是艱巨，因?yàn)樵旧硪呀?jīng)構(gòu)建出一個(gè)完整的世界。比較穩(wěn)妥的方案是選擇相對來說不算偉大或經(jīng)典的作品——最好是那些角色刻畫深刻、極具戲劇張力的——為音樂與視覺效果留有足夠空間以豐富故事情節(jié)。以此類推，梅里美（Mérimée）筆下的卡門在任何情況下，要比福樓拜的包法利夫人更勝一籌。

了解改編作品，我們需要熟知“源材料”（sourcematerial）嗎？今天大家提起費(fèi)加羅的時(shí)候，大多聯(lián)想到的是莫扎特和羅西尼歌劇中的那位經(jīng)典主角，盡管我們可以肯定當(dāng)年的觀眾都應(yīng)該認(rèn)識劇作家博馬舍（Beaumarchais）。讓我在這里記錄在案，歌劇的藝術(shù)范疇里很少會出現(xiàn)“劇透”之類的東西。自從奧菲歐首次潛入冥界試圖營救優(yōu)麗狄茜，我們都能推測出往后的情節(jié)發(fā)展。如何把故事敘述出來才是重點(diǎn)。

那么，當(dāng)舞臺上描述的故事是真有其事、真有其人，或者至少是接近真實(shí)歷史的，又會發(fā)生什么呢？當(dāng)觀眾們還記得當(dāng)年新聞里頭版頭條的“源材料”，那么主創(chuàng)們應(yīng)該對這些材料負(fù)有多少責(zé)任？為了藝術(shù)，對真實(shí)材料的加工和改造的自由度能有多大？最近在圣路易斯，我有機(jī)會從現(xiàn)實(shí)案例中探討這些疑問。

事實(shí)上，我并不是刻意去關(guān)注這個(gè)問題的。圣路易斯歌劇院本年度正忙于重回正常運(yùn)營軌道。自2019 年至去年，歌劇院無法在自家常駐地羅勒托-希爾頓中心（Loretto-Hilton Center） 的舞臺上演出。但盡管如此，劇院終于在今年6 月拉開帷幕的2022 年歌劇節(jié)中，獻(xiàn)上了一部世界首演作品（原定于2020 年上演）與一部當(dāng)代歌劇重演（原定于2021 年上演）。這兩部歌劇均基于真人真事。

我應(yīng)該補(bǔ)充一下，對于圣路易斯歌劇院來說，這類題材并不算特別，近幾年的舞臺上都有過先例：2018 年，黃若與黃哲倫合作的《一個(gè)美國士兵》（An American Soldier ），描述了華裔美國士兵陳宇暉經(jīng)歷種族主義欺凌后自殺的慘劇;2019 年，特倫斯· 布蘭查德（Terence Blanchard）與卡西· 萊蒙斯（Kasi Lemmons）創(chuàng)作了《骨子里的烈火》（FireShut Up in My Bones ，后來被紐約大都會歌劇院選中為2021–2022 演出季的開幕劇目）?！读一稹犯木幾浴都~約時(shí)報(bào)》專欄作家查爾斯· 布洛（CharlesBlow）的同名暢銷回憶錄，而《士兵》則取材自報(bào)刊頭條，再加上一些一手資料。

今年圣路易斯歌劇院“源于真實(shí)”的兩部歌劇的演出，安排得十分靠近。本來應(yīng)該在2020 年首演的是托拜厄斯· 皮克（Tobias Picker）的《覺醒》（Awakenings ）。歌劇改編自1972 年出版的同名書籍，正是已故奧利弗· 薩克斯醫(yī)生（Dr. OliverSacks）身為作家的成名作。雖然說引用病例個(gè)案作為歌劇“源材料”有些不可思議，但是薩克斯筆下描述的為患上乙型腦炎（encephalitis lethargica ，又稱“ 睡眠病癥”） 的病人嘗試使用左旋多巴（L-DOPA）進(jìn)行治療的經(jīng)歷，在舞臺上多次出現(xiàn)，并于1990 年翻拍成好萊塢電影，到了2010 年又改編成芭蕾舞?。ㄗ髑艺瞧た耍＿@部歌劇的編劇是阿里赫· 列夫· 斯托曼（Aryeh Lev Stollman，他是神經(jīng)科醫(yī)生，也是皮克的生活伴侶），與作曲家一道，讓故事中的各人有機(jī)會把心底話訴說出來，與薩克斯醫(yī)生的原著有著異曲同工之妙。

從這部歌劇制作整體來看，演出順暢流利。導(dǎo)演詹姆斯· 羅賓遜（James Robinson） 的視覺觀感與音樂動力相輔相成，盡管阿倫· 莫耶（AllenMoyer）簡約與模塊化的布景變換頻繁，比劇中人的動作還要多得多。皮克與斯托曼明智地把薩克斯原著中的不同個(gè)案濃縮從簡，舞臺上的主要病人只有三位：羅斯（Rose）雖然醒來，卻只活在過去的甜蜜回憶中;米利亞姆（Miriam H.）與女兒跟孫女重逢，她們本來被告知她早已逝世;里昂納德· 列夫（Leonard Lev，也是思考力最強(qiáng)的病人）雖然已是成年人，突然間要面對遲來的青春期沖動，并需要與他年邁的母親重新界定彼此的關(guān)系。

但是， 若我們要衡量這部樂劇（musicaldrama），《覺醒》令人困惑?！白髌分袥]有‘故事成分，”中場休息時(shí)，這個(gè)評語在我耳邊多次浮現(xiàn)（后來的報(bào)刊劇評中也出現(xiàn)了同樣的評價(jià)）?？墒?，這種批評不完全正確，你只需要看看哈羅德· 品特（Harold Pinter）的話劇或潘妮· 馬歇爾（PennyMarshall）導(dǎo)演的電影就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，《覺醒》內(nèi)藏精彩的故事。問題是，倘若帕斯卡（Pascal）活在現(xiàn)代世界，他可能會質(zhì)問，選擇“哪一個(gè)”故事來表現(xiàn)？皮克患有妥瑞癥候群（Touretts syndrome），曾是薩克斯醫(yī)生的病人，斯托曼也是薩克斯的朋友與專業(yè)同行。有時(shí)候，我搞不清楚主創(chuàng)兩人的關(guān)注點(diǎn)是聚焦于病人還是醫(yī)生本身。

誠然，身為醫(yī)生與作家，薩克斯成功地掌控了這種平衡：既將病人的個(gè)性與特征描述得非常全面（這一點(diǎn)顯然在1970 年的醫(yī)學(xué)行業(yè)相當(dāng)罕見），又將他在治療過程從中領(lǐng)會到的、對于自己個(gè)人與專業(yè)進(jìn)展的細(xì)節(jié)進(jìn)行了分享。在歌劇中飾演薩克斯醫(yī)生的男中音賈勒特· 波特（Jarrett Porter）捕捉到了這位醫(yī)師筆下令人佩服的洞察力與同情心。

跟他的大部分作品一樣，皮克的音樂大致上具有調(diào)性，亦易于演唱，但是《覺醒》仍然遇上一些問題?！凹偃缥乙獙懜鑴?，”中場休息燈亮起不久，坐在我后排的男士跟他的同伴抱怨道，“不要讓我為一堆醫(yī)學(xué)術(shù)語或拉丁名詞譜上音樂?！痹诘谝荒恢?，合唱團(tuán)要唱出以下的歌詞：Anticholinergics！ Belladonna！Apomorphine！ Amphetamines！ Antimuscarinics！Trihexyphenidyl！（ 抗膽堿藥！顛茄制劑！阿樸嗎啡！抗蕈毒堿類藥物！苯海索！）多么繞口?。〉拇_如此。

斯托曼的歌詞處理證明了他精通醫(yī)學(xué)術(shù)語，但他忽略了薩克斯自身的故事是隨著時(shí)間的推移而改變的。當(dāng)年，醫(yī)生認(rèn)為整個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)失敗之極。而過了十年之后，無論醫(yī)生還是病人，回顧那段光景，他們的結(jié)論是成敗參半。在1982 年修訂版的《覺醒》一書的尾聲中，薩克斯詳述了當(dāng)年的一個(gè)場景，在紀(jì)錄片以及馬歇爾版的電影中都出現(xiàn)過：“我一直都感到欣慰，一動都不動的睡眠癥病人可以精準(zhǔn)無誤地拋球接球，而每個(gè)人的動作都有屬于自己的獨(dú)特風(fēng)格。”那為什么皮克筆下的每位病人在歌唱時(shí)，我們聽到的音樂風(fēng)格基本上沒有區(qū)別？

眾所周知，這些年來，要是改編者試圖挖出更深層的真理，去刻意調(diào)整某些事實(shí)，薩克斯醫(yī)生都寬容地接納了那些改動。但是，我懷疑若他今天仍在世的話，他會怎樣看待歌劇中強(qiáng)調(diào)的三角戀。病人里昂納德暗戀男護(hù)士，但男護(hù)士卻喜歡薩克斯醫(yī)生;醫(yī)生盡管喜歡男護(hù)士，卻沒有勇氣面對這種情況。到了歌劇接近尾聲，有一小段倒敘了醫(yī)生的母親因?yàn)閮鹤邮峭詰俣訔壛怂?。前者顯得不必要并與事實(shí)背道而馳（里昂納德當(dāng)年令很多女護(hù)士束手無措;還有，在1970 年代，男護(hù)士十分稀有），后者又無緣無故地插進(jìn)這部歌劇中，卻幾乎沒有敘事或者因果的作用。薩克斯是一位害羞內(nèi)斂的人，到他2015 年去世前一個(gè)月出版的著作中，他才透露了他的性取向。從這一點(diǎn)來看，歌劇的這兩處加工，疑似濫用了薩克斯對作品改編的信任。

出現(xiàn)在這個(gè)夏季舞臺的復(fù)排劇目，當(dāng)代歌劇《哈維· 米爾克》（Harvey Milk ）則情況完全不同。歌劇于1995 年在休斯敦舉行世界首演，作曲家斯圖爾特· 華萊士（Stewart Wallace，中文名惠士釗）與編劇邁克爾· 科里（Michael Korie）把20 世紀(jì)70 年代末一位著名的同性戀市議員與他被刺殺的過程呈現(xiàn)在舞臺上，表面桀驁不馴，實(shí)則雜亂無章。作品首演大約18 個(gè)月后，再次在舊金山歌劇院亮相（舊金山歌劇院是作品的聯(lián)合委約方之一），盡管主創(chuàng)二人做了大量修改，但是其中華麗的政治場面經(jīng)常掩蓋了作品的戲劇性。

在圣路易斯歌劇院搬演的新版本（上演計(jì)劃從2021 年延遲至2022 年）則更為精簡。本來時(shí)長3 小時(shí)的曲折三幕劇“瘦身”至2 小時(shí)時(shí)長的兩幕戲，眾多次要角色都被刪減了。米爾克與他的敵人丹尼· 懷特（Dan White）不再是不同政治平臺上的象征，而是有血有肉的人物。雖然男中音托馬斯· 格拉斯（Thomas Glass）與男高音凱撒· 安德里斯· 帕瑞諾（César Andrés Parre?o）的長相與真實(shí)人物有很大差異（舞臺上投映了當(dāng)年的歷史照片，因此大家都看得清清楚楚），演技與感情的抒發(fā)卻令人信服。

那么故事的其他部分又如何呢？有一點(diǎn)我覺得特別有趣。此前我剛剛離開舊金山，美國航空與捷藍(lán)航空（JetBlue）所用的專屬航站樓取名為“哈維·米爾克1 號航站樓”;再往前一天，我約了朋友吃午飯，餐廳與舊金山公立圖書館哈維· 米爾克分館只有一街之隔。米爾克先生雖然英年早逝，但他在舊金山的痕跡無處不在。

我在飛機(jī)上閱讀了《卡斯特羅街的市長》（TheMayor of Castro Street），蘭迪· 席爾茲（Randy Shilts）詳細(xì)研究米爾克事件后發(fā)表的報(bào)道文學(xué)。他描述了米爾克的一生，包括當(dāng)年快速晉升之路，直至他遇刺的經(jīng)過。跟《覺醒》一樣，這個(gè)故事被拍成了紀(jì)錄片以及好萊塢故事片。這些影片與《覺醒》也有雷同：細(xì)節(jié)經(jīng)常背離原作，被壓縮或者刪減。

這兩部歌劇也具有相似的敘事特征，最顯著的是采用了電影化倒敘的手法，讓觀眾了解主角少年成長的點(diǎn)滴。（米爾克跟他的母親同樣有著復(fù)雜的關(guān)系，他的母親告誡他要“留心那些與眾不同的男人”。）視覺上，這兩部歌劇像是兄弟篇，因?yàn)閷?dǎo)演羅賓遜聘用了同一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)團(tuán)隊(duì)，他們的舞臺手法也相當(dāng)雷同：莫耶建造了模塊化布景，埃莫塔斯（Emetaz）則是在后幕投影報(bào)章頭條。

但是打從音樂響起的第一拍開始，《哈維·米爾克》給觀眾呈現(xiàn)的是截然不同的音樂體驗(yàn)。與黃哲倫根據(jù)陳宇暉一生撰寫的《一個(gè)美國士兵》的手法一樣，克里挖掘了很多一手資料，想辦法讓報(bào)章上已刊登的細(xì)節(jié)連貫起來，故事因而更加豐富——那些細(xì)節(jié)一直以來都存在著。幸好，從前那顆碩大的、未經(jīng)雕磨的原石，現(xiàn)在被打磨成一顆精細(xì)的、輪廓分明的寶石，唱詞以及音樂的旋律線條因而更具沖擊力。

克里才華橫溢，他的筆下精準(zhǔn)地捕捉到周邊環(huán)境、人物個(gè)性與思想，令觀眾感到強(qiáng)烈共鳴。華萊士的音樂恰到好處，唱詞中描述的世界也通過不同風(fēng)格的樂段呈現(xiàn)出來——突顯米爾克身份的猶太教頌歌，以及當(dāng)年的流行音樂與氛圍——并且點(diǎn)到即止，從不拖泥帶水。米爾克是個(gè)超級歌劇迷，所以樂隊(duì)也奏響了一句半句瓦格納與普契尼（米爾克遇刺前一晚正是在舊金山歌劇院觀看《托斯卡》）。作品的戲劇即時(shí)性有賴于眾多演員的努力，但是音樂成功的最關(guān)鍵人物是指揮關(guān)琦安（Carolyn Kuan）。她靈巧地帶領(lǐng)圣路易斯交響樂團(tuán)演繹華萊士“瘦身”后的配器，每一個(gè)重要情節(jié)除了精確以外，還有機(jī)會優(yōu)雅地延伸至下一個(gè)段落，無可挑剔。

且不說早些年這部作品的那些瑕疵，《哈維· 米爾克》于1995 年首演時(shí)是為了慶祝一個(gè)重要里程碑。尤其在舊金山，這部歌劇彰顯的是那個(gè)年代，同性戀、黑人與亞裔一起合作，為爭取民權(quán)的奮斗經(jīng)歷。《哈維· 米爾克》在圣路易斯的最后一場演出正好碰上了市內(nèi)舉辦的2022 年同性戀自豪慶?；顒樱≒ride celebrations），讓我們再次反思了美國國家的現(xiàn)狀。我猜，創(chuàng)作團(tuán)隊(duì)一定沒有想到，多年后的今天，這些主題仍然恰逢其時(shí)。

這部歌劇中的不少主題到了今天還會出現(xiàn)在美國新聞的每日頭條中——警察暴力、壓制少數(shù)族群的暴力、獨(dú)行槍手濫殺無辜甚至大屠殺——我發(fā)覺自己就像《覺醒》里面那些“睡公主”與華盛頓·歐文筆下的“瑞普· 凡· 溫克爾”（Rip Van Winkles），在沉睡半個(gè)世紀(jì)后醒來，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)周邊的一切沒有什么改變。

Im still pondering a thought from a few weeksago： Each time a story takes on new life in a differentmedium， we should ask what the new version adds.Great novels are the hardest to adapt because theycreate a world complete in itself. Better to stick withlesser works—preferably those with memorablecharacters in highly dramatic situations—where thestory leaves plenty of room for music and visuals. Bythat count， Mérimées Carmen trumps Flauberts EmmaBovary any day.

How well do we need to know that source material？When people think of Figaro today its Mozart andRossini who come to mind， though we can be fairlycertain audiences in their day knew Beaumarchais. Andfor the record， theres rarely such a thing as “spoilers”in opera. Ever since Orfeo first entered the Underworldto rescue Eurydice， we pretty much know how the storyturns out. The point is in the telling.

What happens， though， when the stories on stageare true， or at least true-ish？ How much responsibilitydo the creators owe the source material， or theoriginal facts， when audiences can still remember theheadlines？ How far can you bend truth in service to art？I was fortunate enough to encounter a living workshopon these points recently in St. Louis.

Not that it was intentional. The Opera Theatre ofSt. Louis was too busy just getting itself back in gear，having been away from its home at the Loretto-HiltonCenter since 2019. But nonetheless， the companys 2022festival season in June included one world premiereand a significant contemporary revival， both based ontrue stories.

I should add that this is not particularly unusual forOTSL. Two other examples that come to mind are HuangRuo and David Henry Hwangs An American Soldier from2018 recounting the story of Danny Chen， a ChineseAmerican US Army Soldier whose racial harassmentin the military led to his eventual suicide， and TerenceBlanchard and Kasi Lemmons Fire Shut Up in My Bonesfrom 2019 （which later opened the Metropolitan Operas2021–2022 season）. Fire was adapted from a bestsellingmemoir by New York Times columnist Charles Blow.Soldier was ripped from the headlines， embellishedwith some additional first-hand reporting.

This year， though， OTSL presented its two “true”operas in close proximity. The festivals world premiere（postponed from 2020） was Tobias Pickers Awakenings ，based on the 1972 book that essentially launched Dr.Oliver Sacks literary career. A collection of medical casestudies may seem unlikely source material， but Sacksaccount of treating patients suffering from encephalitislethargica （“sleeping sickness”） with the experimentaldrug L-DOPA had already inspired a number of stageadaptations， a 1990 Hollywood film and a 2010 ballet（also by Picker）. Now armed with a libretto by Aryeh LevStollman （a neurologist as well as Pickets life partner），the composer brought the characters to verbal life，much as Dr. Sacks did in his original account.

As a production， the show perked along smoothly.Director James Robinson matched the musicsmomentum visually， even if Allen Moyers minimal，modular sets often moved more than the characters.Picker and Stollman wisely condensed Sacks caseloadto three patients： Rose， who awakens in the presentbut continues to live sweetly in the past; Miriam H.，who reunites with her daughter and granddaughter，both of whom had been told she was dead; andLeonard Lev （Sacks most reflective patient）， who as anadult belatedly confronts his adolescent urges whilerenegotiating his relationship with his aging mother.

As a piece of musical drama， however， the work wastroubled. “Theres no ‘story in this stuff，” I heard severaltimes during intermission （and read in a couple ofreviews afterwards）. That wasnt exactly true， as HaroldPinters play and Penny Marshalls film can attest. Theproblem is， as Pascal might ask in a modern world，which story？ Picker， who has Touretts syndrome， was apatient of the late Dr. Sacks; Stollman was a friend andprofessional colleague. At times， it was often unclearwhether the two creators were focused on the patientsor the doctor himself.

Sacks， of course， managed that balance， both relatingto his patients as fully realized personalities （apparentlyquite uncommon in the medical profession in the 1970s）and sharing his own personal and professional growththrough what he learned from them. （In performance，baritone Jarrett Porter brought to his portrayal of Sacksmuch of the doctors fabled insight and compassion.）

As in most of his output， Picker writes music thatis largely tonal and eminently singable， thoughAwakenings nonetheless runs into problems. “If Iever write an opera，” the man behind me grumbledto his companion when the lights came up， “dontlet me set a bunch of diseases to music， or use anyLatin terminology.” At one point， the full ensemblesings “Anticholinergics！ Belladonna！ Apomorphine！Amphetamines！ Antimuscarinics！ Trihexyphenidyl！What a mouthful！” Indeed.

Stollman proves proficient in wielding medicalterms， but he ignores entirely the fact that Sacksown story changed over time. What the doctorinitially considered a failed experiment he （andhis patients） determined was a mixed success adecade later. In his epilogue to the 1982 edition，Sacks recounts a scene that was also capturedmemorably both in the documentary and PennyMarshalls Hollywood film： “I never cease todelight in…h(huán)ow patients unable to initiate asingle movement can catch and return a ball，with perfect accuracy， and wholly in their ownstyle.” So why， I wonder， did all of Pickers patientssound essentially the same.

Sacks was famously tolerant of adaptations thatbent the facts of his findings in search of deeper truths，but one wonders how he would react to the operaslove triangle， where the patient Leonard has longingsfor a male nurse， who has longings for Dr. Sacks， whois tempted but unable to handle the situation. Or aflashback near the end where Sacks recalls beingrejected by his mother over his sexuality. None of this， Ishould add， is in Sacks account. The former seemed anunnecessary departure （It was the female nurses whohad problems with Leonard， and there were few malenurses in the 1970s in any case）， the latter gratuitouslygrafted to the story with little narrative cause oroutcome. Considering that Sacks was a famously shyman who only revealed his sexual orientation in a bookpublished a month before his death in 2015， the operaultimately seems like an abuse of trust.

This summers revival， Harvey Milk ， was a differentsituation entirely. At its 1995 premiere in Houston，Stewart Wallace and Michael Kories operatic enactmentof the late-1970s gay San Francisco lawmaker and hismurder by a fellow legislator was a rambunctious mess.Some 18 months later， when the production reachedSan Francisco Opera （its co-commissioner）， Wallaceand Korie had made many revisions， though politicalpageantry still often obscured the drama.

The new version premiered by Opera Theatre of St.Louis （rescheduled from 2021） was reduced further still，the original meandering three-act， three-hour spectaclenow a sleek two-act， two-hour theatre piece， withmany minor roles cut completely. Milk and his nemesisDan White were no longer merely incarnated politicalplatforms but fully fleshed-out roles. Though baritoneThomas Glass and tenor César Andrés Parre?o lookednothing like their respective characters （as projectionsof historic photos clearly revealed）， their performanceswere emotionally compelling and convincing.

But what about the rest of the story？ Funnily enough，I had just left San Francisco， where Jet Blue andAmerican Airlines fly out of Harvey Milk Terminal 1. Theday before， I met a friend for lunch a block away fromthe Harvey Milk Branch of the San Francisco PublicLibrary. Mr. Milks untimely death hardly diminished hispresence in the city.

On the plane I was reading The Mayor of CastroStreet ， Randy Shilts solidly reported account of Milkslife and death before his fast track to martyrdom. LikeAwakenings ， the story became both a documentary anda feature film. Also like Awakenings ， those cinematicversions often departed from the text， usually indeleting or compressing details.

The two operas shared many narrative traits as well，not least a quasi-cinematic use of flashbacks chartingthe development of their respective protagonists. （Milk，too， has a complicated relationship with his mother，who warns her son to “watch out for men who aredifferent.”） Visually， the shows were practically siblings，with director Robinson using the same design teamand similar visual approach， from Moyers modular setpieces to Emetazs projected newspaper headlines.

But right from the downbeat， Harvey Milk was acompletely different musical experience. Much asHwang did with Danny Chens story in An AmericanSoldier ， Korie had engaged in much first-handreporting， providing him with the narrative hooks tohang previously reported details. Those details hadalways been on display， but the raw， oversized stonewas now a finely chiselled gem， with verbal and musicallines gleaming with greater impact.

Kories gift is in spinning the precise line that capturesa setting， a personality， an idea， and continues toresonate. Wallaces gift is in finding the right musicto evoke the world behind that line—a Kaddishhighlighting Milks Jewish heritage， echoes of pop musicto evoke both the historic period and its sensibility—andmoving on before it wears out its welcome. Snippets ofWagner and Puccini underscored Milk as huge opera fan（he had， in fact， seen Tosca at the San Francisco Operathe night before his death）. Though the cast deservedmuch credit for the shows theatrical immediacy， mostof its musical success came from conductor CarolynKuan， who deftly wielded the St. Louis SymphonyOrchestra through Wallaces now-leaner orchestrations，hitting each moment squarely and gracefully moving tothe next with impeccable timing.

Its earlier flaws aside， the aura around Harvey Milkin 1995 was one of celebration. Particularly in SanFrancisco， the opera hailed the leadership of a bygoneera where the gay， Black and Asian communities firstcame together in a shared struggle for civil rights. InSt. Louis， where the final performance of Harvey Milkoverlapped with the citys 2022 Pride celebrations，it once again became a time to reflect on the state ofAmerica as a country， though surely not in the way itscreators originally intended.

With many of the operas themes still playing outin the daily news—from police brutality to violenceagainst minorities to mass murders at the hands oflone gunmen—I began to feel rather like the “sleepingbeauties” and “Rip Van Winkles” in Awakenings ， comingback to consciousness after a half-century but findingvery little had really changed.