An Open Letter to Broadway From Marlee Matlin

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 1/10/16 at 12:24pm

from Playbill.com    http://m.playbill.com/news/article/exclusive-an-open-letter-to-broadway-from-marlee-matlin-378455

[macnyc]

Posted: 1/10/16 at 12:41pm

She expressed herself very effectively. Great letter!

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/10/16 at 8:40pm

Wonderful letter. Met her in Disney (Epcot) a few years ago after the "Candlelight Procession" a couple of years ago.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/10/16 at 11:42pm

The touring shows here in San Diego almost always have the matinee on Saturday ASL interpreted and the matinee on Sunday open captioned. I didn't realize this wasn't as common on Broadway. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 1/11/16 at 9:48am

It's a little strange for her to write this, given that her own show was not exactly perfectly deaf friendly-- it wasn't even captioned.

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/oct/29/spring-awakening-broadway-deaf-viewers-give-verdict

 

Updated On: 1/11/16 at 09:48 AM

[LarryD2]

Posted: 1/11/16 at 9:57am

Matlin's letter is meant to draw attention to the paucity of opportunities that Deaf and hard-of-hearing people have to experience live theater in a performance they will be able to fully appreciate. She never claims that Spring Awakening is "perfectly Deaf friendly," but it seems foolish to argue that a show in which every word of dialogue is signed (and in which some captioning is utilized) isn't more accessible than 99% of what is available to Deaf theatergoers.

[RockyRoadPicks]

Posted: 1/11/16 at 8:55pm

She raises a good point.This year I saw two Broadway shows - Fun Home (Not deaf-friendly) and Spring Awakening (okay, I moved mountains to get there).
How many Broadway shows have I seen in my life? Two.
That's money going into Broadway's pocket. That's tourist dollars being dropped in NYC.
Multiply by number of deaf people and their hearing friends and family members. And calculate the cost of accessibility. I'll bet you that it doesn't take that many tickets to cover the cost of accessibility. 

I would love to see more open captioned shows. I don't understand why some shows have only ONE open captioned performance, and then that's it. That's discriminatory, imo. But then that's money in my pocket, not Broadway. It works both way. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/11/16 at 9:44pm

CATSNYrevival said: "The touring shows here in San Diego almost always have the matinee on Saturday ASL interpreted and the matinee on Sunday open captioned. I didn't realize this wasn't as common on Broadway. "

 

I believe all the shows have accessible performances, but they aren't very often, which is the issue with her letter... that deaf tourists shouldn't have to wait for special shows. It should just be an option at every show.

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 12:00am

her idea will never happen because interpreters standing in front of the stage are seen as distracting to the rest of the audience, sorry ill be the dick that says it. 

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 12:45am

You should be sorry.

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 3:47am

im not but ok, ill say i think there should be more prescheduled interpreted performances but to just have them on call for any performance for maybe one or two patrons to use per performance thats so insanely uneconomical, and some shows do offer little tablets you can rent that have subtitles, the better idea would be to implement more of those perhaps. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 9:01am

I can see the argument of the distraction, but regular theater goers WOULD get use to it. 

 

I think the bigger problem is utilizing it well for a deaf audience.   Having to continuously look to an interpreter from the action, must be difficult, let alone a separate device!

 

Should MORE be done?  Yes, and it would take a commitment of at least a year to determine it's success.

[Finch]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 10:29am

And it will take the talent, ingenuity and intelligence of the producer, director/choreographer [depending on the production] AND the performer to see that it is done. Maybe, someone may see this as a possibility and bring it on board.  A number of years ago, I saw "Big River" in presented in song and sign -- on Broadway -- it was excellent.

So, for those saying it will distract, etc.-- the cells, cookies and sodas, along with their users, ARE the distractions.  The interpreters can, and should be, part of the production. The intelligent production team would incorporate them into the basic weekly overhead, and not just for an occasional one-night stand.

 

[wonkit]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 10:31am

Surely they can develop caption eyeglasses? That way the deaf can be kept involved without changing the experience for the hearing audience? It would be something like individual "Met titles"? Realistically, the cost may be enormous and the demand may just not be there to support the R&D.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 10:46am

How about we find a solution to make deaf people able to hear again!

[kdogg36]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 1:27pm

It would be something like individual "Met titles"? 

 

Why not have Met titles at a small number of seats - or even portable devices to attach to the seat in front on an as-needed basis? That way every performance would be accessible to deaf audience members, and no one would ever be at risk of distraction.

[jkstheatrescene]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 1:33pm

Finch said: "And it will take the talent, ingenuity and intelligence of the producer, director/choreographer [depending on the production] AND the performer to see that it is done. Maybe, someone may see this as a possibility and bring it on board.  A number of years ago, I saw "Big River" in presented in song and sign -- on Broadway -- it was excellent.

 

That production was done by the same company as the current Spring Awakening.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 1:36pm

I was going to suggest that, also.  I think it is a great idea.  The Met, as I recall, has it for every seat.  I think Broadway theaters could limit the number of seats to manage expense.  They could designate certain seats as deaf-friendly, just as they do for wheel chair friendly seats.  It works at the Met, although the intention is different.  The Met wants its audience to understand what is being sung, while the audience is listening to the music.  It is to enrich the experience for those who even care to understand the lyrics, vs. a necessity.  Still, a better option I suspect.  The only other option would be supertitles above the stage.  It would be distracting to the rest of the audience for the first 5 minutes, then they would get used to it.

[jkstheatrescene]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 1:39pm

^^

I can vouch for the getting "used to it."  I saw the play Next Fall on Broadway at a performance that had supertitles.  They were on the front/side of the stage, not above it, and it still wasn't a distraction.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 2:31pm

I don't think that's the solution - the subtitles or having someone sign off to the side. It doesn't make sense to have that EVERY performance just in case there is someone in the audience. It would be distracting. I think the tablet or the seat ideas are great though. 

[LarryD2]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 2:40pm

I don't think anyone is suggesting that this would happen at every performance. It would be nice if an interpreted performance (whether signed or captioned) happened more than, say, twice over the course of a 300 performance run...

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 3:44pm

neonlightsxo said: "It's a little strange for her to write this, given that her own show was not exactly perfectly deaf friendly-- it wasn't even captioned.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/oct/29/spring-awakening-broadway-deaf-viewers-give-verdict

 

I saw the show twice, and it was more accessible than I feel that the article gives it credit for. When there wasn't signing going on, they projected the lines instead. I remember the second time I saw it, I was in front of a family who's son was deaf and I could see that he was really enjoying it. As someone who's a strong disability advocate, That moment is one of the top two favorite moments of my twenty years of going to the theatre. The other one, that would have to be the pleasure of being in the audience for one of the TDF's autism friendly performances of Wicked. 

 

And, Lights Out, that was a totally dick thing to say. I will be totally apologetically blunt while saying that too. If you or someone else strongly believes that the rush system that shows offer is a good thing because it allows for affordable theatre , and yet, don't like the idea of theatre of being disability friendly at every performance, you're a hypocrite. It shouldn't be that it's easily accessible for one population (those who can't afford full priced tickets to theatre) and not to another (the other population in this case is the Deaf community.)

 

I have seen some shows ( I know, for example that Wicked is one of them) that offer ShowTrans, which is a little screen that translates the show into different languages for those who are international tourists. I honestly don't why, if they can offer them for other people in different languages they cant offer them in English. Or rent out something in the same vein at theatres the same way that they do for those headsets for the hard of hearing. And, for what it's worth, I remember seeing a performance of Next To Normal in the front row off to the side, next to me were two people signing the show, not a distraction at all and something that was a welcoming sight.

 

"

 

 

[starcatchers]

Posted: 1/12/16 at 11:26pm

LightsOut90 said: "her idea will never happen because interpreters standing in front of the stage are seen as distracting to the rest of the audience, sorry ill be the dick that says it. 

 

"

 

Know what else is distracting to the rest of the audience? Talking. People on their cell phones. People eating their lunch next to you. People who can't show up on time. 

Much like the subtitles, you get used to the interpreter. I've been to many interpreted performances over the years and have never had an issue. As a hearing person who can sign, I actually enjoy the ASL interpreted performances. 

 

I I agree with Islander_fan on their entire post, but particularly on the ShowTrans idea. It seems an easy and effective way to make more performances accessible for the Deaf/HoH community. 

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 1/13/16 at 12:03am

Tonight I say between a man who reeked of smoke and a young woman who chewed her gum like a cow chewing cud. I would say seeing a sign language interpreter would be the least of my worries. 

 

I think in terms of distraction I'd prefer to have an interpreter than a device with subtitles because I think the light would bother me a bit more and I'd stop noticing the interpreter soon after the performance started. But the idea of having a designated section of the house would be a good one too. (Im just hoping if they used devices they wouldn't be as distracting as when someone looks at a cell phone. I've never been to a performance where one was used so I have no idea how visible the light is.)

 

Either way I think more accessibility should be a goal. 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/14/16 at 12:19pm

Will this PC nonsense ever end?!  If people chose not to hear, then they should understand that Broadway caters to the hearing.  Jeesh!