An Open Letter to Broadway From Marlee Matlin

She expressed herself very effectively. Great letter!

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.

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.

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.

You should be sorry.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"

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.