Interpreting or Captioning at live shows

[Deborah]

Went to Six Flags on Deaf Awareness Day--lots of sign interpreters at the shows--one show was a musical dance routine--small stage with dancing and singing lots of country songs--very loud and lots to take in visually, too. My daughter had no trouble hearing the music(she's hard of hearing and wears hearing aids)--she enjoyed the show. There were sign interpreters off to the side--if a person wanted to know the lyrics by watching the interpreters, they had to focus on that and miss a lot of what was happening on stage. Would it be better to have a jumbo screen with captioning? Or interpreters directly on stage? Just wondering how the experience could be improved--it seemed to be two different things going on in two different places. I am all for captioning at movies--I am wondering about live plays and shows--which would be better, captioning or interpreters?

 

[signer16]

There were sign interpreters off to the side--if a person wanted to know the lyrics by watching the interpreters, they had to focus on that and miss a lot of what was happening on stage.

That's what happens with nearly all plays or shows that are "interpreted." They stick one or two interpreters way off on the side, and then deaf people are forced to choose which is more important to watch at the time, the performers or the interpreters. Deaf peopled don't pay to watch the interpreters, they pay to watch the show, but don't always get to do so. That's part of the reason "deaf sections" at certain shows have tickets at a reduced price.

Would it be better to have a jumbo screen with captioning? Or interpreters directly on stage? Just wondering how the experience could be improved--it seemed to be two different things going on in two different places. I am all for captioning at movies

You are totally right, and I'm sure nearly all members of the deaf community, hearing and deaf, would agree. HOWEVER, most business and many hearing people complain that either terps or captions are too distracting. Never mind that captions can help everyone understand better, or that you don't even notice them after 5 minutes, they annoy some people so...poof, no captions. Terps can be a bit more distracting, but again, can be ignored, and I think a little distraction for all is better than a huge distraction for some and none for others...but that is just me.

--I am wondering about live plays and shows--which would be better, captioning or interpreters?

That depends on the person's preference. Captions are better for deaf people who don't sign or with good English skills, terps are better for those without great English skills. Also, depends on the show. If there is a lot of masked emotion and metaphor and other things, often it is better to have interpreters to get the character's TONE (and meaning) across. Also, if it is a one time only thing, captions are going to be WAY behind. Terps may too, but as long as they can hear everything clearly, almost always better than captions.

 

[Etoile]

I have been an interpreter at Six Flags on Deaf Awareness Day. In most cases we were not allowed on the stage because we would interfere with the actors.

For example, I interpreted the Looney Tunes show. The actors wear big costumes that make it hard to see, so they have to have everything set up on stage with no surprises. I guess they did not trust me not to jump in the way of Bugs Bunny! So I was offstage to the side.

For the Batman and Wild West shows, the performance area is separate from the audience area because they do stunts and you can't get onto the performance area. When I was there watching, the terps were more or less in the middle of a big arena, in front of the first row of seats.