Emily Berry
posted 26 July 2006

It would not have occurred to me, prior to seeing Dysfunction, to think 'there should be more deaf theatre'. It would not have occurred to me, as a hearing person, that such a thing as deaf theatre even existed, or should exist. In fact, Deafinitely Theatre, the theatre company behind the play, is the only professional, deaf-led theatre company in Britain.

Dysfunction follows the fairly unremarkable story of Nigel and Sue, a couple having marital problems; the death of their son some years previously only exacerbated previously existing tensions, and the arrival of Nigel's womanising brother John who outstays his welcome even before crossing the threshold, only serves to make matters worse. The twist - at least for a hearing audience member - is that all three characters are deaf. Instead of verbal dialogue, most of the play is conducted in sign language, with interpreters at the side of the stage - the space where a sign language interpreter might be found in a conventional play - translating the actors' signs into speech. That the interpreters later become incorporated into the action onstage, one of them, Shelly (Kate Furby), becoming a character in her own right, turns this initial reversal of deaf/hearing roles into something more complex.

For a hearing person accustomed to mainstream theatre which rarely accommodates the disabled market (consider how difficult it must be for a wheelchair user to get access to most traditional London theatres), Dysfunction is literally eye-opening. The absence of spoken dialogue onstage compels one to engage more closely with the actors' movements and expressions and to think about the uses of the body as a mode of expression - how much more power there is in turning your back to someone, for example, when it means you can no longer see what they are saying to you. Though the acting is loosely naturalistic, in addition to the sign language the actors adopt rather exaggerated movements that emphasise personalities and emotions, but always sensitively. The scene featuring Sue (Paula Garfield) and Nigel (Daryl Jackson), in which she fails in her attempt to coax him into bed by strutting about in silky underwear and hold-ups, though comical and highly stylised, is actually a very moving evocation of impotence (both sexual and metaphorical) and emotional rejection.

A simple, stylish design with strong blacks, whites and reds is a very striking backdrop to the action. Sue's rather severe red A-line dress against the black and white of the set, with mantelpieces, framed pictures and doors that appear 3D but are in fact a kind of photographic wallpaper, somehow emphasises the impression of a slightly alternative normality that the play offers. Because the play follows such an familiar storyline, never focusing on the problems associated with deafness, but rather celebrating it (particularly evident in the occasional, unexpected, 'signing along' sequences, such as the one where Nigel and John sign the words to 'When I'm 64'), the audience is gradually drawn away from the idea of deafness as a disability.

It was recently commented in the Guardian, apropos of Pete Bennett, the Big Brother contestant who suffers from Tourette's Syndrome, that the representation of the disabled in mainstream culture is shamefully minimal. While Dysfunction obviously deserves to be valued as a play in its own right - and a deaf person's response to the play would presumably have a different focus - it inevitably stands out as a play making a point about the representation of deaf culture, and in so doing creates a space in mainstream culture for the deaf not as people with a disability, but as people.

Till 29 October 2006.