Sign language in theater: Notes on The Globe Theatre's recent production of Anthony and Cleopatra

Theatre is, of course, an audible art-form. Emotions, emphasis and atmosphere are all impacted by actors delivery and the use of music. And as one of our senses, it is only natural that directors and actors should wish to use sound in order to convey theatrical meaning. That is why a complete removal of sound (or the use of a language you can hear) can be such a drastic and striking change to make to a production. And yet this is also something that The Globe Theatre in London have managed to do seemingly effortlessly.

When I first heard about their bilingual production of a play with such a rich history (not only being a practically ancient love story, but also a pretty old play) I had my doubts. Surely a narrative with such a focus on romance and tragedy – already dealing with complex themes - has no room to play with sign language. But of course, the clash between two great cultures (the Romans and the Egyptians) perfectly lends itself to experimentation with language. Director Blanche McIntyre juxtaposes the Romans (who spoke in English) from the Egyptians (using sign language) by giving us a tangible barrier of communication which reflects not only their inability to understand each other, but highlights their overwhelming differences. It also serves as something for Anthony and Cleopatra's love to overcome and develop around. From their first scene together, Hollingworth (playing Anthony) said his lines aloud while signing, emphasising the love between the two characters and accommodations made in their relationship.

I, of course, thought it was brilliant, especially considering how over-the-top Shakespeare’s works are. The actors using sign language were just as effective when conveying emotion and physical reactions, if not more so. Presumably, this is because without a voice, they were forced communicate purely physically, meaning their body language was even more important. This was why I was so shocked at the lady behind me grumbling the whole way, saying this “wasn’t as Shakespeare intended” and that “you come to The Globe expecting a certain standard”. Firstly, Shakespeare as a playwright is complicated and it is important to hold his work not only with an appreciation that its a product of it’s time, but also recognise that he presents some incredibly outdated perspectives. Secondly, to assume that actors using BSL in place of vocal language are less engaging, and that choosing to create a bilingual production using sign language somehow makes the performance less worthy is disrespectful and discredits the skill of those actors. Ultimately, it is just as important for actors using sign language to have a ‘voice’, so to speak. It wasn’t even as though she couldn’t understand what was going on – the company provided subtitles. They used Papyrus for the Egyptians, and Times New Roman for the Romans, a detail that made me gasp audibly when I noticed (because I thought it was funny, to be clear).

But where to even begin with incorporating sign language? Especially with a play written with such complex language (some words of which, there is no equivalent sign). For The Globe, translating the entire play into modern English, and then in to BSL was the way to go. Once fully translated, the team worked on ways to incorporate visual cues and mannerisms specific to the characters that also followed the script, occasionally changing a sign or two to suit an actor or line better. With something as old as Shakespeare, where the written language seems to be set in stone and passed down from generation to generation, I feel this method of adaptation reinvigorates the prose in a way you just can’t do when you are confined by the language already there for you. Arguably, the fact they didn’t have sign language in Shakespeare's time and The Globe has adapted anyway is one of the strengths of this production.

The use of sign language also led to a few moments where it enhanced the performance in ways a vocal performance couldn’t have. For example, the company developed a series of ‘home signs’ between Anthony and Cleopatra (personalised signs used by families and friends to express affection and serve as a more personal way of connecting with others). This not only makes their relationship seem more authentic (and is just really cute), but is a detail that would be unthinkable in a performance depicting two hearing people. It sheds light on how hearing/deaf relationships work. Another example of a point where a deaf actor utilised sign language to their advantage is when Cleopatra demands information from a messenger about Octavia (Anthony's new wife) and her appearance. Where the script would simply say that she is short or has brown hair, or a heavy gait, the actor portraying the messenger chose to physically show these attributes. He mimicked an exaggerated, stumbling walk, used the palm of his hand to make Octavia appear unnaturally short and pretended to push out faeces and go on to essentially describe her hair as ‘poo brown’. Yet another moment that, again, would not be possible in a non BSL production.

Clearly, the use of sign language in one of Shakespeare's works is to go against the tradition of his work. But this doesn’t mean that it cannot shed new meaning to the text, or put a whole new spin to incorporate new perspectives that desperately also need to be understood. In no way was it a downgrade to watch the Egyptians use BSL, and in no way was it a shame to ‘lose Cleopatra's voice’, as the woman behind me claimed. Instead, this twist on a well known tale was genuinely well produced, captivating and just as entertaining as it would have been without sign language.