Broadway Casting Director Fired for Sexual Misconduct — Page 2

BroadwayConcierge said: "elephantseye said: "https://twitter.com/MsLeaSalonga/status/936462119565971456"

Dear God. I can't even begin to think who's about to be outed in theTimestomorrow morning..."



I really hope it's not someone I know and/or admire. But I hope it does do some good towards making people think about and stopping such behavior in future, and healing past victims.

Unless you actually work on Broadway this is such a non-story. No one outside of people who read variety will care about this, even when a story appears in the NY Times. And it doesn't matter if you call them agents or whatever unless Lin Mauel was raping children in his dressing room, no one will care. Remember James Barbour? And years ago there was a brouha about Les Mis and that guy is still a high profile Director with major Divas. With higher profile people being accused A Broadway casting (person) is a nobody. Heads may roll but the Story will go on and on and on. We all know someone who slept their way to the chorus and lived to regret it.

Updated On: 12/1/17 at 03:32 AM

^That's what I heard, too. 8:30.

The Casting Agencies (where casting "agents" work) make casting easier for Directors and Producers, they "weed" out the field and send the right "types" to auditions. In today's market the number of Actors auditioning can be staggering so they are useful but not always necessary, in let's say a 2 or 4 person show.

Makes you wonder a bit more what went on behind the scenes previously.

http://www.playbill.com/article/the-audition-that-led-a-casting-director-and-an-actor-to-love-marriage-and-a-newborn

Updated On: 12/1/17 at 08:40 AM

bwaylvsong said: "As a frequently auditioning actor, I am not surprised that this sort of thing has happened in general but AM surprised that it's Justin of all people. He has always seemed very nice and is frankly attractive enough that he should be able to get just about anyone he wants without resorting to misconduct."


That's the most foolish and naive statement I've read on these boards, and there's a lot of dumb on here. Power leads to sexual harassment and that power can stem from money, attractiveness, narcissism, or anything! "I'm attractive. I know it. You should know it too. No one can say no to me." How about the fact that he's married and has a child? Surely that should not lead to misconduct.

Please take a look at what you said.

Updated On: 12/1/17 at 08:50 AM

SweetLips said: "What is going on here?----have we gone back to the days of the witch hunt, commies in Hollywood, KKK[still there with the Trump Trumpters]?

It never would work because newspapers want a sale but surely naming a person for misconduct before a trial should not be allowed.

Once a name is printed, it can never be unprinted.

I think it very sad if accusations are proven but equally as sad if a name is printed 'for the sake of'.

No news in 'an usher touched me as he/she was showing me to my seat last night'."

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. That investigative reporting not be revealed until there's a conviction? That the press shouldn't cover even charges being brought or the course of a trial until there is a conviction? That we should, for instance, never have become aware of charges of wrongdoing before anyone was convicted - if that ever came to pass? That such a rule would somehow not violate the freedom of the press? That, for instance, we should have no knowledge of any of the multiple allegations - and not just sexual ones - against public and private figures - until they have actually been adjudicated as guilty?

I'm completely sympathetic to acknowledging the unfairness to people of having their names dragged through the mud before the charges against them have been fully litigated.

But I don't understand what the you are suggesting would be. Nor do I understand how that alternative would benefit the public - would everything be done in secret until such time as there might be a final judgement? - or how that alternative could possibly be consistent with freedom of speech and press.

Should we, for instance, have never have made aware about the multitude of sexual allegations against Trump until after the election?
Would that have been a good thing?

All that being said, i do have a problem with the Variety reporting.
"Sexual misconduct" is a) a conclusion and b) can encompass a wide variety of allegations, some of them extremely egregious, others fairly mild. Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that Bill Clinton raped her and Lee Ann Tweedon's allegation that Al Franken manipulatively put his tongue in her mouth while rehearsing a sexy scene are both allegations of sexual misconduct. But comparing them is like comparing armed robbery to attempted petty theft of services (and no I am not comparing sexual misconduct to larceny in any other way than to simply illustrate that in both contexts not all claims are equal). They should both be taken seriously, but they are not the same thing.

I understand this is all Variety may have to go on at this point. But before we engage in mob attacks on Huff, perhaps we should hear what the allegations are and not assume that they are the most egregious or presume that they are unimpeachable. There is still a process in which we should all be thinking about the facts that are presented to us, both in courts of law and in courts of public opinion.

Updated On: 12/1/17 at 09:06 AM

It was said 8:30AM