Is James Barbour ever going to be back on Broadway- Page 4

[winston89]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 7:24pm

Munkstrap,

I don't think that parents are going to react the way you are predicting. If he is in the show he won't be billed as James Barbour the sex offender but simply just James Barbour. And I don't think this will effect school groups either because its not like it says anywhere that you have to mention on permission slips that they are seeing a show with someone that is a sex offender in it. And, I am pretty sure as well that there will be a ton of schools who don't know who he is and what he did either.

And, as for my comments Whatever about me saying that it isn't a big risk for any producer to associate themselves with Barbour. I mean that it isn't as big a risk as everyone here is making it out to be.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 7:39pm

You are clearly living in a dream world, winston.

People WILL react that way. It's irresponsible for a school to plan a field trip to see a show with someone who is a sex offender. Would the young students be in danger? No, of course not, but that's not the issue. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a single community group or school group that see NOTHING questionable or irresponsible about that.

He won't be billed as James Barbour the sex offender? REALLY? That's too bad I thought it had a really nice ring to it. It would look smashing on a marquee. Winston...get real. He wouldn't have to be billed. It would never even have to be publicly acknowledged by the production team. It would appear in newspapers. People have VERY strong feelings about this sort of thing. There are people labeled as sex offenders because they were 18 when they had sex with their 16 year old girlfriends. And they are STILL targeted by staunch activists. Don't think that something this high profile will go unnoticed! A ton of schools that don't know about it? Maybe. But they'll find out. It's their job. If they don't, there will be lawsuits and a lot of drama.

It isn't as big of a risk as everyone's making it out to be?

Where do you come from? You are lacking any common sense in discussing this matter.

Do I want to see Barbour back on Broadway with this show? Yes. But I'm not blind to the reality of the situation and the dangerous effects that his past will have on the success of the show.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 7:53pm

Its friggen Broadway. Therefor it isn't as high profile as we were making it out to be. I am not in a dream world at all. I just think that its a bit much to say that this is surly how the public will react. Only because it was in the papers as a small blurb and nothing else. It's not going to go any further. And, I am not sure that half the theatre going public will notice. Half the theatre going public can't even name anyone in the cast they see half the time. They aren't going to recgoinze Barbour.

If he were a moive star and in Hollywood, then the reaction to him and this would be very different. It would be non stop and going on and on and on. But, like I said it is only us here on BWW who are dissecting every little last thing to do with this and the trial and him in Two Cities.

If the rest of the public felt the same way that a majority of the posters do about this situation. Then only then could I see it getting to the point of protests and boycots etc.

The only reason why school groups in sarasota reacted that way was because for them having an out of town try out for a Broadway show was a major deal for the city of Sarasota. Broadway is different, there are thirty some odd broadway shows. I am saying that I feel that that the name James Barbour will get lost in the shuffel of every other broadway actor in the minds of joe tourist.

I am not saying however that what he did was wrong. I do have some questions about the case but that is neither here nor there. I am just saying that I feel that no one is looking at it as closly as the the people here on Broadwayworld are or will be. I think that school groups would just see this another Broadway show and not realize or really pay attention to the Barbour factor. And, as far as school groups or things of that nature go. You can't compare the two. Sarasota and New York that is. That is because it was a major local event in Sarasota and everyone there learned everything they could about eveyone in the cast and everything they could about the show itself. Because they took great pride in housing an out of town try out as many cities do.

I think that once this show hits Broadway his name is going to fade into the woodwork.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:02pm

Then you're incredibly naive.

I'd love to see Barbour back on Broadway (and not selling merchandise), but I don't think that many producers will want to take the risk of having a potential publicity nightmare.

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:05pm

winston: thanks for the clarification ... i understand your point now, even if i dont totally agree.

in general, i think this is one area of the law where society's (theoretical) notions about criminal justice have gone completely out the window. there's no prospect for rehabilitation ... no notion of having paid your debt to society ... nada. once you have this brand, it's yours for life. it can be irrational, and that's not nice, but it is what it is. for sure, if a school's administration learns that the lead has a record for a youth-related sex offense, NO ONE from that school is going. period.

so, if we're still on the same page, it kind of comes down to this huge IF: *if* it will get publicized. imho: yeah, the PR has been zilch so far, but isnt that really because the show itself is not on the radar yet. i think that enough people know something that someone at some local TV news station will get wind of this, and absolutely go to town ... and in november sweeps, all hell will break loose. groups will cancel, pickets will form, investors will scramble. ugmar top to bottom.

even if it's not a slam dunk, it's a pretty decent scenario. the fact that it hasn't happened yet imho means almost nothing -- the show isnt even here yet. extrapolate, and it's damned ugly ... why risk it?

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:11pm

FIRST: Since when is Douglas Sills's voice anything near James Barbour? Robert Cuccioli I could see.

SECOND: I am agreeing with winston here; School groups rush to the theater, sit in the last rows of the mezzanine and rush out as soon as it is done. Also, unless there is some new law in NYC that I am unaware of there is no need to mention Barbour's crime anywhere on a permission slip. As long as the teachers do not let the kids stage door, all is fine.
THAT SAID, I do think that producers would be taking a risk hiring him, the media (and protesters) will have a field day with it. Barbour is an incredibly talented man and, from what I have seen and heard, he is incredible in this show. It will be very interesting to see what the producers decide.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:13pm

One of my aunts asked me about the Barbour case. She doesn't follow Broadway, but she knows I do. She read about it in the New York Times.

Winston, no, Barbour is not a household name, and the average American public isn't going to know about him the way they know about, say, Britney Spears, but the story IS out there, and will continue to be so. CNN, the Associated Press, the Times and a lot of other major news outlets covered it.

There's no way to keep this secret or justify taking a school group to this show, even if they're rushed out the door. So here's what will happen. Let's say Naive Yet Earnest Teacher takes her kids to see ToTC. They have a talkback with Barbour and he's in the study guide. One kid in that class goes on the Internet and Googles Barbour's name. Or one teacher or parent sees the name in the study guide or Playbill, and remembers she read about Barbour somewhere else. NYE Teacher will then have to answer all sorts of questions about why she let her class have a Talkback or see the show, parents will be calling the school furious that their kids were there, and so on.

And the producers of the show DO know, so if they're trying to market to school groups, they're going to have major hurdles to get around this. There's no way they can market Barbour to that audience without drawing a lot of criticism and raised eyebrows.
Updated On: 3/30/08 at 08:13 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:16pm

jacob: i think the permission slip thing was a bit of hyperbole. there is a common law of negligence in every city and state in this litigation-happy union. at the end of the day, the point is well taken: no school system is going to knowingly accept the risk of sending its charges to this show ... if the truth (or an approximation thereof) comes out, it's game-over.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:17pm

Exactly.

Plus, if I recall correctly, it was on the front page of the Post. Widely distributed, widely read. No, people won' see "James Barbour in A TALE OF TWO CITIES" and think "Oh dear, isn't that him?"

No. But you can bet that when the contract is signed and the casting announced, news outlets will pick it up once again. "SEX OFFENDER OK'D FOR BROADWAY." I can just imagine. It's tough enough now for a Broadway show to survive with tons of positive press. Imagine what this negative press will do for the show.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:17pm

munk, it was a valiant effort, but in the end you're banging your head against a wall. some people are too dumb to breathe and we seem to have a lot of them here on bww. i hope that this thread doesn't get deleted so we can bump it back up should the producers carry this suicide pact to fruition.

the only reason i can see is that they know the show's a flop and want a reason to kill it. even that's thin.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:18pm

If this were opening in January 2009 as a previous article stated instead of in less than six months it might make a difference. But I think it's just too soon. When will it not be "too soon"? I have no idea.

Here's another question:

Has anyone heard anything about Barbour's parole officer giving permission for him to do this show? Without that this whole conversation is moot.

Updated On: 3/30/08 at 08:18 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:27pm

yeah. are there kids in the cast? because that's gonna be a no-go right there.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:28pm

"yeah. are there kids in the cast? because that's gonna be a no-go right there."

Yes, at least two.

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:30pm

> Yes, at least two.

zoot, alors! quelle probleme ...

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:31pm

then this is all pretty much a publicity stunt to drum up word of mouth in the broadway community.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:33pm

There's "Little Lucie" who is the child of Lucie and Charles and then the young boy who gets run over by the carriage. There may be some in the ensemble but I don't remember.

Correction:

Three children. Two boys and a girl.

Updated On: 3/30/08 at 08:33 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:49pm

They would do what they did in Sarasota in terms of any talkbacks or things like that. They just won't let him be part of it as a saftey measure.

As far as any teacher getting into trouble. That isn't going to happen. In most schools the heads of the school have to approve of any trips that the teacher plans.

Keep in mind, that there can be schools that know bout it but realize that any sort of threat coming from this is next to zero.

And, from what I understand his parole officer has nothing against him going back to work. He does have something against him banging little girls again.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 8:56pm

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 9:00pm

"And, from what I understand his parole officer has nothing against him going back to work. He does have something against him banging little girls again."

Of course his parole officer won't have anything against James returning to work. No good parole officer would. But he does have the right to deny James permission if there is a show with children in the cast.

His parole officer has to look at the whole situation. There's a young girl in the cast. They have scenes together. How easy would it be for them to be alone with all of the hubbub that goes on backstage? How will his casting affect the rest of the cast - especially the parents of said little girl? Could there be danger here? Is it too soon after his incarceration for him to be in a show with children? These are all questions the PO has to ask him/herself.

Some might say that it's safe because nothing happened during the Florida run (that we know of). But it's hard to compare a run that lasted less than a month (not including all the prior rehearsal time) and an open-ended Broadway run where there will mostly likely be more than just the one little girl backstage (they may have two girls sharing the role, understudies, etc).

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 9:00pm

Winston, it's going to be hard for them to market the show when the lead actor will not be available for talkbacks and promotions, yes?

As to the teachers getting in trouble--of course they would. It doesn't matter if the department head approved it (which they likely wouldn't). All it would take is one parent calling the school saying "why was my kid at this show?" and spreading the word. Parents pay for the tickets; they may not want their money to support this, and may be angry if they find out it has.
There's an inherent conflict in taking high school students to see a show starring someone who has just served time for a criminal offense involving an individual of high school age, and there would be objections to it.

And Barbour does have to get permission from his probation officer to appear in any show that includes child actors. I imagine the PO won't make a decision until he's out of jail.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 9:14pm

"I imagine the PO won't make a decision until he's out of jail."

Hmm...I wonder if the producers might get the answer sooner than that. There are auditions next week and I'd imagine the producers would want to know what's happening before they start auditions.

Does anyone know when he's due to be released?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 9:16pm

Assuming, of course, that the producers even need to wait for an answer. They may no longer take on that liability.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 9:18pm

"Assuming, of course, that the producers even need to wait for an answer. They may no longer take on that liability."

Absolutely.

Updated On: 3/30/08 at 09:18 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/30/08 at 10:59pm

whatever2: Recidivism rates are high. The risk is higher, too, if the victims were not related to the perpetrator.

[TOTCSF1]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:27am

munkustrap: Does someone with a different perspective to yours and others in this board HAVE to be a "rambling idiot"...? I don't think when someone has shown you up on something that you have to resort to name calling...Also, I try to state what I have to state in one o, because I don't always have all the time to be on this board, so there the lentgh of my posts...sorry!
First, I know someone who lives in Sarasota, and there were no incidents there at all with Barbour. As a matter of fact, the ladies who worked for the theater loved him! What I was trying to expose in this thread, and I guess I did not make myself clear enough, I see, is that this is not a black and white "sex with minors" case...there are a lot of things to be considered here. I agree that predator laws suck--I saw a recent documentary on "Age of Consent", and frankly, what they have done to some guys' lives because of these laws is awful, and downright criminal in itself...and if someone has something against you, it could mean letting something pass, or convicting you! I also believe it in this case: What they have done to Barbour is horrible. Again, I would have gone to trial, if I had been him, so he could have been rid of all this nightmare for real. It is unfortunate. Just think, if this was YOUR brother or some male relative, would you be feeling the same?
There is no reason why Barbour could not work in this play--if it was another job, he would be(keep in mind he IS NOT in any sex offender list, which goes to show you how the judge viewed this case also). He does not have to have any contact with underage groups, at all--he just needs to do his job. It worked fine in Sarasota, and there is no reason why it should not be the same here in NYC. This might be Broadway, but, still, it is a job for him, and I seriously doubt he would even think of doing anything doubtful at all. BTW, he worked with child actors in Sarasota also. I just wish people here started realizing that this girl was no "little girl"--she was almost 16 years old, already developed physically as a woman. That's exactly why I keep saying he is no pedophile, where he would be getting off on little kids, please! The courts agreed, because he is not in any list. If there had been any doubts, he would now be on that list.
As to his Mom's passing (2005),I know I am correct, because he was accussed in 2006, and he already had inherited the money, and even his lawyer commented on it, just check out the original articles.
I think, overall, all of us here are pretty ok discussing this in a rational and fair manner, without bias, except for some like "papa".
MaronaDavies, I respect your views, but, realize, that the producers knew Barbour PRIOR to all this mess(I have researched all I have stated--you all can do the same here before taking any more negative views about it, and perhaps start providing some positive feedback for this show;it is well worth it, just ask anyone in Sarasota). You know, he also has enough friends and family who know him first hand, prior to this, and it seems this was just a stupid mistake on his part. Maybe we should start asking of those people to come forward in his support, as the producers have.
TOTC without Barbour-I don't think so! The show is THAT good, with plenty of talent, but he was a key factor to its success--believe me, I was there in that theater, and heard the comments, and saw the reactions to his singing and acting. People could not wait to spring up from their seats when he took his bows.