Is James Barbour ever going to be back on Broadway- Page 7

[johnnyg]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 12:32am

sorry but i just have to make one small factual correction. The young woman NEVER accused Mr. Barbour of having intercourse. The charge was always limited to oral sex. To cynically imply or assume that more happened based on absolutely no evidence is extremely irresponsible.

what's more the young woman said at the sentencing that she was happy and satisfied with the resolution of the case and with Barbour's sentence. The sentence was 60 days and 3 years probation and having to inform employers of the case. The sentence was not that he be blacklisted or prohibited from making a living as a theater actor ever again or repeatedly punished and vilified for a misdemeanor he has been and is being punished for. So, I just have to ask - if the young woman is satisfied with Mr. Barbour's punishment - why can't you people be?

[Eris0303]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 1:53am

"So, I just have to ask - if the young woman is satisfied with Mr. Barbour's punishment - why can't you people be?"

I think most of the people arguing against Barbour being in the show aren't upset about the sentencing. I don't think anyone is suggesting he be given more jail time or a longer probationary period. What we're worried about is what the general public will do and how they will react. And how the show will be affected. People will boycott the show. People will picket. Those are givens and will, most likely, hurt ticket sales.

I don't think any of the posters here will be on any of those picket lines but we're just saying that there will be trouble. Especially this soon after his release from jail. If it were a year or two later it might be a different thing. But the show opens in six months not counting rehearsals and previews. It might be a little too soon.

I don't want Barbour to to be blacklisted but I also don't want innocent people to pay the price for his stupidity. But that's what'll happen if the show suffers because of this. The cast, crew, producers, etc will pay the price. That's not fair to them. They've done nothing wrong.

[johnnyg]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 2:14am

I couldn't agree more Eris. But by saying that the production should be afraid to allow Barbour to go back to work (in a role he's been playing for something like four years during all the development) is to say that the production must give in to fear of a backlash if they allow the guy to go back to work. In other words - a blacklist. And that means the punishment will continue indefinitely.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 2:22am

I don't know what the right answer to this is. I don't want to see this production suffer - especially since one of my favorite people was in the Florida cast. I don't want to see Barbour blacklisted but I'm not sure I want him in this production. Sadly, this is a double-edged sword. No matter which way they swing - someone gets cut.

And, we still need to wait for his probation officer to give him permission to even do the show. And since there are young girls in the cast that permission might not come.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 8:49am

I do think that this will effect ticket sales in some way. Not sure how though. I do think that it won't get pickeded or protested or boycotted though. I think that is a bit much. And, not that many people care about Broadway for that to happen.

The one thing I can see going on is if as it gets closer to Opening night there is a bit on this in the local news. Very much in the same vein that they covered Maria Friedman's battle with cancer during the opening night of Woman In White.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 9:30am

ok this last post marks you as an utter and total moron who has no understanding of the media or the country or the manner in which art and artists are received.

and, not that many people care about broadway for that to happen.

just like they didn't protest corpus christi, the most fabulous story ever told, my name is rachel corrie or any number of other shows. oh wait, you're right people are much more concerned about off-broadway shows than broadway ones. you need to stop talking. with every post you look more and more stupid.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 9:39am

No I do understand how the country works in terms of these things. I do know that for every little problem going on there is a group of concerned people who proteste it.

I just don't think that there is going to be that many protests in regards to the show IF Barbour is in it. I do think that a school group will see it and a parent will complain. I don't think it is going to get much further then that.

There is a MAJOR difference between understanding the basic way things work and not agreeing with the fact that it WILL happen if Barbour is in two cities this fall.

You are calling me stupid only because I don't agree with what is being said. There is difference between agreeing and not understanding. I do understand. That doesn't mean that what your saying is the sure fire thing that is going to happen.

Updated On: 4/1/08 at 09:39 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 10:01am

ok, done trying. you're too f*cking dumb to breathe. when the show's being picketed by parents groups i'll bump this and you can offer your insight at that point.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 10:09am

Your saying that with the way things are on an average basis that this will be protested. I am saying that I see where your comming from but I don't think that it will get protested. if you ant to bump this as an imature way of saying I told you so then be my guest.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 10:13am

no, i'll bump it as a way of saying - yet again - you're too f*cking stupid to be wasting air that could be used by crackheads.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 10:25am

He didn't play the role for "all the Development". It was played by Rob Richardson,(who currently understudies the role) for the majority of the workshops and readings. Barbour was brought in relatively recently (in relation to the development of this show), right before the aborted Chicago, Cadillac Theatre tryout back in 04,and 05.

Updated On: 4/1/08 at 10:25 AM

[johnnyg]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 10:34am

you're correct about Rob Richardson. But he was not brought in fairly recently. With that one exception of the workshop he's been with the show since 2004. And by development I really meant fundraising.
Updated On: 4/1/08 at 10:34 AM

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 12:44pm

Yes your right wing school of thought is saying that anything that has anything of questionable substance will be protested and be bitched and moaned over.

I am saying that my view has changed a litte bit. There could well be a chance that it could be protested. You and I don't know for sure what it is going to be so we can only guess.

I am a very liberal person. I feel that he has served his time. he isn't a sex offender at all nor is he on the list. So I am saying that I feel that it is time to give this man a break.

[amalou]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 1:31pm

"amalou, if you don't think that people will hesitate before buying tickets to a show starring Barbour, you have another thing coming."

I'm not saying that people are gonna just sweep it under the rug and flock to see him in shows. I'm saying he's probably not going to have to deal with any kind of reaction because he's probably not going to get work!

I'm doubtful that he'll appear in anything again and if he does, I think it will be uncomfortable to both production and those in the audience who are aware of what happened. But I don't think you're going to see people crowding the streets protesting outside of theaters. I don't think anyone cares THAT much. But I could be wrong. People might have nothing better to do with their lives than stand outside a theater and protest a casting choice.

At the same time, I don't think producers want to risk it. Even if they do cast him and people do protest and burn dummies with Barbour's likeness and flip over burning cars and build a friggin barricade in front of the Hirschfeld Theatre, then I think they will reconsider and recast the role before they let it ruin the show's sales.

No one can say for sure exactly what will happen but I think that the producers may be prepared for any outcome so I doubt that James Barbour will single-handedly destroy TALE OF TWO CITIES.

Updated On: 4/1/08 at 01:31 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 2:58pm

I agree with Amalou, I don't think that any protests are going to happen only because I doubt anyone would care enough to start protesting. I doub that even if he is cast in the show that the gates of hell would break open up and the world would end.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 3:06pm

Winston-- you just keep saying the same thing over and over.

Each time you post, you make him guilty all over again.

Let. It. Go.

[amalou]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 3:20pm

LOL...wait...so whenever Winston posts, a 15 year old goes down on James Barbour? hahaha

[whatever2]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 5:04pm

> I doub that even if he is cast in the show that ... the world would end.

no, but the show will end sooner than it otherwise would have. bank on it.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 6:06pm

winston89: Sorry, but he is a sex offender, even if he is not on the registry.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 6:22pm

If you guys stop misconstruing what I said maybe we will get somewhere.

I do think he had sex with that girl.

I never heard of him until the whole situation came up

I never said that what he did was right or worth any sort of reward etc.

I did say that IF he did get cast in the Broadway production of Two Cities that there wouldn't be any protests because I don't think there are that many people who would care about this enough to warrant a protest or a boycott.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 6:26pm

Maybe if you weren't such an imbecile, maybe we will get somewhere.

You posting "I do think he had sex with that girl" over and over, to quote the immortal words of PalJoey, "you make him guilty all over again."

There is no misconstruing what you said.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 6:39pm

You are the ones who are saying that I said that what he did was okay. I never said that.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 6:45pm

james barbour: in his own words
Posted On: 3/31/08 at 01:58 PM


I do think its wrong to call him a sex offender because he isn't one. The only thing he got in trouble with was endangering the welfare of a minor which is a misdemeanor. He could have had sex with her and most likely did. But, there wasn't enough evidence to prove that so thats why he didn't get charged with it.

I do think it is wrong because of that fact to then say that he is a sex offender and therefor shouldn't be on Broadway again. There is a MAJOR difference between being a sex offender and endangering the welfare of a minor and being a sex offender.

Do I think he had sex with her? Yes, I do. But, I realize that there is a major difference the two. Which is why I am saying that it is a bit much to say that he shouldn't be in this or any broadway show because he slept with a kid. Do we all think he did? Yes most if not all of us on here do. But, do the courts agree with that statement. No, they don't. As I said, there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did sleep with her or not which was why he got charged with the misdemeanor.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 8:11pm

Yankeefan- Winston said it is wrong to call Barbour a sex offender because, ACCORDING TO THE COURTS, he is not one. This is not what Winston believes, but it is what the courts believe, and he is saying that we should all keep that in mind.

ok, go back to fighting.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 8:42pm

I thought that you could be a sex offender with even a misdemeanor?