The REAL Reason Barbour Left ROCKY HORROR- Page 2

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 1:02am

Only unfair in the way that he did serve time and get some kind of punishment, and I do believe that people should be able to move on after serving their time. That's all. I agree with everything you're saying.
Updated On: 8/19/11 at 01:02 AM

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 1:06am

The fact that the show in question is Rocky Horror almost makes this seem like the kind of scenario that the Onion would write about. Protect your children from productions of Rocky Horror that star people like James Barbour!

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 1:11am

Just the lingering stench of rotten acts.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 1:20am

Next season at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge:

"Diane Paulus's Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible: The Musical'"

starring

James Barbour

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 1:32am

Featuring the world-famous, tap-dancin' Puritans!?!?

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 1:38am

She was pregnant when he took the job and knew when the due date was.

I just wanted to point out that the article said she's having problems with the pregnancy. So yes he knew that she was pregnant, but this is something unexpected.

That being said, I don't know what the real reason he left is.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 9:04am

the man was a sexual predator and he admitted it. I don't blame the girls for coming out 10 years later and no one else should unless, sadly, you too have been sexually molested by a 40 yr old man when you were 15 then maybe you can say something.

I find it funny how many people on the Roman Polanski thread said that they would be more forgiving of him if he had come back to America at any time and served his sentence. Well, Barbour DID serve his sentence, went through a rehabilitation program, and yet is still the victim of an "it could happen here" mentality everywhere he goes. Should the man be denied from pursuing his livelihood because of one bad act? God, if he killed a man he probably wouldn't face as much scrutiny as he does now from committing one transgression over a decade ago.

By all accounts, what Barbour did was an isolated incident; at least I don't remember any other victims coming forward ever, or hearing of any others. And it's always sort of interested me personally that Barbour's victim didn't press charges until she was just about to graduate from NYU and begin an acting career in New York. She's now a semi-famous New York actress who works regularly in theatre and television. That always sort of stank of opportunism to me, but that's beside the point.

The point is: Mr. Barbour did the crime, served the time, and should now be considered a rehabilitated individual. If you disagree with that then you're really disagreeing with the foundations of the US legal system.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 9:07am

You Americans are crrrrrrazy.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 9:28am

Meanwhile Mike Tyson is on the CBS family-oriented show Same Name, living with another family, with no outcry.

[castlestreet]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 10:37am

And not for nothing, but has anyone looked at teen age girls these days? I'm glad I'm not a young man anymore because I sure as hell wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a 15 year old and an 18 year old anymore. I don't remember the girls in high school being quite that developed when I was a teen- if they had been I might not have spent so much time in my room listening to showtunes!

Overall- I agree with the rational folks here- he did his time and is trying to move on with his life. You don't have to love the guy, but just like Michael Vick he is now free to pursue what he wants to. If you don't like it than don't suport it, but don't expect everyone in the free world to feel that someone who committs a crime once in their life should never ever be free to be walk amongst us again- I think there was a musical that kinda dealt with this premise... Les Miz or something like that...

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 10:38am

all this stuff is like saying that people shouldn't hire a very talented actor who previously had a problem with alcohol or drugs in the past. (George Hearn, Elaine Stritch, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Williams, and Oprah all come to mind) They COULD start drinking again and cause a problem. Is it likely? No, but producers do not always think.



Though, on a completely different subject: Is Barbour even right for the role of Frank? I've only seen/heard him do all the leading man stuff (Carousel, Beast, Tale, Jane EYre, Assassins). I know he looks like Tim Curry though...

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 10:39am

I'd say both of the actors who played Frank on Broadway in the last revival were more miscast than Barbour seems on paper.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 10:47am

I don't defend statutory rape. You guys may remember that I was very vocal about Barbour's case back in the day. There was a definite power differential which means that the sex could have been not only illegal but also coercive. I defended the victim coming forward so late and visiting him repeatedly, saying that these were common for rape victims. I also pointed out that the age differential alone gave Barbour the power, this was not a case of an 18-year-old sleeping with a 15-year-old. Even if it wasn't coercive, I don't think there is any excuse (minus being lied to about said person's age), and it is definitely sleazy.

However, that said, Barbour HAS served his time and even apologized. It'd be great if he could go back and stop himself from committing the crime, but he can't. I will never look at him the same way again, but I do think he should be allowed to work without protest, especially at an adult show that kids/teens have no business being involved with. Ostracizing released sex offenders only causes higher stress for them, which can lead to their recidivism.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 10:47 AM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 11:35am

Agreed, Spork.

As vocal as I've been about Roman 'Thanks for the Oscar' Polanski, I feel like I'd be a hypocrite for not speaking out on behalf of James Barbour.

Look, I find what he did repellent. And I probably could never watch him again without thinking about it. But the man admitted his guilt and served his time. At this point, he should be able to move on with his life and continue to work.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 11:35am

I don't condone Barbour's actions, but I also with AC that the way the victim went about announcing everything reeked of opportunism. I remember being disgusted by her behavior just as much as his when all this came out. I also remember the anti-Scientology crap that followed everything.

This is NOT me saying I blame the victim at all, I feel terrible that she had to go through what she went through. It is just a difficult situation.

[Producer2]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 11:45am

The man is a child molester, I hope he's registered with the town.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 11:51am

I don't even think the comparison between Polanski and Barbour is that strong or applicable. Polanski drugged and raped his victims, and is believed to have taken advantage of multiple very young girls. He fled the country without serving his sentence. Barbour's incident appears to be an isolated case of statutory rape. He confessed, served his sentence, attended rehabilitation, and has publicly apologized. In the eyes of the law, he IS rehabilitated. Should he not be allowed to earn a living?

I find what Barbour did disgusting and repellant. But since I believe in rehabilitation and penance, I would be a hypocrite if I said that he shouldn't be allowed to live and work in society because of what he did.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 11:52am

Sure, you're not blaming the victim, you're just explaining why you think she's not so credible. Castlestreet is doing it, too. But the thing is - he has said he KNEW she was 15. If he's lying about that, why is that? If he's not, then how can you continue to make excuses or come up with explanations for why the teenagers kinda need to shut it?

Women often don't come forward right away about stuff like this because of the very reactions in this thread. "Yeah, he shouldn't have done it, but did you see what she was wearing/how she looked/how she looked at him? Besides, she's clearly only coming forward now because of a desire for money/notoriety/etc." Just because you say you aren't blaming the victim doesn't mean you aren't actually blaming the victim.

Again, maybe it's unfair, but perhaps a job in the public eye just doesn't work for a convicted sex offender. As for it being an American thing, maybe that's so. It's just not something I can get myself worked up about. No one is entitled to a career in show business.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:01pm

Rehabilitated individuals have a hard time keeping work no matter what industry they are in, because most people can never see past their crime. This is not unique to people who have a career in performance. And it does reek of hypocrisy, especially in America, where our legal system is founded on the basis of serving your sentence and being reintegrated into society.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:05pm

PRS- No, I am NOT blaming the victim. She is absolutely credible. The event absolutely happened. I just find the fact that she is profiting off of this disgusting. I have seen too many close friends and family members go through this and it is terrible.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 12:05 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:12pm

Jacob, I guess I missed how she's profiting off this. What do you mean by that?

According to this, Producer2, he has to disclose it with "anybody he works for in film, television or theater for up to the next three years." Because he took a plea and wasn't charged with a felony, he doesn't have to register as a sex offender.

Honestly, he got off easy. And again, he's been working, right? Unless it's proven to be systematic (him losing work) then I don't think it can be argued that he is being prevented from making a living.






New York Times Updated On: 8/19/11 at 12:12 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:16pm

How is she profiting? Just because she has an acting career doesn't mean it is BECAUSE of this lawsuit. Should she end her career goals because of this incident? Likely, the reason she was even interested in GOING to his dressing room was because of her dreams.

This is a tough one to "side" with. I do believe he has every right to work and live. I also beleive the society in which he is has every right to know that a convicted sexual predator is in their midst -- seeing how a huge percentage of sexual predators are repeat offenders. Is he? I don't know. I could certainly "buy" that it was a total lapse of judgement, but I doubt I'd let my 14 year old within arms reach of him.

I have no opinion of his talent -- but it's not an either/or situation.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:17pm

What I find interesting is that I don't remember any uproar when he was starring in A TALE OF TWO CITIES, a show that featured several child actors. One would hope that their parents would have said something if they felt like their children weren't safe working for Mr. Barbour.

Unless it's proven to be systematic (him losing work) then I don't think it can be argued that he is being prevented from making a living.

What bothers me about this specific situation is that it seems as if Mr. Barbour was strongholded into leaving/being let go by outside influences, such as that radio host who took to the air daily to decry Mr. Barbour's presence in his community.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:26pm

She used this incident to get a lot of press and break into the industry. Having never seen her in any way she could be the most talented performer in the world, but the way she acted when this was coming out rubbed me the wrong way. Once again, this has nothing to do with my feelings about the crime, it was terrible. But in all of the press she did a few years ago it just rubbed me the wrong way.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:29pm

I remember similar threads like this when he was in A Tale of Two Cities. And again, this is all following him because he works in the public eye - he took a plea, he was charged with a misdemeanor, he doesn't have to register as a sex offender. This wouldn't be following him if he wasn't an actor. And even though that's not fair, it's still the way it is. I'm sure there are plenty of guys who got stiffer penalties for doing the same thing who would agree things aren't always fair.

Here's an older thread I found about him, which is pretty much the same things that are being said here, complete with those who want the girl to take her share of blame.
Older thread