The REAL Reason Barbour Left ROCKY HORROR- Page 4

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:37pm

No, AC126748. I mean Barbour's guilt, not yours. Admit Barbour's guilt. I am not saying you are guilty of anything.

If he could admit his guilt, you should be able to admit his guilt.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:39pm

No bigger misogynist here than AC126748. That's for sure.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:40pm

Go back and re-read my posts, nomdeplume.
I've noted numerous times that I do not condone what Mr. Barbour did. I've also noted that he's served the sentence that was prescribed to him. He is guilty of performing a sexual act with a minor. He was found guilty. He served his time, went through a treatment program, and is a free and remitted citizen in the eyes of the law. The end.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 05:40 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:54pm

That is only a sentence and fulfilling the requirements of it, treatment program, whatever the terms are. His terms require giving ongoing notices, etc., so he is not so "free" as you think.

A true rehabilitation is something else entirely. You may be able to look back at someone's life decades after their crime to see if they have truly been rehabilitated and reformed their ways. Just completing a treatment program is nothing in the way of a guarantee. Look at all the drug addicts who end up back in "rehab" programs.

Barbour has some talent but I do not like him. I saw him be very rude to a co-star actress onstage after A Tale of Two Cities one evening when he was making a speech about asking the audience to give money for Broadway Cares. She said something and he was nasty to her. I think he has severe problems with his condescending attitude toward women. That is something in his character and it is not so easy to "rehabilitate."

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:03pm

All I can say is that I don't know James Barbour personally, and I'm going to go ahead and assume based on your posts that neither do you. I don't know what kind of work he's done on himself since committing his crime and serving his sentence. We don't know, but aside from the actual act for which Mr. Barbour was convicted I've seen nothing but hearsay and gossip used to condemn a man who, in the eyes of the law, has served his time.

May I just ask: if you find Mr. Barbour so morally repugnant, why did you see him in A TALE OF TWO CITIES? I can only assume that you were aware of his crime at the time you purchased/received your ticket.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:18pm

I had a comp. I went for the musical itself, not for him. Aaron Lazar was in it, too, I went to hear Lazar sing as he is topnotch and also did a magnificent acting job. It was a big cast. Barbour was not so hot in that.

So if Barbour were in a show and there were other people in the show that I wanted to see I would still go despite his presence. I saw him in the recent Irish Rep fundraiser of Camelot, but I did not go to see him. He sang well.

If he did a one-man show, and he has (concert) I would not go even on a comp. If in a small cast show I would not pay to see it unless I had a friend or favorite actor in the cast.
Updated On: 8/19/11 at 06:18 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:31pm

Interesting. I don't think I could bring myself to go--comped or not--if I felt as strongly about a person's actions as you do about Barbour's.

Also, I suggest that you (and others) read this thread, where the matter was refreshingly discussed and no one felt the need to resort to ad hominems.
ATC thread

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 06:31 PM

[philly03]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:36pm

^HA You went to see Aaron Lazar's short short stage time? His one minute solo and two duets?

Barbour was all the rave for Tale of Two Cities and nearly every single review said he is the reason to see the show. He was fantastic in it. His booming baritone, he's comic ability was right for the role, everything. He did a lot to get Tale of Two Cities where it was at the time (including help them to try out at the Asolo and get the leading lady for Broadway).

The Post was out to get him with Tale as well. They published a few articles, including this one where they attempted to interview Catherine Missal (the little girl in the show)'s parents.

NY Post Beat Back in the Show

[Kad]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:36pm

You should probably just slink away and cash that check from Mr. Barbour, you misogynist!

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:37pm

Barbour is nothing to me. i don't like him, I don't hate him.

You have revealed yourself by choosing to defend him. He means something to you not to me. Why do you relate to him so strongly?

You been having a meltdown in his defense.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:39pm

Barbour is nothing to me. i don't like him, I don't hate him.

Need I remind you what you wrote one hour ago:

His name is MUD and he knows it. He's lucky he got someone to marry him. He's lucky when he finds work. He is no oppressed victim; he was a sexual predator to a child.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:40pm

From the ATC thread - The victim in this case was already sexually active at the time of the incidents and was from a powerful family. Barbour had recently come into a significant inheritance when the charges surfaced within the final year of the statute of limitations and there were reports that he was basically railroaded. Unfortunately for the victim, the whole thing reeked of opportunism.

She never did file a civil suit, though, did she? I guess that's when the smearing switched to claiming she was trying to make a name for herself on Broadway instead of just being after his inheritance money.

I like the mention that she was already sexually active at the time. That thread is just a bunch of apologists.
Updated On: 8/19/11 at 06:40 PM

[binau]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:43pm

Well, if she was sexually active at the time it changes everything. Barbour was just feeding the hungry. What a hero.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 06:43 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:44pm

Clearly she was asking for it and clearly he could not be expected to control himself.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:46pm

Yes, to see the musical and Lazar, who also sang Piazza most beautifully. He had a good role in A Tale of Two Cities and was even better than in Piazza.

I found Barbour way too self-aware and self-conscious in his acting in A Tale of Two Cities, annoyingly so, and was not impressed at all. He seemed very impressed with himself and was hogging the limelight, not my idea of good acting. Lazar and the female lead were magnificent, most impressive and giving, both in their singing and acting.

Lazar has been having a wonderful theatre career and I look forward to seeing him in more leading roles.

And yes, Barbour's name is MUD. That's just the facts when your name is all over the papers for the type of crime he did. There are plenty of criminals out there. I don't like him and I can't be bothered to hate him. He doesn't interest me. The facts are facts. Updated On: 8/19/11 at 06:46 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:47pm

"Is nomdeplume, nomdeplume? Is it I, God, or who, that lifts this arm?"

- Herman Melville

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 06:47 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:52pm

Phyl, I was referring more to posts like this:

Was he an idiot for getting involved with a minor - yes. And despite those who believe rightly or wrongly that it smacks of opportunism on the part of the victim, it WAS still illegal AND stupid AND generally ICKY.

But he did confess, he did go to jail and served his time - paid his debt to society. He has since started a family and has been a productive member of society.

I could see a producer passing on casting him as the headmaster of a school for wayward teenaged girls but ROCKY HORROR???

To quote a Wonderful Wizard "the most celebrated are the rehabilitated"

At what point can he use his talents "For Good" without fear of retribution.

Again - I don't condone what he did even if he was shaken down in the end - but I thought this was a country where you could get a second chance.


Emphases are mine.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 06:52 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:52pm

Jesus Christ, nomdeplume... AC is hardly Barbour's fierce advocate. And AC's opinion is hardly unique or radical in this thread.

I personally wouldn't support Barbour. In my mind, he'll always have the stigma of what he had done. Whether or not the girl was "asking for it", or an opportunist, sexually active, or whatever is irrelevant- Barbour confessed to knowing she was underage and confessed to the deed.

Now, 15 is a tricky age... I know plenty of 15 year olds that would not shy away from the opportunity of a sexual encounter with a handsome actor they admire. Or a sexual encounter with a handsome anyone. And it seems to me the act was consensual. But the law is the law, making consent irrelevant, and Barbour was certainly old enough to practice restraint.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:55pm

Quelle mystere, O growle mysterieuse...

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:56pm

No, Kad. Nomdeplume has spoken. I'm not only James Barbour's paid operative but a dreadful misogynist as well. It took you idiots five years of me posting here on a regular basis to figure it out!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 6:59pm

I know plenty of 15 year olds that would not shy away from the opportunity of a sexual encounter with a handsome actor they admire. Or a sexual encounter with a handsome anyone. And it seems to me the act was consensual. But the law is the law, making consent irrelevant, and Barbour was certainly old enough to practice restraint.

That's why in the cases of statutory rape, the onus is always on the adult. I know that's essentially what you said, but I think it bears repeating.

AC, I get what you're saying and you're right that there's personal acrimony going on in this thread that isn't in that one - but plenty of folks have said in this thread more or less what that post you've quoted is saying.

And I still think it's less about him being denied a second chance and more about the fact that he's in a field that draws public attention. And again, unless situations like these are the norm, I just don't see the problem. He's been working since he got out of jail and he will still continue to get work. And his reputation is going to continue to follow him.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 7:02pm

That's more like it.

Wait.

I'll get my whip.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 7:04pm

With voyeuristic intention?

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 7:06pm

yes, tmg, to observe the self-flaggelations

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 07:06 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 7:09pm

Ugh, I also am super bothered by the mention that she was sexually active. Oh, I guess she was open for business so it's okay!

Kad: Though it is possible that the girl literally threw herself at him, it is also possible that Barbour used his position in show business to coerce her into sexual acts. I'm not saying that's what happened as we'll never know, of course, but I don't think we can assume the girl in question was entirely comfortable with the situation.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 07:09 PM