Will you see Tale of Two Cities if...- Page 3

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 6:26am

Now...let's see... would you go see ATOTC if the Paris part was delivered in French, with subtitles on some screen? Just a silly thought

[FrontRowCenter2]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 6:46am

Seems like I'm in the minority - no way would I support anything that he was in - the man's a sexual predator - PERIOD!

Those of you saying "well, why not? If he's good talent and it will make the show better/more enjoyable then I'll see it." It's exactly that type of mind set that will allow that behavior to continue. By doing nothing, you are essentially condoning that behavior.

[Weez]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 8:34am

We're not "doing nothing and condoning his behaviour". By buying a ticket to see a man in a show, we are paying to see him perform, not - despite what stagedoor crazy fans would believe - to have input in his private life. Barbour's shady past has been dealt with by the relevant authorities. We are nothing to do with it. We are customers, he is a man doing a job he is paid to do. Convicted sex offenders have bills and stuff to pay as well as we do, and have just as much right to a living wage as we do. Granted, we won't see him working as a teacher any time soon, but his past has no bearing on the job he is being paid to do right now. As long as the powers that be are happy to hire him, I'd have no problem going to see him.

If you choose not to see the show because of his behaviour, that's fine. Kudos to you for having your beliefs and standing by them. But do NOT accuse people with different beliefs of condoning child abuse because they do not totally agree with you!

[winston89]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 8:57am

Seems like I'm in the minority - no way would I support anything that he was in - the man's a sexual predator - PERIOD!"

Those of you saying "well, why not? If he's good talent and it will make the show better/more enjoyable then I'll see it." It's exactly that type of mind set that will allow that behavior to continue. By doing nothing, you are essentially condoning that behavior. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------



That is a bit much to say. If you want to get technical then he didn't get regesterd as a sex preditor. But, still.

No, it is wrong to say that people who are willing to go see the show with him in it is condoning this kind of behavor. No one is saying that what he did was a great thing. If that were the case then by all means say that we are supporting this behavor. There are people on this forum who are realizing that he got punished for what he did and it is time to move on. Or there are people who are willing to seperate the man from the character he is playing on stage during Two Cities.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 12:33pm

Honestly, no, I don't think that I would. I can barely even bring myself to listen to my Jane Eyre OBCR anymore.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have the job and that he deserves to be boycotted by everyone. Nor am I saying that people who don't boycott him are supporting his crime. He's paid his debt to the law and society already. It's just how I feel personally, as someone who works with sexual abuse victims. I find it reprehensible that he got off so lightly, and also that he tried to break the rape shield law.

I should add that Barbour isn't a sexual predator. Sexual predators are high-risk multiple offenders who also have some severe type of psychopathology.

Updated On: 5/16/08 at 12:33 PM

[etoile]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 3:37pm

Working in certain professions is a privilege. A PRIVILEGE. A privilege that many realize can suddenly be taken away if you provide any grounds for displeasure. A privilege that some may feel is violated when an aspect of the profession is used for nefarious purposes against a juvenile.

No one is irreplaceable. No one.

This fervor against Barbour will not go away. This wasn't a victimless crime. He'll always be known for a sex scandal with a juvenile. Sex scandals don't fade from memory. Ever! Especially when it's a crime against a juvenile.

Say the name Fatty Arbuckle and what comes to mind? How is he remembered? Can anyone, off the top of their head, name a film in which he starred? A film he directed? Anyone know his first name was Roscoe? Anyone know that after three trials he was eventually found not guilty? They remember the scandal. Sex scandals are the stuff that make tabloids salivate. Does anyone actually think this won't be revisited by the media? Some things you don't live down, and can't put behind you. Some things like crimes against a juvenile you shouldn't, in my opinion, be permitted to put behind you.

I think prudent producers would acknowledge that and realize many posters like myself, who don't do lotteries or rush and actually pay dearly for tickets or cast recordings, won't accept Barbour in any role. Sometimes in life that's the price you pay for poor judgment and bad behavior. For many consumers speaking with our wallet is our only recourse, our way to show displeasure. I would think, especially in these economic times, that any boycotting of a show for one specific reason would be a wake-up call for change.

Can they sell large blocks of tickets to the bus tours? The bus tours that come from large and small towns up and down the coast, towns across the border, towns as far west as the Mississippi? The bus tours that are culled from senior centers, public libraries, youth groups, schools, and churches? The bus tours where producers expect an average ticket price to be three and four times that of the enchanting $26.50 ticket. Does anyone think those booking the tours and securing the tickets are that out of touch with the scandal? It's their business to be aware. I would think with Barbour in the production it might be hard for them to sell this show. Guess time will tell.

To answer the question, I will not see A TALE OF TWO CITIES if James Barbour is in the production.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 4:00pm

That wasn't James Barbour in the Camelot concert? I could have sworn it was him, but I admit, I had trouble paying attention. I finally had to shut the damn thing off. But since I thought it was him, my previous post still stands.

[sanda]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 4:28pm

Umm, that's Nathan Gunn.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 5:15pm

etoile,

If anyone in the bus tours comming to New York City from all over can name anyone in the cast of the Broadway show they are about to see I will give them 20 bucks. The average American does see shows while they are in NYC but they don't follow who is who in the cast.

I don't think that this will stay with him for anyone outside the world of Broadway. Broadway is in the spot light and its not. And, what I mean by that is that the average tourist remembers more the show that they saw and never really pays attention to who is in the cast.

I think that because it is Broadway it is never going to get anywhere major on any radar screen. Barbour isn't that big a name unlike the Hollywood director you mentioned. I wouldn't be shocked if there was someone from god knows where in America who came to NYC and saw Two Cities and didn't even know who Barbour was or what he did.

And, keep in mind one thing. I never heard of Barbour until the sex story came out of the wood work. I am not someone who is a major Barbour fan in any way shape or form. I find what he did to be sick in more ways then one. But, I do realize that this is Broadway. The only people who REALLY care about Broadway a great deal are the peopel that post on this forum.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 5:26pm

Would Tale of Two Cities be that big of a tourist show?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 5:54pm

It could be. Look what happened with Les Miz.

[Weez]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 6:27pm

SporkGoddess, you are a beautiful and rare creature. An intelligent, well-formed opinion on the BWW message boards. Wonderful. :)

(And no, that wasn't my British sarcasm. For a change. ^_^)

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 6:36pm

Why, thank you.

[dayao]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 7:52pm

Thank you, Sporkgoddess, for clarifying the fact that Barbour is NOT a sexual predator, but he did make a serious error in judgment which came back to haunt him years later, conveniently right after he had come into a sizable fortune and married someone other than the girl, who had exchanged friendly emails with him for years until the time of his wedding. However, regardless of whether the girl felt ill used, or her motives were financially opportunistic or she was acting as a woman scorned (at the time she filed charges she was 20 and indeed an adult morally accountable for her actions), it is an indisputable fact that Barbour and the girl’s parents, as the adults, are responsible for what happened. The parents, who were with the girl at the theatre on the first occasion, should have been tried as co-defendants, in my opinion, for allowing their daughter to meet privately with an adult male with whom none of them were previously acquainted. It is a well documented fact, that with the possible exception of politicians, children are the most unreliable source when it comes to the truth. It is also a well documented fact that plea bargains often require a defendant to actually agree to allocute to events as charged, rather than as to the truth of what really happened, in exchange for a reduced charge and sentence. Since this case rested completely on the word of the plaintiff versus that of the defendant, rather than go through a felony trial that might produce more severe damage to his freedom and reputation, Barbour chose the plea agreement. That tells me more about our justice system than it does about Barbour, who because of the plea is and should be able to get on with his life without further persecution in a country that claims, but rarely shows itself to be primarily Christian.

If anyone wishes to abstain from attending a performance featuring Barbour, because the knowledge of his crime makes them feel uncomfortable in doing so, that’s fine, you are within your rights in making a judgment call for yourself. But if anyone tries to make a judgment call for the rest of us by actively trying to prevent Barbour from participating in his chosen profession then that person is guilty of a crime a thousand times worse than anything Barbour or the parents have done, you are casting the first stone and it is sad indeed that we have not progressed as a society beyond the horrible events of the Salem witch trials and more recently, the 1980’s sexual abuse witch hunt predicated in both cases on what was later proven to be the lies of children. How many more lives do we need to destroy before this insane blood lust is satisfied? Who among us have led lives so exemplary that it gives us the right to further judge other human beings whose transgressions have already been addressed by our legal system? None of us have any right to personally intrude on James Barbour’s life and livelihood except by choosing to ignore him professionally as individuals.

Updated On: 5/16/08 at 07:52 PM

[johnnyg]

Posted: 5/16/08 at 8:39pm

here, here. i happen to know Jim personally and believe the previous post to be about as close to a fair representation of the truth as anything i've seen previously.

i would only ask that unless you are personally privy to the true motivations behind anyone's actions, you should abstain from making judgments based on what you think you know or even based on the resolution of any court case.

google "innocence project" if you want to see how many people have gone to jail for things they didn't do and/or have confessed to things they didn't do for various reasons. DNA doesn't lie.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 12:21am

I have no sympathy for Barbour. What the parents did was not illegal. Perhaps it was naive, but they expected an adult man to behave professionally. It's all on Barbour. It was HIS decision and his alone. Were the parents a little negligent? Maybe, but Barbour is the one who committed the crime. The parents did not give the girl over to him with the knowledge that he was going to take advantage of her.

According to Finkelhor, there are four preconditions that must exist for a person to commit sexual assault. He must have the motive, and he must overcome internal inhibitors, external inhibitors, and victim resistance. With this model, the parents' absence would be a way to overcome the external inhibitors, but Barbour still had to meet the other three. He had to have the motive, he had to overcome his internal inhibitions, and he had to get past her resistance.

Children ARE reliable on the witness stand, it's just that they are suggestable, and attorneys don't know how to properly question them. They actually make more errors of omission (leaving stuff out) than errors of commmision (false reports). But that doesn't relate to this case because this girl was a teenager and is now an adult. Anyway, less than 10% of sexual abuse reports are false. I've read statistics of as little as 1%. If anything, sexual abuse is underreported because of the shame that the victims feel. I am tired of hearing that the victim must have only come forward years later because she wanted money and that she obviously wanted/was okay with the sexual acts because she maintained a good relationship with Barbour afterwards. I know so many victims who took years to come forward, and claim to still love their abuser even though they acknowledge that what he did was terrible. There is a reason that the majority of children recant after disclosing the abuse.

I am not judging anyone who still enjoys Barbour's work, but I do think it's taking it too far to deny and minimize what happened to this girl. It was his decision--no one else's. Even if the girl was okay with it, Barbour knew she couldn't give consent and that it was, therefore, illegal. Yet he went ahead with it anyway. Only himself to blame.

As for Project Innocence: they got one man out of prison around here, saying that he had been falsely convicted. A few years later, he was convicted of (and admitted to) sexually assaulting and murdering a young woman.

Updated On: 5/17/08 at 12:21 AM

[dayao]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 12:53am

What the parents did was not naïve; it was stupid and utterly irresponsible. No where did I say that the parents were solely responsible, Barbour committed the crime but the parents facilitated it by allowing their daughter to enter his dressing room unchaperoned. I don’t think it is unreasonable to call the parents to task for their part in this. This girl’s parents are reprehensible. No real loving parent would knowingly send a teenage girl into an adult man’s room alone. I have no empathy for them at all but I do for the girl. She did not deserve what happened to her, which as you pointed out was solely Barbour’s doing. But I still believe if she had not had irresponsible idiots for parents she may have been better shielded from harm’s way. The parents' actions are the only precondition of the four you stated. As far as the other three, only two people know what really happened in that dressing room, Barbour and the girl and since neither you nor I were there to witness it we can only speculate as to who was the sexual aggressor. Given the sexual climate of our society it is possible for a teenage girl to act in this capacity. But regardless, Barbour was at fault as he was the only adult in the room, thanks to the parents and the guilt rests on him for that reason.

Updated On: 5/17/08 at 12:53 AM

[johnnyg]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 1:37am

Spork,

I suspected from your previous posts that you might be a little bit of a fanatic. Your complete dismissal of Innocence Project based on your one anonymous example confirms at least one thing: you are not to be taken seriously on this topic.

maybe you should just change your handle to Javert.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 2:48am

I've saw the show during it's Florida tryout and I thought Barbour did an amazing job in the role of Carton. I don't feel he is a predator but I do think he's stupid. But I do have my concerns about bringing the show to Broadway with him in the lead. As I've stated many times my biggest concern is that the list of victims could grow. If there is the negative reaction many posters anticipate the producers, cast, and crew could also be victims. If the picket lines show up they'll have to cross them everyday to go to work and, possibly, be taunted. Or if the show closes before its time because of the negativity then they'll be out of jobs. I just don't want any innocent parties to pay the price.

I will see the show at some point. The biggest question, for me, is when. I won't know the answer to that until after final casting is announced. I'll either rush to see it or hold back and wait for a bit before going. But I will see it eventually.

[insertclevernamehere]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 3:02am

jonnyg, you spend time with victims of sexual abuse and then see if you're a "fanatic". How is SporkGoddess not to be taken seriously on this subject? She lives this subject every day and I happen to completly agree with her (except that I do think this victims parents are criminally stupid)
I'm sorry, but threads like this just make me furious. As someone said earlier in this thread, no one is irreplacable. Although I certainly wouldn't condemn a person for seeing this show, or respecting Barbour's talent, I would not see this, or any other show with him in it.
Oh and one more thing: Barbour confessed! He said that they had an innappropiate realtionship and that he knew her age. So what does Project Innocence have to do with anything?

Updated On: 5/17/08 at 03:02 AM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 10:36am

Thanks, insertclevernamehere. But it's actually once a week, unless you count the time I spend preparing stuff (I run group for them).

I'm not completely dismissing Project Innocence; rather, I am pointing out that they make mistakes just like the legal system does. We should also remember that there is no DNA evidence in this case. I was, I admit, rather annoyed that they said on their website that children are not to be trusted as witnesses. That's a very disturbing mindset to me.

The parents are not blameless, but you can't tip the scales so they're more at fault than Barbour (that was the impression I was getting from the above posts; my apologies if I was wrong).

Like I said, it doesn't matter if she was begging for it: he knew the law, he knew she was underaged, and he knew the risks. Teenaged girls cannot give consent, and sexual contact without consent is considered sexual assault. As I've said many times on this subject, this was not the case of an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old. This was a young teenager and a man in his 30's who was in the profession that she wished to break into. He had power over her.

I am not a fanatic. I am not calling him a pedophile, and I agree that Barbour has every right to have a job and people have every right to go see him (just like I have every right not to go see him, even if I were in the area). What I am doing is defending the victim, who people say is lying simply because she is doing things that are really quite common in sexual abuse cases. It's one thing to say that you like Barbour as a performer and want to go see him for that reason, but quite another to completely exonerate him or still insist that he is innocent and the girl is just a lying tramp who wants money.

Updated On: 5/17/08 at 10:36 AM

[johnnyg]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 11:11am

i'm not saying a word about the victim or blaming her for anything. i'm talking about judging people when you don't have all the facts - and let's face it - only Barbour and the victim have all the facts - despite what you think about any "confession". And that was my point about Project Innocence. Stats show that about 25% of the people who confessed to crimes were exonerated through DNA i.e. they confessed for reasons other than their actual guilt. Yes, Spork, they make mistakes too but again, statistically, not at nearly as high a rate as our "justice" system. So, when somebody has already gone through our system and been punished according to the law - do any of you really have a right or a clue as to whether they should continue to be punished? And if one day, hypothetically, you found out that somebody's confession wasn't all you thought it was and that there were extenuating circumstances behind why a defendant made the choice he made - would you apologize and make it up to them? (as if you could.)

Before any of you attack me for suggesting that that's the case in this particular instance, I am not saying that. Again, only Barbour and the young woman know that. I am just making a point that NONE of us know the whole truth behind any case - in spite of any "confession". It's something to think about before you keep loading up your hands and pockets with stones.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 11:47am

I'm not throwing stones at anyone. I am also aware of the other side of things and what offenders have to go through once they are back in the "real world." I think that by marginalizing sex offenders, we just make their chance of recidivism even higher.

We do not know what went on behind that door, and I agree that there is always a chance that he is innocent (from the statistics, it's rather slim, though). But I am saying that you can't base your beliefs on what really happened just on how the girl acted. If she was abused, she did not act uncommonly (staying in contact with the abuser, not reporting for years).

Also, he did confess to it. Just like we cannot know what really went on, we cannot know if the confession was coerced or if he simply made it to get a better deal. But he should have known that if he confessed, people would think he really committed the crime and act accordingly.

[whatever2]

Posted: 5/17/08 at 1:15pm

sporkgoddess: i just wanted to say i think your ability to remain so objective regarding a crime you have such strong feelings about is really admirable ... i dont know if i could do it. kudos!

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/18/08 at 5:44am

I was hesitant to post here again, because I really don't care to get this back to the top of the posts. ENOUGH with trashing Barbour! BUT, it is like watching a viscious fight, where someone is being literally killed, and standing by doing nothing about it...Can't do it!
weez, thank you for standing up for all of us with your post.

etoile...I'm beginning to think your angry posts might be of a deeper nature than just the "minor" thing: Are you sure it is not because you might have something against the guy? Just saying...nothing personal at all.
As you said, etoile, certain professions carry that priviledge notation. That is why I was so darn put out when Clinton did what he did in the OVAL OFFICE, a place we, the people, entrusted him with. He should have had the decency to respect each and everyone who voted for him, by not using it for his own self indulgent indiscrations, since it was not HIS office, it belonged to all of us! But...did some people discard this as "nothing"? YEAH! Did he lie? YEAH! Is he still "as popular" as ever with his followers (duh!)? YEAH! And he is REPRESENTING us, still, around the world. And he is contributing to Hillary's popularity, isn't he?
Well, then, why should we treat others differently? This is where the social hipocracy comes in. Especially when someone just made a stupid mistake, here.
Let me be frank: The ONLY case this woman had, was, that she was 15 at the time. No matter how you put it, Barbour WILL lose, just because it happens to be illegal. This is why it was such a frame up. However, as mentioned in this board before, MANY times, there are so many other factors involved here, to make this a very questionable case. Dayao, you are totally right that the parents should have been tried right up there with Barbour. Not only did they allow her alone backstage, period, but they also allowed her to travel alone to NYC a couple of months later, to go out with him (UH?!).
Barbour is just doing a job, and very well at that. He is not trying to persuade anybody that they should condone what he is accused of, neither is he trying to be a role model (the character he plays is quite flawed). If living 2 years with mental stress about this case, hurting at the wallet, because everyone dropped him like a "hot potato" professionally, being ridiculed by some, offended by others who have called him everything in the book (his name has been literally dragged through the mud), going to jail, and then having to be on probation for 3 years, if all this is getting off with just a "slap of the wrist" for you, then revive me from my stupor, because I just don't get it! He is only a dot in the many other dots that make up this musical, so why exagerate his position, and make everyone else pay for your stand on this matter? Do as you must, but, why try to poison the rest of us?
Whatever you say, you cannot say that Barbour does not deserve to be on that stage, after having worked a lifetime for this moment...did you read my previous post here (not the "funny" one). I think I present very clearly some facts, and considerations.

johnnyg...I think what you meant about being "privy' about anyone's reasons for doing something, you meant the girl, right?
I 100% agree with that statement. Who knows what darkness lies behind this accussation? Do any of us, really? My gut feeling from the start (and I am ususally right when I follow this gut feeling), was that Barbour was in some type of frame up situation...just try to get out of the fact that this girl was 15 at the time, it won't happen. What motivated this girl after 5 years (!) to come out with this accussation? Again, none of us know for sure. However, it is a documented fact that Barbour did not "drop" her off as a friend (he was kind and considerate of her feelings) and actually helped her inmensively to make her ambitions of acting, a reality. What, then, gives us the right to judge and literally destroy someone's life even further, by trying to support boycotts, and instill ill will against Barbour in others?
dayao has a solid point about the hypocrasy of so many Christians out there, who interpret God's law as they will, and fail to realize that God, primarily, IS love and forgiveness, AND understanding.

Updated On: 5/19/08 at 05:44 AM