Will you see Tale of Two Cities if...- Page 4

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/18/08 at 6:04am

SporkGoddess, I also admire your stand. However, I am confused about something: You mentioned having a recording of Jane Eyre, where Barbour was lead. Did you realize that this play was about a 15 year old orphan who had a love/sexual atraction relationship with a man twice her age? Also, this man "was" married at the time they met? When Jane found out his marital status, then went away to possibly be with another man "older" than her? Jane did not allow herself the benefit of being a victim, but loved from her heart, made decisions as a mature individual, and never accused Rochester of anything, to make his life more miserable than it already was.
Seems to me you supported the storyline and concept in this play, by being a patron (ie.: buying a ticket and a CD), without addressing this situation as "child abuse", or calling Rochester a "predator" (sorry, I know you said you did not call Barbour such, just saying for those who do). And I am sure you found the romanticism of it all appealing and rewarding your inner romantic soul.
Perhaps Barbour, being an artist (and I do believe artists see life very differently from those who are not), let his life immitate his art, and who is to say this girl did not do the same. Who is not to say that, originally, he saw a possible serious relationship there. Again, none of us can judge this, or should, but God. As far as the courts are concerned, this case is done.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 12:18am

I don't want to open a can of worms and start all this mess again but I want to share something that just happened. I also didn't think this deserved its own thread so I just wrangled up an old one that had the same debate in it.

I was on a baseball message board that I have been a poster on for about six years or so. I had started a thread about TOTC to share the song "Until Tomorrow" with my fellow posters because I felt the themes in the song echoed our "struggles" as fans. Almost immediately the Barbour issue was jumped upon.

Now these are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing neanderthals who don't go to the theatre and don't read the Broadway message boards or news sites. They knew about what he had done and were not shy about making comments like "I wouldn't suggest anyone go see anything that lines the pockets of this monster".

My intentions behind posting this are not to drag Barbour's name through the mud or "retry" him. I just wanted to show the people who think that people outside our community don't know about this that they're mistaken. They know and they have strong feelings about it.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 1:04am

bwaybabe2: Sorry, but Jane was 19, not 15. And society was different back then. Perhaps it was wrong for young women marry much older men, but if I hated every story that featured a large age gap between people I wouldn't be able to enjoy any classic. Additionally, Rochester never made any sexual advances towards Jane until, presumably, they were married. Merely being many years apart from your partner is not enough to make a situation abusive. It certainly can set up the situation, but it is not enough alone.

Also, the whole point of the book is that Jane and Rochester were equals. In fact, she could not be with Rochester until they were fully established as equals, with Jane even having an advantage (he lost his money and his eyesight, she gained money and family connections).

Again, I have admitted that we don't know the full story. All that I have said so far is that it is quite possible that this girl was not lying and really was sexually abused (which is even more likely because he admitted to it). Maybe Barbour was serious about her. But, if he was, he should have waited until she was 18 because, morals aside, he knew that was against the law.

Updated On: 5/30/08 at 01:04 AM

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 2:42am

SporkGoddess...I thought I recalled her being 15. However, as a "quick" (though NOT neccessarily a right answear, sometimes), I looked it up in Wikipedia, and it seems she was actually 18. Depending on "which" side of her birthday she was, she could still have been a minor, then (again, from my reference, she was).
In those days, younger women with older men was not looked at with the same indignation that our society does nowdays. I fully understand that we are living in some weird, deprived times, where older men, and women, do prey of younger counterparts, even kids, with malice. And, I do not agree with this, as it is done by perversed minds. Notice, though, I said "prey", which I fully DO NOT believe it was in this case, at all.
I'm glad you agree that being years apart is not enough to make a situation abusive. In our time, 15 year olds (sometimes, sadly, way younger than that) are actually predators, and the seducers, themselves. It has been documented that about 25% of them are sexually active, as well. Without going any further about the facts of this case to prove my views (honestly, I DO NOT want to carry this thread ANY further, really, as, like I said, enough harm has been done to the accused, thus far), let me just say that, Barbour allowed for the fact, to the girl, that he had been unethical in his conduct;he was referring to the realization that he was mentoring her, and should not have allowed for a situation like this to develop, obviously. And he did this "prior" to the accussation (thus, why I do not understand how this case ended up in court at all, and since she had a friendly relationship with him, up to the time of the charges, as well). I suppose the fact that he was a 'mentor" and she was an aspiring actress, is why you mention the "equal" element? I actually see Jane as very unequal to Rochester, socially, agewise, and by the fact she was also an orphan, which made her more vulnerable, but that is "my" opinion.
Again, if this girl partook in these encounters, willingly (perhaps, even, as the seducing party), and her parents "allowed" her to visit twice, alone, with a man much older than her, regardless, this is a matter that needs to be considered, in all fairness. You are right, there IS a lot we do not know or understand here.
Like someone mentioned before (I think in this thread, as well), this girl has not been the subject of much retaliation by Barbour's friends or family, and all BECAUSE of Barbour's wishes, which shows that he is still being a gentleman, in spite of how his name has been trashed. The things I have read so far by a couple of his friends, have only been facts about the case that nobody was privy to, and they felt a strong need to support their friend, and expose these. And, I am sure they did it without his knowledge, as well.
I also read comments from a reporter in the Daily news (someone pointed this out in some thread, and I researched it) who actually brought out more facts than any of his friends have given, and that I, certainly, was not aware of, either. Facts that show Barbour as being treated extremely unfairly, thoughout this issue. To me, illegal does not mean that it is wrong, in some cases...some laws are definitely outrageous, and to say the least, can damage a person, unfairly, for the rest of their lives. Again, I don't want to go any further, here.

And, Eris, though I understand your point (which you have all right to make), I am led to believe that most of the people, commenting on those boards, have read articles about this case, or know someone who has read, or knows about it.
What I marvel at, is: How can someone make such statements about somebody, without knowing the case "in depth" (ie.: hidden facts and situations), and without even knowing Barbour, himself...?!
In all, I think this whole thing has been a shame. It has rendered someone, who had a lapse in judgement, and I do believe, without malice, to suffer a surmountable consequecence for the rest of his life. My point is: Can we MOVE ON from this, and allow that this matter is a "done case" by the courts (hello...even the "victim" was "satisfied with the results", as she put it). So why, I ask, are we "retrying" Barbour, exposing him further to the negatives I stated in my previous post, and making him the real victim of this unfortunate situation?
Again, he's not asking for anyone who does not agree, to accept him or what happenned. Those who do not want to see Tale because of their beliefs, fine. But, like I pointed out before, he is just but a dot in the whole picture of this production. I urge you to not discard seeing this amazing piece of theater, just because you think you will be making a point (I think I stated mine quite clearly about "other" figures who are still as popular as ever, AND representing us all (which annoys me something fierce, since Clinton is NOT MY representative AT ALL!!!).
Right, I've gone longer than I wanted to, but I said what I deemed essential...I'm sure I could have definitely have said more...

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 2:45am

Why does it matter?

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 3:06am

Thank you, TooDarnHot, EXACTLY my point...This is a show, and a performer doing his work...let's allow God to judge, if we must,(as the courts already had their say), and leave all this judgemental stances outside of a deserving show.
Don't buy a ticket if you won't, but don't influence others who would otherwise support this show, and genuinely enjoy it. Or get upset if they do support it. Why ruin good work, which has taken so long to be put together, someone's dream, as well? =[

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 8:34am

eris0303, what do your baseball forum buddies think of Roger Clemens and his antics with a minor, while married? What he did was FAR worse than what might have occurred with Barbour and that fan.

As for Barbour, if my decision to see Broadway shows was based on the personalities, behavior and reputations of castmembers, I'd probably rarely see a show! The man's case has been handled by the justice system. We, and he, should all be allowed to move on.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 8:42am

I don't believe in God at all. But, I think it is wrong for us to continue to drag him over coals. I have heard the excuse "well considering what he did it is okay for him to be dragged over coals." I find that to be false. For all we know, the girl could have gone on the court case without her parents agreeing with it.

I think that what happend happend and that you aren't making a statement by not buying a ticket. Considering the fact that the girl said that she was okay with the outcome of this case and considering the fact that Barbour went to jail for this you should be able to move on and see what could be a great show and enjoy it.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 10:05am

It's fascinating to me what people will and won't accept when it comes to performers off-stage (or off-screen, etc). I know it's not the same, but every time I hear people defending Barbour I think about the big Isaih Washington kerfuffle last year, and I wonder if any of the same people who called for his head for allegedly using the F(aggot)word are those same people who say they could sit through a James Barbour show without reservation.

Like I said, I know it's not the same thing (let's face it - what Barbour has been accused of is much much worse), but it just seems to me that there's a lot more "live and let live" when it comes to this guy then perhaps there should be. I don't know. Perhaps I'm not making any sense, and perhaps it's apples and oranges.

I know there are no easy answers. I don't think there are any absolute rules when it comes to how and when to separate the artist from the art.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 11:49am

bwaybabe2: She's 18 when she first meets Rochester. I just looked it up. Also, they were unequal socially, but Jane claimed to be his equal. He didn't propose to her until she did so. But, like I said, Jane never mentioned any incident that seemed abusive to me. Now a story like Lolita, on the other hand...

Barbour hasn't exactly been gentlemanlike in his conduct towards the girl. He and his lawyers tried to place an advertisement asking if she'd ever made allegations of sexual abuse before. Which is actually not legal.

They were unequal in that they were more than five years apart and he was prominent in a field into which she desired to break. And even if she begged for the sexual acts, he is culpable because minors are not capable of giving consent and he was very well aware of that. Sometimes statutory rape laws are ridiculous, but I think I can see their purpose when it comes to a 15-year-old girl and a 30-something-year-old man. Developmentally, teenagers' brains are not fully developed enough that they are able to make rational decisions. They also overly rely (much more than adults do) on peers' perceptions. Add in that she greatly admired this man professionally, it is not unlikely that she would have done anything to please him. That factor makes it rather coercive. Would she have agreed to the acts had Barbour been younger and not established as an actor? Again, we don't know. But it is a possibility that she wouldn't have. I am saying that, just like the people who are saying it is likely that the girl really wanted it and is now just after his money, it is just as likely that she is a victim and was coerced into the acts.

Something was definitely wrong because the girl came forward. Contrary to popular belief, sexual abuse is underreported because of the guilt, shame, and what the victim has to go through during the legal process. The idea of victims coming forward just to get back at a guy or because they want money is not as common as people think. Now, yes, this girl could be coming forward for that very reason--however, I am saying that statistically it is not as likely as people think it is.

I also would like to point out that men and women have very different ideas of saying no. Men expect a verbal no, but women expect that nonverbal communication of it will suffice. That is what often leads to situations like date rape. Perhaps this girl was saying no, but Barbour did not realize it. Or, perhaps he felt that, because she came to his dressing room alone, she wanted something (one study has shown that boys are more likely to say date rape is acceptable when the girl has gone back to the guy's place).

The problem is that many of us don't agree with the court decision. People have been placed on the registry for much, much less. Regardless, I agree that he has paid his time and should not be punished further by not being allowed to work. But I have the right to choose not to go see him. I don't care if others go see him, that's just how I feel.

Updated On: 5/30/08 at 11:49 AM

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 12:01pm

sporkgoddess, I absolutely agree that he was culpable, if something happened, because he is the adult in the situation. I also agree with you about possible scenarios of what each felt was being communicated. I would add to that the possible scenario that this girl initiated whatever happened, if something did, that she pursued him, both at the theatre and later at his apartment. This neither excuses nor condones how he might have responded, if this is what happened, but it is as likely a scenario as the girl being there for entirely innocent reasons and him unilaterally and forcefully doing whatever happened. I know so many Broadway actors who have had teenaged fans proposition, offer, throw themselves at them. They have, rightly, run in the opposite direction. Barbour, perhaps, didn't, however, the possibility exists that the blame is not entirely his.
Updated On: 5/30/08 at 12:01 PM

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 6:05pm

This will never end, will it?

What are we accomplishing by beating a dead horse?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 6:16pm

I'm with TooDarnHot. WHO CARES???? I hope he's in the show because he's a great performer. I really don't give a sh*t about what he did with a fifteen-year-old girl in his dressing room.

[winston89]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 7:05pm

I don't see how the whole notion of not seeing him perform is going to do anything. If he is in the show he will be may not be getting your money in terms of a paycheck. But, he will be getting money from other people.

Phyllis, In terms of the whole Isiah Washington situation. Sports fans are more likely to complain for a couple of days and then go on about there business supporting the team as they always have been. Also, Washington's name and this story were all over the local news. Which, if your a member of a professional sports team thats all that is needed to hurt you.

Barbour's name wasn't that widespread. Also, a majority of people are going to say that what he did sucked but they also might not have any desire to see Two Cities or any Broadway show for that matter.

And, in terms of hollywood. Many is the time that someone is involved with something illeagle that someone might not like. Yet, they still see the star's newest movie anyways.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 9:37pm

Winston, what is the connection between Isaiah Washington and a sports team? He's an actor.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/30/08 at 11:38pm

"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?" - etiole.

It is true that Roscoe (yes, I knew that was his first name) is remembered for being accused of a rape at a speakeasy party. Four Arbuckle films: The Hayseed, The Cook, The Butcher Boy, and Good Night Nurse. Couldn't name a film he directed off the top of my head, but I know he directed them as William B Goode, and sometimes William Goodrich. And yes, I knew he was acquitted.

Fatty's career was over, and that's really too bad, because his biggest mistake was attending that party. Times have changed, and Barbour has served his time. He made a regrettable mistake, owned up to it and paid for it. I might not leave my god daughter alone with him, but why wouldn't I see him onstage? Does he no longer have a right to make a living?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 5/31/08 at 12:40am

Well said, ghostlight2.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 5/31/08 at 12:47am

When does O.J. Simpson go into Chicago as Billy? Is that for the tour or Broadway?