The Controversial Casting Of James Barbour
TRIGGER WARNING FOR MENTIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND PEDOPHILIA. When is it ever okay to return a pedophile to a position they've abused? According to Broadway's "Phantom of The Opera", it's when they have talent.
When the legendary Norm Lewis announced he would be leaving Broadway's "Phantom of the Opera", fans everywhere began speculating about who would don the mask after this iconic casting (Lewis is the first black man to portray the role on Broadway, a huge step forward in regards to race in theater). Some hoped for a familiar face from the production's past while others were starved for fresh talent. The only hint given was that the fans would be pleased with the next Phantom and perhaps they would have--if none were capable of a google search.
In January, it was officially announced that James Barbour would be taking over the role on February 9th. His previous theatre credits include "Jane Eyre", "A Tale of Two Cities", "Beauty and the Beast", and "Urinetown", amongst others. However, Barbour has more of a claim to infamy above all else. In 2006, Barbour was arrested and charged for engaging in sexual activities with a minor five years earlier. His victim, who remains anonymous, was 15 at the time and hailed from the same hometown as him. It was backstage after a performance of "Jane Eyre"--one she attended with her parents--that Barbour took advantage of the girl with promises of helping advance her career in theatre. They engaged in such acts twice, the second encounter taking place at his apartment. Pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a minor, Barbour spent 60 days at Riker's Island and received three years of probation.
The reception to this casting has been mixed, to say the least. Having been in the role for over 5 months, it seems to some that the controversy has passed. However, many remain vocal about their disdain with the production's decision to continue with Barbour despite public backlash. Of course, he has received plenty of support as well. Various people on social media have called his treatment by other fans "immature" and "unnecessary". They claim that his actions were in the past and that he had learned from his mistakes.
The main reasoning was that he deserved a second chance after serving his time, an argument many have pointed out flaws in. While it is true that criminals do deserve a second chance, should they be returned to the position they abused in the first place? Barbour used his status as an accomplished performer to take advantage of a teenage girl, a flagrant abuse of power. When a teacher is caught and charged for inappropriate relations with a student, they are not allowed to return to the profession. They proved they could not be not be trusted with that position of authority and are thus a safety hazard to any student. Why isn't the same concept applied to the theatre community? This is the question being raised by his opposers. There is also the fact that taking advantage of a minor is not a mistake, it is a conscious decision. To refer to it otherwise belittles the situation and the victim's pain. Sexual assault is not just a mistake, it is a crime. Additionally, it is brought up that this is not the first role he's been given since his trial. Supporters question why no one was opposing his casting at those times. This argument is utterly silly in every way. Barbour starred in regional productions following the ordeal and was not highly publicized. Only those who paid attention to such productions would be aware of him and who is to say that no one complained then? The argument is that Barbour should have never been able to go back into theatre at all. However, people cannot give attention to issues they do not know about. It is not illogical to assume that many were not aware of Barbour's activity before this particular casting announcement but it is unfair to come to the conclusion that his casting then received no backlash. The theatre community would be aware of his past but these roles occurred before the community used platforms such as tumblr to connect people around the globe and share information about productions they would otherwise never know of. You cannot fault someone for silence when they are not aware of the situation.
Barbour should not have been able to return to this line of work after sexually assaulting a young girl. As with the teacher-student example mentioned prior, it is a safety hazard to young performers in the industry. Currently, "Phantom" has two of the youngest actresses portraying Christine Daae in Broadway history and is located near the Shubert Theatre, home of the child-heavy "Matilda". There is something off about placing a man guilty of endangering the welfare of a minor near such young talent. I am in no way implying that Barbour will molest his co-stars or anyone for that matter. What I am getting at is that the powers-that-be should have known better than to let such a safety hazard occur. While no one can say for certain that he is a dangerous individual to those around him, it is a risk that should have absolutely not been taken.
Once more, no one is trying to say Barbour is likely to commit such an act again--I for one do believe he has realized the horridness of his actions and works to mend the damage done--but it is the higher-ups duty to protect their talent from even the mere suggestion of danger. It was irresponsible.
James Barbour is a PR nightmare. "Phantom"'s social media team has been deathly silent about him ever since the casting announcement. He is mentioned and pictured a handful of times and each mention receives attention from supporters and opposers alike. Not being able to freely talk about one of your lead actors is a bad sign. It seems to me that their silence implies that they realize they made a mistake with this casting. While it is has not impacted ticket sales (a majority of "Phantom"'s audience are tourists who do not have knowledge of the situation), it has caused a rift in its loyal fanbase. Many fans refuse to support the Broadway production and instead focus on the current national tour or one of the many international productions. This is bad publicity through and through. While some may argue the cliche that "any publicity is good publicity", it is not something beneficial to the production at all. It will be remembered by the fans that this casting occurred and that the powers-that-be showed little to no concern to the opposition. "Phantom" will be stuck with the image of letting talent overrule ethics (they literally tried to justify the casting by saying he had a "tremendous audition"). That is something no show wants to live with. There's also the fact that "Phantom" is one of the most successful shows in theatre history. Their negligence sets an example for the rest of the industry. Ethics in theatre has always been a hot topic but this sets the community back a great extent. You cannot cast a pedophile with a clear conscious, you just can't.
Allow me to explain my personal conflict with James Barbour. I am a survivor of sexual assault. After my assault, I was terrified, angry, and broken. I had no idea how to deal with my trauma and fell into harmful habits. A year later, I rediscovered one of my favorite musicals--Andrew Llyod Webber's "Phantom of the Opera". I saw it back in 2007 and it deeply resonated with me. However, it faded to back of my mind as time passed. After re-watching the 2004 film adaptation and viewing the 25th anniversary performance on Netflix, I fell back in love with the story and characters. I truly do believe that "Phantom" saved my life. I was able to forget my pain for a time and be immersed in a rich story with beautiful music and intriguing characters. I found hope in the character of Christine and felt empowered as I witnessed her growth. In 2014, I had the honor of finally seeing Phantom live once more with Norm Lewis in the title role. It was an amazing moment for me. As soon as the chandelier began to rise, I felt a swell of emotion and remained teary-eyed the rest of the night. It was a magical experience that I will always cherish. As you can see, "Phantom" is important to me, as it is for many others. Perhaps now you can see why I felt so gutted when James Barbour was announced as the next Phantom. The show that helped me overcome the pain of my own sexual assault supported a man that did the same thing to another minor. It felt personal and almost like they were siding with my own attacker. James Barbour may not be the man who assaulted me but I saw my attacker in him. I saw the love and adoration people gave him despite his terrible past and I felt a wound reopen. It was like a betrayal in the cruelest sense.
Now, consider the fact that I am not alone in this position. There are plenty of survivors out there who take solace in theatre and many fans have expressed a similar sense of anger and sorrow at this casting. "Phantom" essentially spit in the face of survivors everywhere with this casting and their blind support of him delivers even worse blows. Every single positive comment undermines our pain. Every time someone says we need to get over it invalidates our trauma and suggests that we are wrong to be upset.
Hear me now: we are not in the wrong. Those who support James forget his victim and her own suffering. You can talk about his state of mind all you want but do not forget her. Do not let her pain go unacknowledged. She was a child and this man took that away from her. He may be trying to become a better person but this atrocity will never be erased. James Barbour will always be the one who stole away any semblance of innocence from her.
All we can do now is hope "Phantom" has truly seen the error of their ways and will decide not to renew his contract. I believe that they can make this right but I am not certain they will. I adore "Phantom", I always will, but this has soured my perception of it all. I can only pray that an apology will be made to those like me who had their trauma resurfaced when James donned the mask.
Become a Community Contributor.
