OFFICIAL: REBECCA Is Officially Delayed Indefinitely; Producers Blame Anonymous Email for Scaring Away New Investor This Week- Page 2

[CapnHook]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 11:04pm

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_hady_5BKPEZIvidUjEz3wo2efwK

New developments. Sprechers "go-between" guy has been named and has a history with fraudulent business...

[philly03]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 11:21pm

^^ GOtta love that Riedel has to make note that Jim Barbour is in the cast and his criminal background.

So many "jinxes" in this production though - Jill Paice starred in two epic-novel flops (GWTW and Woman in White), Barbour (Tale of Two Cities, Jane Eyre), Sprecher (American Buffalo, Brighton Beach), Michael Kunze (Dance of the Vampires, in a minor role), etc.

I still hope we see it.

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 11:27pm

Stop pretending like this show will EVER be on Broadway!

[tazber]

Posted: 10/2/12 at 11:41pm

GOtta love that Riedel has to make note that Jim Barbour is in the cast and his criminal background.

Yea, you don't really live something like that down. It's gonna follow him for the rest of his career.

[RockStarNYC]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:23am

"Follow him for the rest of his career?" Are you serious? It was four years ago. NONE of the articles I've read on REBECCA (mind you these were respectable papers and not the New York Post) brought to attention Mr Barbour's history. That's because they have a sense of journalistic integrity unlike the slime that is Michael Riedel. I knew it was only a matter of time before we had this allusion and honestly, what's the point? This is news from 4 years ago. It is people like Riedel who just NEED to say stuff. Mr Barbour has moved on, the theatre community has moved on, the victim has probably moved on. Idiots like Michael Riedel just need to get with the times and realize that saying stuff like that no longer gets a "Oh yeah. Shame on him." Instead it's a, "It's not a big deal anymore."

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:51am

It will Always be a Big Deal.

[RockStarNYC]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:13am

Okay, CPD. Fine. It will always be a big deal for people. I just don't feel like arguing this point anymore. Regardless, the guy served his punishment. He has still found work. Does he need to be careful with his selection of work? Yes. Even I will admit to that. I just implore people that before lashing out against a man who made errors in judgement to look at the facts and understand that if Mr James Barbour is in fact "The Beast of Broadway" then why is he not a) in prison, b) happily married and a family man, and c) still welcome within the Broadway community.

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 2:11am

The "victim" was Cristin Milioti of Once, so I'd say she's moved on to Tony nominations.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 9:43am

RockStar, you sound like you're not aware of this, but you should know that a predator is a predator for life - once that trust has been betrayed, it can't be recaptured.

A convicted predator may never act on his impulses again, but to believe that they absolutely never will is a fool's faith.

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 10:23am

It's an interesting idea, the predator for life idea. I don't know if I agree or disagree. And perhaps it, too, is overly broad? For example-- let's consider Ben Sprecher. He made a number of big mistakes on this project. Could he actually *learn* from these mistakes, and be better for it? I don't mean just take caution in the future, but actually learn, in a meaningful way. I tend to think that people are capable of bettering themselves genuinely, but I don't know that.

On the other hand, I look at the scuzzy Long Island dud who seems to have a mile-high list of financial indiscretions, and, in that case, I don't offer the same enthusiasm that he could better himself in a real and meaningful way. In his case, I think a fraud is a fraud is a fraud.

Would I feel comfortable leaving my younger sister (16) unaccompanied with James Barbour if they were in a show together, etc? Honestly, I think so. What he did was terrible, but mostly it was just terribly stupid. But do I think he should be shunned for life? No.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 10:46am

"Shunned for life" is unnecessary hyperbole that minimizes the importance of the violation(s).

The point is not shunning anyone for life, but remaining aware of the possibility of future violations.

I didn't make up the predator for life definition - courts assign one of three risk levels to convicted predators; none of them identify "no risk of repeat offense": the lightest is merely "low risk of repeat offense."

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 10:52am

I certainly understand that you didn't make up the concept. And, of course, there is never a guarantee of anything at all, ever. I think it would be foolish if there was such a thing as "no-risk of repeat offense". I think it would be equally foolish saying that a sweet little old lady with no criminal background was "no-risk for committing homicide." One never knows... yet so many people presume to.

[dexter3]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 10:54am

My god. Give Barbour a break. People make mistakes. He knows it's affected his career. I'm sure he'd never do it again.

There have been so many threads on Reidel, but he's just trash and he can't even find anything more gossipy about this story than what the NYTimes already published so he's resorting to rehashing old news....

[newintown]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 10:55am

"I'm sure he'd never do it again."

Absolute omniscience must be a fun thing to have.

[RockStarNYC]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 11:00am

ok, newintown. I apologize for anything I have said that may have been found to be "unaware" of Mr Barbour's predicament. I was just stating an observation I had made and that was the fact that nobody brought up Mr Barbour's criminal history. We are all human, and to quote Alexander Pope, "To err is human; to forgive, divine." You may say that what Mr Barbour did was unforgivable but unless you were in that room, we know not of the nature nor circumstances. Yes, I'll agree that Mr Barbour's actions some 10 years ago was wrong. But can we not let him move on? He has a wife and child now. This is the last I shall comment on the situation. I apologize again if my comments rubbed anyone the wrong way.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 11:35am

"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

Well, last I checked, none of us are named Jesus Christ, nor could we be confused for him at a cocktail party.

(Seriously? You posted that on BroadwayWorld and didn't expect a response like mine?)

[newintown]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 11:37am

When the person you're talking with starts citing the one Pope quote everyone knows, but with a certain lack of comprehension, it's time to just start slowly walking away.

[tazber]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:23pm

Is he on a sex offender registry list I wonder?

Or does one's name get removed from that after four years as well.

And to the poster who claims to know the identity of the victim, why would you post that? That's just an awful thing to do.

[philly03]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:39pm

^ No, he accepted a plea bargain to ensure his name WOULDN'T be on the registry (aka every time he did a concert or a touring show he would have to go about alerting people).

I agree - Barbour/etc tried to get the name released and the judge over-ruled it, why put it out here.


I feel bad for Barbour just because any production hes involved in, it seems at least one reporter is trying to sabotage the show. With Tale, Riedel (I'm pretty sure) went around asking the parents of the children in the show if they knew, etc. It was just ugly.

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:26pm

We are forgetting that Cristin Millioti was still friends with Barbour for years after the incedent, meeting many times, and considered him a "mentor" as she was a rising actress. It wasn't until several months before the 7 year statute of limitations was to expire that she pressed charges, then tried to "$ettle" the case out of court. When barbour called to apologize, that he had not known she was planning to take him to court, she recorded the phone message which was later used against him. She knew exactly what she was doing. Barbour's fault was falling for it.

Updated On: 10/3/12 at 01:26 PM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:37pm

Oh Good Christ!

We're playing victim conspired an entrapment angle to this story now?

[newintown]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:38pm

Tacky and wrong on so many levels, splash, just tacky and wrong.

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:44pm

Interpret the facts in your own way. He didn't just force her to touch him. It was a (you know what) and it didn't just happen once, she came back of her own free will and did it again on a separate occasion. By the time she was 22, she was very ambitious and just about to start paying her college student loans... Acting school is expensive.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:48pm

I'm sorry, did someone just use the word victim in quotes when talking about this? Whether she was willing or not and whether she came onto him is irrelevant. He was the adult in the situation and acted on impulses he shouldn't have acted on.

The amount of victim blaming that goes on on this board when anything of this nature is discussed is sickening.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:51pm

She was only 15 years old!