Every fairytale has an unfortunate beginning. Alas, this is not the tale of a young maiden who yearns to be rescued by a knight in shining armor. This is the story of a girl forced to abandon her innocence far too early and it is my own. I ask for no pity or understanding. I merely wish for a chance to tell the world how I became the young woman who is writing this very text. It all began with a truly unfortunate circumstance.

High school was not what I dreamed it would be. Freshman year was engaging, of that there is no doubt, but it was also different and stressful. Summer’s arrival filled me with a certain glee. However, that happiness did not last. It was that very summer that I was sexually assaulted by an acquaintance. As countless others in my situation, I was lost and frightened. I did not understand what had happened and what I did to deserve it. No comprehension dawned upon me for years. I kept silent and suffered this trauma on my own for I believed it to be my own fault. A potent self-loathing grew within my mind that accompanied an isolation of my own design. To put it simply, I was inflicting a punishment upon myself even though I was at fault for absolutely nothing. Of course, I did not realize that then.

Sophomore year was when I finally confessed my hidden shame. I revealed my impurity and waited to be abandoned. No one left me. No one had forsaken me. Instead, they offered endless love and support. In nearly two years, my tears were not induced by pain and hatred. I sobbed with joy because I was never alone and never will be. I attended therapy and spoke about my experience with trusted friends. I lifted a crushing weight from shoulders and faced the world. I know now that I was not at fault. The blame lies with my attacker. There is no hatred left in my heart-- not for myself or him. I cannot change the past, however painful it may be, but I can influence my future.

It was with a changed heart and determination that I set out to change my ways. Gone were the vices that I used to numb the pain and in with healthy passions that filled my mind with wonder. I came to terms with my sexuality and sought solace in theater. I lost myself in the worlds of Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables. My desire to one day be in a production of one of my saving graces spurred a lost motivation. This time also brought about an interest in feminism and other social sciences. I wanted to help others for I knew how it was to suffer and I could never wish that upon anyone. I have educated myself in both passions and continue to do so every single day. Essentially, I discovered myself.

I beg of all who read this: do not think of me as a victim. That degrades my growth over the last three years. I am a survivor. This thought strengthens me to face each day and keep living. I did not let someone else’s evil ruin me. Instead, I turned it on its head and made myself better. My trauma has shaped my identity in the worst of ways and the best of ways. Of course, I will always wish that I did not endure such hardship but it is no use being chained to the past. I have accepted this event and use it as a catalyst for my goals. Giving up would let my attacker win his sick power-play. I will never let that be the case. I am brave. I am strong. I am the hero of my own story.

A Case for Pocahontas 2: No, I'm Not Kidding

Let’s preface this with some frankness: Disney sequels suck more often than not. The animation usually sees a vast downgrade, the plot is dull, and, overall, it ruins whatever inspirational message the original film got across. However--and hear me out on this for a second--I just want you to put aside what I am sure are very adamant Disney opinions and consider what I’m about to lay down.
The Pocahontas sequel wasn’t as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
Now, I’m sure there are some angry people out there after reading that, but give me a chance before putting me on blast. I have a legitimate case lined up for this film and all you have to do is sit back and either seriously consider my points or just scoff as you type up a strongly worded comment. I’ll take both as a success--I thrive off all sorts of attention.
Pocahontas II: Journey to A New World has been generally perceived as terrible. It’s rocking a sweet 29% on Rotten Tomatoes and has been the source of ridicule amongst the Disney fandom. Trust me, I get why people hate it. As mentioned before, the animation suffered in comparison to the original and it is certainly something I made fun of every single time I watched it. Honestly, never watch the movies back-to-back. The quality shift will reduce you to tears. Regardless, I firmly believe that this film deserves a bit more credit in a certain department. Did you think this was going to be a mere reiteration of an unpopular opinion? Oh no, I’m taking this a step further and arguing that this much hated sequel actually has an empowering and realistic message for children. Yes, folks, we are really going there.
First things first, I hesitate to label it feminist in any aspect, a thought that also extends to the original. For the sake of nuance, I feel it essential to acknowledge the issues at play. Disney completely butchered the real life tale of Pocahontas--kind of like the fact that that’s not even her real name. She was aged up (11 to 18) and made to shack up with a white colonist who, in reality, was almost two decades older than her. A tad creepy, no? We also have the nice little fact that the Powhatan tribe actually offered to help with the accuracy of the film and were told no. Not looking too great right now. To be fair, the whole point of the sequel was to push the story in a more historically accurate direction. However, the reality there is kind of sketchy as well. The real Pocahontas was taken captive by the English in 1613. It was during her captivity that she took on the name Rebecca and converted to Christianity (classical assimilation rears its head). She ends up marrying John Rolfe, has a kid, and dies around the age of 20-21 in 1617. Not very Disney-like, huh? Besides major historical inaccuracies,  critics also panned it for not properly representing Native Americans and reverting to harmful stereotypes. As a feminist, I cannot not discount these criticisms. Romanticizing a history of blatant colonialism will always be harmful and this must be taken into account. Out of respect for the Native American community, I will not hail either movie as any sort of feminist media and will fully acknowledge that both are rife with flaws.
Alright, let’s get back on track. A main point of contention amongst fans has been the love triangle between John Smith, John Rolfe, and Pocahontas. Particularly, it has been John Smith being kicked to the wind in favor of John Rolfe that has made a number of fans quite peeved. I’m not even going to beat around the bush with this--Pocahontas thought Smith was dead. We have an entire song of her coming to terms with his apparent death and beginning to move on. It is with that mind-set that she meets and eventually falls for Rolfe. When she heads across the sea to speak to the king in the name of her tribe, she is faced with one hell of a dilemma. Incoming sixteen year old spoiler, Smith is actually alive and he wants her back. To some, the choice is easy. Smith, of course! That’s her first love, one who returned from the dead! It has to be him! Sorry but I’m gonna say it shouldn’t have been and that the right choice was made. Let’s review once more: Pocahontas thought her man was dead, coped, and found a new man. While she still loved Smith, it was no longer in the same way as before. Why? Because she fell in love again, something we all do more than once in our lifetimes. That’s realistic and actually packs an important message. While most films (especially Disney) present first love as being true and eternal, this rarely ends up being the case. It’s a hard reality to deal with--trust me, I know--but it is one children should know so they can form and end relationships in a healthy manner. Yes, the plot point that is so hated actually says something worthwhile. I’ll give you a moment to take that in.
Branching off from the love triangle, let’s take a gander at the concept of independence. Pocahontas willing chose Rolfe. Despite Smith waltzing back into her life and bringing back with him the promises of their initial romance, she chooses Rolfe. Okay, a part of the reason she does is because Disney was retconning the original romance in favor of a historically accurate one. Alright, I acknowledged it. Moving on. I’d argue that Smith and Rolfe represent different parts of her life. Smith is the Pocahontas, who yearned to see the world, rebellious and free. Rolfe is the woman who knows where she truly belongs, happy and free. Pocahontas got to see some of the world and found she missed her home. She could not get used to European society, no matter how hard she tried. She just wanted to go home. And you know what? Choosing Smith wouldn’t have meshed with that. The man is going out on an adventure at the end and offers to take her along, but she refuses because young woman’s desire is bound to change as she grows and matures. She wants home. She wants Rolfe. In the end, she gets both.
As I mentioned earlier, the real Pocahontas does not get a happy ending. She died all the way across the sea from her home, stripped of her identity. To make matters worse, she passed away as she set sail for Virginia once more. Personally, I believe there’s something satisfying to see a version of Pocahontas (albeit one with a lot of creative liberties) finally find her way back home. There’s also the fact that Rolfe chooses her over the opportunity to make his dreams a reality. To take a page from Tangled, she ended up being his new dream. Unlike with Smith, their desires aligned and presented them with a path to mutual happiness. Neither had to compromise because both had their dreams and desires grow to become intertwined with one another. It just made sense.
Let’s end with some more frankness: I don’t expect to change many minds. As I said, I know you have some adamant opinions in regards to your Disney movies and I’ll be damned if I try to change them. However, I like to think I made you at least give an affirmative “huh” at least once. I’m not asking for much here. I truly believe that Pocahontas II should get more credit for working with what it had. It’s in no ways feminist, but there’s still a lesson to be learned. Also, in terms of the fictional characters, John Rolfe > John Smith. Case closed.

The Controversial Casting of James Barbour

 http://www.buzzfeed.com/lozliddell/the-controversial-casting-of-james-barbour-1qrnm

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.