The thing that bugs me about all this is the fact that this information has been publicly available for YEARS and no one did anything. So it really comes across as companies trying to cover their own backs from negative media attention, rather than taking action to stop inappropriate behaviour. Even if John Barrowman hadn't apologised (twice) it feels super ingenuous of all these companies to only act now. That and I was SO hyped for Absent Friends to come out so I am maybe slightly biased here...
It's not justice, he is losing work for getting his wee toy oot years ago and it didn't seem a problem back then. They should of told him off back then. But it's 2021 cancel culture, its fashionable to ruin folks lives over their stupid behaviour 🙄
@@goopapa4758 Gads, that's not nice. Pity someone never had a hot cup of coffee or something and accidentally spilled it onto it. That would of stopped him lol. But it should of been dealt with at the time, not years later. As it gives the impression that it was no big deal at the time, but because cancel culture makes it relevant and justifiable to bring it back up and cancel him.
@@barbara-annperry5941 Nothing to do with cancel culture though. Its internally. The BBC is fucking scared because Clarke being a sexual predator towards woman came out and now they are trying to throw up a smokescreen by prentending they are hard on this stuff. Nobody has called for this to be brought up again BUT the BBC themself.
@@grafikpapst I very much doubt that the BBC brought this up. From what I've seen, it seems to have been dredged up again by the newspapers and social media.
@@barbara-annperry5941 it wouldn't be a good look to put him in stuff right at this second, it's probably just gonna be postponed a bit. I doubt it's 'it wasn't a problem back then' more 'nobody felt comfortable bringing it up', but I do agree that it's daft considering it's been public info for years. That said, it's not exactly ruining his life.
I would think of Barrowman being a "normal" employee somewhere. Long time ago he acted not appropriately at his work place, was penalized, and afterwards kept on working. One decade later the company decides to fire him for his former mistakes ... I say this is NOT justice or moral highground, it's definetely politics.
Personally, I think his behavior was immature at best and certainly reprehensible. However, I have been able to find absolutely no proof that this particular behavior continued beyond 2008, and he has publicly apologized at least twice that I know of. With that being said, no I do not think this is justice. His behavior at the time could certainly have been damaging to others on set, but the last known incident was 13 years ago. And the incidents have been public knowledge for even longer than that. I feel like the right time for the BBC to do something about it should have been while it was happening, NOT 13 years after it stopped. 13 or 14 years ago, it may have been justice. But now? No. Now, all it is is the BBC trying to cover their own ass. All this is doing is allowing Clark to slip by unnoticed, because now the attention has been shifted to someone else. I strongly feel that Barrowman is being used as a scapegoat for Clark right now, and that is completely inexcusable. Especially given the fact that what Clark did was so much worse than simply jokingly flashing a few people on set. Now, I am in no way making excuses for Barrowman. I find the act of exposing himself on set to be highly idiotic and also very immature. I in no way support what he did. But you have to consider the reasoning of why it's coming up NOW, when Clark's allegations are coming to light, and not 13 years ago. The BBC clearly did not care at the time, nor do I think that they really care now. They're just covering their own ass.
@@tinamoul I really didn't want to use the word reprehensible, but at the time I couldn't think of a better word to get my point across. Now that I think about it, inappropriate was probably a better word to use.
There were women who'd worked with Clark who asked to be moved somewhere else's as they didn't want to work with him anymore. John on the other hand, the people who complained said they wanted him to stop. But they didn't feel threatened or unsafe around him. And non asked to be sent elsewhere. Very very different That's not to say I think what John has done is okay. It isn't. But it's most definitely not the same
Interesting topic. You can’t, as a culture, reward a behaviour for years, punish someone, and expect healthy change. The culture hasn’t changed. You’ve punished one person after years of ignoring them. John Barrowman has become, sadly, a great example of why while everyone is responsible for calling inappropriate behaviour, people in power are especially obligated. Directors, show runners, other lead actors--instead of a funny story, they should have told John directly that it wasn’t okay and wouldn’t be tolerable on their set or stage.
@@jackdexter9439 Unless you found some article with sources...I would have to disagree with you. Granted CW is verrrrry loose. I mean you had J2 and Amell’s “rivalry” behind the scenes too. Bts cw can get weird yall
I have faith in John’s ability to transcend the mistakes he’s made and pull a “James Gunn” in the process. He’s not a Clarke or a Spacey or a Weinstein and deserves better. We all have inner demons to exorcise on the way to becoming better versions of ourselves.
Clarke didn't throw Barrowman under the bus. It was people discovering the 2014 convention clip of Clarke telling this story about Barrowman that made this part of the discourse.
I'd look to whoever he's hired to handle the situation, rather than him himself. Think Max Clifford/Lynton Crosby type. It would be interesting to know who.
When Russel T. Davis left Doctor Who, David Tennent and Catherine Tate did a tribute song for him. One of the lines was a joke about seeing John Barrowman junk!
It always made me feel pretty uncomfortable hearing stories like that about Barrowman but I do agree that him losing work now just feels like companies trying to save face in the media considering it was always so public. I think there should definitely be some consequences for this kind of behaviour but I cannot help but think about the fact that Barrowman has publicly apologised and did so even before this was being talked about most recently. Also it is definitely a false equivalence to put Barrowman's extremely inappropriate "pranks" in the same category as Clark's years of sexual harassment and abuse - I don't trust anybody conflating the two to be arguing in good faith
Context. Yes, this. It’s the equivalent of treating the person who takes home a pen from the stationery cupboard and the person who steals millions from their employer the same because they’re both guilty of theft. Inappropriate behaviour in the workplace? Yes. But the levels of harm are nowhere near each other.
@@SarcyBoi41 Eve was clearly consenting, Naoko and Garreth too- and those were the ones that were touched by it. Being naked is exposing only if it is sexual or threathening, and all people ever asked have said it was not either of it. So how in the hell do you have an information that adults were not consenting, when EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has talked about it has been fine with it?
I really hate the part of "cancel culture" (horrible term, I know), where we can't respect people learning and mowing forward. I can't tell if this is entirely the case with Barrowman because of the things he might have done on 'Arrow', but at least before watching your video, it seemed clear to me that he was being punished for something he had already been made aware of, apologised for and moved on from. Like, the culture was different and weird back then, he did some not okay things and then promised to never do it again. Again, Barrowman might not be the best example of this, but why must we destroy good actors/creators/politicians (speaking from Denmark, where some actually good and fair politicians have been hit by this) careers, just because of some minor thing they did way back when, which they have later regretted. It's almost inhuman. We need to let people change!
Absolutely! Thank you for saying that! I too really regret how little debates currently leave space for people acknowledging past mistakes and trying to do better. In fact, I believe that this is one of the reasons why it is often difficult to denounce harmful behaviours - because if, when found guilty of doing something bad, you are suddenly labelled "A Bad Person"TM as a whole, then of course you and the people who like you will get extremely defensive! Deconstructing internalised bias is very important, in my opinion, but it means that we should be able to say, "well, I did this in the past/ I used to believe this, but it's actually not okay and i want to apologise for the harm it caused/ to do better in the future," without fear that people will only hear the "this person confessed to doing a terrible thing!!!" and be like "OMG I hate them now!" No one is born perfect, and acknowledging past mistakes is a vital part of any healthy growth. So I am very uncomfortable about what is currently happening with Barrowman, because, as you say, he apologised for it and seemed to have moved on. It doesn't necessarily make everything he did okay, but it does, in my opinion, make the way it is talked about now feel unfair.
I like your point about how those of us in the know that gave him a pass all this time are partly to blame. He’s not being punished for once incident. He’s being punished for a lot. But if he were reprimanded on day 1, I’d like to think that would be the end of it. It reminds me of Chris Pratt exposing himself to Amy Poehler while filming Parks and Rec. he said in an interview that he had a meeting with HR. He got an stern talking to and it was made very clear that if it happened again he’d be immediately fired.
So sorry I missed the premiere of this one! I agree with you 100% on the case of Noel Clarke being clear-cut as a diamond (stick him in a cannon and shoot him to Mars) and the Barrowman situation requiring a more complicated discussion - nuance, I've been told, is a thing! You remain a voice of reason in the overpowering chatter in these torrid affairs...
The fact he's apologised for this is what makes this so harsh. And the fact that no-one actually really cares about Noel Clarke anymore despite what he's done being WAY worse than Barrowman's actions years ago, especially with Clarke still indulging in his...
@@Atothetheist where did you get that from? the only time I've heard of the year 2014 in relation to Barrowman's actions is the interview where Noel Clarke mentioned it. He was talking about Boom Town, filmed in 2005. I can't find anything suggesting Barrowman has exposed himself like this since 2008.
@@Atothetheist I say it here again, he did not keep doing it. What he is been accused of is showing his front. He stopped doing it and only mooned on set, that is still an everyday occurance in theater.
Not only did borrowman aapologize and did stop behaving like a frat boy, but its becaue noelle clarke deserves that heat, and did throw him under the bus, and bbc is on board with barrowmen being his sacrifice lamb is grmpfht
@@Atothetheist it is NOT. Go look what an sexual harassment actually is. You putting sexual harassment into same pile as inappropriate behaviour is very damaging for actual sexual harassment victims. It is not YOU who decides what is an sexual harassment.
Noel Clarke is incredibly well-known outside of Doctor Who, a very successful producer. Not that I'm saying that means those 20 women were lying, it kinda just means there's likely far more than 20. He's well protected.
It's definitely very important to always believe these kind of allegations. Sexual harrasment has to be taken serious at all times. You can't run the risk of thinking of it as a joke, especially if you can stop it before it escalates.
He's well-known within the industry, but I don't think many of the general public pay much attention to producers. Even as an actor, Clarke doesn't strike me as very well-known, unless you watch his shows. I know him through Doctor Who, but I had to explain who he was to my parents and sister.
@@ftumschk As with any actor, unless they become a well known name, it comes down to what a person watches. I knew Clarke was a producer and director but I couldn't tell you one thing he's done. As an actor, I first saw him pre-DW in a series of Auf Wiedersehen Pet and he's popped up in a couple of British films. However well known he is within the industry, I think it's fair to say that Barrowman is a far bigger name overall, which is partly why the spotlight is on him and not Clarke. :-)
18:06 I'm really grateful that you brought up that you laughed at John Barrowman extending a kiss without James Master's knowing. It's big of someone to hold themselves culpable for applauding that kind of culture and I've always found it uncomfortable when actors talk about doing things to other actors for a 'surprise' or to get a reaction that can be put in the finished product without the actor's knowledge and with the director's go ahead.
A slow hand clap for Noel Clarke, he knew how to divert attention away by bringing up something EVERYONE already knew and it became a bigger story than the shit he did. Well played. He knew the system and it played out perfectly. As for Barrowman, as it was well known, and he was brought back to Doctor Who/Torchwood regardless, removing him now is hypocritical. He did mind numbingly stupid choices, but he has apologised for it.
Noel Clarke didn't actually shift the blame to Barrowman though. The video of Noel Clarke talking about Barrowman's antics are from 2016, someone sent the video to Daily Mirror and they made up the headline that Clarke was deflecting attention.
@@Deathlygunn Look at how quick that video circulated again once the accusations came out. That was done on purpose to take the focus off Noel. I'm sorry, but it's a little too obvious. Within 24 hours John was all people were talking about with others going "Noel who?". Noel sitting around barely saying a word and probably getting a kick out of it.
@@Deathlygunn Yeah, and that "someone" who sent the video had NOTHING to do with Noel Clarke's publicity team right? They have been sitting on that video for years knowing they will need something when the truth about Noel Clarke comes out.
I'm glad that you say it's muddy, and that you say that your thoughts are inconclusive. Oftentimes it seems we're all expected to take a definite stance or have clear thoughts on situations or events, when those situations and events are multifaceted. I'm glad that you're normalizing not only the act of talking through your thoughts, but also the idea that people don't have to know exactly how they feel about something. Also, your lashes are killing it today!!!!
Example Chris Pratt he actually fully exposed himself on the television show Parks & Recreation and went against script just to see the actors reactions as he thought it would be better. But because he's back by Marvel nobody speaks about this or brings it up.
I feel like I need to point out, that director, of that take was Marsters wife, then fiance, John talked with Marsters before the take, making sure he was ok, and Marsters said years later to Barrowman, "could you come and kiss me in front of my wife again"
I still reckon it's a little iffy, but there was totally a culture at the time that said this was completely ok (which it isn't). In the 10 year anniversary Torchwood audio 'Outbreak' by Big Finish, JB tells a very similar story to the Marster's one, about Gareth David Lloyd and they both laugh it off as something people thought was funny. And to stress, this was in a published interview with Big Finish. SO they knew, and shared the story, and didnt care.
That was a very different situation, though...in fact, Marsters is on record saying that seeing two men "together" was something that's a turn-on for his wife and that he was very happy to satisfy her fantasy in this way. So in this case, Barrowman was more in the position of "fetishized gay man" , maybe?
@@Naumaxia Wait hold on... so two consenting adults arranged a kissing scene and you think that is bad? Why? Because their characters were lovers and kissing was done before for those characters. So I am struggling to find the "This is bad/wrong" with it.
@@TheLastSane1 no it’s only bad to continue the scene past the necessary point without one person’s permission. Obviously if he had permission then it’s not really a problem and I am sure someone has found evidence of this somewhere, but there isn’t any in the specific interview I found. Just because they were ok with it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have checked before hand (although once again I don’t know if he did, and if he did that’s fine.) that said even if everyone was chill, surely extending scenes unnecessarily is a waste of company time to an extent? Oh well
@@Naumaxia Oh those poor corporations. How dare those gay kiss scenes run even a second over the allotted time! Even though hetero kissing scenes are often LONG SHOTTED so they can edit different angles and I don't hear you crying about that. If Masters and Barrowmen agree to the kissing scene and carry it longer then its suppose to be why is this a problem?
This is like a restaurant suddenly firing or disciplining one person for being late for work and ignoring what others did and ignoring that it was allowed for along time.
"Unless you want to claim that dozens of unrelated women decided to make a concentrated effort to bring down an actor who is largely unknown outside of the UK, there's no real discussion to be had with Noel Clarke." This is a bit of a tangent but there is a disturbing amount of people who seem to think just that regarding anime dub voice actor Vic Mignogna. *Loads* of allegations from entirely unrelated people over a period of well over a decade, including repeated instances of conventions apparently having been explicitly warned to keep an eye on him and *actual video evidence* of him acting inappropriately at best... And yet you still have people who claim that he was "fired unjustly." People will go to surprising lengths to bat for people whom they have never met and whom they only know as "the actor who played that character I like," it seems.
Hell, I remember back in the 00s, it was a running gag (not unlike Barrowman's ding dong) that Vic was a creep who groomed young girls at cons (and, I'm willing to bet, by no shortage of the same people rushing to defend him now). Apparently everybody was a-okay with it then, but when it was actually brought forward and taken seriously, now was the time to go 'no no, it's all lies?'
The only issues I took with that whole thing was when it was proven that people were taking other peoples stories and then making them allegations. Such as a teen who had a picture with Vic and that was being used as a sign of him being a predator. The girl had to come online and say "They are using my picture without my permission and my mother was the one taking the pic so I wasn't alone with him." the issue there is that its muddying waters that do not need muddied if there is so clear cut evidence.
@@TheLastSane1 There wasn't any real clear-cut evidence was there though? It seemed to be mostly hearsay and the pictures, which while they looked creepy, were just hugs and cheek kisses, from what I saw... It could all be a simple case of him misjudging social boundaries, which could possibly have been fixed with a good talking to and a warning before they fired him... I don't know whether to believe him or not, but he seemed to be surprised by the idea that people were bothered by any of the stuff he did... I dunno... Maybe he was warned and I didn't know. I've seen too many cases of false accusations and misunderstandings to fully accept this stuff... Which is frustrating because I want to be able to trust those that make such claims, but now I'm just as worried that a guy is getting excluded just because he annoyed a few people (not saying that is what happened, but it is a possible concern, I think)... Oh well...
@@KitsyX I wouldn't lose sleep over it - Vic's behaviour since has shown, even if he was pulled aside back then, he wouldn't have taken onboard one single thing and kept on doing it.
1st that I'm hearing of this. That said JB exposing himself happened in the past, he apologized and there are no people coming out saying they are traumatized by his interactions currently? Noel has been accused of predatory behavior based upon his power dynamic by various persons. Apples and oranges. Personally as a woman of color I think Noel is like let me throw this Ole white dude doing 'inappropriate' things out there like it's the same thing and it AIN'T. JB needs to lay low. If there is something new to come out, if there are people who feel victimized against their will by JB then that needs to get handled. I don't understand why people think behaving inappropriately and actually committing crimes are the same thing. They're not.
I'm glad you mentioned John Barrowman being white, since race felt like the missing piece here to me. If Noel Clarke was white, I don't think anyone would have been having this conversation about John Barrowman. But with white people at least trying to learn some of the lessons about the way racism has played out in the bigger picture, if everyone was coming for Noel Clarke and no-one else, the conversation would be "here's this white guy who was also behaving inappropriately, not to the same degree, but still, he was, so why are you only coming for the Black guy?" And in trying to learn that lesson, John Barrowman became the fall guy, I think. But if Noel Clarke was white, John Barrowman would be a footnote at best in that conversation
I still can't believe people cancelled John Borrowman, people cancelled captain Jack? Really really?!!!?!! I'm still heartbroken. John Borrowman has been doing stuff like that jokingly since I was a little girl, and probably before that, and everyone thought it was funny, and just typical John Borrowman. This is why I never jump on the bandwagon for everything, if I'm going to say someone did something wrong, I'm looking at everything.
"Accusations that have been around for years and nobody did anything" Not actually true. Someone complained. BBC went to him about it and he apologized and never did it again. Rumors are that he continued it on other series he worked on but nobody from these other shows seems to say he has done this same thing. Seems like whatever originally happened was perfectly fine for whoever complained because they never made a deal out of it. They could have spoken up if they felt more should have been done and it doesn't seem like they did I honestly think it's ridiculous that he's getting hit with all of this now. Noel Clarke gets hit with all these much worse accusations and suddenly that video of him talking about John doing that stuff on set comes out. It's pretty evident, in my opinion, that was done by Noel to take the focus off of him. In all honesty it sounds like John is the type of guy that does things like that purely to make others laugh. Not in a perverted manner. Any group of men out that can tell you we all grew up with a person that did things like that. Noel asking women to audition topless while secretly recording them then showing off those vids, now that's pure evil in my honest opinion.
Doesn't matter his intentions behind it. He could have the nicest most jokey intentions in the world. But behaviour like that is still sexual assault ygm
@@tjzimmerman5541 Not quite. He still continued the habit over at Arrow. Two co-stars confirmed he mooned them. He may have been reprimanded by Julie Gardner but his co-stars who actually talked about his flashing at cons enabled him. I'm surprised David Tennant didn't say a thing. No one bothered to tell JB to cool it and where was RTD who claimed he never knew about it?
This is a James Gunn situation. No one should be punished for behavior that they haven't done in a very long time (especially behavior that didn't personally attack anyone) and has apologized for multiple times.
I feel like until his more recent return to Doctor Who last year the BBC tried to almost distance themselves from him hoping enough time would pass for them to be able to get him back on Doctor Who and this wouldn't be an issue. John Barrowman in more recent years seemed to have moved his career over to one of the other main British TV channels called ITV meaning that any shows he is on that are broadcast on that channel are nothing to do with the BBC. They are not responsible for him. I almost feel like they maybe wanted to almost prove that he can bring in an audience and behave himself on another channel and on other shows and stuff so that his previous behaviour is forgotten about and then they could welcome him back to Doctor Who like a long lost child with everything forgotten. And also in the time whilst he was working on ITV if any of the inappropriate behaviour got repeated and he got in trouble for it the BBC would not be responsible because they were not employing him at the time. I know like not everyone is aware of this but the BBC is corrupt just like Hollywood. For years they covered up Jimmy Saville (google it) and similar incidents. They have recently got in trouble for the famous Princess Diana interview and they also got in trouble for showing the invasion of Sir Cliff Richards home on TV. The BBC is shady as hell. This is not a new thing.
I mean...this whole situation is kind of like "James Gunn 2.0" if the right-wingers had got their way. At the end of the day, this information has been out there for years for anyone to find, he has apologised at least twice with no solid evidence that he continued the behaviour beyond 2008 (if anyone has any solid evidence of him having continued, I will amend that - I see some people in the comments accusing him of continuing the behaviour until 2014; any solid proof of that would be appreciated because I have been able to find nothing beyond 2008), and it's blatantly obvious that it's only having a stink kicked up about it now because someone he's tangentially connected with is accused of things that are objectively far worse. And what's frankly a little disturbing is that Noel Clarke - again, despite being accused of objectively far worse behaviour - seems to have drifted into the background of the conversation I guess because John Barrowman feels like more of a "gotcha" prize due to his relatively family-friendly image than Clark does. I mean, I'm fully prepared to admit that some of my reaction to this is likely personal bias having met and worked with Barrowman (and not having witnessed him expose himself). But considering the known facts of the matter - including the previous public knowledge, the apologies, and that all of this, whether intentionally or not, is effectively serving to dampen the discussion around Noel Clark and what he was accused of - I honestly don't think it's fair for him to *now* be losing work. If it was to happen, it should have happened when the knowledge first became public which was over a decade ago. That it's only happening *now* reeks both of Barrowman being made into the public scapegoat for the situations surrounding both him and Clark, and the BBC rushing to cover its own ass since they're dealing with a lot of their own mess at the moment. ETA: And yes, I am saying that anyone who stood by James Gunn when his whole mess happened should be willing to stand by John Barrowman; if not, they need to seriously think about why they were willing to let one slide and not the other. These two situations are almost functionally identical - both centre around behaviour that arguably held no genuine malicious intent and that was (from all appearances) abandoned years before this became a public issue, this behaviour was apologised for again years before it became a public issue, and both are arguably being pushed into the spotlight in order to distract from something objectively worse.
I agree, and I think the reason why Barrowman has now become a fall guy is because people are too afraid to deplatform a Black man in fear of racism accusations (Look at how R. Kelly has gone on almost unscathed for his misconduct).
There is also the reports, that BBC management dislikes Barrowman a lot, so they throw him under the bus as it distracts from Noel, and in Barrowman case, they can say, they did react after first complaint (that was not from Torchwood set as usually reported), while they ignored any complaints about Noel for years.
I get the argument and I think you did a great job presenting your points. However, I also think some people are going too far into a puritanical culture without realizing it. Sexuality is being demonized and pushed at the same time. Consent is important, but at the same time sometimes people need to chill out and just let it go when something is obviously done with no ill intent.
Yep, I remember being mooned by friends in my early teens and younger. Sometimes at school. There was no intent other than surprising and making their friends laugh. 100% a student would get into serious trouble for that joke these days.
If he hadn't apologised before years ago I'd say firmly yes but it just feels like Clark through him under the bus to get attention off of his own issues so I'm unsure how I feel on it at the moment aside from disgust of what happened in general. But how harshly the media is reacting against him seems a bit harsh given Clarkes current issues but nobody mentions that atm which I feel is unfair.
@@Atothetheist where did you find out he did similar things in 2014? I haven't seen any evidence of him doing acts like these since 2008, and the 2014 convention clip with Noel Clarke mentioning Barrowman's indecent exposures referred to their time filming Series 1 in 2005.
@@Atothetheist they only talk about how him mooning. There is not any source that says he showed his front on set. Private parties do not count, as they are private.
@@Atothetheist in order for it to be an sexual harassment, there needs to be someone who was there who has ever complained about it or there needs to be an intention to cause distress . People like you make up whatever lies they want about laws, in order to witch-haunt people they hate. The story in 2008 was SPECIFICALLY about him exposing his dick. People like you are disgusting by how you totally dismiss consent and intentions. The very things that matter. As well as you butting inappropriate behavior into the same pile as sexual harassment and assault. The fact that you even bring up a sexual assault, while taking away a voice from people, you claim were sexually assaulted, is even worse. It is like once YOU decide someone was assaulted, it is the only truth, and what your "victims" say does not matter. Cause "the victims of Barrowmans "sexual assault"" have only come forward to support him, even if they got death threats from people like you, who were not there, and people who freak out cause your "victims" do not keep their mouths shut.
@@minaolenella869 -Are you seriously trying to defend the actions of someone who indecently exposed himself and would touch unsuspecting bystanders with his exposed penis?!! Also, you are wrong, Barrowman’s alleged intentions are irrelevant; it is his actions and how they have affected others that are considered and not the excuse of “I didn’t mean any harm.” The reality is that Barrowman is an exhibitionist who gets off on exposing himself; he likes the shocked reactions!!! The only person he is interested in entertaining with this behaviour is himself.
Interesting, nuanced take as usual. I was quite active online in the fandom in the late 2000's/early 2010's, and like you said, none of this is new. No one bat an eyelid back then, it was all "ooh I wish I was an extra when he's on set" and "does anyone have pictures? 👀" and stuff like that. Definitely something for us all to reflect on, just like you said. I am glad we've moved on from there, and are now seeing his actions as what they were, inappropriate at the very least. We should not trivialise this. But I wish people could back to talking about the absolutely manipulative predatory behaviour that Noel Clarke (you know, allegedly) exhibited and the deeper systemic issues in the tv industry that made this disgusting abuse of power possible.
I wonder how many of us have processed how deeply unsettling it would be to have a co-worker whip out their dick as a joke. What I will say is that since the MeToo movement, we've started recontextualizing past behaviour and finding said behaviour inappropriate. Doesn't mean it wasn't inappropriate then, just that the temp in the room has changed. However, I do sympathise on some level with people who are finding their previously accepted behaviour punished, because that must be jarring. I think we all have likely done something or held some belief that is no longer acceptable, which can be disconcerting. We're in choppy waters, it might be a while before we find land but we'll get there. Hopefully. PS. I would be careful with the juxtaposition of Clarke and Barrowman though because like it or not, there's likely to be racial politics involved regardless of how the severity of their behaviour varies.
My entire issue is that it feels like a "oh no we're going to get in trouble" type of deal rather then a punishment. I don't know how big finish pays their actors but this is especially true if he's already paid. What's the punishment then?
One conclusion I came to around Jamus Gunn (and more recently Joss Whedon), is that 10 years ago the culture was different, 15 years ago the culture was very different and 20+ years ago the culture was more different than we want to realize. A lot of things that were bad on paper (or even in law) were common culture at the time, it might even have been expected of peoplw for all I know. The good in MeeToo was that we were going to acknowledge that our culture was bad and change it, but in acknowledging that we're not ok with past cultural norms we also must acknowledge that at some point we were. People change a lot in 5+ years, the culture changes as well. And the culture changed drastically between 2005 and 2015. I wouldn't be surprised if there's people out there who felt peer-pressured into doing things in the early 2000s who are now terrified they'll lose their entire social lives for it now. To a degree, actions need to be judged in the context they were taken, (such as violence enacted in self-defence). And that includes what the culture of the time said was. And from what I can see, 20 years ago from today is a very different time compared to the difference between then and 20 years before. It's much more important to keep making a better culture to live in than it is to punish people for going along with the bad culture of prior decades. If we want things to change, we have to make sure people know changing works.
I am not surprised JB is losing work because of this because it was only a matter of time. Do I think it's fair to punish someone for acts that happened YEARS ago and that he has already apologized for? No. Again, it is just a very MESSY situation.
I am frustrated also these two situations have been put together. By no means, is either situation OK; but John should not have been lumped in with what Noel did. In my opinion, they're just using John as a scapegoat for what Noel did. Furthermore, I also think John should not be losing work because of this. I wish we could all go back in our Tardises and fix this.
Everytime I hear you talking about this I'm reminded of Supernatural's Jared Padalecki. On multiple panels spanning years he himself and his costars have told stories about his "pranks" on set where the prank is him touching Misha's balls non-stop either with his hand or with an object or pinching his inner thighs in order to ruin his takes. And this went on for 10 years (poor Misha). And the stories are told as funny behind the scenes anecdotes and the audience always laughs along with Jared/costars as he's telling them. Now that I'm older and have evolved with my own set of morals (partly in thanks to you and other's videos) this makes me super uncomfortable and I wonder how and why he was able to get away with it. It's exactly the same thing that you are describing in this video. I don't want him ruined or anything, but, like, that wasn't okay.
@@BradLad56 The difference is that bdsm is meant for consenting adults while a "prank" is one person humiliating another without the other party knowing beforehand or giving their consent. Despite Misha playing a fan favorite Castiel is a reoccurring character who wasn't around for the first few years and could be written off or his role reduced. Jared played the lead who has been there since day one. Misha was not in the position to fight back or insist the "pranks" stop, so even if he was okay with them they were designed to make him uncomfortable and he could not consent to them. Metoo might seem puritanical and any movement will have extremists who take things too far, but it boils down to the idea that no one should be forced into intimate or potentially uncomfortable situations without choice.
As someone on the younger side having just recently turned 18 myself I don’t think a lot of the younger fans fully thought it through, as I’m also bi I think a lot of us were just happy to see someone like us on screen and appreciated the actor who was that character, and seeing him get along with his fellow cast members and get treated with affection and not dismissal for his sexuality felt reassuring in a way that wasn’t provided for a lot,of other people so when they tell these stories with a smile and laugh it didn’t fully register what he was doing and how bad it was, as we wanted someone like Jack to be good and not another person who would get fired and loose work just for who he was
If we were content to allow John to apologise and have us all move on years ago, we should consider the matter closed. To punish him now is moral cowardice.
Just to help enlighten as to what John was thinking I would like to mention British actor Kenneth Williams. In 1964, while on the set of Carry On Cleo, Williams would dress up as his character (Julius Caesar) and inadvertently forget his underwear underneath the toga. He would do this on purpose to get a cheap laugh out of his co-stars shock (this was mentioned in his published diaries, a book with which I have read). I wouldn't think it would be a long stretch to suggest that John knew of this and decided, against his better judgement, to replicate this.
He probably took the theater approach, where everybody is exposing themselves all the time behind the stage, without any lewd intentions, it is how it is, there's just no time for prudeness.
This is true. I was approaching it from a sports mindset where 30+ men are getting naked in a small area and showering together... I find bodies both weird and just a transport for our souls
The actor in fleabag admitted exposing her bum to a fellow actor on the Graham Norton show. It was intentional. This isnt getting changed and seeing stuff by accident. Hers was intentional and no one seems to mention it as being an issue when it is
I just hope Absent Friends will be released later on, when everything has died down. I've been looking forward to it since months. Thanks for this video. I don't think it's fair to take John out of the franchise. I'm sure there are better ways to deal with this.
John B was reprimanded in 2008, he made a public apology and the BBC continued to employ him but now it seem that the BBC are punishing him a second time, doesn't seem very fair
It seems mad that they're lumping Clarke and Barrowman together. It'd be like comparing a shoplifter to a serial bank robber. It can only be a PR move, because anything else would be an outright lie. They only care if it looks bad, not if it actually is, which is kind of terrifying if you really think about it.
Stupid behavior has consequences even for nice guys. I'm not bringing out the pitchforks, but not going to feel sorry for the guy. How many years can a grown man act like an ass before figuring out the shouldn't be doing it anymore? Maybe not justice, but certainly justified.
I feel like that the US and to a lesser extent UK and Canada has a disproportionate case of the icks. We are stuck in a puritan state of mind and anything that rings of sex, sexual humor or crude behavior is suddenly not only taboo but extra uncomfortable. And we feel the need to squash people with crude "obscene" humor. An we feel compelled to be appalled, I don't take issue with John Barroman at all if someone asked him to stop and he didn't of ramped up unwanted behavior that would Be a issue but that never has been indicated to be the case. There are a lot of people with supposedly inappropriate humor. I am opposed to political correctness and the censorship of people's humor and personal antics. If you are uncomfortable with something, pull up your big person pants and ask a person to stop and tell them you are uncomfortable. Only if they continue after you asked that they stop, that should it be an issue. We have become a society that is far too easily offended by everything that we all need safespaces to hide in, life was better when we had thicker skin, and to me that is what is more disturbing than anything John Barrowman has ever done in a moment of off colored humor, having met him several times I don't think he has ever ment harm by his sinurally eccentric humor, we are in an age of witch hunts to root out anything that could offend anyone's sensibilities, if we continue this way eventually no one will be safe.
Unfortunately, I don't think John Barrowman isn't going to change his bad behavior with the terrible apologies he recently put on twitter that gave off the vibe of he was recovering from a broken toenail instead of apologizing for what got exposed about him. What doesn't help his case is his husband tweeting that the backlash he got was from trolls since it ain't trolling he experiencing, it's consequences for terrible behavior. If John Barrowman really was sorry and regretted what he did then he would have actually made a good apology instead of making a bad apology trying to downplay the terrible things that got exposed about him. Even though John Barrowman wasn't horrible and malicious like Noel Clarke, what he did is sexual harassment and he still abused his position of power in the entertainment industry knowing people won't speak out against him.
what exactly got exposed? And his behavior was not an sexual harassment by definition And what power he has in Entertainment Industry? He is far not an A lister Even people who spoke out against Clarke supported him, they certainly had no reason to hold back.
Why do people put all offenders (the eggs) into the same basket. Every behaviour is rarely equal to another be it in a positive way or a depraved patterned manner. Barrowman's behaviour, as disgusting as it was, does not come close to Noel Clarke's. I think Barrowman has through press coverage etc probably has been punished enough. One has sorrow for what they did and has a record of being kind as well, whereas Clarke showed no remorse and was a habitual abuser. They both did wrong but nowhere nbear the same level. Strange bout how did RTD not know about any of this.
*Thank you.* Acknowledging now that what we all accepted as normal 20 years ago was, in fact, obnoxiously inappropriate is not "cancel culture," it's improving our self- and social-awareness. I am so, so weary of people bemoaning the changes as a loss of something while completely disregarding the reasons for these changes. The old normal wasn't great, not for a big portion of the population. I think that whether professional consequences make any sense for Barrowman now has everything to do with whether he's ever stopped doing the thing or apologized to someone/ones who did have discomfort with what he did. Since I don't know the answer to that, I can't really judge if what's happening now is "just", but I'm sure it's not being done for the sake of justice anyway--it's all about corporate reputation, and I guess this blew up big enough that they feel he must be cut loose.
This type of behaviour was never accepted as normal. He was indecently exposing himself and touching people with his exposed penis for goodness sake.!!!
@@thefairhairedboywiththered2951 Wait, he actually _touched people_ with his genitals? I did not read or watch any of the previous coverage, so I don't know if this was said before. Are you serious? No, I agree, (at least in my circle) that was not normal even in the 90s. That's *_assault_* for fuck's sake. 🤦
I remember hearing Barrowman tell that Marsden story when I was at Awesome Con a few years ago. I laughed. The whole hall busted out. And yeah, I'm gonna be thinking about that now. As much as I want to continue seeing Captain Jack in the Who universe? I'm with you - I find myself not really knowing what's best. But I do know it's messy, and I'm still processing it all.
I’m conflicted. The assumption is that his behaviour was gross and wrong and inappropriate. But was it? Specifically, in the circumstances in which he did it? To me, and maybe my worry is that my own mindset is wrong here, this behaviour was just as he intended it. A laugh, a prank with friends. It wasn’t malicious It wasn’t predatory To me, the crux of the matter is this. Yes, obviously many people would find it inappropriate. But then, many people find the fact that I’m a gay man inappropriate. Does that mean I should be punished and made to stop because others are uncomfortable? This is too close to Puritanism. Seriously, he got his junk out. I’m sorry, but so what? If someone was genuinely upset or triggered by that, then of course he should apologise. But the same could be said for an edgy joke, or an overly personal discussion. It doesn’t make the thing being done inherently wrong. It just means someone else might not approve. I really find this wrong. It’s too oppressive. It’s the imposition of one persons set of moral values on another. I’ll be honest; I don’t find the fact that he got his junk out on set to be particularly inappropriate or gross as many people in the comments appear to do. It would be if he did it at a high school appearance, or did it in front of my mum, or literally in public on the street. But he didn’t. And it wasn’t like that. It scares me a little that something so patently laughable, if risqué, is being treated as something to be ashamed of. I don’t think we as fans, need to admit culpability in leading to Barrowman to believe this was acceptable. Because I genuinely think that in the circumstances it happened, it was acceptable. The hypocrisy is in now saying it isn’t and never was.
He indecently exposed himself and went about touching people with his exposed penis!!! This is never acceptable behaviour!!! People did complain at the time and the only reason that it did not go any further as the targets of his behaviour were under the wrong impression that he was no threat because he is gay!
I don't really get it either. Nudity isn't something I really care about. If a friend or work college walked in naked I'd be surprised, but really wouldn't care all that much myself. If he was actually touching people with his schlong then that's a bit far, but given the context Barrowman did it people seem to be a bit too prudish for something that happened so long ago.
@@thefairhairedboywiththered2951 I have already stated that in the majority of circumstances this would not be acceptable. These were evidently not those types of circumstance. I’m confused that you say people were under the “wrong impression” that he was no threat. So you’re saying he is a threat? In what way? A threat to who? You’re assuming that the “targets of his behaviour” naively believed a gay man is non threatening. A. Why would anyone assume that; if anything the reverse is usually true B. We are talking about adults here. Perfectly capable of making their own decisions about what’s acceptable or not. To suggest that everyone was under some kind of shared delusion is absurd. The reason that the complaints went no further (although what are you classing as further? dismissal? criminal charges) is not that Barrowman is gay and somehow magically exempt from consequences, it’s that to single him out for his behaviour alone would have been grossly unfair. This is why the vast majority of work environments simply do not allow silliness, horseplay and flirting. It can easily get out of hand. (I could be disciplined at work for talking too much or being on my phone. It doesn’t mean that either of those activities are wrong, just that they’re not acceptable in a work setting.) But that’s not usually how TV and movie sets operate. they’re full of big personalities, close knit friendship groups and function more as like minded people bonding than as a constrained standard workplace setting. More importantly, they’re full of show offs, of ‘look at me’ character types. Again, I’m sorry as this obviously does offend you, but someone like Barrowman getting their junk out for the specific intentions of it being funny is not grounds for condemnation. It’s not acceptable in the vast MAJORITY of circumstances, but you can’t blanket ban everything. You certainly can’t suggest Barrowman was any kind of threat or that the reason he wasn’t seen as a threat was that the people around him were stupid.
Also an interesting and annoying thing about Absent Friends is that it was the 50th release, but they haven't changed the next release for June (51). That means there's a gap in the collection of Torchwood because it now reads 48, 49, 51.
I have a lot of respect for your thoughts in this video. It would be really easy to just make this all about him. But it's important to examine our own behavior and complicity.
Repeatedly exposing yourself in a workplace is neither normal nor acceptable. Furthermore, someone complained in 2008. Did the behaviour continue? Was anything done?
no one working from show has ever complained. In fact, his co-workers have only supported him, and have received death threats cause of it. The complaint was filed from a person, who HEARD how he acts on set from radio. And BBC officially said, they reprimanded him after this one complaint and his behaviour stopped. Furthermore, exposing yourself for laughs is an everyday occurrence in the theater. And he was not the only one exposing himself on Torchwood set.
@@minaolenella869 there is many times movie shoots required him to be naked, so its like naked in a soft porn movie set. Through its wrong place wrong time inappropriate trolling. But most times its a technique for actors to use to lessen the stress for acting for him and for others. So is it in Dr. who or in torchwood? Is there naked scene in Dr who? He is to be expected to act as a 'sexy bisexual man'. I can see why he went overboard unintentionly. He did pay for it. So why keep make him pay more after so long? Too much.
@@keelanbarron928 then its perfect, he was required to be naked in the movie. He might go overboard by overly expressing himself to peoples that are not supposed to see him naked. But as a funny guy both in movie and real life, other peoples forgives him for that conduct and he gets slap in the wrist for it. That should be enough. Pros and cons wise, to fire him for some pity thing like flash is stupid. Not cost effective. Director and producers made final decision to forgive him because no physical harm done. That makes sense perfect sense to just let it go. I hate peoples bring this up now! After so long. If anything, he is a example of what not to do. But shouldn't add more punishment to him now, because he already paid for that behavior back then. Doesn't matter if any haters agree to his punishment or not.
He was told off and made to apologise in 2008 - so yes something was done in 2008. Since 2008 when he was told off the behaviour didn't continue by all accounts.
He apologised in 2008. He stopped after it was raised and the actress from fleabag admitted exposing herself to a coworker on the Graham Norton and people laughed. They have faced no repurcussions. This feels like its blown up as a deflection from the Noel Clarke situation, Noel is facing very serious charges who has NOT apologised. John did over 10 years ago and so i feel that this isnt new info, it was previously dealt with and he was told his behaviour was bad and he stopped. He apologised and idk if others accepted it or not but it is way more than Noel did. Why people are acting like its new is perhaps because they didnt know and idk how they didnt when its super common knowledge if you are in the fandom. Regardless of where people land on John Barrowman, the fact is not enough people are calling out Noel Clarke. It is lobsided
I think the fact that they're taking action now is purely a business decision. What's changed is that, were you to cast him in something right now, the discussion about his behavior would flare right back up and could overshadow any other talk related to the new project itself. Studios prefer when they, not the fandom, get to control the conversation around their work.
I'm glad you made this video, Vera, I've been thinking about this topic since last year. It came up when The Unicorn and the Wasp Watchalong was cancelled because people weren't comfortable with Gareth Roberts' transphobic views...even though the Watchalong directly prior was A Town Called Mercy, an episode written by a potentially very transphobic man (see Geeks Bearing Gifts), _with a trans joke in it._ I wouldn't go as far as to call the joke 'transphobic', but if it were in a Roberts script, people would hit the roof. Then there's The End of the World; making Doctor Who's first canonoically trans character (Cassandra) an allegory for editing your body beyond what's ethically acceptable; a theme Russell would later come to revisit in 2019's Years and Years. I just think it's interesting how nobody criticises Toby or Russell now, but if they were to one day be publicly accused of outright transphobia, everyone would turn on those stories. The delay time of reactionaries commenting on media scandals is insanely slow to me. People only have these conversations once it's far too late. And let's face it, this is how Noel and John have gone unscathed by their actions for so long.
I think another element is bias. Is Roberts really anyone's favourite writer? Losing him from the franchise really isn't such a loss, is it? He just about scrapes mediocrity. But Russell - Big Russell? We love Russell! We like John too (well most people, I don't myself), so he's gone protected for all these years. Not by his producers or agents, but by fandom. I consider Russell T Davies to be the greatest writer in the whole of Britain. Big hero of mine. And while I am trying to reevaluate his work, it is _so_ tempting to believe his statement that he never knew any of this was happening. I know it's bollocks, but I want to believe it. And that's the most dangerous thing of all.
I didn't know that about Toby Whithouse. As someone who was a big fan of his writing and would've preferred him as showrunner over Chris Chibnall, I might have to take a closer look at his work now. Thank you for letting me know about that.
@@iiiiitsmagreta1240 - exact same for me, I always raved about his work and wanted him to be show runner, now I'm hesitant to talk about him. It's worth noting that the outright transphobic dialogue was in a Torchwood episode, about 15 years ago. It's awful, but time has passed, maybe he's learnt? But yeah, definitely doesn't put the more recent (potentially harmless??) trans joke from A Town Called Mercy in a good light, does it?
@@iiiiitsmagreta1240 - I've scoured the internet for a third example of potential transphobia on Toby's half and found nothing, zero. I'm just waiting on the third example to make my mind up. With any luck, that example will be a well written, well researched trans character :)
@@nightowl8477 My take on the Town Called Mercy thing is that it was an absurdist joke which, while not outwardly transphobic, might come off as playing trans *acceptance* for laughs. It has similar vibes to the "attack helicopter" meme.
Unfortunately, I must admit I came across a clip of him telling jokes and Stories about his, shall we say, intamate behaviour prior to this whole controversy, and thought nothing much of it :/ You are absolutely right: It is grotesque how much the fandom ignored or even enjoyed these stories, and didn't even think about the discomfort other people must've felt. And now we pretend it is a sudden revelation...
I will defend John forever because I trust him. Some absoltue bastard who abused twenty women and is finished in Hollywood dares to make fun of him and throws wild rumors about him which other people latch onto that?! I ve met John personally He doesnt use his fame to throw wild parties or snort drugs.He openly admitted to his orientation and speaks about it to use his fame to fight for gay rights, but not only that, for women's rights animal rights. Many poliiticians d not like that. He listens, he actually encouraed me to follow my dreams of becoming a singer, didnt dismiss me after the photoshoot but actually walked up to me and told me "Challenge yourself every day." He did not abandon his parents for his career, he bought them a house made sure they had better lives. When a few years later i thanked him for what he said back then, how it changed my life, he was not smug, but humbly said he was glad he could help me. And lots of other kind things. People still discriminate him for being gay and they are jealous of his success whereas the big companies that try to destroy him are just greedy, opportunistic weasels. This is not justice this is outrage!! I hope he wins this and comes back stronger than ever!!!!! I wish you THE BEST, John!!
I've met John and Scott at Awesome Con in DC. I too have mixed emotions. I saw Noel Clarke at Long Island Doctor Who. I heard the story that went viral from his lips. I saw Stephen Amell and heard a tale or 2 about the Arrow set. Yes we love John and we have laughed and carried on. It is so hard to hate such down to earth, funny, sincere person. His behavior was unacceptable. I am biased. I hope he recovers from this.
If this hasn’t happened since 2008, and Barrowman has apologised in the past, then I feel like this is more trying to save face on part of Big Finish and the BBC more than anything, like, ‘see we get it, we get it, we’re cool’ and also apparently the BBC management doesn’t really like him and might be trying to distract from Noel Clarke, but that’s all a bit conspiratorial for my liking
@@luketonkinson5440 cause captain Jack is the fan favourite, whose fans have been sending letters for BBC for decades, to bring back. And DW popularity is in decline
Apart from his Captain Jack character, I`m not a big fan. The thing is everyone has known about his antics onset for years. He has talked about it on tv interviews himself. So how anyone can now act against him is beyond me. And to compare him with Clarke is a disgrace.
the thing is, honestly, as much as he may changed as a person, i have a very hard time saying that years of clearly inappropriate behaviour in the workplace should have no consequences, so honesty, i cant come and say im that opposed to him loosing some big Finnish audios over it. its just i wish that the consequences had cone in 2005 and didn't so reek of corporate ass covering
The consequences were he was told to stop and he did. We don’t continue to hold people responsible for things after a certain for most behaviors bc it leads to greater injustice
Hey, just wanted to say. Thanks for such a well-thought out video. You’re wise to avoid Noel Clark chat. By all reports, that could be leading to a legal trial. You wouldn’t want to sway a jury etc. Personally, I think we’re seeing a massive over correction when it comes to Barrowman. Like you said, this was known. We all knew this. Big Finish knew this, time fracture knew this. He filmed his scene at the start of May. They were happy for him to be included, until the wind changed direction. It is all PR. Where’s the statement from Russell T Davies? Why did only one Torchwood member come to his defence? Simple. They fear their careers. Every member of Torchwood has, at some point. Flashed another member of Torchwood. You can find con footage of Eve Myles talking about flashing her boobs, to make Gareth David-Lloyd forget his lines. I’ve seen a lot of “why were people okay with this?”. The simple answer is. We didn’t know any better. We are all products of the society and the time we live in. It’s impossible to imagine a world you don’t live in. In 2008, none of this registered as not being okay. On Friday night with Johnathan Ross, Barrowman sat next to Andrew Lloyd Webber. Telling the audience about how Webber had written him up about exposing himself. The audience loved it. They whoop, they cheer. They laugh. I remember watching it and laughing. I remember being at cons and thinking this was all funny. I probably wouldn’t find any of this funny in 2021, but I did in 2005-2012. Not just me, but society did. I think what’s done is done. Big Finish should release Absent Friends. He should be allowed.Every production should introduce a complete zero tolerance policy. I’m also interested to see where this goes. I wonder what’s seen as fine by society in 2021, that will be see as completely unacceptable in 2037?
When an attractive, charismatic actor relays such stories, and portrays them as "all good fun", it's too easy to accept the stories as okay and fun. Don't be too harsh on yourself, beautiful. PS-- love that hair do. Very chic.
I really appreciate this video. I don't know how to feel about what's been going on with John Barrowman, and you really echoed a lot of my thoughts that make it so hard to sort out my feelings here. Usually I'm pretty black and white about these things. I'm very quick to condemn Louis C.K. and Kevin Spacey, but with regard to Barrowman, I just don't know if this is what's right. Certainly his behavior was unacceptable, but I don't know how truly recent it has been. Yeah. I just don't know how to feel.
I do wonder if this was a factor in why Torchwood and Captain Jack basically went on hold when Moffat took over. Now Moffat has left, Barrowman pops back up again... But yeah, this has been known about for years. He was talked to, and seemingly dialled it back. Action already taken. Attention should be on Noel, not letting hm slip away leaving the attention on a colleague for lesser issues.
My issue is... If I had done things that Barrowman had done, I would be fired. I would lose work. Is this the appropriate reaction? I don't know. I certainly don't think what Barrowman stands accused of is the same as Noel Clarks. And I have yet to get the impression that his claims that "It was typical backstage Exuberance" is untrue. By all accounts, it was dismissed as "Barrowman being Barrowman", not as predatory behavior. And that has to count for something. But just because his intentions weren't malevolent doesn't mean that he should have been doing. He *ought* to know better. And as I said, if you or I had done it, we would have lost work as a result. I'm not comfortable with a society where celebrities operate on different rules to the rest of us. THATS how you let the real monsters lose. The Wiensteins and Saviles of the world, are protected by the same shield that says that if I exposed myself to colleagues I'd be fired, but if Barrowman does it, its fine. Thats not right either. And I'd we're going to pick one of two options that don't feel perfect, I'd rather pick the one that says there should be consequences for getting your cock out. I mean come on. Imagine if it was a cameraman getting his cock out to a star actor, like Billie Piper, or David Tennant. We can't suddenly be chill with it, when the stars are exposing themselves to crew. Thats horrendous levels of double standards, and - I think - more than a little classist. In my opinion? Barrowman's been an idiot. And like a drunken idiot that dives into a swimming pool and drowns, its frustrating for the rest of us, Its upsetting. We should make changes to ensure it couldn't happen again. But ultimately, its his own fault. My gripe, is that this should have happened years ago. Not as a publicity thing, now that Clark has been caught. Its wrong that "Everyone knew" for so long.
Completely agree. Also the thing of the culture on set and the BBC's part in it, I really believe it wasn't reprimanded. In John's book, and also in panels a lot, it's been said that Eve Myles also used to show her breasts and stuff. In the same intention of "humor". I do believe it was a big part of the culture on set.
I have a friend whose worked with Eve and she’s stated herself she’s never had issue with JB or his behaviour. Have any of his Who co stars spoken out? No, they haven’t. You’re right, it seems to have been the behaviour on TW and Who at the time. Having said that, even Alex Kingston said she used to whisper in appropriate things to make people laugh onset etc
@@einezcrespo2107 and the Gareth got death threats for it. Denise van Outen has defended JB too. And you somehow try to make it look, that the fact that only people who have spoken up about it, have been defending JB, is somehow bad for JB.
@@minaolenella869 I have no problem with anyone defending JB should they chose to and they're free to do so. I'm only critical about him continuing to drop his pants after being reprimanded by Julie Gardner and not learning a thing. He's a talented guy but he wasn't thinking like an adult that time.
@@einezcrespo2107 only he was not reprimanded cause of mooning. He was reprimanded for showing his d*k. That he stopped doing, at least on set. Furthermore, the reason why Julia Gardner reprimanded him, was one complaint made by a third person that was never no-where near the set. Considering that at least 2 more people on TW set got regularly naked and his behaviour was known and encouraged 3 years before the reprimand, and kept being encouraged later on, it is very hypocritical, to blame him for it now without anyone present ever having any complaints about it.
For me personally, John Barrowman didn't seem problematic while he was in the DW verse, cause he seemed so much like his character, I couldn't really differentiate seeing him, vs seeing Jack. I realized how problematic he was, when the same antics continued on Arrow, once he joined that cast. People have been very specific about what and who can be "cancelled" for inappropriate behavior, and up to this point, the marginalized groups have been outside of that zone. This is why I think Kevin Spacey even pulled out his "I'm gay btw" card after being exposed for who he is, he assumed he will get sympathy for that. But there are numerous other things we are laughing at, that should not be funny. As much as I like her, Hayley Atweel has that recurring gag about "automatically touching" Chris Evans' manboob, because he was so sexy in CAP 1. If that was a man reacting like this to a woman, and then would it be the man telling the same story, the conversation would be different. Tan France thirsting over Shawn Mendez, before he was of legal age... And God knows I love him with all my heart, but Oscar Isaac as a Latino has played every ethnicity under the sun, including a Jew, an Armenian, and Russian, and got no bad comments or anything for it. Remember when Emma Stone was bashed for playing someone, who was ONE QUARTER Hawaiian? So I think as a way of overcorrecting, people are overlooking some issues, and giving some groups a double standard, and we will be surprised at a lot more "problematic faves" in the future, and realize how we normalized some things, just because we were fans.
Regardless of the moral righteousness of Barrowman's actions, losing Jack isn't going to be easy. There's no Torchwood without Jack. As a fan of the Big Finish continuation of TW (and with Jack being my favourite DW character), I hope there can be a way forward.
The BBC has always disliked the Capt Jack character and this a way to keep him off of the BBC. Clarke just needed to take the spot light off of himself and he did that by throwing John under the bus. If people were upset all they had to ask him to stop and he would have. He has talked about his behavior for years and I didn't hear anyone getting upset about it. Yes it was a silly thing for a grown man to do but John meant no harm. Clarke was trying to intimidate and hurt women and John was just wanting to make people laugh. The stories that John tells are all a stretch of the truth. Yes, he may have kissed James more often than necessary but I wonder if it really happened that way or John was telling a story for laughs. John would never hurt anyone where Clarke's action was because he thought he was more important than he really is. Time to give John a rest and let him get on with his life.
We accepted his behaviour because we thought everyone was okay about it. Some of us would have wished to have been in that "fun" environment. Now we hear that the behaviour may have been a **little** more than "getting his bits out" and some people had complained. I don't think the consequences for John should be the cancellation of work, don't think they should be anywhere near the extent of Noel. I also wonder if those who (rightfully) complained, would have if they knew he would lose work.
So many behaviors are "accepted" that aren't really "acceptable" and I think as a society, we tend to categorize a lot of crap together as "not that bad" as long as we think it doesn't put anyone in physical danger: Barrowman's lewdness, blonde jokes, bullying, sexism, "humor" aimed at someone's race, gender, sexual orientation, age, height, nationality, ethnicity, or musical tastes.
I think we all have the same opinion here. It was stupid at the time, eventually he was called out on it, he realised that it was stupid an immature and apologised. End of. The problem is while we have known about this for years and recognised that a group of people that are easily offended are being offended by something that in no way shape or form effects them. Sadly the BBC has had a history of looking the other way when some of it's major stars have done something EXTREMELY bad (naming no names here). As such they have to be seen to be squeaky clean on this. I strongly suspect after a few months he'll start getting work again. Low level at first and these morons will have found something else to complain about. Probably about how preferring coffee with milk in is racist somehow
Since it was past behavior that was to a certain degree accepted by the vast majority of people involved, and from the looks of it was not done with the intent of being predatory or harmful to others and simply being immature, I think they should put it in his contract that if he does things like that again he loses pay or gets removed from project.
Well, this video just made me realise that I'm still somewhere in the category of Casual Fan despite having been committed to watching the show since 2007 with no "drifting out" phase. If anything, this whole situation is a lesson in paying more attention to behind-the-scenes panel stuff.
I feel like we are all trying to look back to the time when this was going on and take our best guess as to how his actions were received at the time, as well as how they would be viewed now. For me, there are three questions that I'd be interested in having answered...1 - how were his actions viewed by those who were there at the time? I agree with the idea that people who were working with him may not have felt comfortable saying something, especially if it meant risking their jobs, but were his actions then viewed as humorous (by the standards of the time) or as frightening and/ or predatory? Question 2 - if someone back then had said to him that they were uncomfortable with his actions, how would he have reacted and would his behavior have changed? And, 3 - would he have acted that way if the show was being filmed today? Meaning, had the greater awareness and openness that we aim for today been around then, would he have acted in that way?
I agree with everything you have said in this video and I apologise that you have had to make several videos to address this problem. The thing that bugs me is that these events are well known by the fandom and back then some people who knew about it said nothing or did not speak out about it , but now that Noel Clark has been accused of bad things they have now decided to attack John barrowman for past events that have already been known (I am by no means saying that his behaviour on set was appropriate because it wasn’t) we as the fandom have to admit the wrongs we have done as well. Another thing that really irks me is people comparing the actions of John barrowman and Noel Clark as though they are the same thing which they are not (again not saying johns actions are completely innocent) Stop ✋🏻 saying that they are the same thing. Noel Clark through John Barrowman under the bus to try and distract the public on the things he has been accused of which I do not agree with. I still have respect for John Barrowman because he is an icon to millions in the LGBTQ+ 🏳️🌈 community and others across the world 🌎.The man has made some poor life choices in life but no one hasn’t, I hope that in time the world an learn to forgive John Barrowman again and appreciate the goods as well as the bad. Everyone is capable of redemption, but you have to offer them that choice first in order for them to grow and learn from their wrongs xx
I think this is a basic sample of how in Western culture we believe that the most important thing is to create a punishment for a fault instead of creating a reflection and discussion on each case to create a true change in the culture that created the "criminal" . It happens with when we raise our children and it happens with our criminals, we focus on elaborating punishment since doing it is much easier than educating so that this is not repeated. I want to make it clear that punishing a wrong act is not a bad thing, it is more than necessary to start a process of change, but the punishments must be appropriate to the fault and more importantly we must understand why the "crime" was committed, what environment allowed that the act occurred and how we can create a lasting change so that it does not repeat itself or at least its occurrence drastically decreases
I totally agree with everything you said. Even if they aren’t our actions anybody can be complicit and do have a responsibility to speak up. Its not something i’d hold against a person if they didn’t, but they need to know they are complicit if they don’t. Victims voices aren’t loud enough, they need the help of everyone for toxic behaviour to be diminished.
There's been this kind of culture in Hollywood since the beginning of filmmaking. That's the problem, there's been a blind eye turned on bad behaviour for a hundred years. All these cancellations of of actors and directors is simply performative. They get afraid that people are not going to watch something because of who is connected with it that may have done something bad in the past. Rather than risk low performing films and shows they stop hiring the person in question. They wouldn't care and would continue to hire if none of us knew what goes on behind-the-scenes.
As someone who’s been to some of his music tours/shows it can easily be seen as, yes he only did it as a joke (it certainly seems like something he’d find funny), no it’s not ok but he’s not been that way for years now. It seems like the “cheeky” joke he’d push forward in front of an audience. Not that he does it in front of audiences it’s just for lack of a better word.
First, we did not all know. I did not know, and not a single fan I’ve talked to offline knew. Not every part of the fandom spends its time in online forums and going to conventions. Secondly, the fandom is not identical to how it was in the late 2000s - new fans have come on and jumped off, with every season. So fans who were not around circa 2010 but have since joined the fandom have, even if they knew, minimal to no part in condoning that behavior or having a chance to provide input when the behavior was topical. I say this to neither condemn nor pardon John Barrowman, but to try and reframe the discussion here in a way that I feel is more accurate.
While I agree with you, in that I personally did not know despite not being what one could call a "casual fan," I doubt that's precisely what Nathaniel means here. She seems to be employing the plural first person to just speak about the fandom in general, not literally every single fan. It'd be somewhat like saying, "British people sure like their tea," when I'm sure some British people in fact hate tea. That's probably true, but just in the common sentence construction we understand that the speaker meant the British quite broadly.
FWIW, Maureen Lipman flashed the whole cast of the Trevor Nunn version of Oklahoma (source - Hugh Jackman) and Sophie Waller-Bridge,and other cast members, flashed each other on stage on a certain play she was on, until the infamous 'asshole' incident. (source SWB on The Graham Norton Show). Making no comment on the rights and wrongs, but it seems to be a bit of a dual standard.
The thing with everyone knowing about this behavior and seemingly being cool with it as collective and then suddenly not feels like everyone was trying to backpedal away from the topic. Especially those who knew and said they were okay with it. Some people just wanted to seem like they were doing something by being upset with this suddenly
I agree with you, completely, but I would be remiss if I didn't ask: how might you envision taking responsibility for our complicity, proactively, manifest?
How I feel about it is, he should've been let go when it happened and Revelations should've been his return to the screen. I don't think he deserves to be blacklisted, but he did deserve a time out for a while.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The thing that bugs me about all this is the fact that this information has been publicly available for YEARS and no one did anything. So it really comes across as companies trying to cover their own backs from negative media attention, rather than taking action to stop inappropriate behaviour. Even if John Barrowman hadn't apologised (twice) it feels super ingenuous of all these companies to only act now.
That and I was SO hyped for Absent Friends to come out so I am maybe slightly biased here...
It's not justice, he is losing work for getting his wee toy oot years ago and it didn't seem a problem back then. They should of told him off back then. But it's 2021 cancel culture, its fashionable to ruin folks lives over their stupid behaviour 🙄
@@goopapa4758 Gads, that's not nice. Pity someone never had a hot cup of coffee or something and accidentally spilled it onto it. That would of stopped him lol. But it should of been dealt with at the time, not years later. As it gives the impression that it was no big deal at the time, but because cancel culture makes it relevant and justifiable to bring it back up and cancel him.
@@barbara-annperry5941 Nothing to do with cancel culture though. Its internally. The BBC is fucking scared because Clarke being a sexual predator towards woman came out and now they are trying to throw up a smokescreen by prentending they are hard on this stuff.
Nobody has called for this to be brought up again BUT the BBC themself.
@@grafikpapst I very much doubt that the BBC brought this up. From what I've seen, it seems to have been dredged up again by the newspapers and social media.
@@barbara-annperry5941 it wouldn't be a good look to put him in stuff right at this second, it's probably just gonna be postponed a bit. I doubt it's 'it wasn't a problem back then' more 'nobody felt comfortable bringing it up', but I do agree that it's daft considering it's been public info for years.
That said, it's not exactly ruining his life.
I would think of Barrowman being a "normal" employee somewhere. Long time ago he acted not appropriately at his work place, was penalized, and afterwards kept on working. One decade later the company decides to fire him for his former mistakes ... I say this is NOT justice or moral highground, it's definetely politics.
He still does it. The ONLY reason he appologized is because he keeps getting outed for it which means it keeps happening.
Personally, I think his behavior was immature at best and certainly reprehensible. However, I have been able to find absolutely no proof that this particular behavior continued beyond 2008, and he has publicly apologized at least twice that I know of.
With that being said, no I do not think this is justice.
His behavior at the time could certainly have been damaging to others on set, but the last known incident was 13 years ago. And the incidents have been public knowledge for even longer than that.
I feel like the right time for the BBC to do something about it should have been while it was happening, NOT 13 years after it stopped.
13 or 14 years ago, it may have been justice. But now? No.
Now, all it is is the BBC trying to cover their own ass. All this is doing is allowing Clark to slip by unnoticed, because now the attention has been shifted to someone else.
I strongly feel that Barrowman is being used as a scapegoat for Clark right now, and that is completely inexcusable. Especially given the fact that what Clark did was so much worse than simply jokingly flashing a few people on set.
Now, I am in no way making excuses for Barrowman. I find the act of exposing himself on set to be highly idiotic and also very immature. I in no way support what he did.
But you have to consider the reasoning of why it's coming up NOW, when Clark's allegations are coming to light, and not 13 years ago.
The BBC clearly did not care at the time, nor do I think that they really care now. They're just covering their own ass.
At the end of the day, it’s all about money and media attention. And big companies don’t want to lose that, and that’s the unfortunate truth 😞
Thankyou. This is one of the best takes on this I’ve read.
It's immature and unprofessional, even dumb and inappropriate, don't know if I would use the word reprehensible.
@@tinamoul I really didn't want to use the word reprehensible, but at the time I couldn't think of a better word to get my point across. Now that I think about it, inappropriate was probably a better word to use.
There were women who'd worked with Clark who asked to be moved somewhere else's as they didn't want to work with him anymore.
John on the other hand, the people who complained said they wanted him to stop. But they didn't feel threatened or unsafe around him. And non asked to be sent elsewhere.
Very very different
That's not to say I think what John has done is okay. It isn't. But it's most definitely not the same
Interesting topic. You can’t, as a culture, reward a behaviour for years, punish someone, and expect healthy change. The culture hasn’t changed. You’ve punished one person after years of ignoring them. John Barrowman has become, sadly, a great example of why while everyone is responsible for calling inappropriate behaviour, people in power are especially obligated. Directors, show runners, other lead actors--instead of a funny story, they should have told John directly that it wasn’t okay and wouldn’t be tolerable on their set or stage.
They did tell him, he then apologized XD
@@AlastarRevancrow And then went back and did it again. Round and round it goes.
Now the lying starts. Provided links that he continued after he was made aware.
@@jackdexter9439 Unless you found some article with sources...I would have to disagree with you. Granted CW is verrrrry loose. I mean you had J2 and Amell’s “rivalry” behind the scenes too. Bts cw can get weird yall
I have faith in John’s ability to transcend the mistakes he’s made and pull a “James Gunn” in the process. He’s not a Clarke or a Spacey or a Weinstein and deserves better. We all have inner demons to exorcise on the way to becoming better versions of ourselves.
So if Jimmy Saville was still alive and appologized for raping and murdering kids then you would give him a free pass like the BBC cover up???
@@ichiru6637 Exposing yourself, while wrong, is worlds apart from anything Saville did.
Oh look, Noel Clarke throws someone under the bus and now everyone is talking about this instead of the multiple accusations he's had his way.
I agree with you it certainly would seem like it.
Clarke didn't throw Barrowman under the bus. It was people discovering the 2014 convention clip of Clarke telling this story about Barrowman that made this part of the discourse.
Indeed
I'd look to whoever he's hired to handle the situation, rather than him himself. Think Max Clifford/Lynton Crosby type. It would be interesting to know who.
@@rog2224 Maybe not a Max Clifford type (ahem)
When Russel T. Davis left Doctor Who, David Tennent and Catherine Tate did a tribute song for him. One of the lines was a joke about seeing John Barrowman junk!
It always made me feel pretty uncomfortable hearing stories like that about Barrowman but I do agree that him losing work now just feels like companies trying to save face in the media considering it was always so public. I think there should definitely be some consequences for this kind of behaviour but I cannot help but think about the fact that Barrowman has publicly apologised and did so even before this was being talked about most recently. Also it is definitely a false equivalence to put Barrowman's extremely inappropriate "pranks" in the same category as Clark's years of sexual harassment and abuse - I don't trust anybody conflating the two to be arguing in good faith
Context. Yes, this. It’s the equivalent of treating the person who takes home a pen from the stationery cupboard and the person who steals millions from their employer the same because they’re both guilty of theft. Inappropriate behaviour in the workplace? Yes. But the levels of harm are nowhere near each other.
Eh? He indecently exposed himself and went about touching people with his exposed penis!!! In what context is this okay?
@@thefairhairedboywiththered2951 In the context of consenting adults.
@@minaolenella869 in this case, the adults were not consenting.
@@SarcyBoi41 Eve was clearly consenting, Naoko and Garreth too- and those were the ones that were touched by it.
Being naked is exposing only if it is sexual or threathening, and all people ever asked have said it was not either of it.
So how in the hell do you have an information that adults were not consenting, when EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has talked about it has been fine with it?
To quote @Jessie Gender :
"Nuance is a thing."
I really hate the part of "cancel culture" (horrible term, I know), where we can't respect people learning and mowing forward. I can't tell if this is entirely the case with Barrowman because of the things he might have done on 'Arrow', but at least before watching your video, it seemed clear to me that he was being punished for something he had already been made aware of, apologised for and moved on from. Like, the culture was different and weird back then, he did some not okay things and then promised to never do it again. Again, Barrowman might not be the best example of this, but why must we destroy good actors/creators/politicians (speaking from Denmark, where some actually good and fair politicians have been hit by this) careers, just because of some minor thing they did way back when, which they have later regretted. It's almost inhuman. We need to let people change!
Don't be stupid, people are irredeemable for any and all indiscretions, duhhh, obviously.
@@Chiggins_ haha...(er, I think ... wait, are you...???)
Absolutely! Thank you for saying that! I too really regret how little debates currently leave space for people acknowledging past mistakes and trying to do better. In fact, I believe that this is one of the reasons why it is often difficult to denounce harmful behaviours - because if, when found guilty of doing something bad, you are suddenly labelled "A Bad Person"TM as a whole, then of course you and the people who like you will get extremely defensive! Deconstructing internalised bias is very important, in my opinion, but it means that we should be able to say, "well, I did this in the past/ I used to believe this, but it's actually not okay and i want to apologise for the harm it caused/ to do better in the future," without fear that people will only hear the "this person confessed to doing a terrible thing!!!" and be like "OMG I hate them now!"
No one is born perfect, and acknowledging past mistakes is a vital part of any healthy growth. So I am very uncomfortable about what is currently happening with Barrowman, because, as you say, he apologised for it and seemed to have moved on. It doesn't necessarily make everything he did okay, but it does, in my opinion, make the way it is talked about now feel unfair.
@@moijesuisunelicorne3785 Thank you for wording my point way better, haha
@@rasminermer5521 You already worded it pretty well, but you're welcome and er, thanks too, I guess ^^
I like your point about how those of us in the know that gave him a pass all this time are partly to blame. He’s not being punished for once incident. He’s being punished for a lot. But if he were reprimanded on day 1, I’d like to think that would be the end of it.
It reminds me of Chris Pratt exposing himself to Amy Poehler while filming Parks and Rec. he said in an interview that he had a meeting with HR. He got an stern talking to and it was made very clear that if it happened again he’d be immediately fired.
So sorry I missed the premiere of this one! I agree with you 100% on the case of Noel Clarke being clear-cut as a diamond (stick him in a cannon and shoot him to Mars) and the Barrowman situation requiring a more complicated discussion - nuance, I've been told, is a thing! You remain a voice of reason in the overpowering chatter in these torrid affairs...
My feelings on John are so conflicted. Mostly, I'm disappointed that the fandom and industry didn't demand better from him.
The fact he's apologised for this is what makes this so harsh. And the fact that no-one actually really cares about Noel Clarke anymore despite what he's done being WAY worse than Barrowman's actions years ago, especially with Clarke still indulging in his...
@@Atothetheist Where’s your evidence that he kept doing it? I haven’t seen anything past that 2008 date.
@@Atothetheist where did you get that from? the only time I've heard of the year 2014 in relation to Barrowman's actions is the interview where Noel Clarke mentioned it. He was talking about Boom Town, filmed in 2005. I can't find anything suggesting Barrowman has exposed himself like this since 2008.
@@Atothetheist I say it here again, he did not keep doing it. What he is been accused of is showing his front. He stopped doing it and only mooned on set, that is still an everyday occurance in theater.
Not only did borrowman aapologize and did stop behaving like a frat boy, but its becaue noelle clarke deserves that heat, and did throw him under the bus, and bbc is on board with barrowmen being his sacrifice lamb is grmpfht
@@Atothetheist it is NOT. Go look what an sexual harassment actually is. You putting sexual harassment into same pile as inappropriate behaviour is very damaging for actual sexual harassment victims. It is not YOU who decides what is an sexual harassment.
Noel Clarke is incredibly well-known outside of Doctor Who, a very successful producer. Not that I'm saying that means those 20 women were lying, it kinda just means there's likely far more than 20. He's well protected.
It's definitely very important to always believe these kind of allegations. Sexual harrasment has to be taken serious at all times. You can't run the risk of thinking of it as a joke, especially if you can stop it before it escalates.
This!
He's well-known within the industry, but I don't think many of the general public pay much attention to producers. Even as an actor, Clarke doesn't strike me as very well-known, unless you watch his shows. I know him through Doctor Who, but I had to explain who he was to my parents and sister.
@@lwaves Yes, I may have worded it differently, but that's basicly what I meant.
@@ftumschk As with any actor, unless they become a well known name, it comes down to what a person watches. I knew Clarke was a producer and director but I couldn't tell you one thing he's done. As an actor, I first saw him pre-DW in a series of Auf Wiedersehen Pet and he's popped up in a couple of British films. However well known he is within the industry, I think it's fair to say that Barrowman is a far bigger name overall, which is partly why the spotlight is on him and not Clarke. :-)
18:06 I'm really grateful that you brought up that you laughed at John Barrowman extending a kiss without James Master's knowing. It's big of someone to hold themselves culpable for applauding that kind of culture and I've always found it uncomfortable when actors talk about doing things to other actors for a 'surprise' or to get a reaction that can be put in the finished product without the actor's knowledge and with the director's go ahead.
A slow hand clap for Noel Clarke, he knew how to divert attention away by bringing up something EVERYONE already knew and it became a bigger story than the shit he did. Well played. He knew the system and it played out perfectly. As for Barrowman, as it was well known, and he was brought back to Doctor Who/Torchwood regardless, removing him now is hypocritical. He did mind numbingly stupid choices, but he has apologised for it.
Yeah, that was smart...in a slightly sociopathic way 🤔🤨
Noel Clarke didn't actually shift the blame to Barrowman though.
The video of Noel Clarke talking about Barrowman's antics are from 2016, someone sent the video to Daily Mirror and they made up the headline that Clarke was deflecting attention.
Probably a PR company behind it.@@Deathlygunn
@@Deathlygunn Look at how quick that video circulated again once the accusations came out. That was done on purpose to take the focus off Noel. I'm sorry, but it's a little too obvious. Within 24 hours John was all people were talking about with others going "Noel who?". Noel sitting around barely saying a word and probably getting a kick out of it.
@@Deathlygunn Yeah, and that "someone" who sent the video had NOTHING to do with Noel Clarke's publicity team right? They have been sitting on that video for years knowing they will need something when the truth about Noel Clarke comes out.
I'm glad that you say it's muddy, and that you say that your thoughts are inconclusive. Oftentimes it seems we're all expected to take a definite stance or have clear thoughts on situations or events, when those situations and events are multifaceted. I'm glad that you're normalizing not only the act of talking through your thoughts, but also the idea that people don't have to know exactly how they feel about something.
Also, your lashes are killing it today!!!!
Example Chris Pratt he actually fully exposed himself on the television show Parks & Recreation and went against script just to see the actors reactions as he thought it would be better. But because he's back by Marvel nobody speaks about this or brings it up.
I feel like I need to point out, that director, of that take was Marsters wife, then fiance, John talked with Marsters before the take, making sure he was ok, and Marsters said years later to Barrowman, "could you come and kiss me in front of my wife again"
I still reckon it's a little iffy, but there was totally a culture at the time that said this was completely ok (which it isn't). In the 10 year anniversary Torchwood audio 'Outbreak' by Big Finish, JB tells a very similar story to the Marster's one, about Gareth David Lloyd and they both laugh it off as something people thought was funny. And to stress, this was in a published interview with Big Finish. SO they knew, and shared the story, and didnt care.
That was a very different situation, though...in fact, Marsters is on record saying that seeing two men "together" was something that's a turn-on for his wife and that he was very happy to satisfy her fantasy in this way. So in this case, Barrowman was more in the position of "fetishized gay man" , maybe?
@@Naumaxia Wait hold on... so two consenting adults arranged a kissing scene and you think that is bad? Why? Because their characters were lovers and kissing was done before for those characters. So I am struggling to find the "This is bad/wrong" with it.
@@TheLastSane1 no it’s only bad to continue the scene past the necessary point without one person’s permission. Obviously if he had permission then it’s not really a problem and I am sure someone has found evidence of this somewhere, but there isn’t any in the specific interview I found. Just because they were ok with it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have checked before hand (although once again I don’t know if he did, and if he did that’s fine.) that said even if everyone was chill, surely extending scenes unnecessarily is a waste of company time to an extent? Oh well
@@Naumaxia Oh those poor corporations. How dare those gay kiss scenes run even a second over the allotted time! Even though hetero kissing scenes are often LONG SHOTTED so they can edit different angles and I don't hear you crying about that.
If Masters and Barrowmen agree to the kissing scene and carry it longer then its suppose to be why is this a problem?
Gràcies/ Thanks!
Just watched that. Such a balanced and thought-out review!
Must admit, it would be nice to have him back. Maybe not fair, but nice.
This is like a restaurant suddenly firing or disciplining one person for being late for work and ignoring what others did and ignoring that it was allowed for along time.
"Unless you want to claim that dozens of unrelated women decided to make a concentrated effort to bring down an actor who is largely unknown outside of the UK, there's no real discussion to be had with Noel Clarke."
This is a bit of a tangent but there is a disturbing amount of people who seem to think just that regarding anime dub voice actor Vic Mignogna. *Loads* of allegations from entirely unrelated people over a period of well over a decade, including repeated instances of conventions apparently having been explicitly warned to keep an eye on him and *actual video evidence* of him acting inappropriately at best... And yet you still have people who claim that he was "fired unjustly." People will go to surprising lengths to bat for people whom they have never met and whom they only know as "the actor who played that character I like," it seems.
Hell, I remember back in the 00s, it was a running gag (not unlike Barrowman's ding dong) that Vic was a creep who groomed young girls at cons (and, I'm willing to bet, by no shortage of the same people rushing to defend him now). Apparently everybody was a-okay with it then, but when it was actually brought forward and taken seriously, now was the time to go 'no no, it's all lies?'
The only issues I took with that whole thing was when it was proven that people were taking other peoples stories and then making them allegations. Such as a teen who had a picture with Vic and that was being used as a sign of him being a predator. The girl had to come online and say "They are using my picture without my permission and my mother was the one taking the pic so I wasn't alone with him."
the issue there is that its muddying waters that do not need muddied if there is so clear cut evidence.
Its sad and sickening
@@TheLastSane1 There wasn't any real clear-cut evidence was there though? It seemed to be mostly hearsay and the pictures, which while they looked creepy, were just hugs and cheek kisses, from what I saw... It could all be a simple case of him misjudging social boundaries, which could possibly have been fixed with a good talking to and a warning before they fired him... I don't know whether to believe him or not, but he seemed to be surprised by the idea that people were bothered by any of the stuff he did... I dunno... Maybe he was warned and I didn't know.
I've seen too many cases of false accusations and misunderstandings to fully accept this stuff... Which is frustrating because I want to be able to trust those that make such claims, but now I'm just as worried that a guy is getting excluded just because he annoyed a few people (not saying that is what happened, but it is a possible concern, I think)... Oh well...
@@KitsyX I wouldn't lose sleep over it - Vic's behaviour since has shown, even if he was pulled aside back then, he wouldn't have taken onboard one single thing and kept on doing it.
1st that I'm hearing of this. That said JB exposing himself happened in the past, he apologized and there are no people coming out saying they are traumatized by his interactions currently? Noel has been accused of predatory behavior based upon his power dynamic by various persons. Apples and oranges. Personally as a woman of color I think Noel is like let me throw this Ole white dude doing 'inappropriate' things out there like it's the same thing and it AIN'T. JB needs to lay low. If there is something new to come out, if there are people who feel victimized against their will by JB then that needs to get handled. I don't understand why people think behaving inappropriately and actually committing crimes are the same thing. They're not.
I'm glad you mentioned John Barrowman being white, since race felt like the missing piece here to me. If Noel Clarke was white, I don't think anyone would have been having this conversation about John Barrowman. But with white people at least trying to learn some of the lessons about the way racism has played out in the bigger picture, if everyone was coming for Noel Clarke and no-one else, the conversation would be "here's this white guy who was also behaving inappropriately, not to the same degree, but still, he was, so why are you only coming for the Black guy?" And in trying to learn that lesson, John Barrowman became the fall guy, I think. But if Noel Clarke was white, John Barrowman would be a footnote at best in that conversation
I still can't believe people cancelled John Borrowman, people cancelled captain Jack? Really really?!!!?!! I'm still heartbroken. John Borrowman has been doing stuff like that jokingly since I was a little girl, and probably before that, and everyone thought it was funny, and just typical John Borrowman. This is why I never jump on the bandwagon for everything, if I'm going to say someone did something wrong, I'm looking at everything.
"Accusations that have been around for years and nobody did anything"
Not actually true. Someone complained. BBC went to him about it and he apologized and never did it again. Rumors are that he continued it on other series he worked on but nobody from these other shows seems to say he has done this same thing. Seems like whatever originally happened was perfectly fine for whoever complained because they never made a deal out of it. They could have spoken up if they felt more should have been done and it doesn't seem like they did
I honestly think it's ridiculous that he's getting hit with all of this now. Noel Clarke gets hit with all these much worse accusations and suddenly that video of him talking about John doing that stuff on set comes out. It's pretty evident, in my opinion, that was done by Noel to take the focus off of him.
In all honesty it sounds like John is the type of guy that does things like that purely to make others laugh. Not in a perverted manner. Any group of men out that can tell you we all grew up with a person that did things like that. Noel asking women to audition topless while secretly recording them then showing off those vids, now that's pure evil in my honest opinion.
that someone who complained, was not from the set, but someone who had just heard about his behaviour. And yes, BBC reacted to that one complaint.
Exactly.
Doesn't matter his intentions behind it. He could have the nicest most jokey intentions in the world. But behaviour like that is still sexual assault ygm
It sounds like his sense of humor is still there, but after his reprimand he adequately reigned it in.
@@tjzimmerman5541 Not quite. He still continued the habit over at Arrow. Two co-stars confirmed he mooned them. He may have been reprimanded by Julie Gardner but his co-stars who actually talked about his flashing at cons enabled him. I'm surprised David Tennant didn't say a thing. No one bothered to tell JB to cool it and where was RTD who claimed he never knew about it?
This is a James Gunn situation. No one should be punished for behavior that they haven't done in a very long time (especially behavior that didn't personally attack anyone) and has apologized for multiple times.
I feel like until his more recent return to Doctor Who last year the BBC tried to almost distance themselves from him hoping enough time would pass for them to be able to get him back on Doctor Who and this wouldn't be an issue. John Barrowman in more recent years seemed to have moved his career over to one of the other main British TV channels called ITV meaning that any shows he is on that are broadcast on that channel are nothing to do with the BBC. They are not responsible for him. I almost feel like they maybe wanted to almost prove that he can bring in an audience and behave himself on another channel and on other shows and stuff so that his previous behaviour is forgotten about and then they could welcome him back to Doctor Who like a long lost child with everything forgotten. And also in the time whilst he was working on ITV if any of the inappropriate behaviour got repeated and he got in trouble for it the BBC would not be responsible because they were not employing him at the time.
I know like not everyone is aware of this but the BBC is corrupt just like Hollywood. For years they covered up Jimmy Saville (google it) and similar incidents. They have recently got in trouble for the famous Princess Diana interview and they also got in trouble for showing the invasion of Sir Cliff Richards home on TV. The BBC is shady as hell. This is not a new thing.
I mean...this whole situation is kind of like "James Gunn 2.0" if the right-wingers had got their way. At the end of the day, this information has been out there for years for anyone to find, he has apologised at least twice with no solid evidence that he continued the behaviour beyond 2008 (if anyone has any solid evidence of him having continued, I will amend that - I see some people in the comments accusing him of continuing the behaviour until 2014; any solid proof of that would be appreciated because I have been able to find nothing beyond 2008), and it's blatantly obvious that it's only having a stink kicked up about it now because someone he's tangentially connected with is accused of things that are objectively far worse. And what's frankly a little disturbing is that Noel Clarke - again, despite being accused of objectively far worse behaviour - seems to have drifted into the background of the conversation I guess because John Barrowman feels like more of a "gotcha" prize due to his relatively family-friendly image than Clark does.
I mean, I'm fully prepared to admit that some of my reaction to this is likely personal bias having met and worked with Barrowman (and not having witnessed him expose himself). But considering the known facts of the matter - including the previous public knowledge, the apologies, and that all of this, whether intentionally or not, is effectively serving to dampen the discussion around Noel Clark and what he was accused of - I honestly don't think it's fair for him to *now* be losing work. If it was to happen, it should have happened when the knowledge first became public which was over a decade ago. That it's only happening *now* reeks both of Barrowman being made into the public scapegoat for the situations surrounding both him and Clark, and the BBC rushing to cover its own ass since they're dealing with a lot of their own mess at the moment.
ETA: And yes, I am saying that anyone who stood by James Gunn when his whole mess happened should be willing to stand by John Barrowman; if not, they need to seriously think about why they were willing to let one slide and not the other. These two situations are almost functionally identical - both centre around behaviour that arguably held no genuine malicious intent and that was (from all appearances) abandoned years before this became a public issue, this behaviour was apologised for again years before it became a public issue, and both are arguably being pushed into the spotlight in order to distract from something objectively worse.
I agree, and I think the reason why Barrowman has now become a fall guy is because people are too afraid to deplatform a Black man in fear of racism accusations (Look at how R. Kelly has gone on almost unscathed for his misconduct).
There is also the reports, that BBC management dislikes Barrowman a lot, so they throw him under the bus as it distracts from Noel, and in Barrowman case, they can say, they did react after first complaint (that was not from Torchwood set as usually reported), while they ignored any complaints about Noel for years.
Borrowman stopped doing that, and, yeah its a bbc cover up.
@whyemceeay Clarcke had multiple successful movies, as well as won the biggest BAFTA award this year.
@@JamesLawner ITV removed the last episode of a show Noel Clarke was involved in from their broadcast schedule. It's not that.
I get the argument and I think you did a great job presenting your points. However, I also think some people are going too far into a puritanical culture without realizing it. Sexuality is being demonized and pushed at the same time. Consent is important, but at the same time sometimes people need to chill out and just let it go when something is obviously done with no ill intent.
Yep, I remember being mooned by friends in my early teens and younger. Sometimes at school. There was no intent other than surprising and making their friends laugh. 100% a student would get into serious trouble for that joke these days.
If he hadn't apologised before years ago I'd say firmly yes but it just feels like Clark through him under the bus to get attention off of his own issues so I'm unsure how I feel on it at the moment aside from disgust of what happened in general.
But how harshly the media is reacting against him seems a bit harsh given Clarkes current issues but nobody mentions that atm which I feel is unfair.
@@Atothetheist where did you find out he did similar things in 2014? I haven't seen any evidence of him doing acts like these since 2008, and the 2014 convention clip with Noel Clarke mentioning Barrowman's indecent exposures referred to their time filming Series 1 in 2005.
@@Atothetheist they only talk about how him mooning. There is not any source that says he showed his front on set. Private parties do not count, as they are private.
@@Atothetheist in order for it to be an sexual harassment, there needs to be someone who was there who has ever complained about it or there needs to be an intention to cause distress . People like you make up whatever lies they want about laws, in order to witch-haunt people they hate.
The story in 2008 was SPECIFICALLY about him exposing his dick.
People like you are disgusting by how you totally dismiss consent and intentions. The very things that matter. As well as you butting inappropriate behavior into the same pile as sexual harassment and assault. The fact that you even bring up a sexual assault, while taking away a voice from people, you claim were sexually assaulted, is even worse. It is like once YOU decide someone was assaulted, it is the only truth, and what your "victims" say does not matter. Cause "the victims of Barrowmans "sexual assault"" have only come forward to support him, even if they got death threats from people like you, who were not there, and people who freak out cause your "victims" do not keep their mouths shut.
@@minaolenella869 -Are you seriously trying to defend the actions of someone who indecently exposed himself and would touch unsuspecting bystanders with his exposed penis?!! Also, you are wrong, Barrowman’s alleged intentions are irrelevant; it is his actions and how they have affected others that are considered and not the excuse of “I didn’t mean any harm.” The reality is that Barrowman is an exhibitionist who gets off on exposing himself; he likes the shocked reactions!!! The only person he is interested in entertaining with this behaviour is himself.
Interesting, nuanced take as usual. I was quite active online in the fandom in the late 2000's/early 2010's, and like you said, none of this is new. No one bat an eyelid back then, it was all "ooh I wish I was an extra when he's on set" and "does anyone have pictures? 👀" and stuff like that. Definitely something for us all to reflect on, just like you said. I am glad we've moved on from there, and are now seeing his actions as what they were, inappropriate at the very least. We should not trivialise this. But I wish people could back to talking about the absolutely manipulative predatory behaviour that Noel Clarke (you know, allegedly) exhibited and the deeper systemic issues in the tv industry that made this disgusting abuse of power possible.
I wonder how many of us have processed how deeply unsettling it would be to have a co-worker whip out their dick as a joke.
What I will say is that since the MeToo movement, we've started recontextualizing past behaviour and finding said behaviour inappropriate. Doesn't mean it wasn't inappropriate then, just that the temp in the room has changed.
However, I do sympathise on some level with people who are finding their previously accepted behaviour punished, because that must be jarring. I think we all have likely done something or held some belief that is no longer acceptable, which can be disconcerting. We're in choppy waters, it might be a while before we find land but we'll get there. Hopefully.
PS. I would be careful with the juxtaposition of Clarke and Barrowman though because like it or not, there's likely to be racial politics involved regardless of how the severity of their behaviour varies.
I’ve been mooned . Didn’t care .
My entire issue is that it feels like a "oh no we're going to get in trouble" type of deal rather then a punishment. I don't know how big finish pays their actors but this is especially true if he's already paid. What's the punishment then?
At least according to MrTARDIS, BF has indeed already paid the cast of Absent Friends.
One conclusion I came to around Jamus Gunn (and more recently Joss Whedon), is that 10 years ago the culture was different, 15 years ago the culture was very different and 20+ years ago the culture was more different than we want to realize.
A lot of things that were bad on paper (or even in law) were common culture at the time, it might even have been expected of peoplw for all I know. The good in MeeToo was that we were going to acknowledge that our culture was bad and change it, but in acknowledging that we're not ok with past cultural norms we also must acknowledge that at some point we were.
People change a lot in 5+ years, the culture changes as well. And the culture changed drastically between 2005 and 2015. I wouldn't be surprised if there's people out there who felt peer-pressured into doing things in the early 2000s who are now terrified they'll lose their entire social lives for it now.
To a degree, actions need to be judged in the context they were taken, (such as violence enacted in self-defence). And that includes what the culture of the time said was. And from what I can see, 20 years ago from today is a very different time compared to the difference between then and 20 years before.
It's much more important to keep making a better culture to live in than it is to punish people for going along with the bad culture of prior decades.
If we want things to change, we have to make sure people know changing works.
I don't know if Wheadon can be compared to Gunn or Barrowman. He seems like a demanding, pushy director to work with, not "just" an inappropriate one.
I am not surprised JB is losing work because of this because it was only a matter of time.
Do I think it's fair to punish someone for acts that happened YEARS ago and that he has already apologized for? No.
Again, it is just a very MESSY situation.
I am frustrated also these two situations have been put together. By no means, is either situation OK; but John should not have been lumped in with what Noel did. In my opinion, they're just using John as a scapegoat for what Noel did. Furthermore, I also think John should not be losing work because of this. I wish we could all go back in our Tardises and fix this.
Everytime I hear you talking about this I'm reminded of Supernatural's Jared Padalecki. On multiple panels spanning years he himself and his costars have told stories about his "pranks" on set where the prank is him touching Misha's balls non-stop either with his hand or with an object or pinching his inner thighs in order to ruin his takes. And this went on for 10 years (poor Misha). And the stories are told as funny behind the scenes anecdotes and the audience always laughs along with Jared/costars as he's telling them. Now that I'm older and have evolved with my own set of morals (partly in thanks to you and other's videos) this makes me super uncomfortable and I wonder how and why he was able to get away with it. It's exactly the same thing that you are describing in this video. I don't want him ruined or anything, but, like, that wasn't okay.
@sunlight well said
@@BradLad56
The difference is that bdsm is meant for consenting adults while a "prank" is one person humiliating another without the other party knowing beforehand or giving their consent. Despite Misha playing a fan favorite Castiel is a reoccurring character who wasn't around for the first few years and could be written off or his role reduced. Jared played the lead who has been there since day one. Misha was not in the position to fight back or insist the "pranks" stop, so even if he was okay with them they were designed to make him uncomfortable and he could not consent to them. Metoo might seem puritanical and any movement will have extremists who take things too far, but it boils down to the idea that no one should be forced into intimate or potentially uncomfortable situations without choice.
As someone on the younger side having just recently turned 18 myself I don’t think a lot of the younger fans fully thought it through, as I’m also bi I think a lot of us were just happy to see someone like us on screen and appreciated the actor who was that character, and seeing him get along with his fellow cast members and get treated with affection and not dismissal for his sexuality felt reassuring in a way that wasn’t provided for a lot,of other people so when they tell these stories with a smile and laugh it didn’t fully register what he was doing and how bad it was, as we wanted someone like Jack to be good and not another person who would get fired and loose work just for who he was
If we were content to allow John to apologise and have us all move on years ago, we should consider the matter closed. To punish him now is moral cowardice.
Just to help enlighten as to what John was thinking I would like to mention British actor Kenneth Williams. In 1964, while on the set of Carry On Cleo, Williams would dress up as his character (Julius Caesar) and inadvertently forget his underwear underneath the toga. He would do this on purpose to get a cheap laugh out of his co-stars shock (this was mentioned in his published diaries, a book with which I have read). I wouldn't think it would be a long stretch to suggest that John knew of this and decided, against his better judgement, to replicate this.
He probably took the theater approach, where everybody is exposing themselves all the time behind the stage, without any lewd intentions, it is how it is, there's just no time for prudeness.
Nah.
He was doing it "for a laugh". Robin Williams apparently did the same thing on the set of Mork and Mindy.
Not a big deal with actors. They are a wild bunch.
This is true. I was approaching it from a sports mindset where 30+ men are getting naked in a small area and showering together... I find bodies both weird and just a transport for our souls
The actor in fleabag admitted exposing her bum to a fellow actor on the Graham Norton show. It was intentional. This isnt getting changed and seeing stuff by accident. Hers was intentional and no one seems to mention it as being an issue when it is
I just hope Absent Friends will be released later on, when everything has died down. I've been looking forward to it since months. Thanks for this video. I don't think it's fair to take John out of the franchise. I'm sure there are better ways to deal with this.
John B was reprimanded in 2008, he made a public apology and the BBC continued to employ him but now it seem that the BBC are punishing him a second time, doesn't seem very fair
It seems mad that they're lumping Clarke and Barrowman together. It'd be like comparing a shoplifter to a serial bank robber.
It can only be a PR move, because anything else would be an outright lie.
They only care if it looks bad, not if it actually is, which is kind of terrifying if you really think about it.
Stupid behavior has consequences even for nice guys. I'm not bringing out the pitchforks, but not going to feel sorry for the guy. How many years can a grown man act like an ass before figuring out the shouldn't be doing it anymore? Maybe not justice, but certainly justified.
I feel like that the US and to a lesser extent UK and Canada has a disproportionate case of the icks. We are stuck in a puritan state of mind and anything that rings of sex, sexual humor or crude behavior is suddenly not only taboo but extra uncomfortable. And we feel the need to squash people with crude "obscene" humor. An we feel compelled to be appalled, I don't take issue with John Barroman at all if someone asked him to stop and he didn't of ramped up unwanted behavior that would Be a issue but that never has been indicated to be the case. There are a lot of people with supposedly inappropriate humor. I am opposed to political correctness and the censorship of people's humor and personal antics. If you are uncomfortable with something, pull up your big person pants and ask a person to stop and tell them you are uncomfortable. Only if they continue after you asked that they stop, that should it be an issue. We have become a society that is far too easily offended by everything that we all need safespaces to hide in, life was better when we had thicker skin, and to me that is what is more disturbing than anything John Barrowman has ever done in a moment of off colored humor, having met him several times I don't think he has ever ment harm by his sinurally eccentric humor, we are in an age of witch hunts to root out anything that could offend anyone's sensibilities, if we continue this way eventually no one will be safe.
Unfortunately, I don't think John Barrowman isn't going to change his bad behavior with the terrible apologies he recently put on twitter that gave off the vibe of he was recovering from a broken toenail instead of apologizing for what got exposed about him. What doesn't help his case is his husband tweeting that the backlash he got was from trolls since it ain't trolling he experiencing, it's consequences for terrible behavior. If John Barrowman really was sorry and regretted what he did then he would have actually made a good apology instead of making a bad apology trying to downplay the terrible things that got exposed about him. Even though John Barrowman wasn't horrible and malicious like Noel Clarke, what he did is sexual harassment and he still abused his position of power in the entertainment industry knowing people won't speak out against him.
what exactly got exposed?
And his behavior was not an sexual harassment by definition
And what power he has in Entertainment Industry? He is far not an A lister
Even people who spoke out against Clarke supported him, they certainly had no reason to hold back.
Why do people put all offenders (the eggs) into the same basket. Every behaviour is rarely equal to another be it in a positive way or a depraved patterned manner. Barrowman's behaviour, as disgusting as it was, does not come close to Noel Clarke's. I think Barrowman has through press coverage etc probably has been punished enough. One has sorrow for what they did and has a record of being kind as well, whereas Clarke showed no remorse and was a habitual abuser. They both did wrong but nowhere nbear the same level. Strange bout how did RTD not know about any of this.
*Thank you.* Acknowledging now that what we all accepted as normal 20 years ago was, in fact, obnoxiously inappropriate is not "cancel culture," it's improving our self- and social-awareness. I am so, so weary of people bemoaning the changes as a loss of something while completely disregarding the reasons for these changes. The old normal wasn't great, not for a big portion of the population.
I think that whether professional consequences make any sense for Barrowman now has everything to do with whether he's ever stopped doing the thing or apologized to someone/ones who did have discomfort with what he did. Since I don't know the answer to that, I can't really judge if what's happening now is "just", but I'm sure it's not being done for the sake of justice anyway--it's all about corporate reputation, and I guess this blew up big enough that they feel he must be cut loose.
This type of behaviour was never accepted as normal. He was indecently exposing himself and touching people with his exposed penis for goodness sake.!!!
@@thefairhairedboywiththered2951 Wait, he actually _touched people_ with his genitals? I did not read or watch any of the previous coverage, so I don't know if this was said before. Are you serious? No, I agree, (at least in my circle) that was not normal even in the 90s. That's *_assault_* for fuck's sake. 🤦
Well,I guess Jack isn't coming back for season 13 either 😩
I remember a Dr. Who song done by the cast, sorta 12 days of Christmas take, had a joke about John Barrowman exposing himself.
I remember hearing Barrowman tell that Marsden story when I was at Awesome Con a few years ago. I laughed. The whole hall busted out. And yeah, I'm gonna be thinking about that now. As much as I want to continue seeing Captain Jack in the Who universe? I'm with you - I find myself not really knowing what's best. But I do know it's messy, and I'm still processing it all.
I’m conflicted.
The assumption is that his behaviour was gross and wrong and inappropriate.
But was it? Specifically, in the circumstances in which he did it?
To me, and maybe my worry is that my own mindset is wrong here, this behaviour was just as he intended it. A laugh, a prank with friends.
It wasn’t malicious
It wasn’t predatory
To me, the crux of the matter is this. Yes, obviously many people would find it inappropriate.
But then, many people find the fact that I’m a gay man inappropriate.
Does that mean I should be punished and made to stop because others are uncomfortable?
This is too close to Puritanism.
Seriously, he got his junk out. I’m sorry, but so what?
If someone was genuinely upset or triggered by that, then of course he should apologise.
But the same could be said for an edgy joke, or an overly personal discussion.
It doesn’t make the thing being done inherently wrong.
It just means someone else might not approve.
I really find this wrong. It’s too oppressive.
It’s the imposition of one persons set of moral values on another.
I’ll be honest; I don’t find the fact that he got his junk out on set to be particularly inappropriate or gross as many people in the comments appear to do.
It would be if he did it at a high school appearance, or did it in front of my mum, or literally in public on the street.
But he didn’t. And it wasn’t like that.
It scares me a little that something so patently laughable, if risqué, is being treated as something to be ashamed of.
I don’t think we as fans, need to admit culpability in leading to Barrowman to believe this was acceptable. Because I genuinely think that in the circumstances it happened, it was acceptable.
The hypocrisy is in now saying it isn’t and never was.
He indecently exposed himself and went about touching people with his exposed penis!!! This is never acceptable behaviour!!! People did complain at the time and the only reason that it did not go any further as the targets of his behaviour were under the wrong impression that he was no threat because he is gay!
I don't really get it either. Nudity isn't something I really care about. If a friend or work college walked in naked I'd be surprised, but really wouldn't care all that much myself. If he was actually touching people with his schlong then that's a bit far, but given the context Barrowman did it people seem to be a bit too prudish for something that happened so long ago.
Its completely not the same thing as someone being 'offended' that someone is gay.
@@thefairhairedboywiththered2951
I have already stated that in the majority of circumstances this would not be acceptable.
These were evidently not those types of circumstance.
I’m confused that you say people were under the “wrong impression” that he was no threat. So you’re saying he is a threat?
In what way? A threat to who?
You’re assuming that the “targets of his behaviour” naively believed a gay man is non threatening.
A. Why would anyone assume that; if anything the reverse is usually true
B. We are talking about adults here. Perfectly capable of making their own decisions about what’s acceptable or not.
To suggest that everyone was under some kind of shared delusion is absurd.
The reason that the complaints went no further (although what are you classing as further? dismissal? criminal charges) is not that Barrowman is gay and somehow magically exempt from consequences, it’s that to single him out for his behaviour alone would have been grossly unfair.
This is why the vast majority of work environments simply do not allow silliness, horseplay and flirting. It can easily get out of hand.
(I could be disciplined at work for talking too much or being on my phone. It doesn’t mean that either of those activities are wrong, just that they’re not acceptable in a work setting.)
But that’s not usually how TV and movie sets operate. they’re full of big personalities, close knit friendship groups and function more as like minded people bonding than as a constrained standard workplace setting.
More importantly, they’re full of show offs, of ‘look at me’ character types.
Again, I’m sorry as this obviously does offend you, but someone like Barrowman getting their junk out for the specific intentions of it being funny is not grounds for condemnation. It’s not acceptable in the vast MAJORITY of circumstances, but you can’t blanket ban everything.
You certainly can’t suggest Barrowman was any kind of threat or that the reason he wasn’t seen as a threat was that the people around him were stupid.
I wish they hadn't cancelled Absent Friends, I was so looking forward to it
Also an interesting and annoying thing about Absent Friends is that it was the 50th release, but they haven't changed the next release for June (51). That means there's a gap in the collection of Torchwood because it now reads 48, 49, 51.
Definitely. Also, many other people put their work in it and not seeing the finished product must be pretty shitty
I have a lot of respect for your thoughts in this video. It would be really easy to just make this all about him. But it's important to examine our own behavior and complicity.
Repeatedly exposing yourself in a workplace is neither normal nor acceptable. Furthermore, someone complained in 2008. Did the behaviour continue? Was anything done?
no one working from show has ever complained. In fact, his co-workers have only supported him, and have received death threats cause of it. The complaint was filed from a person, who HEARD how he acts on set from radio. And BBC officially said, they reprimanded him after this one complaint and his behaviour stopped. Furthermore, exposing yourself for laughs is an everyday occurrence in the theater. And he was not the only one exposing himself on Torchwood set.
@@minaolenella869 there is many times movie shoots required him to be naked, so its like naked in a soft porn movie set. Through its wrong place wrong time inappropriate trolling. But most times its a technique for actors to use to lessen the stress for acting for him and for others. So is it in Dr. who or in torchwood? Is there naked scene in Dr who? He is to be expected to act as a 'sexy bisexual man'. I can see why he went overboard unintentionly. He did pay for it. So why keep make him pay more after so long? Too much.
@@xunsun8063 john Barrowman was naked in "bad wolf"
@@keelanbarron928 then its perfect, he was required to be naked in the movie. He might go overboard by overly expressing himself to peoples that are not supposed to see him naked. But as a funny guy both in movie and real life, other peoples forgives him for that conduct and he gets slap in the wrist for it. That should be enough. Pros and cons wise, to fire him for some pity thing like flash is stupid. Not cost effective. Director and producers made final decision to forgive him because no physical harm done. That makes sense perfect sense to just let it go. I hate peoples bring this up now! After so long. If anything, he is a example of what not to do. But shouldn't add more punishment to him now, because he already paid for that behavior back then. Doesn't matter if any haters agree to his punishment or not.
He was told off and made to apologise in 2008 - so yes something was done in 2008. Since 2008 when he was told off the behaviour didn't continue by all accounts.
He apologised in 2008. He stopped after it was raised and the actress from fleabag admitted exposing herself to a coworker on the Graham Norton and people laughed. They have faced no repurcussions.
This feels like its blown up as a deflection from the Noel Clarke situation, Noel is facing very serious charges who has NOT apologised. John did over 10 years ago and so i feel that this isnt new info, it was previously dealt with and he was told his behaviour was bad and he stopped. He apologised and idk if others accepted it or not but it is way more than Noel did. Why people are acting like its new is perhaps because they didnt know and idk how they didnt when its super common knowledge if you are in the fandom.
Regardless of where people land on John Barrowman, the fact is not enough people are calling out Noel Clarke. It is lobsided
I think the fact that they're taking action now is purely a business decision. What's changed is that, were you to cast him in something right now, the discussion about his behavior would flare right back up and could overshadow any other talk related to the new project itself. Studios prefer when they, not the fandom, get to control the conversation around their work.
‘Before Me Too’ can include basically any point from the beginning of time to the beginning of the Me Too movement.
You keep popping up in my feed, think I shall be subscribing! Thanks for this conversation lots to think about.
I'm glad you made this video, Vera, I've been thinking about this topic since last year.
It came up when The Unicorn and the Wasp Watchalong was cancelled because people weren't comfortable with Gareth Roberts' transphobic views...even though the Watchalong directly prior was A Town Called Mercy, an episode written by a potentially very transphobic man (see Geeks Bearing Gifts), _with a trans joke in it._ I wouldn't go as far as to call the joke 'transphobic', but if it were in a Roberts script, people would hit the roof. Then there's The End of the World; making Doctor Who's first canonoically trans character (Cassandra) an allegory for editing your body beyond what's ethically acceptable; a theme Russell would later come to revisit in 2019's Years and Years. I just think it's interesting how nobody criticises Toby or Russell now, but if they were to one day be publicly accused of outright transphobia, everyone would turn on those stories.
The delay time of reactionaries commenting on media scandals is insanely slow to me. People only have these conversations once it's far too late. And let's face it, this is how Noel and John have gone unscathed by their actions for so long.
I think another element is bias. Is Roberts really anyone's favourite writer? Losing him from the franchise really isn't such a loss, is it? He just about scrapes mediocrity. But Russell - Big Russell? We love Russell! We like John too (well most people, I don't myself), so he's gone protected for all these years. Not by his producers or agents, but by fandom.
I consider Russell T Davies to be the greatest writer in the whole of Britain. Big hero of mine. And while I am trying to reevaluate his work, it is _so_ tempting to believe his statement that he never knew any of this was happening. I know it's bollocks, but I want to believe it. And that's the most dangerous thing of all.
I didn't know that about Toby Whithouse. As someone who was a big fan of his writing and would've preferred him as showrunner over Chris Chibnall, I might have to take a closer look at his work now. Thank you for letting me know about that.
@@iiiiitsmagreta1240 - exact same for me, I always raved about his work and wanted him to be show runner, now I'm hesitant to talk about him.
It's worth noting that the outright transphobic dialogue was in a Torchwood episode, about 15 years ago. It's awful, but time has passed, maybe he's learnt? But yeah, definitely doesn't put the more recent (potentially harmless??) trans joke from A Town Called Mercy in a good light, does it?
@@iiiiitsmagreta1240 - I've scoured the internet for a third example of potential transphobia on Toby's half and found nothing, zero. I'm just waiting on the third example to make my mind up. With any luck, that example will be a well written, well researched trans character :)
@@nightowl8477 My take on the Town Called Mercy thing is that it was an absurdist joke which, while not outwardly transphobic, might come off as playing trans *acceptance* for laughs. It has similar vibes to the "attack helicopter" meme.
Unfortunately, I must admit I came across a clip of him telling jokes and Stories about his, shall we say, intamate behaviour prior to this whole controversy, and thought nothing much of it :/ You are absolutely right: It is grotesque how much the fandom ignored or even enjoyed these stories, and didn't even think about the discomfort other people must've felt. And now we pretend it is a sudden revelation...
I will defend John forever because I trust him. Some absoltue bastard who abused twenty women and is finished in Hollywood dares to make fun of him and throws wild rumors about him which other people latch onto that?! I ve met John personally He doesnt use his fame to throw wild parties or snort drugs.He openly admitted to his orientation and speaks about it to use his fame to fight for gay rights, but not only that, for women's rights animal rights. Many poliiticians d not like that. He listens, he actually encouraed me to follow my dreams of becoming a singer, didnt dismiss me after the photoshoot but actually walked up to me and told me "Challenge yourself every day." He did not abandon his parents for his career, he bought them a house made sure they had better lives. When a few years later i thanked him for what he said back then, how it changed my life, he was not smug, but humbly said he was glad he could help me. And lots of other kind things. People still discriminate him for being gay and they are jealous of his success whereas the big companies that try to destroy him are just greedy, opportunistic weasels. This is not justice this is outrage!! I hope he wins this and comes back stronger than ever!!!!! I wish you THE BEST, John!!
I've met John and Scott at Awesome Con in DC. I too have mixed emotions. I saw Noel Clarke at Long Island Doctor Who. I heard the story that went viral from his lips. I saw Stephen Amell and heard a tale or 2 about the Arrow set. Yes we love John and we have laughed and carried on. It is so hard to hate such down to earth, funny, sincere person. His behavior was unacceptable. I am biased. I hope he recovers from this.
If this hasn’t happened since 2008, and Barrowman has apologised in the past, then I feel like this is more trying to save face on part of Big Finish and the BBC more than anything, like, ‘see we get it, we get it, we’re cool’ and also apparently the BBC management doesn’t really like him and might be trying to distract from Noel Clarke, but that’s all a bit conspiratorial for my liking
If they don’t like him then why did they bring him back?
@@luketonkinson5440 I don’t know, that’s just something I heard... and money. Plus, he’s only been on Doctor Who twice in the last ten years.
@@luketonkinson5440 cause captain Jack is the fan favourite, whose fans have been sending letters for BBC for decades, to bring back. And DW popularity is in decline
Apart from his Captain Jack character, I`m not a big fan. The thing is everyone has known about his antics onset for years. He has talked about it on tv interviews himself. So how anyone can now act against him is beyond me. And to compare him with Clarke is a disgrace.
the thing is, honestly, as much as he may changed as a person, i have a very hard time saying that years of clearly inappropriate behaviour in the workplace should have no consequences, so honesty, i cant come and say im that opposed to him loosing some big Finnish audios over it.
its just i wish that the consequences had cone in 2005 and didn't so reek of corporate ass covering
The consequences were he was told to stop and he did. We don’t continue to hold people responsible for things after a certain for most behaviors bc it leads to greater injustice
Hey, just wanted to say. Thanks for such a well-thought out video.
You’re wise to avoid Noel Clark chat. By all reports, that could be leading to a legal trial. You wouldn’t want to sway a jury etc.
Personally, I think we’re seeing a massive over correction when it comes to Barrowman. Like you said, this was known. We all knew this. Big Finish knew this, time fracture knew this. He filmed his scene at the start of May. They were happy for him to be included, until the wind changed direction. It is all PR.
Where’s the statement from Russell T Davies? Why did only one Torchwood member come to his defence? Simple. They fear their careers.
Every member of Torchwood has, at some point. Flashed another member of Torchwood. You can find con footage of Eve Myles talking about flashing her boobs, to make Gareth David-Lloyd forget his lines.
I’ve seen a lot of “why were people okay with this?”. The simple answer is. We didn’t know any better. We are all products of the society and the time we live in.
It’s impossible to imagine a world you don’t live in. In 2008, none of this registered as not being okay. On Friday night with Johnathan Ross, Barrowman sat next to Andrew Lloyd Webber. Telling the audience about how Webber had written him up about exposing himself. The audience loved it. They whoop, they cheer. They laugh. I remember watching it and laughing. I remember being at cons and thinking this was all funny. I probably wouldn’t find any of this funny in 2021, but I did in 2005-2012. Not just me, but society did.
I think what’s done is done. Big Finish should release Absent Friends. He should be allowed.Every production should introduce a complete zero tolerance policy.
I’m also interested to see where this goes. I wonder what’s seen as fine by society in 2021, that will be see as completely unacceptable in 2037?
When an attractive, charismatic actor relays such stories, and portrays them as "all good fun", it's too easy to accept the stories as okay and fun. Don't be too harsh on yourself, beautiful. PS-- love that hair do. Very chic.
I really appreciate this video. I don't know how to feel about what's been going on with John Barrowman, and you really echoed a lot of my thoughts that make it so hard to sort out my feelings here. Usually I'm pretty black and white about these things. I'm very quick to condemn Louis C.K. and Kevin Spacey, but with regard to Barrowman, I just don't know if this is what's right. Certainly his behavior was unacceptable, but I don't know how truly recent it has been. Yeah. I just don't know how to feel.
I do wonder if this was a factor in why Torchwood and Captain Jack basically went on hold when Moffat took over. Now Moffat has left, Barrowman pops back up again...
But yeah, this has been known about for years. He was talked to, and seemingly dialled it back. Action already taken. Attention should be on Noel, not letting hm slip away leaving the attention on a colleague for lesser issues.
My issue is... If I had done things that Barrowman had done, I would be fired. I would lose work.
Is this the appropriate reaction? I don't know. I certainly don't think what Barrowman stands accused of is the same as Noel Clarks. And I have yet to get the impression that his claims that "It was typical backstage Exuberance" is untrue. By all accounts, it was dismissed as "Barrowman being Barrowman", not as predatory behavior. And that has to count for something.
But just because his intentions weren't malevolent doesn't mean that he should have been doing. He *ought* to know better. And as I said, if you or I had done it, we would have lost work as a result.
I'm not comfortable with a society where celebrities operate on different rules to the rest of us. THATS how you let the real monsters lose. The Wiensteins and Saviles of the world, are protected by the same shield that says that if I exposed myself to colleagues I'd be fired, but if Barrowman does it, its fine.
Thats not right either.
And I'd we're going to pick one of two options that don't feel perfect, I'd rather pick the one that says there should be consequences for getting your cock out. I mean come on. Imagine if it was a cameraman getting his cock out to a star actor, like Billie Piper, or David Tennant. We can't suddenly be chill with it, when the stars are exposing themselves to crew. Thats horrendous levels of double standards, and - I think - more than a little classist.
In my opinion? Barrowman's been an idiot. And like a drunken idiot that dives into a swimming pool and drowns, its frustrating for the rest of us, Its upsetting. We should make changes to ensure it couldn't happen again. But ultimately, its his own fault. My gripe, is that this should have happened years ago. Not as a publicity thing, now that Clark has been caught. Its wrong that "Everyone knew" for so long.
Completely agree. Also the thing of the culture on set and the BBC's part in it, I really believe it wasn't reprimanded. In John's book, and also in panels a lot, it's been said that Eve Myles also used to show her breasts and stuff. In the same intention of "humor". I do believe it was a big part of the culture on set.
I have a friend whose worked with Eve and she’s stated herself she’s never had issue with JB or his behaviour. Have any of his Who co stars spoken out? No, they haven’t. You’re right, it seems to have been the behaviour on TW and Who at the time. Having said that, even Alex Kingston said she used to whisper in appropriate things to make people laugh onset etc
@@lew5547 Gareth David-Lloyd was the only one who defended JB.
@@einezcrespo2107 and the Gareth got death threats for it. Denise van Outen has defended JB too. And you somehow try to make it look, that the fact that only people who have spoken up about it, have been defending JB, is somehow bad for JB.
@@minaolenella869 I have no problem with anyone defending JB should they chose to and they're free to do so. I'm only critical about him continuing to drop his pants after being reprimanded by Julie Gardner and not learning a thing. He's a talented guy but he wasn't thinking like an adult that time.
@@einezcrespo2107 only he was not reprimanded cause of mooning. He was reprimanded for showing his d*k. That he stopped doing, at least on set.
Furthermore, the reason why Julia Gardner reprimanded him, was one complaint made by a third person that was never no-where near the set. Considering that at least 2 more people on TW set got regularly naked and his behaviour was known and encouraged 3 years before the reprimand, and kept being encouraged later on, it is very hypocritical, to blame him for it now without anyone present ever having any complaints about it.
For me personally, John Barrowman didn't seem problematic while he was in the DW verse, cause he seemed so much like his character, I couldn't really differentiate seeing him, vs seeing Jack. I realized how problematic he was, when the same antics continued on Arrow, once he joined that cast.
People have been very specific about what and who can be "cancelled" for inappropriate behavior, and up to this point, the marginalized groups have been outside of that zone.
This is why I think Kevin Spacey even pulled out his "I'm gay btw" card after being exposed for who he is, he assumed he will get sympathy for that.
But there are numerous other things we are laughing at, that should not be funny. As much as I like her, Hayley Atweel has that recurring gag about "automatically touching" Chris Evans' manboob, because he was so sexy in CAP 1. If that was a man reacting like this to a woman, and then would it be the man telling the same story, the conversation would be different.
Tan France thirsting over Shawn Mendez, before he was of legal age...
And God knows I love him with all my heart, but Oscar Isaac as a Latino has played every ethnicity under the sun, including a Jew, an Armenian, and Russian, and got no bad comments or anything for it. Remember when Emma Stone was bashed for playing someone, who was ONE QUARTER Hawaiian?
So I think as a way of overcorrecting, people are overlooking some issues, and giving some groups a double standard, and we will be surprised at a lot more "problematic faves" in the future, and realize how we normalized some things, just because we were fans.
Dang, this whole situation is such a mess.
Regardless of the moral righteousness of Barrowman's actions, losing Jack isn't going to be easy. There's no Torchwood without Jack. As a fan of the Big Finish continuation of TW (and with Jack being my favourite DW character), I hope there can be a way forward.
apparently chrisp ratt exposed himself on p&rs. if jb gets punished, so should he. maybe i'd see guardians ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wonder whether BBC also try to shift the attention away from the result of Martin Bashir investigation.
The hoo-ha over Clarke (and then Barrowman) kicked off before the Bashir revelations, and was unearthed by the newspapers.
The BBC has always disliked the Capt Jack character and this a way to keep him off of the BBC. Clarke just needed to take the spot light off of himself and he did that by throwing John under the bus. If people were upset all they had to ask him to stop and he would have. He has talked about his behavior for years and I didn't hear anyone getting upset about it. Yes it was a silly thing for a grown man to do but John meant no harm. Clarke was trying to intimidate and hurt women and John was just wanting to make people laugh. The stories that John tells are all a stretch of the truth. Yes, he may have kissed James more often than necessary but I wonder if it really happened that way or John was telling a story for laughs. John would never hurt anyone where Clarke's action was because he thought he was more important than he really is. Time to give John a rest and let him get on with his life.
The BBC seriously screwed up with Jimmy Savile get away with everything.
Maybe if he makes a contract to not strip on set ( unless scripted) as a condition of work would be the easiest thing to do
We accepted his behaviour because we thought everyone was okay about it. Some of us would have wished to have been in that "fun" environment. Now we hear that the behaviour may have been a **little** more than "getting his bits out" and some people had complained. I don't think the consequences for John should be the cancellation of work, don't think they should be anywhere near the extent of Noel. I also wonder if those who (rightfully) complained, would have if they knew he would lose work.
So many behaviors are "accepted" that aren't really "acceptable" and I think as a society, we tend to categorize a lot of crap together as "not that bad" as long as we think it doesn't put anyone in physical danger: Barrowman's lewdness, blonde jokes, bullying, sexism, "humor" aimed at someone's race, gender, sexual orientation, age, height, nationality, ethnicity, or musical tastes.
I think we all have the same opinion here.
It was stupid at the time, eventually he was called out on it, he realised that it was stupid an immature and apologised. End of.
The problem is while we have known about this for years and recognised that a group of people that are easily offended are being offended by something that in no way shape or form effects them. Sadly the BBC has had a history of looking the other way when some of it's major stars have done something EXTREMELY bad (naming no names here). As such they have to be seen to be squeaky clean on this. I strongly suspect after a few months he'll start getting work again. Low level at first and these morons will have found something else to complain about. Probably about how preferring coffee with milk in is racist somehow
Since it was past behavior that was to a certain degree accepted by the vast majority of people involved, and from the looks of it was not done with the intent of being predatory or harmful to others and simply being immature, I think they should put it in his contract that if he does things like that again he loses pay or gets removed from project.
Well, this video just made me realise that I'm still somewhere in the category of Casual Fan despite having been committed to watching the show since 2007 with no "drifting out" phase.
If anything, this whole situation is a lesson in paying more attention to behind-the-scenes panel stuff.
I feel like we are all trying to look back to the time when this was going on and take our best guess as to how his actions were received at the time, as well as how they would be viewed now. For me, there are three questions that I'd be interested in having answered...1 - how were his actions viewed by those who were there at the time? I agree with the idea that people who were working with him may not have felt comfortable saying something, especially if it meant risking their jobs, but were his actions then viewed as humorous (by the standards of the time) or as frightening and/ or predatory? Question 2 - if someone back then had said to him that they were uncomfortable with his actions, how would he have reacted and would his behavior have changed? And, 3 - would he have acted that way if the show was being filmed today? Meaning, had the greater awareness and openness that we aim for today been around then, would he have acted in that way?
I agree with everything you have said in this video and I apologise that you have had to make several videos to address this problem.
The thing that bugs me is that these events are well known by the fandom and back then some people who knew about it said nothing or did not speak out about it , but now that Noel Clark has been accused of bad things they have now decided to attack John barrowman for past events that have already been known (I am by no means saying that his behaviour on set was appropriate because it wasn’t) we as the fandom have to admit the wrongs we have done as well.
Another thing that really irks me is people comparing the actions of John barrowman and Noel Clark as though they are the same thing which they are not (again not saying johns actions are completely innocent) Stop ✋🏻 saying that they are the same thing.
Noel Clark through John Barrowman under the bus to try and distract the public on the things he has been accused of which I do not agree with.
I still have respect for John Barrowman because he is an icon to millions in the LGBTQ+ 🏳️🌈 community and others across the world 🌎.The man has made some poor life choices in life but no one hasn’t, I hope that in time the world an learn to forgive John Barrowman again and appreciate the goods as well as the bad.
Everyone is capable of redemption, but you have to offer them that choice first in order for them to grow and learn from their wrongs xx
Thank you for this video - very fair analysis. Noel Clarke and John's behaviour is not comparable.
I think this is a basic sample of how in Western culture we believe that the most important thing is to create a punishment for a fault instead of creating a reflection and discussion on each case to create a true change in the culture that created the "criminal" . It happens with when we raise our children and it happens with our criminals, we focus on elaborating punishment since doing it is much easier than educating so that this is not repeated. I want to make it clear that punishing a wrong act is not a bad thing, it is more than necessary to start a process of change, but the punishments must be appropriate to the fault and more importantly we must understand why the "crime" was committed, what environment allowed that the act occurred and how we can create a lasting change so that it does not repeat itself or at least its occurrence drastically decreases
I totally agree with everything you said. Even if they aren’t our actions anybody can be complicit and do have a responsibility to speak up. Its not something i’d hold against a person if they didn’t, but they need to know they are complicit if they don’t. Victims voices aren’t loud enough, they need the help of everyone for toxic behaviour to be diminished.
There's been this kind of culture in Hollywood since the beginning of filmmaking. That's the problem, there's been a blind eye turned on bad behaviour for a hundred years. All these cancellations of of actors and directors is simply performative. They get afraid that people are not going to watch something because of who is connected with it that may have done something bad in the past. Rather than risk low performing films and shows they stop hiring the person in question. They wouldn't care and would continue to hire if none of us knew what goes on behind-the-scenes.
As someone who’s been to some of his music tours/shows it can easily be seen as, yes he only did it as a joke (it certainly seems like something he’d find funny), no it’s not ok but he’s not been that way for years now.
It seems like the “cheeky” joke he’d push forward in front of an audience. Not that he does it in front of audiences it’s just for lack of a better word.
First, we did not all know. I did not know, and not a single fan I’ve talked to offline knew. Not every part of the fandom spends its time in online forums and going to conventions. Secondly, the fandom is not identical to how it was in the late 2000s - new fans have come on and jumped off, with every season. So fans who were not around circa 2010 but have since joined the fandom have, even if they knew, minimal to no part in condoning that behavior or having a chance to provide input when the behavior was topical. I say this to neither condemn nor pardon John Barrowman, but to try and reframe the discussion here in a way that I feel is more accurate.
While I agree with you, in that I personally did not know despite not being what one could call a "casual fan," I doubt that's precisely what Nathaniel means here. She seems to be employing the plural first person to just speak about the fandom in general, not literally every single fan. It'd be somewhat like saying, "British people sure like their tea," when I'm sure some British people in fact hate tea. That's probably true, but just in the common sentence construction we understand that the speaker meant the British quite broadly.
FWIW, Maureen Lipman flashed the whole cast of the Trevor Nunn version of Oklahoma (source - Hugh Jackman) and Sophie Waller-Bridge,and other cast members, flashed each other on stage on a certain play she was on, until the infamous 'asshole' incident. (source SWB on The Graham Norton Show). Making no comment on the rights and wrongs, but it seems to be a bit of a dual standard.
Dame Judi Dench's arse tattoo gets a fair amount of daylight too, although, since Weinstein's fall from grace, she's maybe a little less keen.
Was it a habit or did it happen just once or did she do again and again on other shows? Just asking.
The thing with everyone knowing about this behavior and seemingly being cool with it as collective and then suddenly not feels like everyone was trying to backpedal away from the topic. Especially those who knew and said they were okay with it. Some people just wanted to seem like they were doing something by being upset with this suddenly
I agree with you, completely, but I would be remiss if I didn't ask: how might you envision taking responsibility for our complicity, proactively, manifest?
How I feel about it is, he should've been let go when it happened and Revelations should've been his return to the screen. I don't think he deserves to be blacklisted, but he did deserve a time out for a while.