Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun on Set, Killing Cinematographer

[numberthirty]

Brandon Lee was a freak accident and while I loved John-Erik Huxem on Voyagers as a kid he died because of his own stupidity. He without permission put a gun loaded with blanks to his temple as a joke and pulled the trigger thinking he couldn't be hurt he was wrong.

What do people say these days "F around and you'll find out" the fact guns are used so much in films in the nearly 40 years since Huxem's death and he's still one of the few examples of firearm death on a set says a lot to the safety records when done properly.

Again live action stunts have in the last 40 years injured and killed way more people in film it's not even close.

I think people are falsely equating and intermingling their feelings for general gun violence and accidents with prop guns.

Exactly.

What happened there is not a really textbook example of the fact that a blank still presents a potential danger even though it is a blank.

While I don't know for certain, I strongly suspect that hundreds of blank rounds were fired during the making of that film without a single one of them hurting anyone.

The sole reason that Lee was killed was that there happened to be something obstructing a gun barrel.

Once that was the case?

The blank round stopped being a blank round. It was a live round in two pieces that no one knew were both in play.

[thwhtGuardian]

Brandon Lee was a freak accident and while I loved John-Erik Huxem on Voyagers as a kid he died because of his own stupidity. He without permission put a gun loaded with blanks to his temple as a joke and pulled the trigger thinking he couldn't be hurt he was wrong.

What do people say these days "F around and you'll find out" the fact guns are used so much in films in the nearly 40 years since Huxem's death and he's still one of the few examples of firearm death on a set says a lot to the safety records when done properly.

Again live action stunts have in the last 40 years injured and killed way more people in film it's not even close.

I think people are falsely equating and intermingling their feelings for general gun violence and accidents with prop guns.

There can be both tighter regulations on stunts and guns on sets, it's not an either or kind of situation.

I've long thought that there should be much stricter regulations on stunts due to just how many stuntmen and women are killed and maimed just for our enjoyment. The potential "wow!" factor of me (or any audience member) seeing a guy fight a monster while falling off a cliff(just as an example) seriously isn't worth actually putting someone's life in danger. And neither is the authenticity of a muzzle flash or kick back that you get with blanks in a real gun.

Throw in animals while we're at it, 2020's Call of the Wild may have been a disappointment at the box office but it's digital animals were fantastic.

[Jokerz79]

There can be both tighter regulations on stunts and guns on sets, it's not an either or kind of situation.

I've long thought that there should be much stricter regulations on stunts due to just how many stuntmen and women are killed and maimed just for our enjoyment. The potential "wow!" factor of me (or any audience member) seeing a guy fight a monster while falling off a cliff(just as an example) seriously isn't worth actually putting someone's life in danger. And neither is the authenticity of a muzzle flash or kick back that you get with blanks in a real gun.

Throw in animals while we're at it, 2020's Call of the Wild may have been a disappointment at the box office but it's digital animals were fantastic.

Completely for tighter regulations on both it's just the idea of completely banning I'm against especially when we are ok with greater threats to crew safety.

I feel a complete ban would hurt independent filmmakers who can't afford John Wick level CGI and then closed out from using Union and Guild members if the Unions and Guild's adopt a zero tolerance policy.

[Kirby101]

There is a difference between a ban and production deciding to move to CGI for safety and insurance cost.

[thwhtGuardian]

Completely for tighter regulations on both it's just the idea of completely banning I'm against especially when we are ok with greater threats to crew safety.

I feel a complete ban would hurt independent filmmakers who can't afford John Wick level CGI and then closed out from using Union and Guild members if the Unions and Guild's adopt a zero tolerance policy.

Again, I wouldn't think twice if a smaller film was less realistic than John Wick.

[Scott Taylor]

There is a difference between a ban and production deciding to move to CGI for safety and insurance cost.

The really sad thing is that the movie industry makes well enough bank to just eat the added insurance costs and carry on. Sad because meanwhile teachers and tons of blue-collar workers can barely even afford to live, meanwhile, let alone keep up with rising insurance costs.

Its a topsy turvy world

[Gray Lensman]

There can be both tighter regulations on stunts and guns on sets, it's not an either or kind of situation.

I've long thought that there should be much stricter regulations on stunts due to just how many stuntmen and women are killed and maimed just for our enjoyment. The potential "wow!" factor of me (or any audience member) seeing a guy fight a monster while falling off a cliff(just as an example) seriously isn't worth actually putting someone's life in danger. And neither is the authenticity of a muzzle flash or kick back that you get with blanks in a real gun.

Throw in animals while we're at it, 2020's Call of the Wild may have been a disappointment at the box office but it's digital animals were fantastic.

To be honest, I think I might be in more danger of death making soda cans than a member of a film crew is from a gun on set. The death on Rust was largely due to basic rules not being followed (someone other than the armorer not passing the gun to the actor, the presence of non-armor controlled munitions being on set and used with the prop guns for entertainment purposes) - and the last firearm death before that was 29 years previous (which was Brandon Lee).

I don't think they need to do more than codify the current rules into something binding (they are really recommendations currently) to ensure they are followed ALL the time. Possibly with insurance agencies rating armorers and basing insurance rates off of that, or with the force of law in states and provinces that do a lot of film shooting.

[Brian B]

I’ve changed my opinion on Baldwin being guilty. I was ignorant of who was responsible for what on a set.

I just assumed that it was an actor’s job to check a weapon before doing a scene, just like if someone was at a target range or hunting, etc.

This piece on Slate, an interview with a knowledgeable attorney, makes pretty clear it is an armorer’s job or on occasion other professional on set, sometimes an assistant director, who has to check the firearm, that actors are prevented from checking the firearm. The reasons mentioned in the article make a lot of sense why one would not want an actor being responsible for the firearm. I had no idea about this.

Unless the lawyer interviewed is lying, I don’t see how Baldwin is being charged at all.

[numberthirty]

I’ve changed my opinion on Baldwin being guilty. I was ignorant of who was responsible for what on a set.

I just assumed that it was an actor’s job to check a weapon before doing a scene, just like if someone was at a target range or hunting, etc.

This piece on Slate, an interview with a knowledgeable attorney, makes pretty clear it is an armorer’s job or on occasion other professional on set, sometimes an assistant director, who has to check the firearm, that actors are prevented from checking the firearm. The reasons mentioned in the article make a lot of sense why one would not want an actor being responsible for the firearm. I had no idea about this.

Unless the lawyer interviewed is lying, I don’t see how Baldwin is being charged at all.

From the article...

First of all, it’s not his responsibility as an actor to ensure prop safety. There’s somebody on set specifically to do that, who’s an expert. Actors, they’re not even allowed to do that. What people don’t understand is, the Screen Actors Guild, the union, does not allow any producer, anybody, to use an actor for anything on set other than acting. You can’t use an actor to help decorate, to do lights, to do locations. He or she just can act, and that’s it. And there’s a reason for that, because there are other delegable duties that people have on set and that they’re supposed to do. An actor is required to rely upon an armorer, or any other person on set, who’s an expert, when it comes to whether or not a piece of equipment that they’re using is safe.

I mean, imagine the world we’re in if they were requiring actors to now check equipment! What’s next? What if an actor is driving a car in a scene and the brakes go out and he kills somebody? Are we now going to charge him for criminal negligence? What if he’s using a sword or some other explosive on set that is defective and kills somebody, we’re now going to look at the actor? I mean, this is a slippery slope.

Here's the obvious issues with that...

I can think of at least two actors who say that they do just that. They said so right out in the open after this went down.

[Zauriel]

To be honest, I think I might be in more danger of death making soda cans than a member of a film crew is from a gun on set. The death on Rust was largely due to basic rules not being followed (someone other than the armorer not passing the gun to the actor, the presence of non-armor controlled munitions being on set and used with the prop guns for entertainment purposes) - and the last firearm death before that was 29 years previous (which was Brandon Lee).

I don't think they need to do more than codify the current rules into something binding (they are really recommendations currently) to ensure they are followed ALL the time. Possibly with insurance agencies rating armorers and basing insurance rates off of that, or with the force of law in states and provinces that do a lot of film shooting.

Is that why the Rust movie production set was in New Mexico instead of California?

[numberthirty]

Past that, there are some pretty obvious issues with what the person being interviewed seems to know about the situation in question.

I've just read up a bit on this because it seemed like the shoot was a total mess once I read just a very little bit.

Exactly what the armorer is saying played out that day?

It doesn't seem like the person being interviewed is even remotely aware of that.

[numberthirty]

Is that why the Rust movie production set was in New Mexico instead of California?

While I am not completely certain, it seems like I came across someone saying that quite a few westerns are filmed in that neck of the woods.

(If not the exact place that they were filming...)

[Brian B]

From the article...



Here's the obvious issues with that...

I can think of at least two actors who say that they do just that. They said so right out in the open after this went down.

I don’t see that mattering from a legal standpoint.

I’m sure this was a union shoot. That means there are all sorts of contracts in place about who does what.

Even if it were a good idea for an actor to check his gun before doing a scene, if that is specifically delegated to another person as a specific job, then it doesn’t matter. Then, it’s not the actor’s job.

I assume this lawyer is not lying. So, how could Baldwin possibly be guilty? He can’t.

Also, it makes all the stuff about did he pull the trigger or not totally irrelevant.

[numberthirty]

I don’t see that mattering from a legal standpoint.

I’m sure this was a union shoot. That means there are all sorts of contracts in place about who does what.

Even if it were a good idea for an actor to check his gun before doing a scene, if that is specifically delegated to another person as a specific job, then it doesn’t matter. Then, it’s not the actor’s job.

I assume this lawyer is not lying. So, how could Baldwin possibly be guilty? He can’t.

Also, it makes all the stuff about did he pull the trigger or not totally irrelevant.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/a...on-1235097930/

New Mexico Film and TV Union Criticizes ‘Rust’ Producers for Using Non-Union Crew

“We have been greatly disturbed by media reports that the producers employed non-union persons in craft positions and, worse, used them to replace skilled union members who were protesting their working conditions,” the union said in a statement. “That is inexcusable. We are all awaiting the results of the investigation and are cooperating fully with the relevant authorities. In the meantime, we ask the public and media to respect our members’ privacy as they grieve this horrific event.”

[Gray Lensman]

There's a difference between the unions that represent different facets of the film industry. Directors, writers, actors, and the slew of smaller name mobs all have different unions, and they don't work together. For all I know each behind the camera trade has a separate union.

Basically, the use of non-union crew doesn't mean the actors were also non-union.