You're viewing a single thread.
I think the take away on this is:
As is, currently, actors are not responsible for checking their prop weapons on set. No actor is ever expected to do it, because there are people responsible for it. In the event of an incident, in the current standard practices, no one can reasonably blame the actor.
But, systematically, it shouldn't be that way.
We can't look at one incident and say "clearly the actor was in the wrong" because culturally, it's X Y and Z tech's job to check the firearm. But cultures within an industry can shift. Currently, firearm safety on set isn't everyone's job. But it should be everyone's job. The system should be better, because firearm safety is a demonstrably life-or-death process.
How do you change the system? By holding productions liable when stuff like this happens. You sue the absolute shit out of the producers, so the producers have a crippling fear of NOT improving the system.
You don't hold the actor Alec Baldwin responsible. You hold the producer Alec Baldwin responsible.
you don’t change the system. letting the actor check the mag/clear the chamber adds an additional point of failure in the process and reduces safety for everyone on set.
if you want to change things you stop filming with hot weapons entirely.
I don't get why they aren't using altered guns that can't accommodate real ammo? Seems crazy to use a fully functioning gun
"Realism"
They were testing the shot by pointing it directly at the DP and Director so they could see what it looked like if he drew the gun. There was no reason Baldwin wasn't using either of the two non-firing guns during the rehearsal other than wanting it to seem more real. Yes, the armorer was inexperienced, but who hired the armorer. Yes, the 1st AD called cold gun and supposedly handed it to Baldwin without checking it. But who chose to then point the gun at people while simulating a quick draw motion?
It was completely reckless and there was a pattern of dangerous behavior on Baldwin's part, which coupled with his role as producer, and the fact that the production had numerous complaints about safety and corner cutting, doesn't look good at all.
The situation was so bad, that the DPs entire camera department WALKED that day, and had previously complained about gun safety being an issue. They were replaced by non-union scabs. When leaving, a producer threatened to call security if they didn't hurry up. Others on set previously complained because prop guns had already accidentally discharged TWICE before the shooting.
Additionally, rather than finding suitable nearby accommodations in Santa Fe, as they were initially promised, crew were forced to travel 50 miles away to Albuquerque every day. For anyone unaware, film set days are usually around 10-15 hours per day of physically and mentally demanding work.
Everything that transpired was because of a perfect storm created by the production department. It shows all the hallmarks of the systemic abuses that occur between above the line and below the line players, and in my opinion the production department is responsible and should be found criminally negligent at the very least.
Currently: Alec Baldwin has gotten to walk away from this mess, all charges dropped. Gutierrez is now the sole person still being charged and being blamed for drinking and smoking weed after her shift, as well as new testimony from an anonymous witness who claims a bag of cocaine was handed off after she was interviewed by police. I guess production has found their lamb.
Baldwin wasn’t using either of the two non-firing guns during the rehearsal other than wanting it to seem more real. Yes, the armorer was inexperienced, but who hired the armorer.
Baldwin wasn't using a prop gun because the armorer was incompetent and allowed him to handle an actual firearm that had been loaded with real ammunition. "Inexperience" means nothing here. No armorer should be "inexperienced." By the time you're an armorer you should have been working as an assistant for years.
Does Baldwin's assholishness as a producer and refusal to answer the concerns of his crew regarding firearms make him in some way culpable? Yes, but not criminally. Did he intentionally murder someone? No. Does this even reach the level of manslaughter? No, it does not. There has to be some level of intent or effort on the part of the shooter. See the idiot that handed a small child an Uzi then got shot in the fucking face when the SMALL CHILD couldn't handle the recoil of an automatic weapon. Did she pull the trigger? Yes. Was she responsible for the man's death? No. His stupidity got him killed, nothing more.
As an actor, Baldwin is not in any way criminally liable for someone handing him a loaded gun.
As a producer, he is absolutely liable for creating an environment where incompetence could thrive.
There is absolutely no way any criminal charges apply to his actions.
He will absolutely get skullfucked in the civil case.
Came here looking for this comment. There should be no reason to have a functional firearm anywhere on set. It must work that way for films made in countries where firearms are illegal (i.e. outside the U.S.).
in countries where firearms are illegal (i.e. outside the U.S.).
Fyi, there's plenty of countries in Europe where firearms are legal. And some of them make it even easier to legally buy automatic weapons than the US does
Yes, I know. Lazy choice of words.
My point stands. No reason to have a real gun on set.
You don't have the actor check the weapon instead of the armorer. You have them check it in addition to the armorer. You pick up a gun, you check it.
This is basic gun safety. If a gun ever leaves your direct control or observation, no matter how short, you check it.
So now all kinds of people who aren't experts are unloading and loading the gun? That's insane
I haven't worked on film sets, but I've worked on theatrical productions which utilized blank-firing guns. The ones we specifically used had been modified to prevent the possibility of live ammunition being loaded into them, but that's not always possible (like in the specific scene being shot for Rust, where the gun was to be pointed straight at the camera).
Generally, as others have said, the actor checking the gun is not part of the process because it adds additional risk, and may mess up the setup the armorer did. When we used blanks, the process was that the armorer would check and verify the gun was in safe and working order and was loaded correctly (i.e, for the productions we did, loaded with exactly two blanks, since the gun would be fired twice, and the revolver set to fire those two blanks in the correct timing). He would then place the gun in the specific spot on-stage where it would be retrieved from by the actor during the show (or directly hand it to the actor as they went on-stage for one of the shows). At that point, crew was not allowed near that spot on stage, and the only people allowed to touch the gun was either the armorer or the actor. Additionally, the armorer stood watch off-stage for the entire time the gun was out of his possession, and ensured nobody came near the gun except for the actor who was supposed to be using it as part of the show. After the gun was used in the show, he would immediately retrieve it, ensure it was rendered safe, and it would immediately be returned to the secure storage location we had for the gun. If we had ever run into an issue where crew would need to access the area that the gun was placed on-stage, the armorer would have removed and made safe the weapon before any of the rest of the crew could access the area.
Crew was made aware through explicit call-outs when each step occurred-- so when the gun was loaded, that was called out to crew via comms. When it was placed, that was called out. A call-out was made when the gun was retrieved by the actor, and again several seconds before it was to be used. And finally, a call-out was made when the armorer retrieved the gun and made it safe.This is the same process that every stage or screen production is supposed to have. The gun is never, ever, ever to be used with live ammunition for any reason. Live ammunition should never even be on the set, for any reason. The gun should never be passed off to anyone else other than between the armorer and the actor (or on large enough productions, the armoring team under the direct supervision of an armorer). Nobody should be stopping to inspect the guns, because that means people who are not qualified will be handling the guns outside the control of the armorer.
Currently, firearm safety on set isn't everyone's job. But it should be everyone's job. The system should be better, because firearm safety is a demonstrably life-or-death process.
Yes, firearms safety is a life-or-death process, but that's precisely why the rest of the crew and actors don't need to have firearms be their job. All they need to know is that they do not touch any of the weapons, for any reason. If it's out of place, they should ensure nobody comes near it, and call the armorer to retrieve it. The chain of custody for the weapons must be incredibly short, and you don't want anyone who is not specifically authorized to be touching or interacting with the weapons in any way, because that's how mistakes start to happen.
The weapons should only be outside the direct control of the armorer for the minimum time possible, and the armorer should be observing the entire time. As soon as the scene finishes, and between shots, the armorer should take control of the weapon again and do all the steps required to ensure it is safe.
You don't hold the actor Alec Baldwin responsible. You hold the producer Alec Baldwin responsible.
Agreed, along with the rest of the producers. Concerns had been expressed about the armorer previously, and the production team should have responded to those and found another armorer who could safely manage the weapons (or, since some of the articles I've read suggest the armorer didn't feel she could push back on other crewmembers when they wanted to do things incorrectly for the sake of timing, they should have made it clear that when it comes to how weapons are used on set, the armorer is the voice of god and has the final say at all times).
Additionally, the production team should have found other ways to film the scene where the gun was looking down the barrel of the gun, by either using mirrors to ensure the camera and crew were not in the line of fire, or by filming it remotely. Since the cinematographer was shot during a rehearsal, a rubber replica should have been used to set the focus and framing for the shot, and the live weapon should have been swapped in at the latest possible moment before filming commenced.
But, systematically, it shouldn’t be that way.
Entirely wrong. The actor is not a firearms professional. The armorer on the set is. Actors should never touch real firearms unless handed to them directly by an armorer. The moment the scene is finished, the armorer removes the real firearm from the equation entirely.
You have ONE person that is responsible. Their entire job is SOLELY to ensure that every firearm is accounted for at all times. Actors should not EVERY be put in a position where they have to think about anything but their job, just as you wouldn't expect the cinematographer to be over making burgers in craft services.
You have a job, you do your job. As an actor the job is to take the firearm, hold it in a specified way, fire it, then give it back to the armorer that handed it to you. End of story.
These practices are in place because they have proven to work for literal decades. It's only through extreme negligence (which the Rust situation was) or through horrendous circumstance (see: Brandon Lee) that accidents happen, and that's the case only because nobody except one specific professional is allowed to handle firearms outside of filming.
You have ONE person that is responsible. Their entire job is SOLELY to ensure that every firearm is accounted for at all times. Actors should not EVERY be put in a position where they have to think about anything but their job, just as you wouldn’t expect the cinematographer to be over making burgers in craft services.
This is a false equivalence and you know it. Yes, it makes sense to put one person IN CHARGE of safety, but in a properly working system, safety is everyone's responsibility. Making only one person responsible for it creates a single point of failure, which is how accidents happen.
Yeah, being a firearms professional is not the actor's job. But it's absurd to say that the only thing an actor needs to know how to do is act. If a scene requires a character ride a bike, the actor needs to know how to do that. If a scene requires a character take a golf swing, the actor needs to be able to do that. They don't need to do so at a professional level, but they need to be able to do so enough to make it work for the camera, and more importantly, not hurt anyone.
The correct process is not difficult. When the firearm is handed off from the armorer to the actor, the armorer proves it's clear. Every time. The actor doesn't need to know how to clear a weapon, they just need to know that the armorer needs to clear it for them. If two people (the armor and the actor) are responsible for making sure its cleared every time it gets handed off, then it's harder for that step to get forgotten.