Lawyers for ‘Rust’ armourer move to get case dismissed after Baldwin trial collapses
Lawyers for ‘Rust’ armourer move to get case dismissed after Baldwin trial collapses
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in March for Halnya Hutchins’ death and sentenced to 18 months in prison
You're viewing a single thread.
Classic example of poor/ lack of regulation in USA. (Mah freedum)
Obviously a prop weapon shouldn't even be able to shoot real bullets.
This can easily be accomplished by making the prop weapon 1mm smaller, so real bullets can't even be inserted.
To tell them apart the prop ammo could have a slightly toned line in the length of the bullet, which would be hard to see on film, because it look like a reflection, and could even be pointed away when filming. But would be easy to detect when holding the bullet, because the reflection wouldn't move right when you hold it. It would work kind of like a watermark on bills.Why the movie industry hasn't implemented better security themselves IDK, except the obvious, not doing it is slightly cheaper. Except the easier positive identification of a prop, would probably make for a smoother work flow, so even if the equipment is a bit more expensive, it would be recouped by smoother workflow, and zero accidents.
But by far the easiest and cheapest solution is a federal law, because that would standardize it for all.
This can easily be accomplished by making the prop weapon 1mm smaller, so real bullets can't even be inserted.
You may soon learn about different calibres. Firstly, they exist.
8mm parabellum, 6.62x51, 6.62x39, 4.46x45, 11.7x108...
Obviously a prop weapon shouldn't even be able to shoot real bullets.
I know a guy who teaches stage combat for live theater and have seen him on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks (think something akin to a starters pistol). These guns have filled barrels, etc. so there’s no way they could ever fire an actual projectile.
One of the huge problems with these sorts of guns is that they’re very prone to misfiring. For whatever reason the manufacturing quality of both starter guns and the blanks they use just isn’t as good as real firearms. The last thing you want in live theater (which I’ve seen more than once) is for an actor to pull the trigger and hear a click instead of a bang.
Granted they could just re-shoot a movie scene if this happens, but that costs time & money, which they absolutely hate wasting.
Your idea of using smaller caliber bores, etc. likely wouldn’t prevent this sort of thing because either the quality would again suffer due to the lack of demand, or some idiot would still produce real ammo for it, or at least a projectile firing blank.
Movies like Rust use revolvers because that’s what cowboys would have used. They want the guns to look real, which means the cylinder should look like it has real bullets in them and not blanks, especially in close-up shots where you can clearly see a gun. That’s ultimately what killed Brandon Lee on his movie set. The special effects team botched rigging the bullets so they wouldn’t fire. They removed the powder but didn’t remove the primer cap, and at close range that was still enough to cause trauma when Lee was shot.
I also know a guy with 40+ years in the movie special effects industry who actually writes OSHA safety regulations for the industry. They’re “written in blood” due to events like Brandon Lees death, and when followed properly everybody is safe. He wasn’t involved in any way with the Rust production, but he was extremely pissed when he started hearing what’s been reported. He said it sounds like pretty much everybody involved from the producer on down ignored those regulations, and he had no problem with folks like Baldwin facing charges as a result.
Minor nitpick: the primer in the botched dummy cartridge wasn't enough to fire the bullet, but it was enough to unseat to it from the case and lodge it in the barrel. Later, a normal blank cartridge was fired while the bullet was still stuck in the barrel. The powder in the blank was enough to dislodge the bullet and propel it to lethal velocity.
I work film and am outraged at the dismissal. What a lot of people neglected to grasp is because they were focused on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger is that the trigger wasn't completely relevant to the crime.
Even if Baldwin wasn't the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment. When these sort of things happen we should be asking who was in charge of providing a safe environment, were they made aware of the dangers and why didn't they stop them. If you are fronting the money, have creative control and hiring and firing power and are cced on safety issues your crew brings up as concerns it's your duty to make sure your crew is safe... And there were so many red flags on Rust you could have seen them from fucking space. People were leaving the show because they didn't feel safe. Saying a seasoned actor / Producer would have been unaware while not just being on set but directly interfacing with the process is complete ludacris.
We talk about Brandon Lee but we should be talking about Sarah Jones. When she was killed by unsafe choices made by Production three out of four Producers on the project, everyone who could not claim complete perfect ignorance of the choices made, were charged criminally.
This is a sad day for American film labor. Appearantly bosses have no direct liability to keep us safe anymore.
I bet Baldwin could still be found liable in Civil court for the reasons you've mentioned..
Even if Baldwin wasn't the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment.
Then you're advocating for a fundamental change to way America manages workplace safety. If Baldwin hadnt been the one to pull the trigger he would never have been charged in a million years. Criminal charges require some level of intent , including involuntary manslaughter or negligent homocide. Unless you can find communications that show that the producers knew the workplace was unsafe and purposely didn't take action (not acting sufficiently probably wouldn't be enough), no charges were even possible.
At most the family of the deceased would have had a strong civil cause of action against the production company, because that's how workplace safety is handled in 99 percent of cases in the US. That civil liability can then be quantified, analyzed, and insured against. I'm not saying this is a good thing , but criminal charges for company owners have never been how these things have been handled.
Baldwin's stunt double accidentally discharged a live round under very similar conditions to the lethal event shortly before the fatal accident. Crew members had lodged formal complaints to the Production Manager and many left in protest when these issues were not addressed because it being a non union show there was no other authority to appeal to for better safety standards. The number of armourers they had was not nearly enough for the volume of the show. It not just that they hired crappy ones that violated every common sense rule that exists in the wider body of film. This was a firestorm of factors.
A lot of the issues are that people do not understand film structure, safety culture and just how regimented things are when done properly. The burden of context required is high and the structure of productions as temporary entities makes it really hard to prosecute and honestly if we weren't dealing with a face people know this would be easier. The fact he was literally holding the smoking gun means you have two separate but related culpabilities.
People have been charged in film for these incidents in the past. The fact the prosecution didn't adhere to proper process does mean there should be a redo... But to dismiss it with prejudice sends a message to these indy films that playing with fire and ignoring flagrant safety violations that would have you instantly shut down on a union show is okay and that is unacceptable.
You're 100% right all throughout your comment chain. I'm similarly outraged.
I have an eclectic employment history that includes set safety and theatrical firearm safety. Based on the information available, production was grossly negligent here.
Just like any other industry, if employees are harmed due to negligence, those responsible for that negligence should be held accountable. Given Baldwin (and production in general) was aware of crew concerns, safety gaps, and previous near misses and had the ability to address those issues but failed to do so, they all should absolutely be held accountable.
It is a sad fact that our industry is treated and often treats itself so often as an exception to the conventions of a workplace. A lot of it has to do with novel input and output. At our core though we are an industry and the rules aren't different. It's just the context of process is more difficult to grock then in other applications of the laws. Producers on indy productions tend to think of their creative role primarily and often consider that they are an employer with responsibilities and duty of care of their employees only belatedly... And society tends to treat them as though they are functionally airhead babies who can't be held accountable because "how could they know better".
It's their job to know better. They often don't because a studio tends to have internal means of enforcing safety to protect their investments... But if there's nobody and no process to stop you making decisions that kill someone then liability is your reward. Indy shows don't have the safety valve infrastructure and protections union or big studio shows do and that cuts more than one way.
They should be. In cases like this, and Boeing, is infuriating that it's always a low-level fall guy that goes to prison, and never the managers and execs that personally made the decisions that led to the deaths.
Like you said, it requires proof, but what I've heard is that the competent film crew had issues with production, so they got replaced with people like Hannah Gutierrez-Reed who were far less qualified: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
Frankly, to me it is unacceptable that people can decide to cut corners like that, and when people die as a result, the company pays a fine (as with Boeing) and the people ultimately responsible go on leading the company (or film production or whatever).
Baldwin ... should have been charged as part of the Producers
That part of the case against him was dismissed before the trial started iirc.
Yeah... And I am saying that is bullshit.
It's the same thing with fire performance. Since it's so fucking dangerous, you have to be licensed and insured for it in my city. I personally have an elevated producer license which allows me to supervise, but the flip side is that if something goes wrong, even if I'm not performing, my ass is on the line. I've heard of producers being questioned for being at a show as an audience member when something went wrong.
I personally believe that anyone directly involved with production should be charged. It doesn't matter who pulled the trigger.
Right!? Your average person does not understand the basics of how performance arts in general interface with the law. The perceptions of Producers is really messed up.
In film it is exacerbated a little because some people are primed to look at actors producing as an honorary role and not a practical one. Sometimes the bar does get lowered a bit to accomodate a big name by delegating a lot of the less fun bits but they are still effectively an employer and they can swing their weight around .
There's also a bit of a perception of above the line crew members by the rest of us where Producers and Directors are basically allowed to break a lot of the rules. Due diligence means we inform them of the risk but they are free to ignore it if they really want to do something that damages equipment or wastes time they are the ones paying for it so if they want to be dumb that's their privilege.
When it comes to human safety though there are a few people authorized to veto things. Crew and cast are allowed to refuse unsafe work (which is risky because we don't need to be fired, we can just not be hired on for the next job), the 1stAD who acts as the executive representative of the production liability on the set can say veto directors and producers and the Production Manager is the authority who operates on behalf of the Producers to protect their dumb butts from liability. But Producers ultimately have final say and often no consequences.
It's really interesting to me that fire dancing gets the same perception even without all the mess in the middle.
on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks
That sounds like extremely bad advice.
when followed properly everybody is safe.
Really, these guidelines would have prevented the use of real bullets allegedly mixed in by the prop supplier?
Making prop weapons do not have to be of inferior quality, and your argument that some may make live ammo for them would be extremely illogical if that was illegal.
If you want to use live ammo, what would be the argument for not using a real weapon?
If it's some homemade shit, it would probably be pretty easy to spot anyway.I stand by my original claim, which would 100% have prevented the incident. Even without training. You cannot reasonably argue that it's safer that an actor should read and learn what 40 years of experience and numerous accidents have taught an expert, that he has written a book about. People make mistakes.
on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks
That sounds like extremely bad advice.
I'm curious, why do you consider substituting a non-operational (filled barrel) firearm for an operational firearm extremely bad advice?
Obviously because an operational firearm is way more dangerous.
Ohhh, I was interpreting the meaning in reverse! I was flabbergasted on why anyone would think an operational firearm is safer than an inoperative prop.
Making prop weapons do not have to be of inferior quality
They do if no one is willing to make them better. You can't force a manufacturer to do that, especially when you're talking about a very small number of sales.
I suppose you are aware that those sales would probably go global. Which they are not currently, because there is a lack of proper regulation and standardization.
They probably don't have to be as good as real weapons, but obviously with regulation, they'd have to be good enough to be safe to use.Exactly how big do you think the global market for such props is?
Considering media industry is one of the biggest industries in the world, I'd think the market is more than sufficient to sustain multiple vendors.
Prop firearms are not really consumable items. They are just rented over and over again by production companies from rental companies. And when they break, the rental companies would first repair them before buying new ones. They could be decades old and have been repaired over and over.
I assume the shitty reliability of prop guns has more to do with their age and how much they are used rather than low manufacturing quality.
I'd suspect that too, it's not that hard to make a prop gun, in part because it doesn't have to have accuracy.
"The media industry" is everything from a big-budget science fiction film, which uses no conventional-looking weapons at all, to a local newscast, which also doesn't.
The number of productions worldwide needing realistic-looking prop weapons is very unlikely going to make any manufacturer justify redesigning their arms or recalibrating their manufacturing equipment, if recalibration is all that is necessary and new equipment wouldn't also be required.
In the 80's movies were the biggest export of USA. IDK how big exactly it is today, but globally it's very big.
I'm not sure why you think that means the market for realistic prop guns is worth the cost of redesign and recalibration and possibly the purchase of new equipment.
Only a few companies make those movies, so they only need a limited stock of those weapons, especially since they can be reused. Most movies don't require them.
Also, I can find absolutely nothing to corroborate your claim that movies were America's biggest export in the 1980s. They aren't even in the top 10 now, so I doubt it.
Maybe it wasn't movies by itself, but also other entertainment? But for sure neither oil gas or Automobile were very significant exports back then. Also your list look to be goods only and contain zero services. Entertainment is a service, and will NEVER make that list.
From your link:
The trade deficit continues to grow in the U.S. due to the heavy reliance on foreign manufacturing.
But it would also be usable for theater, and TV shows.
Really, these guidelines would have prevented the use of real bullets allegedly mixed in by the prop supplier?
Yes, really. Among other things the guidelines prohibit any real live ammunition on the set. There should be an armorer on-set whose sole responsibility is checking guns in/out and ensuring they are unloaded, or properly loaded with blanks only when absolutely necessary. Only people who have been trained in the safety guidelines should ever handle them. Each person who handles a gun, right down to the actors, should also inspect it, and treat it as loaded even when it isn’t.
You cannot reasonably argue that it's safer that an actor should read and learn what 40 years of experience and numerous accidents have taught an expert
I never said they did. It’s the responsibility of the producer(s) to ensure all regulations are followed. So they should have made sure the armorer did. It’s the job of the armorer to know the OSHA and other regulations involving firearms on-set, and adhering to them. The armorer should be instructing both the relevant cast & crew on established safety procedures. That should include how to safely check if a gun appears to be loaded, and if not 10000% sure, to check back with the armorer. Not with a random crew person but the person directly responsible for their safe use.
Only people who have been trained in the safety guidelines should ever handle them.
So an actor using a prop gun is required to know and follow safety measures for real guns?
Because that's really the consequence of what you write, because a prop gun could accidentally be real too.That is not security, that's idiocy.
I've gotta ask: how long have you worked in safety?
20+ years as a technical director at a theater where among many other things I’ve had to deal with the safety aspects of:
- Prop firearms
- prop knives & swords
- stage combat
- fire & smoke effects
- objects like hammers, bricks, rocks, etc. thrown or swung at actors
- Bricks and other objects falling onto actors from heights up to 15 feet
- Sparks & other electrical effects
- collapsing sets, sometimes with actors on/under them
- falls through trap doors
- glass bottles, ceramic vases, etc. broken over actors heads
Through a number of these I’ve also consulted with film & theater safety experts, fire departments, building/electrical inspectors, etc.
That makes a ton of sense. I used to support set safety, including theatrical firearms, and reading your comment was like deja vu. You know your stuff. That's awesome!
I’m all for additional security measures but they flat out admitted to not checking individual ammunition (blanks, live, and dummie rounds), which already have visual and auditory differentiators. People didn’t take their jobs seriously and a woman is dead because of it, the change needed, regardless of anything else, is ensuring people take the fucking job seriously or everything gets halted on the spot before an accident happens.
I still don't understand why they had live ammunition onset at all. Apparently it was there so they could shoot some Coke cans with the gums afterwards? If that's the real reason she brought them she deserves to go down because that's bloody stupid.
which already have visual and auditory differentiators.
OK that's something. I think if this identification is general, I'd personally check every single round if I was an actor. Both for guns I hold, and guns that are potentially pointed at me.
If that's a problem for the producer, they should get proper prop guns.
Are prop guns in other countries as you describe?
Well I don't know the actual regulation, but I have never heard of a weapons accident during filming here in Denmark.
We have stricter regulation on weapons and 100% no movie maker would even dream of using weapons capable of using live ammo.Although Denmark is a small country, we make way more movies than our size would indicate. But still just a fraction of USA.
I saw some comments on this when it happened and americans were shitting their asses when people suggested just using props, because apparently it takes away the immersion when their favourite shooty weapon doesn't look real enough
Maybe they should try acting like it’s real. Y’know, because they’re actors.
Was that immersion for the movie, or for the actors?