That forged and then finished the chain that led to Haylna Hutchin’s death.
There’s already been a fair amount of discussion here about the shooting death of Halyna Hutchins, the director of photography on the set of a western being shot on the Bonanza Creek Ranch in New Mexico.
Some facts have been established: Alec Baldwin, the film’s producer* and star, was handed a gun by an assistant director, was (according to an affidavit) told that the gun was “cold”–not loaded–and fired. The gun was loaded, though it’s not yet clear with what type of ammunition, and the shot struck and killed Hutchins and wounded the film’s director, Joel Souza.
So, proximately, this was a tragic accident, at least once the gun reached Baldwin: he acted on the information he had been given (and as an actor on the set, that’s standard procedure), that information was wrong, and tragedy followed.
(They are always loaded)
So why the headline?
Because Baldwin was, as star and producer,* ultimately the boss of among the most powerful people on that set, and if the production process was so far deranged that a loaded firearm could reach his hand without his knowledge, that, ISTM, (ETA): then at a minimum, he bears a burden, a significant share of the responsibility for the circumstances that made it possible for the killing to occur.
ETA: A number of commenters protest that this is an indictment ahead of the facts, for at least two reasons. 1: Baldwin was a producer not necessarily the producer, and may very likely not have been the responsible production person on location, in which case the systematic problems on the set were not his sole responsibility, or his responsibility at all. And 2: we don’t have all the facts, and this charge is a leap to judgment.
Objection 1 is valid, but incomplete. Baldwin as the big-name star and a titular, at least, producer was (ETA again) one of the most powerful people on that set; if corners were being cut he was both in a position to know it (hard not to, given that crew members walked off) and to do something about it. So, yes, I may be too harsh. But I don’t think I am waaaay to harsh, if you catch the distinction.
Objection 2 is both obviously true and yet doesn’t change the facts we do know, which strongly point to a series of problems leading up to the tragedy. That’s the systematic failure which, to me, creates a responsibility that is less proximate than the sequence of events that led to handing a loaded weapon to an actor who was told it was “cold,” but still central to the tragedy.
Back to your scheduled post.
To be clear: the shooting should never have happened. On a properly run and staffed shoot, it could not happen. Valued commenter Starfish linked in the morning post to this excellent Twitter thread by a film armorer I’d hire explaining how firearms are properly managed on a production, and how brutally badly the system must have failed on Baldwin’s set to end up with this death.
I have little experience in such procedures, but not none. I’ve directed one scene in which we used real guns firing real blanks (as in, bullets with powder but no projectiles), and the basic message of that the armorer above, SL Huang, informed everything we did.
Here’s the scene that resulted from that day’s shoot, in a film I made with David Macaulay as the host:
It’s the opening scene, so you don’t have to wade through endless shots of round buildings.
We had five Colt .45s on the set, lent to the production by the Colt company, who also supplied us with their top armorer. He was a former Marine gunnery sergeant who had been a firearms instructor in the service. He allowed me to heft one of the long barreled pistols, which he checked and showed me was unloaded–those are heavy weapons!–and my wife, who was the designer and prop master for the shoot,** was also allowed to handle one of the guns, with the same check-and-show protocol.
She too was surprised by the weight, and started to lift the gun in the little circle of people around the armorer.
The armorer started to speak but I shouted over him, loud. Every gun is loaded. Even if you have just seen that it’s not, it’s loaded. It cannot be pointed at anything you don’t intend to shoot. When I say I shouted I mean I shouted, loud and harsh, telling her to put that thing down.
She did.
As we worked through our shot list, the procedure on the set never varied. The only person to handle the weapons was the armorer, who handed them to the actors. The first setup was a series of walking shots. The guns were not loaded. Each weapon was checked before it was passed to an actor. We did our repeats for angles in a continuous series of takes, so the armorer left the weapons in the hands of the actors, but stayed next to me and the DP to keep his eye on his responsibility throughout.
When that morning work was done, we broke. He took the guns and locked them in his vehicle.
After lunch, we set up for the pyro shoot, when the actors would pull triggers and discharge blanks, while the pyro guys would (in sync!) blow up fire-cracker sized charges to simulate a bullet’s impact. That was fiddly, precise shooting, the kind of time-consuming work that puts pressure on the schedule. Our crew was tiny by feature standards, but huge for a documentary, somewhere around eight to ten people on hourly wages, all of whom would kick up to time and a half at ten hours and double time at twelve. I wasn’t just the director on that shoot; I was the producer as well, so that was on my mind. Part of my associate producer’s job was to keep me aware of the schedule and to try keep us below ten hours if at all possible.
But this was the rule: the armorer loaded a single blank per gun per shot. He was the only person to handle those guns besides the actors. Me, the A.P., our P.A.s–none of us could act as runners. He would clear the fired guns, reload–a single blank–and hand each gun back to the actor, for each shot as we worked our way through our inventory of thirty or so pyro charges.
It took us hours. I think we came in just under the start of overtime, but it was a near thing. (We were racing the light too, so that was extra fun.)
But that’s the way you do it. Everyone on the set has to know, to a certainty, what the state of any weapons may be, and they have to be safe. Only the people who actually, truly know what they’re doing can deal with the weapons and the chain of custody, as it were, can’t be broken. The shots have to be understood, and at no time can a weapon, unloaded, or carrying blanks, threaten a person. If any of that slips, the armorer (and others, as Huang’s thread makes clear) have to have the authority and personal strength of character to shut the whole thing down.
All this by way of saying that the Rust movie set on which Hutchins was killed was sufficiently poorly managed so that a number of union (as in, experienced, and knowledgable about how sets are supposed to work) walked off rather than continue to work in unsafe conditions. That’s on the production side of the work, and that was represented on set by a producer, Baldwin.
This is a tragedy. Having worked for a lot of years at one end of this business I feel a connection to the story that’s probably a stretch. But it hurts–and it cuts my wife more, who has worked on a number of productions that involved re-enactors and plenty of black-powder discharges.
But what makes it enraging a well as saddening is that it clearly didn’t have to happen, and that it did is not only an indictment of the man in charge of this particular set, but also of the system within which Baldwin acted as he did.
That is: at bottom, this is another murder-by-predatory capitalism. The reports so far have made it clear that this was a project being run on the cheap. One on which its producers were willing to bring in presumably less experienced, less expert scab labor to replace union workers who left not in a pay dispute, but in (clearly justified) opposition to an unsafe work place.
Hutchins died, that is, because Baldwin and his production team weren’t willing to pay for what it takes to run a professional, safe set. The marginal dollar was more important than the elementary procedures everyone in the business–even a PBS documentary dweeb like me–knows are required to do the job right.
The predatory impulse in so many aspects of American life is literally killing us.
Halyna Hutchins. R.I.P.
*ETA: As has already been noted in the comment thread, “producer” in Hollywood is a flexible title. It may refer to the person in charge of the production from the business/logistics side. It may be a courtesy title given to a star or someone key to the funding of the project. I don’t know if Baldwin was the actual responsible producer on location, or if the title was just a sweetener to attract an expensive star to a low budget production.
Even so, I’m of a mind that if you claim the title you accept the bad stuff with the good. He was the most powerful figure on a set that was flaky enough to drive responsible people off the job. I’m not sure if it’s fully clear what a big deal that is. Downing tools mid-shoot is a HUGE statement. Given the professional culture of the production trades, stuff has to be really wrong before the “show must go on” ethos breaks.
**Not nepotism or a cheaping-out. She is a member of two production unions, USA and IATSE, and has three national Emmys for her design work on documentaries. She didn’t cut her rate for me, as she shouldn’t have.
Baud
I preferred Domes II, although I thought the sex scene was gratuitous.
raven
“though it’s not yet clear with what type of ammunition”
I highly doubt a blank round killed one person a wounded another.
Baud
@raven:
Why would there be real bullets anywhere nearby though? That’s what’s still puzzling me.
raven
Ever notice that Coppola used blanks in the 60 in Apocalypse Now?
raven
@Baud: I agree
Tom Levenson
@Baud: Domes II, or Les Grandes Tetons.
Major Major Major Major
But is Baldwin a producer or a “producer”?
@Baud: maybe they got mixed up at the loading bench, who knows.
Last I read it sounded like it fired accidentally while he was practicing a quick draw, which would explain why he “fired”.
Tom Levenson
@raven: I agree, but as both a non-firearms guy and someone with no information from the set, I don’t feel comfortable speculating.
But yeah…I don’t see how you get two victims with the same shot with a blank.
Thinkaboutit
I don’t know anything about the structure of the companies producing Rust (and neither do you!) but I think it is a safe assumption that Alec Baldwin was one of a dozen or two producers/executive producers/associate producers behind this. To assert, as you do, that “he was the producer and so in charge of everything” is just silly.
Second, let’s assume for a second that you’re right that that Alec Baldwin was the sole producer and ultimately in charge of everything. That obviously does not make him morally responsible for the fuck up of whatever person(s) 1) loaded a live round* into a prop pistol and 2) failed to check the pistol before declaring it “cold”.
*That’s what several news stories have said, but we don’t know what happened here yet. Still plenty of time for hot takes. I saw an affidavit this morning stating that someone handed Baldwin the pistol and announced “Cold gun” meaning it was not loaded. Who knows if that is even true.
Tom Levenson
@Baud: Yes. I wondered that too. I’ve heard some wild speculation which I’m not going to repeat (not the spite-loading stuff from this morning’s thread), but I can’t think of any reason to have real ammunition anywhere near the set.
Jerszy
This headline remains astounding, particularly from anyone claiming to have *any* experience on a film set.
There were likely at least a dozen people with the title “producer” working on this thing, with varying degrees of responsibility over different aspects of production. That’s not counting assistants, associates, PAs, etc. A dozen people with the title of “producer” or “executive producer”. Some of them are just writing checks. Some of them are liaising between the studio and the talent. Most of them get this title contractually, instead of a pay bump. And yes, some of them are booting union staff off the set, sourcing non-union replacements, and cutting safety corners. Was Baldwin the one, between takes, arguing with the prop master and beating down doors to find local guys to replace unionized crew – we don’t know yet, but its extremely unlikely.
I’m on-board with pointing the fingers at the producers, as a whole, if it’s found – after a full professional investigation, the working conditions contributed to this accident. But still seems out of bounds to single out Baldwin. Also difficult to argue the person most responsible for this tragedy was whomever was in charge of managing that particular prop and brought (I think I read) live ammo and a real gun on set. It’s not the *actor*.
We are in the stage of the incident in which thousands of ignorami are reacting in real time to each dribble of rumor being ferreted and strategically leaked out during this legal-posturing, ass-covering, finger-pointing time period of the investigation, in which every story contains ‘details’ contradicting the previous one. Everyone is making their own opportune political hay out of Baldwin’s involvement, although right now we know literally nothing about it, and you are a jackal for feeding it. I don’t come here for Tucker-esque red-meat feedings before we know any of the facts, thanks.
MomSense
@Baud:
Sabotage.
Major Major Major Major
@Jerszy: yeah with all due respect to Tom, when I saw this headline I assumed it was going to be making fun of people for blaming everything on capitalism.
Mayken
@Baud: Same!
Feathers
All the people who say you need to fire guns for realism – the entire John Wick series, which is acknowledged to have the best and most over the top gun scenes in recent memory, uses only cold, empty guns. Why? The director, Chad Stahelski, was Brandon Lee’s stunt double on The Crow. After Lee’s death, he had to film the rest of the actor’s scenes so that the film could be completed.
I’m guessing that a lot of the Hollywood unions are going to be calling for the end of any “live” guns onset. Producers have shown they are not to be trusted.
Cervantes
It doesn’t seem possible that somebody put a live bullet in the weapon by mistake. As others have said, there was no reason for live ammunition to be anywhere near the set. I have to wonder if this was intentional. It’s a good premise for a Nero Wolfe mystery. (There was one in which somebody replaced the button on a fencing foil with a sharp point.)
Mart
My dad took a couple sisters, my brother and me to shoot pellet guns and arrows at a friend’s farm. I was about ten and swung the pellet gun around like John Wayne. My dad and his friend went ape shit about never point at living things. So I ran back to the house and never touched a gun again.
Azhrie139
@Cervantes: Live ammunition can refer to blanks. Also, if you look at youtube videos on blanks you will see that it is actually common if not cleaned well to have significant shrapnel from firing blanks. I think a lot of people in this thread are getting confused by this and forgetting blanks involve putting literal gun powder in a gun which isn’t exactly 100% safe.
Baud
@Mart:
I didn’t grow up around guns, which is good, because my spastic self would surely have killed somebody.
The Dangerman
Two things:
One, a live round has no business on a set.
Two, you never point a gun at someone. Even a cold one.
Baud
@Azhrie139:
Speaking for myself, I understand that live ammo includes blanks, but I was responding to the theory that a blank wouldn’t have enough juice to hit two people.
Feathers
@Thinkaboutit: But there were previous “misfires” with the gun the previous week. Members of the camera crew had notified the union and walked off the set that morning. That shows a deeply troubled production and a situation that needed someone with power to step in and fix things. The movie’s star could have done that. The movie’s star who is also a producer should definitely have done that.
Baud
@The Dangerman:
WRT #2, the speculation is that the gun was being pointed at people as part of the scene.
Tom Levenson
@Jerszy: @Major Major Major Major: Sorry to offend you both, but respectfully, I disagree.
Jerszy: strangely enough, I’m familiar with the distinction between assistant, associate, executive, senior, consulting, supervising, location, etc. producers and producers. I’ve even been some of those people over the years.
Baldwin’s title wasn’t any of those. Yes: as noted in my added comment on the post, “producer” can be a mostly honorary title given to a major funder or a star. But when an on-camera figure accepts the title, they get some responsibility, which in this case, as noted above, goes with being the most powerful person on set.
Was this only Baldwin’s fault?
No, as I think the post makes clear: there was a chain of responsibility for the firearm that was clearly not met.
But why not?
Because the production did not employ the elementary safeguards that go with the use of firearms in a movie.
Why didn’t they do that?
Because, the evidence so far suggests, the pressures of making a feature movie with a (very short) 21 day shoot evoked cut corners.
Major^4: I stand by the headline and the argument. Someone (ones) wanted to make a profit on a cheap film. To do so, the production company created work conditions extreme enough to provoke a labor walkout. That, to me, makes this a clear example of the pathology of profit maximization at all costs, and of the predatory relationship employers have to their workforces whenever they can get away with it. YMMV
Adam L Silverman
@raven: @Tom Levenson: You would get the situation that occurred with Brandon Lee on the set of The Crow for the penultimate fight scene. The live gun had been previously used in an earlier scene. The breakdown occurred when the Armorer or one of the Armorer’s assistants failed to inspect the gun and make sure the barrel was free of any debris or other objects from the earlier scene and reloaded it with the blanks for the next shot of the scene. Because the gun had not been properly cleared, when the blank was fired it created a squib situation shooting what was lodged in the barrel out of the gun, which hit Lee and ultimately killed him. While there is a dispute as to what was lodged in the barrel, I’ve seen it reported that it was a bullet as the gun had been used in a scene that required the firing of an actual real round – bullet seated in brass with a full powder charge and a real primer – apparently this is still disputed and some claim it was the wadding, including the hard cap holding the wadding in, from a previous blank round. Regardless, whatever is in the barrel when a blank is fired is going to come out of that barrel functioning as a squib round.
dimmsdale
@Jerszy: I appreciate your caution, and agree with your stance on not forming judgments till all the facts are in. This thing is going to be NTSB’d to death, and I have no doubt the truth will come out eventually, and till then –?
Dribs and drabs of information will be coming out that can totally change the factual cast of the situation. The thing that boggles me is, even in spite of Sarah Jones’ death, in spite of the foundation Haskell Wexler set up to push for sane working conditions (“12 On 12 Off”), unsafe sets are still happening. I think ANY time crew walks off the set en masse (as they did this time), that alone ought to alert MPAA, IATSE and SAG-AFTRA to swoop down on that set to find out how the set is being run, and FIX it as needed.
(of course I’m assuming set conditions that have yet to be verified officially, so I’ll now shut up about this till more facts come in)
Tom Levenson
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks. And I repeat, as above, I am as far from being a firearms expert as it is possible to be.
I think it possible we will get an answer to the question, given that whatever wounded the director may well have been recovered when he was treated for his injury.
Adam L Silverman
@Major Major Major Major: Gun’s don’t fire accidentally, despite that terminology being used. From the description of events, what most likely happened, is he was presented with the firearm – in this case a revolver as the movie is a western – was told it was clear and safe, and started practicing his draw. The only way this goes off when pointed down range – meaning in the vicinity of anyone – is if he put his finger on the trigger and pulled during the presentation (aiming) part of the draw. If it had been something from the holster or his clothing that had gotten into the trigger guard, it would have gone off on the draw part – clearing of the holster – and he’d have shot himself in the leg or foot.
Another Scott
Thanks for the clip and for your experiences.
I haven’t read things in detail, but I would be nervous about categorical statements about who was responsible at this early stage. Not least because too many people with axes to grind hate Baldwin. Early reports are often incomplete / wrong / not the full story.
This was clearly a systemic failure though. There are vanishingly small numbers of “gun accidents”. The gun did what it was designed to do (it didn’t explode or otherwise suffer a hardware failure). The system on this set was broken.
I’m reminded of my NRA Life Member uncle shooting himself with a rifle he was cleaning (pushed the brush in, it didn’t go in as far as usual, so he pushed harder – boom – and the bullet grazed his index finger and luckily nothing else). It only takes one mistake, even experts can and do make mistakes – they’re human, and that’s why a gun is always, always loaded until you explicitly clear it.
:-(
Cheers,
Scott.
Feathers
If people do want to keep up with the latest and probably most reliable source of information, The Los Angeles Times has created a live updates page: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-10-22/halyna-hutchins-alec-baldwin-rust-movie-full-coverage
Anoniminous
Basic Firearm Safety:
1. Firearms are built, on purpose, to kill
2. The firearm is ALWAYS loaded, ready to kill
3. NEVER point a firearm at something you don’t intend to kill
Lex
@Feathers:
I hope this actually happens. With CGI and audio editing, there’s no more need for working charges on TV/movie sets.
Adam L Silverman
@Tom Levenson: You’re welcome.
Adam L Silverman
@Anoniminous: And 4) Always know what you are aiming at/your target and what is beyond/behind/next to it.
Ruckus
@Jerszy:
Baldwin was the producer of record. The last person in the line of supervision. The top dog. He would be responsible even if he hadn’t pulled the trigger. I have owned a business where getting hurt isn’t “a part of the job” but minor scrapes, workers comp health facilities is part of the business. Because it was dangerous work, even if every one does everything right. We machined a lot of metals, and sharp edges, broken tools are common. Band aids are brought by the big box and get used far more often than you might imagine. We wear safety glasses. Ear plugs. It’s still dangerous and everyone knows it. There are lots of businesses that have danger around them all the time and there is always one person with the ultimate responsibility, even if everyone else tries their damnest not to be injured. I’ve been that last person, the one with ultimate responsibility.
In this case why in the hell was there any live ammunition on the set? ANY LIVE AMMUNITION. There should have been none, zero, nada. There should never be live ammunition on any movie set with loads of people in close proximity, with people handling guns and aiming them at other humans. Not one round. I’ve stated here before that I carried a loaded sidearm in the navy. Every time it is handed over to the next person it is unloaded, locked open and handed to them butt first, clips separately. Six different people per day handled that weapon and ammunition. It was checked six times a day, by six different people. 18 different people did that between times I had to do it. It was pounded into us, we did that every time so one of us didn’t get killed. A movie set has zero need for live ammunition, it never should have been there in the first place and that is the armourer’s fault, and the person in charge’s responsibility. That was Baldwin. He failed his job, his duty. All because of money? One dead, one wounded because someone is a cheap fuck? Yeah, that’s on the head person, Baldwin. Even if that gun had not been in his hand. Still his responsibility. I’ve been there, I’ve been the armourer/handler, the first in the chain. That day he was both, first and last in the chain.
Villago Delenda Est
Tom, thanks for the rundown. This is precisely as I would expect it to be, and as someone qualified with the M1911, I can attest that they have a hell of a recoil when firing live rounds. Handling deadly tools needs to be done with the utmost safety and respect. Which is where ammosexuals repeatedly demonstrate their fail.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cervantes:
Time to call in Colombo, “just one more thing…”.
Anoniminous
@Adam L Silverman:
Yeah, forgot that one
craigie
@Feathers: This. We’re already doing a ton of post work anyway, no need for ammunition of any kind.
WaterGirl
@Feathers: Am I crazy, or did you have a different comment on this thread that was very unlike this one?
WaterGirl
@Tom Levenson: I completely agree, Tom. Choices by Baldwin and others set the stage (no pun intended) for what happened. That was the first, and largest, link in the chain of failures.
jeffreyw
@raven:
I’ve burned through several belts of blanks in a suitably modified M-60, the blanks have a distinct shape to allow proper function. The gun itself, in training exercises, has a muzzle mounted device that restricts the gas flow allowing sufficient gas pressure to work the mechanism. It was an orange painted clamp on thing. For movie realism the barrel would have an internal bore obstruction that would cause the MG to blow up the barrel should a real 7.62 NATO cartridge be fired in it.
Anoniminous
@Anoniminous:
Damnit …. “CAN’T” forget that one
raven
While blanks are less dangerous than live ammunition, they are far from harmless, and can in fact be fatal. Beside the hot combustion gases, any objects in the cartridge itself (like wadding or a bullet-shaped plug keeping the propellant in place) or the barrel will be propelled at high velocity and cause injury or death at close range.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@raven: Others have mentioned blanks have to be more powder than real round. So anything solid in the barrel could be dangerous. Considering two people were hit that suggest something fragmented. Plastic for example.
When I was doing Civil War Reenactment were were never allowed to bring our ramrods out during an event, We would line up and the our unit’s leader would go check each rifle to make sure no ramrod was on the rifle, because of a few horrible incidents. We were also never fire at anyone with in five feet because just the gas and un-burnt powder could injure.
dimmsdale
@Villago Delenda Est: Yeah, actually that might be one sense where for authenticity’s sake you’d NEED an actual gun to fire: you can’t pantomime the kick of a 1911 or “do it in post”–but there are blank-adapted automatics that use a barrel restrictor so that the gun will kick (and cycle the action) but nothing (or almost nothing) is emitted out the front.
(In other words, what @jeffreyw said, as I was typing this)
The SL Huang twitter thread referred to above is invaluable, he lays out exactly how guns are supposed to be used. His incredulity at how the incident could happen is a little scary, suggesting a set culture that was totally out of control.
prostratedragon
All cast and crew for Rust, from IMDB
Alec Baldwin is one of 5 producers, and there are also 5 executive producers. The distinction between those roles is something I’m not up on, though I’ve often wondered about and will read up on one day. I wouldn’t collapse in awed amazement if it turned out that a key reason for such structures is sometimes to muddle questions of authority and liablility.
Both SL Huang and the armorers quoted in this Daily Beast rundown on gun safety on movie sets indicate that armorer, prop manager, and first assistant director should all have had the on-site authority to shut down the set at any point where safety was in doubt. Presumably some of the original people in some of those roles walked because their advice was not being heeded.
raven
@jeffreyw: Look at the picture, those are blanks.
Mike in NC
Not gun related: I’m about one-third of the way through Bob Woodward’s “Rage” and it may be the most disturbing book I’ve ever read.
Trump was obsessed with two things in 2018-2019. One was a make a proverbial “deal” with the mentally unstable dictator of North Korea. The reason being he desperately needed to compete with President Obama in getting awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Nobody in Trump’s inner circle thought it was even remotely possible, but they played along nonetheless. We’ll probably never know how much time and money was wasted on that ridiculous vanity quest.
His other obsession was of course to get reelected at any price. He and his henchmen probably knew he could never win the popular vote, so they did everything they could to game the system to his advantage. He was stupid and incompetent, but given another 6-12 months he might have pulled off stealing the election.
We were lucky that there were responsible career bureaucrats, honest judges, and military officers in place to stop him in 2020, but we all know state level Republicans are doing all they can to keep people from voting going forward. Trump’s plan was to install loyalists at the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, and Justice Department. Once that was done, the coup would go on. Game over for democracy in this country.
Jerszy
@Tom Levenson: THAT is the problem: None of your 3 queries has an answer that involves Baldwin, much less implicates him.
[Note: I’m obviously not saying that ‘no one’ was at fault – the safeguards have been in existence, and no one has died, since Brandon Lee. They were evidently working, and working very well. So there was an egregious violation of the rules on this set, with the tragic, foreseeable results.
Unfortunately for you, at this stage, literally NOT ONE of these violations is tied to Baldwin, either in the line of responsibility or imputedly. All you did was libel a person, with zero knowledge otherwise, with what is essentially a ‘murder rap’. I expect better from, well, anyone.
[And if you want to throw down ‘qualifications’, I’ve been a production lawyer and executive for 25 years.]
raven
@Baud: No it doesn’t.
The Dangerman
@Baud: There’s always an offset and the camera is placed so that offset isn’t seen.
raven
@raven: Jefferyw
There are blank adapters for M-16’s and M60’s that make the flash suppressor look normal.
Hollywood style blank firing adapters
Mike E
I worked (briefly) on the Wilmington set of Loose Cannons and got to know the gun prop guy who eventually worked on The Crow…he told me how he hated the “shooting” scenes because malfunction was a given due to the papery blank loads fouling up their pathways and leading to misfires, time-consuming cleanings and extra takes. Blank loads were quarter, half and full strength according to the powder in them with the strongest ones being most desired because they tended to clear out the sticky residual debris created with each discharge.
The squib in question on The Crow was due to the revolver’s visible chambers requiring realistic looking metal clad blank rounds during the close up shots which had very minimal powder loads…the over-looked lodged cap was followed by a blank round for the reverse shot which propelled it with fatal force toward the actor.
Slwalczak
My question is: why was Baldwin aiming the gun at the cinematographer and director to begin with?
raven
@Slwalczak: This morning someone speculated it was a scene where he was shown pointing the gun.
Tom Levenson
@Jerszy: I don’t believe I’ve thrown down qualifications, but I respect yours.
What I am saying is that we know there were catastrophic failures on this set. How do we know? Two people were shot and one was killed.
Where does responsibility lie for that? As you say, correctly, there are a series of events that need to be established to identify the specific points at which safety protocols were ignored or simply not known by individuals, until a loaded weapon reached Baldwin.
As stated at the very top of the piece, Baldwin the actor is not the person at fault. He like anyone in his position relies on the information he is given, and he was, it’s been reported, told that gun was “cold.” So in any proximate sense he’s not to blame. Whoever allowed a gun on set with a round in it when it was supposed to be empty is.
But we routinely assign blame for events that occur because someone allowed the conditions to emerge in which those events become more likely, or even possible. Think coal-mine owners who ignore worker safety rules and the like.
That’s the sense in which Baldwin (and the leaders of the production beyond him) are responsible, ISTM.
You have decades of experience as a production lawyer. Is it unreasonable to see Baldwin as both the name-star and one of those with the title, producer, as the most powerful person on the set? If not, then that power carries with it responsibility
ETA: I see from rereading your comment we agree that there were egregious failures on set. So the sum total of our disagreement, ISTM, is how much responsibility Baldwin had for ensuring that he and the entire production staff, actors and crew, were working on a safe set. As star and producer, I think he had a lot. You seem to disagree. Does that sum up our argument accurately, in your view?
WaterGirl
@Slwalczak: There was a lot of speculation on the earlier thread today that in rehearsals it’s common to point the gun in the direction of the camera, and I believe that’s where they were standing.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
Oh, I see this was a Western. If the revolver was a black powder Colt Navy that would explain it, those things are scary prone to chain fires were one cylinder sets off the next cylinder. They have to be constantly cleaned and greased to keep them from doing it. They look like a roman candle doing it and if the victims were close to Bawlin getting a face full of a hot gas and burning power would do it.
Leto
Last night Maddow had on Steve Wolf, a weapons safety expert for films and he was also part of the Brandon Lee shooting investigation. I’d recommend most people watch this as it walks through what a “prop” gun is, proper safety procedures, and a whole lot of other information. She covers the story at the 24:30 mark of the video, with Wolf’s interview starting at the 36:35 mark. He’s pretty blunt about this.
https://youtu.be/CZ7yPTxXQA4
Jerszy
@dimmsdale: Exactly. And yet here we have a BJ Poster stating – in a headline, no less – that “Baldwin responsible for murder”. And then doubling down, claiming to know the difference in production responsibilities. It’s reprehensible. Is Cole cool with it?
Major Major Major Major
@prostratedragon: the distinction is pretty amorphous and varies between productions.
jeffreyw
@raven: Yes, they are, the ends are sealed with a paper disc to keep the powder from falling out but are flimsy enough to leave little residue.
Barbara
@Baud:
@Tom Levenson: Indeed. It makes no sense that there was live ammo at all.
Jerszy
@Slwalczak: How is this even a question? Literally the vey first Western film ended with the actor aiming his gun “at the audience”.
Tom Levenson
@Major Major Major Major: Sweet jeebus, but if he was practicing his draw (and I don’t know anything about that, beyond your comment) that makes it all so much worse for me.
raven
@Jerszy: Lighten up Francis.
Barbara
@MomSense: Or maybe someone took it home for some extracurricular target practice and didn’t take all the ammo out before returning it – forgot, didn’t know enough, etc. For reasons that have eluded me all my life, some people think guns are just like toys.
Adam L Silverman
@Mike in NC: Frankly, all he had to do to get reelected was competently manage, or perhaps a better term is administrate, the COVID response. If he’d been able to check his ego, which we all know is impossible, what he should have done was given an immediate address that Drs Fauci, Redmond, Birx, and Hahn who was running the FDA would be the leads. That they were pulling in the Army general who is a logistics specialist who would coordinate everything and deconflict. And that he’d declared a state of emergency for public health and was directing the Treasury to throw whatever money was needed at the response and he was calling a special session of Congress and submitting to them legislation to ensure that funding was available as an open ended supplemental. Finally, that when you heard Fauci, Redmond, Birx, Hahn from the FDA, the Army general speak, they were speaking for him. Then all he had to do was get out of the way and keep Jared and the other incompetent meddlers out of the way as well.
The only other thing they could’ve done, and perhaps should have with hindsight, is that as soon as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines cleared the stage 1 and 2 safety evaluations, which they did by March or April 2020, they should have been immediately emergency authorized, production ramped up, and shots should have been put in arms immediately at that point under “we know they’re safe, preliminary and intermediate data indicates they’re effective, this is an emergency, we’re not waiting because we know they’re safe, so we’re starting the vaccinations now.” The worse that can happen is we have to revaccinate later if the effectiveness isn’t as good as the preliminary and intermediate data is showing.
If he’d done that, which we know he was incapable of, he’d have been reelected as the president who saved America, and maybe the world, from COVID.
Tom Levenson
@Jerszy: I believe you are digging in.
You will note that nowhere do I suggest Baldwin committed murder, for the very good reason that I don’t think he did.
This was a tragic accident.
It was not, however, an act of God. There are reasons–human actions taken or omitted–that ended in a killing.
It’s clear that the headline deeply offends you. I’ll adjust it. But do not put words in my mouth that are both inflammatory and invented.
schrodingers_cat
I see this phrase thrown around a lot especially on left leaning social media. What is end stage capitalism?
WaterGirl
@Jerszy:
I see a big distinction between what you just said and what Tom wrote:
It’s Alec Baldwin’s Fault. And End-Stage Capitalism’s
raven
@Tom Levenson: Well, he’s a LAWYER, what do you expect?
Adam L Silverman
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: I have rescued, as in I purchased it to restore it and then have it mounted for display, a Remington 1858 .44 cap and ball revolver used by a lieutenant colonel in the Civil War. The people that handled an estate sale of my grandparents/aunt’s condo were handling one for someone else and the gun was part of that latter estate sale. I have been informed that during restoration I can have it converted to fire conventional, modern ammunition and it would not be noticeably visible unless under close inspection. So I expect that these guns are all modern replicas that fire modern, conventional ammunition.
Adam L Silverman
@Jerszy: Cole is having brunch.
He is actually having brunch. We were just texting.
FridayNext
@Cervantes: I think every tv detective show has used this plot device. At least once. Midsommer Murders has used it four times (and counting).
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotSoFakePropWeapon
eclare
@Anoniminous: Yep. I was taught that from an early age. If you don’t intend to kill, don’t point.
Major Major Major Major
@schrodingers_cat: an academic/Marxist term for modernity, the implication being that surely it can’t go on like this. Roughly
mrmoshpotato
@Mike in NC: Thanks for sharing that for those of us who won’t touch those “tell all” books.
(Sincere thanks, even though it sounds sarcastic.)
Tom Levenson
@Adam L Silverman: Good for the blogfather.
raven
@eclare: Ok that’s about the fiftieth time someone has said that. They were making a MOVIE, they point guns at each other in MOVIES. That is the point of having an armorer on the set to ensure that the guns that are being pointed at people are not loaded.
Sloane Ranger
@Cervantes:
From what I gather from a film armourer interviewed by the BBC this morning, it’s not unusual to use a real bullet for a close up of someone loading a gun for “realism”, but as soon as the Director shouts cut, the armourer is responsible for re-possessing the gun and making it safe. Apparently, in the UK, at least, there’s quite a long process of checking, double checking and triple checking, but he said that when he’s worked in America on location, particularly in the West, it’s sometimes difficult to keep track as there are more real guns around, some of which are personal weapons of cast members, crew and extras
MomSense
@Barbara:
My Dad and I have been going through our ancestor’s diaries and record books from the late 1700s and first half of the 1800s. He had a lot of writs served by the sheriff on militia members for not taking proper care of their weapons. A lot. I sent one page of fines and offenses to Adam but we’ve found a lot more since then.we need to prosecute the fuck out of people who don’t behave responsibly with their guns.
Jazzman
@schrodingers_cat: As the Soviets used to say: When it comes time to hang the capitalist West, an American businessman will sell us the rope.
Another Scott
@Barbara: SLHuang’s thread indicates that that’s not the way it works – the guns are under control the whole time, with lots of protocols about every step of their use.
At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Pointed to above, this is a very long and informative thread on how things are supposed to work. (Be sure to click the “more replies” links.)
She indicates that the First Assistant Director (1AD) is the ‘boss’ (maybe not that word) of the Armorer and (along with “production”) is the authority responsible for shutting down unsafe sets.
:-(
Cheers,
Scott.
Major Major Major Major
@Jazzman: how did that work out for them
Tom Levenson
@Major Major Major Major: More specifically, that it is one in which Reagan/Thatcher era view of a free market unfettered by any but the minimum regulation is the last and best form of capitalism. No more namby-pamby mixed social democratic compromises.
raven
@Major Major Major Major: It’s too soon to tell!
Tom Levenson
@Major Major Major Major: Too soon to tell.
(Not entirely a jest. The latest Facebook whistleblowing has me feeling a little grim about market-democracy synergy.)
Tom Levenson
@raven: Great minds!
Middlelee
@Mart: Yes, yes, and yes.
I am never voluntarily around guns, do not know how to use any gun (weapon), AND I know not to point any weapon whether it be loaded, unloaded, or a toy, at any living creature, ever, unless I intend to kill it. I learned that as a youngish child when I pointed my toy gun at someone in the vicinity.
Major Major Major Major
@Tom Levenson: I’m horribly offended by your polite disagreement!!1
I do get where you’re coming from, absolutely. For what it’s worth I’m also skeptical of arguments that assign white supremacy etc. the root blame for lots of things. Structural pressures obviously affect incentive structures and behavior, and played a role here, but I’d prefer this be addressed as a question of the production process, at least it’s reformable (and of course set accidents happen in all economies). I think your indictment of Baldwin, as a person who should be acting responsibly because he’s so senior (though I do doubt he had executive control) is better grounded.
schrodingers_cat
@Major Major Major Major: So wishful thinking for the most part. When was capitalism cuddly? If anything infant stage capitalism, i.e. the Industrial Revolution was far worse for the have-nots.
FWIW I think Marx was good at showing us the problems with capitalism but his solutions were nothing but a lot of hand waving and wishful thinking. And as we were to find out later disastrous IRL applications.
Jerszy
@Tom Levenson: You ‘presented’ qualifications in both your post, and your first response to me. The disingenuousness of hand-waving it away is… troubling.
But set that aside. While I appreciate your back-pedaling, it’s not quite enough.
Again, as you admit, not a single actual *proximate* cause can be laid at the feet of Baldwin. Only an inchoate “feeling” that you intuit was the fault of Baldwin. That’s not nearly enough to justify a murder accusation screamed in a headline, sorry.
“But we routinely assign blame for events that occur because someone allowed the conditions to emerge in which those events become more likely, or even possible. Think coal-mine owners who ignore worker safety rules and the like.”
What I had said is that it is WAY too early to make such a (weirdly-conceived) metaphoric comparison, particularly when the event is such a surprising development in an area that’s been safe for decades. This is an ultra-rare occurrence BECAUSE conditions are quite routinely safe – which is why the anamoly yet to be found *in the procedures* will identify who or what is *at fault* – not some nebulous ‘gut feeling’ assessment you are both diagnosing and using as a cudgel in the same post. Again, all in order to state that someone is responsible for murder.
“That’s the sense in which Baldwin (and the leaders of the production beyond him) are responsible, ISTM.”
Ohhhh – well, that certainly justifies a murder rap. Thanks for the clarity.
“Is it unreasonable to see Baldwin as both the name-star and one of those with the title, producer, as the most powerful person on the set? If not, then that power carries with it responsibility.”
Unequivocally, yes. At this stage it is *eminently unreasonable* to do so, in particular with respect to the libelous accusation you posted.
There are many, many *actual* producers on-set, which crew members can identify, are fazed by, and do listen to. Crew members are generally NOT fazed by actors, even leads. And I’ve worked on 3 pictures that Baldwin was in, 2 with him getting these “serious producer credits”. He was just an actor. The crew knew it.
Jazzman
Worth remembering what Stonekettle always says: There are no accidents with guns, only negligence.
Baud
I’m just glad that for once I’m not the one being blamed.
Major Major Major Major
@Tom Levenson: if anything is going to end western capitalism any time soon, IMO, it’s Chinese capitalism. Or one of the many system shocks waiting in the wings of course.
Ruckus
Another point.
The last time I was around guns other than the military was when I was 18 and came within about an inch of being shot in the head with a .357 magnum hollow point. It was, and would have been an accident if I’d been hit. That it would have been an accident wouldn’t have mattered one bit if I’d been hit, what little exists of my brain would have been scattered. The guy firing the weapon was not shooting at me or anyone else, I walked into the line of fire unknowingly and the only thing that saved me was that at the exact moment he fired I stepped done off a porch one step. That’s all that saved my life, one step, that and the fact that I wasn’t an inch taller. There is a reason that the things that Adam talked about that are supposed to be done on a set are supposed to be done. Bullets kill. Guns fire bullets. Blanks can and do have issues as others have discussed. Real bullets are worse. In this you can believe me, I’ve been there. Everything else is just talk.
dimmsdale
@raven: According to the IATSE firearms manual, guns are NEVER pointed directly at a human being, but instead a minimum of 15 degrees offset from them (the larger the caliber of gun, the greater the offset distance). As mentioned above, there’s always a way to cheat the shot so that the gun LOOKS like it’s pointed directly at the actor. As SL Huang points out, in rare instances where a gun IS pointed directly at an actor, procedure should be to slip a sheet of Lexan between the gun and the actor (which wouldn’t stop a solid projectile, of course, but should catch gases and particles from the blanks).
Tom Levenson
@Major Major Major Major: What?! A measured reply? On Balloon Juice!!!!
I’m not arguing white supremacy here. Extractive capitalism is color blind, alas.
I agree that this post isn’t anything like a complete treatment of the argument, but my basic take is that the breaking of labor power that was an essential part of the Reagan/Thatcher program is one of the pillars of profit-maximization capitalism, economic behavior that has so greatly shifted the share of wealth that goes to capital instead of labor over the last few decades.
In that context, one little LLC running an unsafe workplace to keep costs down is just one more example, a symptom, of the end-stage of such an approach. Or at least, that’s sure what it looks like to me.
Basically: when the pressure on managers is to extract the last dollar out of a production process, then no one should be surprised if that process extracts more sweat, tears, and sometimes blood from those who power the engine.
WaterGirl
@Baud: I couldn’t believe people this morning jumping on you for your early comment in that thread. I knew exactly what you were saying. Have these people not met you before?
Tom Levenson
@Jerszy: OK. We’re done, in the sense that I’m not going to bother trying to reply again to someone clearly dug in to both their position and their rhetoric.
I will only say that you have repeatedly said I asserted that Baldwin murdered Hopkins.
I did not, as you well know. It suits you to say so, even after correction. It’s easy to win arguments when you invent your opponents’ words, but such are false victories.
Enjoy yours.
lollipopguild
@Adam L Silverman: I agree with you 100% Adam, of course trump could not have done ANY of these things. Trump had to do what he did because moth/flame.
Betty Cracker
@Jerszy:
That’s not what the headlines says.
@Adam L Silverman:
I’ve heard brunch is Cole’s favorite time to hear from tattle-tales. Between the egg and fruit courses is ideal.
JaneE
Does anyone remember the old Perry Mason episode where the firearms expert testified that even a blank round would fire wadding out the barrel? The plot sort of assumed that most people did know that even a blank had something to hold the powder in the bullet, and it would be shot out of the gun when fired. The murderer had to do some work to get around that.
Major Major Major Major
@Tom Levenson: fwiw I mentioned white supremacy to give an example of other blame-the-system arguments I rarely find convincing.
eddie blake
@schrodingers_cat: during the cold war, for PR purposes, where western societies tried to make capitalism look like a more appealing system than soviet or sino-communism.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
Maybe they thought I was the new
DoctorBondBaud.Omnes Omnibus
@Jerszy: The only person using the word murder in this thread is you.
Also, an anecdote: a friend of mine from OCS was commanding an infantry battalion in Iraq in 2004/5. One of his soldiers raped and killed a woman. It was discovered and reported through the chain of command. The soldier was prosecuted and convicted. My friend, although he had nothing to do with the actual crime, had his career effectively ended because he was ultimately responsible for what people under his command did and did not do. Don’t you think that the producers of a film have some responsibility for setting and keeping standards on a film set? And I would say that it is pretty res ipsa that standards were not adhered to, otherwise the incident would not have happened.
TL;DR: Prenez un grip.
Tom Levenson
@Major Major Major Major: Ah. Tracking now.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: Well not all LAWYERS!
Tom Levenson
Breaking for lunch. And then probably a bike ride. And then a Zoom with my siblings. And then dinner with my beloved.
See you all in a while. Play nice.
Omnes Omnibus
@raven:
Watch your ass, Private.
Geminid
@schrodingers_cat: It’s what capitalism looks like when you gaze through the Overton Window.
Another Scott
Speaking of lawyers, people who have to deal with this (2 page .pdf) have my sympathy.
(via Popehat)
Cheers,
Scott.
Thinkaboutit
Ah, reversion to the “just asking questions mode”. Not a good look.
And, isn’t it customary among honest folks to show revisions in posts via strikeouts – you know so everybody can see your ridiculous first headline?
Another Scott
They are still with us…
(sigh)
(via CharlesPPierce)
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
@Thinkaboutit:
Tom added a word. Tom didn’t remove any words, which is where you would use a strikeout. Tom added a word for clarification.
zhena gogolia
@Major Major Major Major: Haha, good definition.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: Doctor Private. . Ret!
Amir Khalid
Just a thought: if Alec Baldwin was a producer on this movie only by courtesy title, he might not have actual authority to stop an unsafe production, especially if there was an actual producer on set and in charge of things.
Omnes Omnibus
@raven: My apologies.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: The Illini just had TWO touchdowns called back on the same possession and now have tied # Penn State with a field goal.
Cameron
Taking advantage of open thread: I just read about Turkey planning to expel ambassadors from a bunch of countries, including USA. Erdogan’s got a skin as thin as Trump’s.
prostratedragon
@FridayNext: One of those Midsomer Murders shows used a Perry Mason plot for the fake fake gun in the circus act. It is indeed an old standard.
Steeplejack
@JaneE:
That was is in the first season, I think (1957-58). Not sure I agree that “the plot sort of assumed that most people did know that even a blank had something to hold the powder in the bullet.” One of the interesting things about the early seasons, in addition to the slow pace (by modern TV drama standards), is how much explanation there is of things—legal and forensic procedures, etc.—that we now take for granted after 60 years of watching legal shows. The whole “blank/wadding” thing was explained in detail when Perry cross-examined the ballistics expert (as was the eventual murder solution later).
WaterGirl
@raven: Does “called back” mean they got two touchdowns, with points added to the scoreboard, and then they undid the touchdowns and the corresponding points?
Thinkaboutit
Was Tom Levenson’s ridiculous post about Alec Baldwin the sole cause of the Chilean mudslide that killed hundreds of kittens?
No, there is plenty of blame to go around.
raven
@WaterGirl: ye
eta The Illini are playing their asses off!
PJ
@Tom Levenson: Even in your revised headline and post, you are still asserting that Baldwin was responsible for the death of Halyna Hutchins. You say this because he was the most famous actor on the set and also a “name” producer. As many others have pointed out, being any level of actor usually doesn’t and certainly doesn’t necessarily give anyone control over the production end of things, and being a “producer” can mean that someone has much or total control over the production, or has no control whatsoever. So far, there has been no evidence whatsoever presented that Alec Baldwin was in a position of responsibility over the props and/or made decisions that were a proximate cause of this accident, yet you are certain he is responsible because he has a big name. That wouldn’t fly in a court or in a newspaper, and even in a blog post, it’s irresponsible to make the accusation without any evidence.
oldgold
Barbara
@Anoniminous: You can’t make this point enough. The husband of a friend of mine shot himself in the head with a gun he thought wasn’t loaded, as a “joke.” My sister nearly hit a kid and hit a TV instead under the same circumstances. My God.
Steeplejack
@schrodingers_cat:
People seem to be giving you somewhat flip answers. “End-stage capitalism” is sort of a social-media/pundit construction, I think. A possibly more “proper” term is “late capitalism” or “late-stage capitalism,” and, as quite often, Wikipedia is a good starting point:
JoyceH
Open thread diversion – there’s a long article in the Post about how the Willard Hotel was the ‘command center’ for the efforts to overturn the election, and that just strikes me as weird. For four years, Trump International was the HQ of All Things Trump. Anyone connected to the administration or hoping to be connected to the administration would meet at or stay at Trump International, they made it a point of pride to frequent the Big Guy’s flagship establishment. And Trump himself never went ANYWHERE that he didn’t own! He golfed at his own courses, he ate at his own restaurants, he slept at his own resorts – but there’s Trump, attending a meeting at the Willard, which was swarming with his lawyers and ‘fraud investigators’ and political operatives and instigators and associated grifters… WHY? Why the Willard and why not Trump International?
zhena gogolia
@Steeplejack: In academia it’s almost always called end-stage capitalism. As MMMM says, it’s wishful thinking.
oldgold
@JoyceH: Why?
He did not want to sh*t in his own nest.
Barbara
@JoyceH: It’s where Roger Stone and his proud boy bodyguards were staying, though he insisted he wasn’t in DC on the day, when pictures very clearly show him walking out of the Willard (having worked down the street for a long time there is no mistaking where he was).
Barbara
@oldgold: Willard is as close as you can get to the White House (well, W Hotel might be a little closer). Five blocks closer than Trump.
WaterGirl
@JoyceH: Maybe they thought it couldn’t be tied to Trump as easily if it wasn’t at one of his hotels?
Mdub
At the end of the day. When you have a firearm in your hands. You must assume it’s loaded. And you never point it at anyone. Period.
Hell mom taught me that when I was a pre-teen with a bb gun.
oldgold
@Barbara:
So what!?!
The key word in my comment was ”own.” Geographic proximity is irrelevant.
Geminid
@JoyceH: There were meetings at the trump hotel the night before January 6 that seem to have involved insurrection planning. But I can see why the Willard Hotel would have been the main venue for regular graft. trump is a career criminal who learned long ago to compartmentalize legal and illegal activities.
Steeplejack (phone)
@zhena gogolia:
Okay, noted.
Constance Reader
Sorry, but I have to chime in, the commenters are right and Levenson is wrong trying to lay any responsibility at Baldwin’s feet. Getting a producer’s credit can mean something – like putting together the financing for a film or acquiring the rights for the story – but it can also mean little to nothing. You might have just done the director or development execs a good turn that got the film that much closer to a green light (an idea, a business concession, or just writing a check). An actor could agree to a smaller salary in return for the producer’s credit, which would be crucial to a small production such as “Rust”.
VOR
@Adam L Silverman: TFG couldn’t do that. Hell, he couldn’t even let Pence, the nominal head of the COVID response group, give the press briefings. There were cameras so he had to be in front of them. I’m convinced much of his ire against Fauci was because he viewed Fauci as stealing press which, of course, rightfully belonged to TFG. Or taking some credit when TFG was the brilliant mastermind behind everything. <snark>
germy
@Constance Reader:
https://productionlist.com/production-contact/el-dorado-pictures/
numfar
It seems to me that the actor is the last safety check.
germy
wikipedia
Adam L Silverman
@MomSense: Interestingly, the first Federal mandate, signed into effect by some guy named Washington, required that all men of eligible age to serve in the militia had to obtain a suitable long arm, as well as suitable supply of powder, wadding, and shot, and maintain them in proper condition for use should they need to be called up for militia service.
Adam L Silverman
@JoyceH: Because the news media had set up almost permanent surveillance in the Trump Hotel’s lobby. So if you wanted to be a little more low profile, the Willard, which was across the street from the White House, was a natural choice. Give this thread by Robert Costa a read:
https://mobile.twitter.com/costareports/status/1451953928791379969
Adam L Silverman
@VOR: I am well aware, which is why I said he couldn’t do that twice in my comment. And while it is over 500,000 dead Americans on his watch unfortunate, it is also fortunate for the rest of us that he couldn’t do it. It provided the opportunity for time with the Biden administration. Whether that time will be effectively used or simply serve as a brief respite still remains to be seen.
debbie
@MomSense:
Exactly.
janesays
There are 12 people with producer credits on the film’s IMDb page – Baldwin is listed first as “producer”, but others are listed as “co-producer” or “executive producer”. FWIW.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/reference
debbie
@schrodingers_cat:
Disagree with the above explanations. Capitalism in its death throes. Like end-stage cancer.
Darkrose
@Steeplejack: @Steeplejack: I prefer the term “endgame capitalism”. We’re in the series of quests before we face the final boss, Climate Change. Unfortunately, a minority of the party refuses to admit the boss even exists, so they’re not upgrading their gear and we’re probably going to wipe.
debbie
@VOR:
Don’t forget he and Jared made a decision not to do anything because it was felt only blue states were affected by COVID. So, not only amoral, but totally stupid idiots.
dimmsdale
@JoyceH: To escape the surveillance CCTV systems his properties undoubtedly have? (pure speculation on my part, but look who we’re dealing with)
Major Major Major Major
@numfar: no workplace should have to rely on Alec Baldwin for safety.
Geminid
@debbie: They were stupid to the end. I read that trump and his henchmen really thought they were going to blow Biden out of the water with that stupid laptop gambit. They wasted valuable mid-October messenging bandwith on a bust.
I despised trump for his laziness and self-deception. But looking back at the election, I’m now glad for every bit of that churl’s laziness and self-deception.
Ella in New Mexico
@Adam L Silverman: I’m curious if the gun had a lock for just that kind of practice and it wasn’t set correctly.
Ruckus
@Cameron:
Birds of a feather?
Actually that wasn’t nice to birds…..
Ella in New Mexico
@JoyceH: Guessing the geniuses planning the coup decided the Trump Hotel was too damn obvious, as if anyplace they went together was somehow not completely obvious as well
Darkrose
@Constance Reader: I do not understand this argument. At the most basic level, Baldwin is absolutely responsible because he fired the gun. Obviously it wasn’t intentional, but his actions resulted in someone’s death, just as if he’d accidentally hit someone with his car.
In terms of his responsibility in the larger sense, germy pointed out that his production company is integral to getting this film made. Given the documented problems on the set, including telling the crew that they wouldn’t pay to put them up in Santa Fe that led to the union crew walking out, I think that he does have some responsibility there. Alec Baldwin could front the cash to put the crew of this “low-budget” movie up in a motel after they’ve worked a 12-hour day instead of making them commute to Albuquerque. But it’s “low-budget” because the producers expect to make profits when it’s released, so they cut corners. Baldwin isn’t solely responsible for that, but he certainly never spoke up or supported the crew before they walked off set.
Ruckus
@debbie:
I don’t think so. I’m not saying it’s not though.
I think that it has gone much farther afield than how it should work. The concept that there can be private owners of business and that they and not the state have the most profit does not get us to where capitalism is today, because it was never supposed to be unchecked or those who profit most be way under taxed, which is what we have now in this country and many other parts of the world. The results of the capitalistic society that we live in has been perverted by the wealthy and the politicians they have paid. Like Joe Manchin, who, with his family, make large profits off of things that should be illegal, like his daughter raising the price of epipens so much or him profiting off of coal, to a large detriment of the people he supposedly works for.
Steeplejack
@WaterGirl:
It’s not cumulative (if that’s what you meant), and no points are added to the scoreboard. The Illini scored—or seemed to score—but some flagged infraction occurred during the play that negated the touchdown and caused the ball to be “called back” to the line of scrimmage, typically for the down to be done over (after penalties assessed).
Steeplejack
@Barbara:
Also probably cheaper than Trump’s exorbitant rates, for those “impoverished” “protesters” on a tight budget.
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack: Ah, okay. The ball “called back” just means that it wasn’t a touchdown as it first appeared to be. Not like in volleyball where they give Team A the point and then they take it away after they review the tape.
Got it! Very helpful.
So now I get Raven’s point. They almost had a touchdown, they almost had another one, and they kept at it.
WaterGirl
@Steeplejack: I think they thought they were being so clever by doing it somewhere besides the Trump hotel.
Too clever by half. But these evil morons were nearly successful, and that’s scary as hell.
E.
I haven’t read the whole thread but I don’t see how a production company cutting every imaginable corner with the result that a worker dies is “end-stage capitalism.” That’s just plain old every day fresh out of the box capitalism.
FNWA
All this back and forth over what kind producer Alec Baldwin was on this film misses the point. As far as I can tell, he is the only “name” among the actors and had he wanted to, he could have slowed the production down. He chose not to. He chose not to even after the union crew walked off the job and he stood by as non-union workers took their place. On a film with guns, this is just irresponsible if you have the swat that Alec has.
While I have never worked on a film, I’ve worked in theater for over 30 year and have had occasion to be around guns on stage. First of all there is one person who is dedicated to handing off a gun to an actor and it’s not an assistant director, it’s someone in the prop department. Second, the prop person does not tell an actor that a gun is cold, the prop person shows the actor. In the case of a revolver, you would (I’m not a gun person so forgive any wrong terminology here) rotate the cylinder out of the frame of the gun and allow the actor to look down each chamber and see that it was empty. Then you would allow the actor to look down the barrel to verify that it was empty. If the line of sight is such that the frame of the gun does not allow an unobstructed view down the barrel, you have a dowel of a diameter that is smaller than the barrel’s diameter that can be inserted down the barrel until it comes in contact with the frame of the gun showing that the barrel is clear. Only after this demonstration has been accomplished does the prop person hand the gun over to the actor. Additionally, the prop person never leaves the side of the actor, (or tracks the actor in the wings in the case of a stage production) until the actor hands the gun back. They do nothing else during this time. This is simply because you never want someone to have to make a decision about when it’s “safe” to leave the actor with the gun. It never is. You do nothing else until the gun is back in the gun safe.
In this case a non-union (which means most likely inexperienced) armorer fucked up and a person is dead and the person on set who had the power to slow things down chose not to.
Feathers
@WaterGirl: Nope. I did 3 posts, this one, a reply to someone pointing out the previous firearms incidents, and a link to the LA Times updates page. Thanks for looking out, though.
debbie
@Ruckus:
And its that perversion that will be the end of capitalism. I don’t think capitalism can be revitalized any more than the environment can be saved.
But it’s a gray Saturday here…
debbie
@WaterGirl:
The Williard is so beautiful. I can’t stand that they smirched it like they did.
Major Major Major Major
@Darkrose:
…if he was supposed to drive his car for the scene, and the car person told him that the vehicle was slightly elevated so revving the engine wouldn’t make it move.
J R in WV
After reading the original post and all the comments, I have some things to say. The moment the production union staff walked off the production, it should have closed up work until the concerns of the professional union staff were successfully addresses.
Mr. Baldwin was holding the gun that discharged, and thus was responsible for the shot that was fired. He fired it. If I am handed a weapon (which I have been many many times) the first thing I do I verify the load condition of the weapon.
For revolvers, you open the cylinder and look at it, front and rear. For automatics you pull the slide back to see what is in the chamber, and remove the magazine/clip to see what is in it. For single shot weapons (single shot shotguns, single shot pistols like Thompson Contenders), you open it up and look at the interior of the chamber.
I was on a first degree murder jury years ago when a ballistics witness testified that he had probably never been in a police ready room that did not have clear signs of “unintentional discharges” taking place in the police ready room, where LEOs prepare to go on the street with their very loaded weapons. I worked with a highly intelligent and very professional executive who was very nearly killed in the kitchen by their spouse accidentally firing a .357 revolver into their thigh while cleaning the gun. When the weather changed they suddenly walked with an obvious limp.
Baldwin should have looked at his “cold gun” closely when it was handed to him, all guns are loaded at all times. His was loaded, sadly. Anyone who handles weapons professionally needs to be trained about how to do that safely on a range where they learn to shoot well and how to handle guns professionally. I include people who want to be actors on police shows, military films, and westerns in that professional list.
And Jerszy is so close to going into the pie safe… just for continuing to be a dick repeatedly!
Major Major Major Major
@Adam L Silverman: my assumption from what little I saw was that the hammer got caught during the draw (those revolvers can have big hammers), but not fully cocked, and thus went off once clear of the catch. But we will see. Very light on details so far.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Constance Reader: Producer or Executive Producer could mean that he either wrote a check to get production off the ground or took a pay cut to get a percentage of the gross.
dopey-o
Rooms in the Willard are much less likely to be bugged. Every room in the Trump International is likely bugged. Cameras, too.
PJ
@J R in WV: Actors have no responsibility to check that a gun is or isn’t loaded, or that any prop is or isn’t in the condition that the prop master told them it was. If this were the case, nothing would ever get done on a set, because an actor would have to examine everything they touch to make sure it is working (or not working) in the way it is supposed to, instead of doing their job, which is acting. This is why there are prop masters and armorers on sets – they have direct responsibility over the props and guns that actors use.
J R in WV
@FNWA:
YES! All of this, Yes!!
Well done, well explained, clearly, thanks!
In my book, Baldwin and the production staffer in charge of the weapons that afternoon share responsibility for this accident. The two of them MUST examine the weapon to verify its condition at the time it is exchanged.
Darkrose
@Major Major Major Major:
Again, I’m not arguing intentionality, just the basic facts: Hutching is dead because Baldwin picked up a gun and fired it; she was hit and subsequently died. She is dead because of his actions; Baldwin is responsible for her death because he’s the one who shot her.
J R in WV
@PJ:
You are wrong. Dead wrong, and Halyna Hutchins is dead because of the very “system” you are telling us would protect her. You need to step away and think about the fact that you are telling us that Halyna Hutchins is not dead right now, because the system of an actor being handed a deadly weapon and believing that the deadly weapon is not dangerous works perfectly. It DOES NOT WORK, and she is still dead.
When someone hands another person a deadly weapon the person receiving that weapon becomes the responsible person at the moment they take that weapon from the person handing it over.
This is elementary gun safety taught to everyone on a gun range.
THE GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED!!!
I don’t know how to make this more clear or simple. This time the gun was loaded and a talented wonderful person was killed because THE GUN WAS LOADED — THE GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED.
We aren’t talking about a camera’s film magazine, which cannot kill someone if improperly handled. At worst a film magazine cam spoil a shot. At worst a gun can kill people. I can’t believe someone would tell us that someone doesn’t need to verify that the gun is actually safe the very day after a fatal accident…
You are obviously wrong because Halyna Hutchins IS DEAD — that’s my proof that you are wrong!
WaterGirl
@dopey-o: You make an excellent point!
FNWA
@J R in WV: On one production I worked on the armorer was giving a demo of the gun and how dangerous it could be even without a round in it. We had a good portion of the cast in the demo as they were going to be on stage when the gun was fired and a lot of them were young and not really paying attention. The armorer and I were fortunate that the female lead was a well known Hollywood actress who took what was being said seriously and looked at the rest of the company and said, “Pay attention! This is important!” The company paid attention and the night we had a hang fire, they all got out of the way and waited for the hang fire box to be brought onto stage. You can use your influence. Alec did not
J R in WV
@FNWA:
Thanks for that bit of personal history. My point, the dangerous weapon is always loaded, stands, because it is so terrible when it IS loaded and people don’t believe it is loaded.
Geminid
Well, AP now reports that the gun was picked up off a cart by the Assistant Director who then took it inside a small building and handed it to Baldwin, saying “cold gun!”, and that the fatal gun was one of three on the cart..
dimmsdale
@Geminid: Haven’t seen that report yet, but someone should have been assigned the responsibility to prep the gun before the AD picked it up. That “someone” SHOULD have been a qualified armorer, or someone in Props with appropriate licensing and training in firearms. If it was a local non-union hire with no experience, the production company ought to be sued into oblivion; also, I hope the IATSE bigwigs evaluating the proposed settlement are having second thoughts about how hard to push for safety REQUIREMENTS on set: having a qualified professional handling firearms on set shouldn’t be optional, it should be MANDATORY industry-wide.
As to Baldwin’s culpability, it is *sounding* like (and again, I’m merely speculating) a really toxic and slapdash on-set culture; and someone WANTED it that way, presumably for budgetary reasons. Who that was, will come out soon enough.
Geminid
@dimmsdale: If this AP report is accurate, the system for handling firearms on that set was several steps devolved from the procedures people here have described, and those outlined by the veteran armourer whose twitter account was linked by a commenter in the morning thread. Three guns on a cart? That is appalling, considering the tragic result.
Thinkaboutit
@J R in WV:
You realize that in movies they do things like fire prop guns at other people, right?
That they sometimes fire prop guns directly at the camera behind which sit the the DP/cinematographer/director?
That in such circumstances simplistic rules about handling guns don’t apply?
WaterGirl
@Geminid: And the outcome was just what you would expect with total disregard for the safety protocols. Tragic outcome, but not unexpected.
dimmsdale
@Geminid: Yep. And there’s this, which I just ran across:
https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/armorer-in-film-set-shooting-wanted-to-show-the-world-that-guns-are-awesome-but-said-recently-that-loading-blanks-is-like-the-scariest-thing/
So: fledgling armorer finding her way in the biz, perhaps. More than that I won’t speculate right now, there’s no point. Her dad, Thell Reed, has been an expert and in-demand armorer in Hollywood for decades, but that doesn’t mean SHE is. Just heartbreaking and enraging all around.
Katha Seidman
@Jerszy: Especially on a low-budget movie, if you title is producer and you’re on the set you have, to at least some extent, been actively involved in decisions that affect the budget, the schedule and the crew. You would know when a number of crew members walk off the set because they have safety and/or labor concerns. Those crew would have to be replaced, or their positions must be covered by other crew. You might not know exactly who’s left or who’s replacing them, but you will know about what happened, and why. In particular, you have the power to correct the way the set and the production are run.
In addition, when you’re the big-name lead actor with lots of experience with guns on set, you have a greater responsibility to everyone on set than say, the hair and makeup artist. The biggest red flag should have been that the AD handed the gun to Baldwin. Baldwin has been around sets with guns and armorers before. No armorer concerned primarily with safety, not with helping production, would allow anyone else but themselves or their assistant to hand a gun to an actor.
Very early in the pandemic IATSE and producers created COVID safety protocols that allowed most productions in the US to continue filming, albeit with some constraints. But, at least in the Boston area, almost no one get sick or had to quarantine. When Tom Cruise didn’t like the way the Mission Impossible crew carried out COVID safety protocols, he had a fit. If he’d walked filming would end, so everyone, producers especially, complied.
The same should have been true for Baldwin. These are real firearms. They should always be treated as loaded for everyone’s safety. Anyone in a position of authority who acquiesced in cutting any safety corners on a set should be held to account for their failure to protect everyone who works with and for them.
WaterGirl
@Katha Seidman: Welcome!
Your first comment has to be manually approved, but after that everyone can see your comments right away.
Geminid
@dimmsdale: It could be that the armorer’s father had more clout than his daughter on the movies they worked on. I rarely watch movies, but I hear about them and streaming series enough to realize that the output of this industry is increasing geometrically. Professional safety standards evidently are falling, and the on-set power of directors who also are production managers may have have increased relative to that of technical staff.
But it seems like somebody or somebodies decided that old safety procedures could be bypassed, perhaps because they were deemed inefficient. The ancient Greeks would call this “hubris.”
Gvg
@Omnes Omnibus: sorry, but to this layman, non lawyer, that is exactly what I think that headline implies. I think the headline is too much.
Different people interpret things differently. I m just letting you know it isn’t as clear cut as you re saying. I don’t like or agree with the headline this soon. I may agree later with a lot more facts but with as few as we have, I think it is wrong.
Mayken
@dimmsdale: psst. SL Huang is a woman!
laura
Regardless of the apportionment of blame and liability, an amazing artist is dead and Alex Baldwin will always be a person who killed another person. There’s sadness and loss and probably moral injury that can never be assuaged.
Tim in SF
Why is this post being written now? There’s not a word in it that doesn’t prematurely leap to a conclusion.
It’s been years since I’ve seen a post this bad on this blog. In fact, maybe never.
Ruckus
@debbie:
I would agree that it is likely to be a close call on saving or not, for both. There is a good chance that saving is possible but the press is owned by those that profit from it not being saved so it sounds like the flood is bigger and over the house roofs already. It isn’t, but the yard is under an inch of water and one political party has lost it’s damn mind, I’d say likely a couple of decades ago. But with TFG and the current repub party losing it’s collective shit so damn obviously they are likely losing strength as we type. So it’s not time for us to do the same, we have to fight like our lives depend on it, because they do.
Arg
It was incredibly reckless of Baldwin to point the gun at anyone and pull the trigger, even if he was “told” it was not loaded with live ammunition, without at least checking the cylinder himself. It was a revolver, for Christ’s sake! How hard would it have been to simply open it up and check? Also, accidental discharges of weapons had already occurred during the making of this film, even more reason to check the weapon himself before aiming it at anyone and nilly-nilly pulling the trigger. Glind faith should be no excuse.
Arg
@Thinkaboutit: YOU do realize that you should never point a gun at anyone, loaded or not, unless you intend to use it. And if you’re in a movie that requires you to point a gun at a camera or a person, YOU yourself should make damn sure that gun is not loaded with live ammunition.
lurkypants
@janesays: He’s listed first because they’re listed alphabetically.
Just FYI: Baldwin had recorded a video encouraging the crew to go on strike before the incident, so the idea that he was somehow in control of the working conditions on set is kind of ludicrous.
Jerszy
@Tom Levenson: Not only does that sum it up – that, and the fact that I was distressed that it was to early in the response-time to lay a murder rap on *anyone*.
That said….. YOU ARE CORRECT. I have now been retained by a good friend, the dolly grip on the film, who was one of the 8 people on set, and who still has her blood on his clothes. Now that I’ve heard his first-hand stories…. whoa. This was a CF of major proportions (obviously), with roughly 8 major things going wrong in the first week. And – yes – he was primarily responsible, along with the Georgia producers who all obeyed him. However – and in any event this was your main point – he was to blame NOT as an actor/the person who fired the weapon, but as the decision-maker and 800lb gorilla who fully took advantage of the naiveté of the green crew on the entire production. I agree that this makes him even MORe responsible. In retrospect it was almost inevitable. There are a lot of items yet to drop in the news too.
I honestly wish I could say more, but now I have a conflict until later on. I still believe it was way too soon – but the proof is in the pudding. Good surmising and apologies for the belligerence.
Unfortunately it’s still a goddamn tragedy
P.S.: Should you want to, I have no problem with you posting this mea culpa. I have problems, but too-much-pride ain’t one.
Thinkaboutit
@Arg:
I love the fact that you don’t even know you can’t swing open the cylinder on the type of revolver.
Second, they were supposed to filming with a cylinder full of dummy rounds. (The rounds have a bullet in them, but no powder and usually either have a hold drilled in the side of the cartridge to show that it cannot hold powder.) Why? Because when he swings it at the camera you need to be able to see bullets in the cylinder – otherwise it looks ridiculous.
So I guess you want Alec Baldwin or some other actor to fiddle around with unloading, checking, then reloading a revolver before every shoot? You seriously want a fucking actor to be a critical link in the safety chain?
Wow.
Thinkaboutit
@Arg:
lol
Hey, opinion-haver, have you considered the possibility that there are entire industries where your opinions don’t really matter because you know nothing about the industry?
Got some opinions on who to watch in Australian Rules Football? What about managing a marina? Fire away – share your opinions. That’s what they’re there for.