Alec Baldwin accidentally shoots woman dead on set

soma1975

chillidoggy said:

I fail to understand how, given the fact that people are likely to die from a gunshot wound, that the safety procedures haven’t been cast in stone for years. They should be universal, the same whatever, and rigidly adhered to.

They have been absolutely cast in stone. There has been a colossal fuckup. 

soma1975

viz said:

drofluf said:

LastMantra said:

Why the hell do they still use real guns, surely someone could make something that looks real? 
These days you could add the blast in after. 

Possibly because the fakes wouldn’t look real enough and they’d come into too much criticism? Given there are folk on here who can spot a fake Strat at a hundred paces I’d be surprised if there weren’t gun enthusiasts with similar skills. 

It wouldn’t really bother me if the actor held a pink piece of plastic with the word “gun” written large on it, so long as the acting were good enough. Also I’m right now struggling to think of a film without a gun in it. Why is that? Oh, Snow White, maybe. 

That has happened lots. Mostly in low budget films. Green or pink Airsoft gun recoloured and with muzzle flashes added in post. The effect is a bit pants. 

ICBM

viz said:

Also I’m right now struggling to think of a film without a gun in it. Why is that?

Because most films are made in America and guns are an ingrained part of American culture.

But you knew that .

Just a thought… is there a Shakespeare play without a sword or dagger used? I genuinely don’t know, but I don’t think so. Those weapons were an integral part of Tudor/Stuart era culture too.

FastEddie

From a soldier's perspective, I would never take a weapon from someone without them showing it's 'state'. I don't recall taking one from someone (not on an operation mind) in any state but unloaded. 

Typically you don't take a weapon 'made ready' (round in the chamber). 

Sounds like it could be slack drills. 
The person responsible is the person holding the weapon. They should know what state it is in and have checked the rounds. 

Very slack drills.

Oh, being rushed is not an excuse

ICBM

FastEddie said:

Sounds like it could be slack drills. 
The person responsible is the person holding the weapon. They should know what state it is in and have checked the rounds.

I’m wondering if it was another dummy round made from a live cartridge, and had missed being converted at all hence was still a fully live round. That would be very difficult to spot, especially after being loaded.

Just a theory, it’s the only thing I can think of that would really make sense other than a direct repeat of the Brandon Lee accident.

Fretwired

From a US news service posted on social media. It explains why Baldwin fired towards Hutchins:

The gun that killed the cinematographer on the set of Alec Baldwin's Rust had been used for target practice by crew members, sources linked to the western film's production said.

Multiple sources connected to the set of Rust told TMZ that the same Colt pistol that went off in Alec Baldwin's hands, killing Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza, had been used recreationally by crew members.

The sources claim that some crew members would go off for target practice using real bullets, and some believe a live round from those practice sessions found its way onto the set.

Another source told TMZ that live ammo and blanks were being stored in the same area on set, offering another possible explanation as to how a bullet was fired from Baldwin's Colt.

A search warrant released Friday said that Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, 24, had laid out three prop guns on a cart outside the filming location, and first assistant director Dave Halls grabbed the Colt from the cart and brought it inside to Baldwin, unaware that it was loaded with live rounds.

'Cold gun!' shouted Halls before handing the gun to Baldwin, using the phrase to signal to cast and crew that the gun was safe to fire for the scene, the warrant said.

Seconds later, filming a scene inside an Old West-style church, Baldwin apparently aimed towards the camera and pulled the trigger, accidentally killing Hutchins as she filmed him, and injuring Souza, who stood behind her.

Two production sources who previously worked with Gutierrez-Reed said this was not the first time she was involved in an incident on a movie set.

The two sources told The Daily Beast that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed had allegedly given an 11-year-old actress a gun without checking it properly while on the set of the Nicholas Cage film, The Old Way.

'There were a couple times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe,' one of the sources said.

stickyfiddle

I did see a comment on Reddit suggesting the gun was something interesting, and may have been "borrowed" for target practice with genuine live rounds. Utterly unforgivable if true. 

FastEddie said:

From a soldier's perspective, I would never take a weapon from someone without them showing it's 'state'. I don't recall taking one from someone (not on an operation mind) in any state but unloaded. 

Typically you don't take a weapon 'made ready' (round in the chamber). 

Sounds like it could be slack drills. 
The person responsible is the person holding the weapon. They should know what state it is in and have checked the rounds. 

Very slack drills.

Oh, being rushed is not an excuse

I agree, though from what I've read it's not how movie sets work - you have an armorer whose sole job it is to look after the weapons, ensure safety of everyone, and make sure all rules are strictly adhered to re ammunition and the guns themselves. That is precisely because actors and directors etc won't have had the proper training and have other jobs to do so it's safer to have someone fully responsible for it. 

Kilgore

FastEddie said:

From a soldier's perspective, I would never take a weapon from someone without them showing it's 'state'. I don't recall taking one from someone (not on an operation mind) in any state but unloaded. 

Typically you don't take a weapon 'made ready' (round in the chamber). 

Sounds like it could be slack drills. 

The person responsible is the person holding the weapon. They should know what state it is in and have checked the rounds. 

Very slack drills.

Oh, being rushed is not an excuse

I'm sure that's the case with the military but you can't expect the same protocols with actors on a film set.

It can't be an actors responsibility to "know what state it is in". 

ICBM

Fretwired said:

The gun that killed the cinematographer on the set of Alec Baldwin's Rust had been used for target practice by crew members, sources linked to the western film's production said.

Multiple sources connected to the set of Rust told TMZ that the same Colt pistol that went off in Alec Baldwin's hands, killing Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza, had been used recreationally by crew members.

The sources claim that some crew members would go off for target practice using real bullets, and some believe a live round from those practice sessions found its way onto the set.

Another source told TMZ that live ammo and blanks were being stored in the same area on set, offering another possible explanation as to how a bullet was fired from Baldwin's Colt.

Wow. If either of those are true that's an astonishing lapse of safety culture and responsibility.

Fretwired said:

Two production sources who previously worked with Gutierrez-Reed said this was not the first time she was involved in an incident on a movie set.

The two sources told The Daily Beast that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed had allegedly given an 11-year-old actress a gun without checking it properly while on the set of the Nicholas Cage film, The Old Way.

'There were a couple times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe,' one of the sources said.

She's apparently the daughter of another long-established Hollywood armourer. I suspect she's so used to being around guns that familiarity has bred contempt. I also heard a brief clip of an interview with her from before this accident - she really didn't sound that bright.

tone1

I assume someone will be doing jail time for this? 

FastEddie

Kilgore said:

FastEddie said:

From a soldier's perspective, I would never take a weapon from someone without them showing it's 'state'. I don't recall taking one from someone (not on an operation mind) in any state but unloaded. 

Typically you don't take a weapon 'made ready' (round in the chamber). 

Sounds like it could be slack drills. 

The person responsible is the person holding the weapon. They should know what state it is in and have checked the rounds. 

Very slack drills.

Oh, being rushed is not an excuse

I'm sure that's the case with the military but you can't expect the same protocols with actors on a film set.

It can't be an actors responsibility to "know what state it is in". 

Soldier's were civi's before they trained.

I'm talking about simple training. It's the same as putting your seatbelt on. 
It takes an hour for an instructor to teach anyone 'how to check your weapon'. Anyone can learn it and tbh, if you're handling weapons then it's simple to do so.

It is probably a simple mistake. Not something which happens often but the way modern society works we have to chance everything. 
Call me a pragmatist but I'd say that the lack of deaths shows that their system works.

Mellish

@tone1 you'd hope so bud

Kilgore

FastEddie said:

Kilgore said:

FastEddie said:

From a soldier's perspective, I would never take a weapon from someone without them showing it's 'state'. I don't recall taking one from someone (not on an operation mind) in any state but unloaded. 

Typically you don't take a weapon 'made ready' (round in the chamber). 

Sounds like it could be slack drills. 

The person responsible is the person holding the weapon. They should know what state it is in and have checked the rounds. 

Very slack drills.

Oh, being rushed is not an excuse

I'm sure that's the case with the military but you can't expect the same protocols with actors on a film set.

It can't be an actors responsibility to "know what state it is in". 

Soldier's were civi's before they trained.

I'm talking about simple training. It's the same as putting your seatbelt on. 
It takes an hour for an instructor to teach anyone 'how to check your weapon'. Anyone can learn it and tbh, if you're handling weapons then it's simple to do so.

It is probably a simple mistake. Not something which happens often but the way modern society works we have to chance everything. 
Call me a pragmatist but I'd say that the lack of deaths shows that their system works.

I wonder how many actors would feel comfortable having a weapon pointed at them that was last checked by the actor holding it? 

Teetonetal

soma1975 said:

Teetonetal said:

soma1975 said:

LastMantra said:

Why the hell do they still use real guns, surely someone could make something that looks real? 
These days you could add the blast in after. 

Usually because it is impossible to get an actor to react naturally to a fake gun firing. That's going to change obviously. 

Surely the whole point of an actor is to do exactly that! 

I actually had no idea till this story broke that real guns, loaded with blanks or live were used. I'd always assumed they were genuine stage guns.

Sadly, I suspect the whole reason for using real guns is nothing more than an extension of the USAs love affair with guns. They just don't have the required respect for them as a nation.

No that is not the whole point of an actor. The point of an actor is to help tell a story and sell a film. Anything that aids them in doing that is considered. Clearly people have tried but there is a visceral and instinctive reaction to firing a gun that is incredibly hard to fake/time for the camera. Obviously many people have tried and many people (especially low budget movies) do it with it with fakes and add stuff in post with varying degrees of success.  You won't believe some of the things Tom Cruise does in his films that could just be done against a green screen instead. 

Your last sentence is just a weird bit of America-bashing for no reason. It's the same setup over here with firearm usage in productions, and for the most part same around the world. 

America leads the way in film / movie production, there is no need at all for a gun with live rounds to be present on a set. If they stop, the world would stop. The movie industry is built on American ideals and principles.

An actor's job is to sell the believable and the unbelievable. Some actor's like cruise do go to extraordinary lengths to achieve this, and he puts himself at risk to do so. Jackie Chan is another.

But real guns with live ammunition, no way is that required to sell a story.

crunchman

soma1975 said:

chillidoggy said:

I fail to understand how, given the fact that people are likely to die from a gunshot wound, that the safety procedures haven’t been cast in stone for years. They should be universal, the same whatever, and rigidly adhered to.

They have been absolutely cast in stone. There has been a colossal fuckup. 

This.

I work as a Track Engineer in railways.  People take shortcuts, or don't know the process properly, or there is poor communication, or a combination of those. 

Incidents do still happen though:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-112020-track-workers-struck-by-a-train-at-margam

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/runaway-rail-trolley-kills-four-2450195

In both of those cases, the rules were ignored.  Network Rails has made improvements to its processes after the Margam incident, but if the processes in place at the time had been followed, it wouldn't have happened.  If I remember correctly with the track trolley incident, they knew the brakes were faulty but carried on anyway.  They didn't want to lose a shift of work.

It will be the same in the film industry.  The armourer doesn't want to be the one holding up the whole film shoot and costing money while everybody else sits around waiting.  There will be pressure to take short cuts.

soma1975

Teetonetal said:

soma1975 said:

Teetonetal said:

soma1975 said:

LastMantra said:

Why the hell do they still use real guns, surely someone could make something that looks real? 
These days you could add the blast in after. 

Usually because it is impossible to get an actor to react naturally to a fake gun firing. That's going to change obviously. 

Surely the whole point of an actor is to do exactly that! 

I actually had no idea till this story broke that real guns, loaded with blanks or live were used. I'd always assumed they were genuine stage guns.

Sadly, I suspect the whole reason for using real guns is nothing more than an extension of the USAs love affair with guns. They just don't have the required respect for them as a nation.

No that is not the whole point of an actor. The point of an actor is to help tell a story and sell a film. Anything that aids them in doing that is considered. Clearly people have tried but there is a visceral and instinctive reaction to firing a gun that is incredibly hard to fake/time for the camera. Obviously many people have tried and many people (especially low budget movies) do it with it with fakes and add stuff in post with varying degrees of success.  You won't believe some of the things Tom Cruise does in his films that could just be done against a green screen instead. 

Your last sentence is just a weird bit of America-bashing for no reason. It's the same setup over here with firearm usage in productions, and for the most part same around the world. 

America leads the way in film / movie production, there is no need at all for a gun with live rounds to be present on a set. If they stop, the world would stop. The movie industry is built on American ideals and principles.

An actor's job is to sell the believable and the unbelievable. Some actor's like cruise do go to extraordinary lengths to achieve this, and he puts himself at risk to do so. Jackie Chan is another.

But real guns with live ammunition, no way is that required to sell a story.

Filmmaking is a global community and there are repercussions that will be felt in all countries. If the same thing had happened in the UK it would change how people looked at doing it elsewhere too. Stop trying to equate it with being American. The biggest issues that will be examined are the cost-cutting, the non-union crew and obviously, a complete breakdown in safety protocol. Questions about the armourer's experience and ability to enforce protocol will obviously be looked at in detail. 

I've been on set as a DP with firearms and actors and have tried to offer an insight based on experience of how actors work. Feel free to continue believe whatever you like. Agree completely that live ammunition has zero place being anywhere near the set. That said there are clear steps in established and well-working protocol which were missed. 

As an aside I find everyone spreading gossip and various unsubstantiated sources incredibly distasteful but each to their own I guess and maybe this is just a bit closer to home for me. The truth will come out and we will all know what happened, just like in the case of Sarah Jones on the filming of 'Midnight Rider'. Until then everything else is pretty salacious when a child has been left motherless, and a husband become a widow due to an horrendous tragedy.

soma1975

FastEddie said:

Kilgore said:

FastEddie said:

From a soldier's perspective, I would never take a weapon from someone without them showing it's 'state'. I don't recall taking one from someone (not on an operation mind) in any state but unloaded. 

Typically you don't take a weapon 'made ready' (round in the chamber). 

Sounds like it could be slack drills. 

The person responsible is the person holding the weapon. They should know what state it is in and have checked the rounds. 

Very slack drills.

Oh, being rushed is not an excuse

I'm sure that's the case with the military but you can't expect the same protocols with actors on a film set.

It can't be an actors responsibility to "know what state it is in". 

Soldier's were civi's before they trained.

I'm talking about simple training. It's the same as putting your seatbelt on. 
It takes an hour for an instructor to teach anyone 'how to check your weapon'. Anyone can learn it and tbh, if you're handling weapons then it's simple to do so.

It is probably a simple mistake. Not something which happens often but the way modern society works we have to chance everything. 
Call me a pragmatist but I'd say that the lack of deaths shows that their system works.

Absolutely, but the armourer always does this, not the actor with 10s of millions of dollars hanging on their ability to deliver their performance, remember their lines and make themselves cry on cue while tightening their abs as much as possible in a very pressurised and time-sensitive environment. 

There's usually a very stringent series of checks each and every time before a firearm is placed in an actor's hands.

drofluf

Kilgore said:

<snip>

It can't be an actors responsibility to "know what state it is in". 

I disagree; it should be the responsibility of the person holding the gun to know the state that it’s in. As @FastEddie said it only takes an hour to learn. In the same way that actors learn to fall if they want to do their own stunts they should be qualified in gun handling if they want to play a part that requires them to handle a gun. 

soma1975

Yes they all learn gun handling if they are to use a firearm. But my post above this is not the reality of how production works and not how it is possible for it to work. 

For the actor to stop and check, when they are not the qualified person to check, when a qualified armourer is on set to do that, would end up adding hundreds of thousands if not more to production budgets because of time wasted and would result in more incidents because they already have so many plates spinning and getting their head into the space to perform as a character that the idea of going 'oh by the way also check this gun' is laughable. 

At the same time you are hearing of cost cutting exercises from long hours/poor accommodation, food etc not to mention the use of less expensive non-union crews so nobody is going to agree to that happening - either on the actors' or Producers' or Insurers' sides.  

It's like forcing C Ronaldo to complete a Rubik's Cube 20secs before he heads out to take a CL Final winning penalty. 

Kilgore

drofluf said:

Kilgore said:

<snip>

It can't be an actors responsibility to "know what state it is in". 

I disagree; it should be the responsibility of the person holding the gun to know the state that it’s in. As @FastEddie said it only takes an hour to learn. In the same way that actors learn to fall if they want to do their own stunts they should be qualified in gun handling if they want to play a part that requires them to handle a gun. 

 If an actor is in a scene which requires them to wear some kind of safety equipment, harness for example. Is it their ultimate responsibility to check the equipment?

If an actor is in scene requiring they drive a vehicle are they responsible for checking the vehicle is safe?

The answer to both is no. An actors job is to pretend they're doing stuff that they're not actually doing.

It is the responsibility of other professionals on set to facilitate this in a safe manner.