It should be standard practice for the operator of a firearm to check whether it's loaded with blanks or live rounds. Pushing that responsibility off to an 'armorer' invites situations like this.
It's mentioned near the bottom of the article, but blanks seem to be considered "live rounds". Do we actually know if it was a real bullet or just a blank? I can't think of any reasons you would use real bullets on set.
Blanks typically contain wadding to hold the powder in place; this wadding is ejected from the gun and can, at short range, kill people. This has famously happened on several film sets before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_(cartridge)#Safety
yes, but that is not the case here. Even if the gun was right next to the target when it went off, a blank would not penetrate the body, go through it, and enter another person like it did here. 2 people were stuck with this single "blank." Only something with the mass of a bullet can do that (unless there was a serious manufacturing defect, which is highly unlikely). I believe that is also where the term "point blank range" came from. A blank is generally not lethal unless it is fired at extremely close range, such as holding it to your head, like in the examples in that wikipedia article if you research the individual incidents.
Any cleaning component left inside a firearm such as a cleaning rod, or metal bore brush, or debris from a previous round, could be ejected as a projectile from a blank fire. Additionally, gunpowder is really an explosive, so parts of the weapon can break and be ejected. I think this is more likely to happen with an older weapon, or a weapon firing high power rounds [1]
Suspect that Hollywood doesn't use blank firing adaptors like the US military which leads to a much more dangerous situation. Believe they do this for realism.
In the US military we'd take a number of steps to avoid these kind of mishaps.
safe weapon clearing procedures & intentional firing of weapon into sandbagged areas for hazardous conditions
Lots of Training about weapon safety
Team Leaders inspect fire teams
Squad Leaders inspect Squads
Platoon sergeants & LTs inspect platoons
Range Safety controls the whole show and may conduct their own inspections
Inspections include both weapons, magazines, and ammo pouches.
Our exercises never mix blanks with MILES gear, and actual live-fire exercises.
We don't fire weapons towards people at close range unless during warfare.
Depending on the mode of shooting blanks, there is still a significant amount of pressure generated due to the gunpowder in the round. Therefore, anything in the barrel, including a weak blank-firing adaptor (which Hollywood appears not to use) could be ejected at a high velocity. This could eject through the blank firing adaptor also, breaking it off and turning it likewise into a projectile.
Military rifles fitted with blank adaptors are known unsafe at close distances.
Given the amount of protocol breaks here, "it should be standard practice" is a bit pointless to talk about. "Standard practice" has multiple parts to ensure this never happens even if one step fails, so clearly it was massively ignored here. (And that's something an experienced actor like Baldwin arguably should've noticed as a problem)
(And probably the actual protocol of "armorer handles gun and shows what's being done" is safer if you ever involve blanks than having an untrained actor fiddle with a gun)
In this case, an assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin. I would expect that no one should hand a gun to an actor but the armorer and that armorer should open the gun and show the actor whether it is empty or loaded every time they are handed a gun, not laid on a table for anyone to pick up (see article below). Every gun should also be immediately retrieved and locked up following filming by that armorer. And in the case of blocking (setting up camera shots) no operational gun should ever be used, which is what happened in this case.
Since the projectile injured multiple people at some distance it may not have been a blank but a live round. The Old West style revolvers are somewhat difficult to check for loaded rounds as each chamber needs to be examined individually. It's possible to miscount or skip one.
Movie sets never use actual live bullets. But they do use dummy bullets sometimes (to show loading or unloading). And if a piece of one of those is still in the barrel when a blank goes off it becomes a real bullet. That's what happened to Brandon Lee and may have happened here.
Seems like a pretty simple fix would be to say that no prop gun that touches a dummy bullet ever touches a blank. Maybe even rig them ahead of time somehow so that it's impossible to load one in the other.
Is it a common thing to have live rounds on a set? I'm trying to understand how a mistake like this is even possible.
One of the rules I remember is that we'd always pull the trigger upon receiving an uncharged gun, to avoid it going off uncontrolled later if there was a mixup. Pretty sad to think they couldn't do even that.
For some reason Western directors like to show bullet impacts e.g. shooting bottles, hats or just wood planks. This could be easier to do with real bullets.
It's also possible they brought in guns from an unrelated activity (e.g. cowboy action shooting) and failed to check them properly.
"Productions using operational firearms can opt for those intentionally designed to fire blank cartridges — shell casings loaded with gunpowder — or decommissioned firearms tweaked to shoot them. Live ammunition is not allowed on any set."
Please understand that blanks are live rounds and can be deadly if handled without care. Saying it was a live round does not mean it was a bullet. From the article:
> A source close to the union said Local 44 does not know what projectile was in the gun and clarified that “live” is an industry term that refers to a gun loaded with some material such as a blank ready for filming.
Blanks can be deadly if you put them up to your head like Jon-Erik Hexum. But a wadding cannot go through one person at some distance and then injure another. Something else was inside that gun that turned into a projectile.
Sometimes they use dummy bullets to show loading, etc. Those dummy bullets can apparently come apart and get lodged in the barrel, and then a blank is loaded behind them.
That's not how it works in movies though. Actors aren't expected to know how to inspect their own firearms. They're given a gun and told whether it's cold or hot.
This is a good reminder to actors then that they should learn to safely operate guns if they will be using them. It's not too hard to learn and very important.
That's like saying kids should learn how to safely operate guns since they use toy guns and might confuse them for the real deal.
The problem would be if you hand a kid a gun, saying it's a toy gun and they aim and fire it towards their friends. This is basically what happened in this scenario with Alec Baldwin.
So actors are children that cannot be expected to take responsibility for their actions...
I don't necessarily disagree. I too long for the day when entertainers were considered nothing more than trained monkeys. This guy still needs to go to jail though. He could pretend he's Trump while frowning in his prison cell if it makes him feel better. I'm sure SNL could spare a new cinematographer.
> The problem would be if you hand a kid a gun, saying it's
> a toy gun and they aim and fire it towards their friends.
Why do toy guns exist at all? What do children learn other than to point weapons at each other and carelessly pull a trigger without consequence? I would understand a toy hunting rifle, but all that I've ever seen are toy assault rifles and pistols. My three children have never had a toy gun.
For context, I've served in infantry and have multiple firearms in the house.
Because kids like to play with stuff? Most people in the world (outside the US) will never hold a gun in their hand in the lifetime, so learning vs not learning to pointing weapons doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of it all.
Also, not sure what children playing with guns have to do with this accident on the Rust set.
I'm sure some actors do. But a lot of prop guns have been specially modified to only take blanks, or take no bullets at all. It's going to be very hard for an actor to discern the difference between blanks, dummy bullets, and prop-gun modifications on a wide range of guns. That's why you have a licensed armorer on set.
There is a problem with this, and that is the amount of time required to truly develop expertise in a weapons system may be significant.
I estimate I have fired > 5,000 rounds of 5.56 and > 100,000 rounds of 7.62, and, I have worked as an armorer, and while my weapon handling may have been safe, it would be insufficient to create a safe environment, because that is inherently an organizational function
You personally need the training with each of the firearms you are handling, as well as the oversight of safety personnel, and a safety culture with strong processes. You also need the safe equipment since a mechanical failure can easily cause one of these accidents too.
People, processes, technology, and leadership.
On a low-budget film pressed for $, & time, neglecting safety, I think it is much easier to understand how this tragedy occurred.
Maybe actors should take the same course hunters have to take. I'm not a hunter, but I took one for fun, and the first thing you learn is always to assume a gun is "hot" until you've checked it yourself.
I'm pretty sure someone wouldn't have an unschooled actor operate a motor vehicle. The same thinking should apply when they operate a firearm.
Anyone who picks up a gun is 100% responsible for what happens with it. There are 0 acceptable excuses for pointing a gun directly at another human, blanks or not, loaded or not, and pulling the trigger. He broke a cardinal rule of firearms. And in movies, you aim over the shoulder or otherwise slightly away from the "target." Never directly at. The camera angle makes it look like they're directly aiming at them, but they aren't. There are several rules if not laws broken here. Negligence at a minimum. And Alec is quite vocal about firearm violence. Unless he doesn't know what he's talking about, it would be hard to say he didn't know of the possibility. Ignorance is no excuse. If you want to see an actor who actually knows firearm safety and how to handle firearms, go watch Keanu Reeves train for John Wick.
According to the article he accidentally fired the gun while practicing pulling it out of the holster. Maybe more will come out but that seems to be the story at the moment. Yes still people shouldn't have been in the line of fire when he was practicing, just clarifying.
I see a lot of confusion in the comments here about guns on set. The LA Times has several other good articles that clear most of this up.
In a nutshell:
1. Live ammo is never used on set.
2. Sometimes dummy rounds are used to show loading/unloading. If these are not cleared out properly, they can become projectiles if blanks are loaded after them (like Brandon Lee and maybe here).
3. When a gun is to be fired in a scene, no one is supposed to be in the line of fire. In this case Baldwin was practicing pulling the gun out of the holster and apparently accidentally fired the gun, as others including Hutchins lined up the shot.
4. Baldwin was told he had a "cold gun", which was clearly wrong. This had happened earlier on the set, and nothing was done to correct the problem.
5. Yes blanks can kill you at close range. But it is basically impossible that a wadding is all that came out of the gun in this case.
> 4. Baldwin was told he had a "cold gun", which was clearly wrong. This had happened earlier on the set, and nothing was done to correct the problem.
That makes it sound like Baldwin was a victim of others' negligence. But he's not just an actor but the producer, so the buck for repeated safety violations stops with him.
Also, anyone handling a gun, even a prop gun, should be aware of and follow the rules of gun safety. The fact Baldwin didn't check the weapon himself is an enormous act of negligence on his part. You don't just take someone's word for whether or not a weapon is dangerous, ever. Nobody ignorant of weapons safety should even be in the same damn room as a gun. I don't blame Baldwin personally, but whomever is responsible for fostering an on-set culture and policy that would ever allow this to happen deserves to be in prison.
How is an actor supposed to know the difference between a blank and a dummy round on a specially modified prop gun? That's what the licensed armorer is for. Asking actors to have any responsibility to suss that stuff out seems like a recipe for disaster.
Blanks and dummy rounds do not look similar. If your job involves handling functional guns maybe you should take five minutes to learn the difference. If you're putting guns in peoples' hands you should make sure they know how to take three seconds to check if they're about to murder someone. It's about layers of safety.
I believe it was his point that even someone who can't tell a blank from a dummy from a live round can tell whether or not there's something in the gun.
If that were indeed the case, then Baldwin could have determined it was actually loaded easily with just a few seconds of inspection after having been handed the firearm.
Most actors receive training with firearms so they can handle and fire them convincingly on set. Baldwin has made a several films where he handled firearms, so I'm certain he's had safety training at points in his career. Taking someone's word for it being a "cold gun" is irresponsible.
> How is an actor supposed to know the difference between a blank and a dummy round on a specially modified prop gun?
Dummy rounds are generally visually similar to live rounds (not blanks, which apparently are referred to as “live rounds” in film), so a readily distinguishable from blanks.
He was “a” producer. If he had actually decision making responsibility, I agree with you, but it sounds like he may have just been an actor who was given a producing credit as partial payment for taking a lower salary, and not someone with any actual involvement in the production decisions. A producer in name only, which I understand is common in the business.
"Alec Baldwin is producing and starring in the independent Western action movie “Rust” with Joel Souza directing from his own script, based on a story by Souza and Baldwin."
...
"Highland Film Group will launch international sales at the upcoming Marché du Film Online, which launches on June 22. CAA Media Finance is handling the domestic rights, and BondIt Media Capital is financing.
"Baldwin is producing through his El Dorado Pictures banner alongside Anjul Nigam and executive producer Matthew Helderman. Baldwin and Nigam produced Souza’s “Crown Vic.” Anna Granucci is also producing with Elizabeth L. Barbatelli as an executive producer."
It says quite clearly that Alec Baldwin and Joel Souza are following up with a second production together, filming a script written by Baldwin -- ironically about an accidental shooting -- financed by some other group and likely executed by others.
So the speculation that "it sounds like he may have just been an actor who was given a producing credit as partial payment for taking a lower salary" that I commented on is clearly not correct.
As to the "decisions", I'm sure he didn't sit down and sweat the operational details ("decisions"), where to get film, etc. But for decisions such as "who'll be the DP?", "we'll shoot in Santa Fe because it allows for non-union crew", or minimally chiming in on the production crisis and crew accommodations issue, are you seriously claiming Alec Baldwin was just hanging out chit chatting with the crew and was not involved at all? He's not some airhead pretty face, he's a business man as well and he is making a film with partners.
You know, if by all appearances you as an industry heavyweight are a driving decision maker in a project to the extent Baldwin has been in this, spend significant time on set and there's plain evidence of corner cutting leading to several serious safety lapses before you shoot someone dead, you don't get to say "it was all just appearances, I share no blame".
Rust has (currently) 5 credited executive producers, 6 producers, and a co-producer.
Even if Baldwin’s producer credit reflects an actual responsible role and not a producer credit in lieu of additional pay, no one not involved in the production can say from the credits alone that Baldwin had any responsibility over the actions that led to the incident, beyond that which he had as an actor (which is not none, to be clear.)
1) I find it unlikely that anything propelled by a blank charge had enough oomph to hit the gal and exit her body and strike the director.
2) no one outranks safety. Anyone picking up a firearm, or being handed one, needs to verify its state, and treat it as if it was loaded.
3) Baldwin pointed it at people and pulled the trigger. It wasn’t a “misfire” or “accidental discharge”. It was a “negligent discharge”.
There were multiple violations of basic firearms safety regs here. Not a single violation is acceptable. Keep it up long enough and someone is going to be killed.
But that's not what happened according to the article. It says Baldwin was practicing pulling the gun out of the holster. Do you have any sources that say he deliberately fired?
A blank has a normal amount of gun powder. Brandon Lee was killed by the tip of a dummy bullet that was propelled by a blank charge. Unless someone snuck live ammo on set, then it seems like something like that must have happened here.
No, a blank doesn’t have the normal amount of gun powder. Source: I’ve used them, also reload my own ammo and know this shit very well.
As to your first point: firearms just don’t go off. He pulled the trigger, while pointing it in an unsafe direction.
I won’t point a weapon at anything I’m not willing to kill EVEN IF I have rendered it inert (removing a firing pin or similar). Basic fucking rule of handling a firearm. If it’s a gun, you treat it as if it’s loaded all the time, every time. Cuz shit happens, and 99.9999% of the time it’s human error.
I know nothing about guns, but I’ve been reading other sources that seem to contradict your absolute statements:
1. This was a period western and could have been using older single action revolvers that have fewer modern safety mechanisms to avoid accidental discharge. From quora: “ With many single action (cowboy) revolvers, the hammer does rest on a cartridge beneath it. They will fire if they land on the hammer. For those, you leave one chamber empty and keep that one underneath the hammer. That makes them completely safe, too.”
2. Are blanks uniform in amount of gunpowder? Not sure what happens today but I read that in the Crow incident they were overloading blanks with more than the typical amount of gunpowder to overemphasize the muzzle flashes.
3. While your points about gun safety are reasonable, this appears to not be how it is done in movie sets. The armorer is specifically in charge of safety checking all guns repeatedly. Not the actor.
Also, to be pedantic: Brandon Lee wasn’t killed by a “bullet tip”. He was killed by a bullet. A bullet is the projectile that comes out of the weapon. A cartridge is the whole thing: case, primer, propellant, bullet.
The policy against live ammo on set seems wise but a little difficult to enforce (unless you put everything behind TSA-style checkpoints). The sheriff's department has said yesterday that they can't rule out live ammo and expect to have more forensic info in the coming week:
Good to know. Holy cow if they were illegally using live ammo and had previous problems with cold guns not being cold.
However I think this is all just based on the original press release the union put out which said "live single round". According to the LA Times - in movies a blank is considered a live round.
None of this matters. It is the responsibility of the operator to ensure the weapon is safe to fire. If the operator doesn’t know how to do this, then they shouldn’t be using the firearm—-go take a safety class. It’s the same thing as flying an aircraft—-the PIC is responsible for ensuring the plane is safe to fly, not the aircraft owner.
There is a worker union and working conditions dimension in this story that is not being discussed. I specifically posted the LA Times’s coverage since as of this morning, the East coast papers — NYT and WP — entirely ignored that aspect and focused on set safety issues. (Variety, which is a trade paper) also devoted considerable focus to the labor issues aspect of this tragedy.
From the op:
But after filming began, the crews were told they instead would be required to make the 50-mile drive from Albuquerque each day, rather than stay overnight in nearby Santa Fe. That rankled crew members who worried that they might have an accident after spending 12 to 13 hours on the set.
Hutchins had been advocating for safer conditions for her team and was tearful when the camera crew left, said one crew member who was on the set.
“She said, ‘I feel like I’m losing my best friends,’” recalled one of the workers.
As the camera crew — members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — spent about an hour assembling their gear at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, several nonunion crew members showed up to replace them, two of the knowledgeable people said.
One of the producers ordered the union members to leave the set and threatened to call security to remove them if they didn’t leave voluntarily.
“Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting,” the knowledgeable person said.
The shooting occurred about six hours after the union camera crew left.
"The AD “did not know live rounds were in the prop gun” and the weapon was readied by an armorer beforehand, the affidavit stated according to the Times."
This is possible but the monumental stupidity (and evil) of such a criminal act (with intent to harm) is off the charts. I am guessing you are implying a disgruntled union crew did that before they all left 6 hours before the shooting, so timing is also another issue with that theory.
In any event, they have the shell (with possible fingerprints), and prints on the guy as well. 3 people are supposed to have touched the gun (armorer, ad, and actor), and only 1 person's prints should be on the shell, the armorer. No doubt forensics will be important in this investigation.
Interesting articles saying that previous gun deaths in films are just one in 1915 and The Crow in the 80's. Which while no comfort or help to those in this incident does suggest it's not actually a prevalent problem and the current standards may be working.
Ah thanks, two more, though still four deaths over a hundred years not too common. One bored person playing Russian roulette with blanks and one complete failure on a straight to video production in mexico.
It's more prevalent than that. Just on this movie set alone, there were prior problems with accidental firings of prop guns that were supposed to be unloaded. On the morning of the deadly shooting, union members walked off the job due to safety concerns. This is going to be one huge lawsuit.
According to the articles on the shooting, "live" is film-ese for loaded with anything that goes bang. It doesn't mean that there's a bullet in the cartridge.
Many people here are discussing gun safety, which is orthogonal to the actual causes of the shooting.
There are hundreds of specialized pieces of equipment on a film set and a gun is just one of them. It's not anyone's job but the person responsible for that category of equipment to ensure safety. Here, that would be the armorer, who appears to be have gotten her job through family connections and is clearly a mortal danger to herself and others.
But the buck doesn't stop there. This wasn't even the first misfire on this particular set. A few days prior, when two rounds were negligently discharged, anyone responsible for weapons should have been immediately fired. This didn't happen, showing that the gun safety issues were not only the armorer's fault, but also a symptom of irresponsible and dangerous management at the higher levels of the production.
As a matter of fact, according to the article, the movie's managing team routinely cut corners on the filming environment, forcing crews to commute 100 miles round trip for 12 hour work days, delaying paychecks, and bringing in scabs to keep shooting (both cameras and guns, apparently) when a half dozen crewmembers walked off set to protest working conditions.
Underlying all of this, and at least partly to blame, is the hard truth that every dollar spent to make the set safer for the crew is a dollar that won't be going into the pockets of the people backing the film. Notably, one of the financiers for this movie is BondIt Media Capital, which specializes in lending to troubled or otherwise high-risk productions, and surely expects to be repaid commensurate with that risk.
So in the end, would gun safety have prevented this tragedy? Yes. But the gun was just the weakest link in a chain that was "Rust"ed through from the start.
91 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 191 ms ] threadSuspect that Hollywood doesn't use blank firing adaptors like the US military which leads to a much more dangerous situation. Believe they do this for realism.
In the US military we'd take a number of steps to avoid these kind of mishaps.
safe weapon clearing procedures & intentional firing of weapon into sandbagged areas for hazardous conditions
Lots of Training about weapon safety
Team Leaders inspect fire teams
Squad Leaders inspect Squads
Platoon sergeants & LTs inspect platoons
Range Safety controls the whole show and may conduct their own inspections
Inspections include both weapons, magazines, and ammo pouches.
Our exercises never mix blanks with MILES gear, and actual live-fire exercises.
We don't fire weapons towards people at close range unless during warfare.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1449kJKxlMQ
Military rifles fitted with blank adaptors are known unsafe at close distances.
(And probably the actual protocol of "armorer handles gun and shows what's being done" is safer if you ever involve blanks than having an untrained actor fiddle with a gun)
"Baldwin removed the gun from its holster once without incident, but the second time he did so, ammunition flew toward the trio around the monitor."
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/10/23/who-is-hannah-gutierre...
Seems like a pretty simple fix would be to say that no prop gun that touches a dummy bullet ever touches a blank. Maybe even rig them ahead of time somehow so that it's impossible to load one in the other.
One of the rules I remember is that we'd always pull the trigger upon receiving an uncharged gun, to avoid it going off uncontrolled later if there was a mixup. Pretty sad to think they couldn't do even that.
It's also possible they brought in guns from an unrelated activity (e.g. cowboy action shooting) and failed to check them properly.
"Productions using operational firearms can opt for those intentionally designed to fire blank cartridges — shell casings loaded with gunpowder — or decommissioned firearms tweaked to shoot them. Live ammunition is not allowed on any set."
> A source close to the union said Local 44 does not know what projectile was in the gun and clarified that “live” is an industry term that refers to a gun loaded with some material such as a blank ready for filming.
1. The person handing off said 'cold gun' which to me implies the weapon was not charged with anything. Please clarify if I misunderstood.
2. The victim was shot at a distance. This makes it probable there was an actual bullet in the weapon. Why assume anything different?
So I still wonder why there would be bullets around on the set.
Sometimes they use dummy bullets to show loading, etc. Those dummy bullets can apparently come apart and get lodged in the barrel, and then a blank is loaded behind them.
Bear with me, I'm european and never laid my hands on a firearm ;)
1. All firearms are always loaded.
2. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot.
4. Keep your muzzle pointed in a safe direction. Do not point the gun at something you do not want to destroy.
The problem would be if you hand a kid a gun, saying it's a toy gun and they aim and fire it towards their friends. This is basically what happened in this scenario with Alec Baldwin.
I don't necessarily disagree. I too long for the day when entertainers were considered nothing more than trained monkeys. This guy still needs to go to jail though. He could pretend he's Trump while frowning in his prison cell if it makes him feel better. I'm sure SNL could spare a new cinematographer.
For context, I've served in infantry and have multiple firearms in the house.
Also, not sure what children playing with guns have to do with this accident on the Rust set.
I estimate I have fired > 5,000 rounds of 5.56 and > 100,000 rounds of 7.62, and, I have worked as an armorer, and while my weapon handling may have been safe, it would be insufficient to create a safe environment, because that is inherently an organizational function
You personally need the training with each of the firearms you are handling, as well as the oversight of safety personnel, and a safety culture with strong processes. You also need the safe equipment since a mechanical failure can easily cause one of these accidents too.
People, processes, technology, and leadership.
On a low-budget film pressed for $, & time, neglecting safety, I think it is much easier to understand how this tragedy occurred.
I'm pretty sure someone wouldn't have an unschooled actor operate a motor vehicle. The same thinking should apply when they operate a firearm.
You are expected to know them on any gun range, and most staffed ranges will safety brief / quiz you on them before they let you shoot.
In this case, they say industry SOP would be for 2 people to verify that the weapon is unloaded (set armorer + 1 other).
They should be ffs. Even if it's only prop guns. Basic gun safety rules aren't that hard, and most guns are easy to take apart.
In a nutshell:
1. Live ammo is never used on set.
2. Sometimes dummy rounds are used to show loading/unloading. If these are not cleared out properly, they can become projectiles if blanks are loaded after them (like Brandon Lee and maybe here).
3. When a gun is to be fired in a scene, no one is supposed to be in the line of fire. In this case Baldwin was practicing pulling the gun out of the holster and apparently accidentally fired the gun, as others including Hutchins lined up the shot.
4. Baldwin was told he had a "cold gun", which was clearly wrong. This had happened earlier on the set, and nothing was done to correct the problem.
5. Yes blanks can kill you at close range. But it is basically impossible that a wadding is all that came out of the gun in this case.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021...
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-10-22/...
That makes it sound like Baldwin was a victim of others' negligence. But he's not just an actor but the producer, so the buck for repeated safety violations stops with him.
Most actors receive training with firearms so they can handle and fire them convincingly on set. Baldwin has made a several films where he handled firearms, so I'm certain he's had safety training at points in his career. Taking someone's word for it being a "cold gun" is irresponsible.
Dummy rounds are generally visually similar to live rounds (not blanks, which apparently are referred to as “live rounds” in film), so a readily distinguishable from blanks.
"Alec Baldwin is producing and starring in the independent Western action movie “Rust” with Joel Souza directing from his own script, based on a story by Souza and Baldwin."
...
"Highland Film Group will launch international sales at the upcoming Marché du Film Online, which launches on June 22. CAA Media Finance is handling the domestic rights, and BondIt Media Capital is financing. "Baldwin is producing through his El Dorado Pictures banner alongside Anjul Nigam and executive producer Matthew Helderman. Baldwin and Nigam produced Souza’s “Crown Vic.” Anna Granucci is also producing with Elizabeth L. Barbatelli as an executive producer."
source: https://variety.com/2020/film/markets-festivals/alec-baldwin...
So the speculation that "it sounds like he may have just been an actor who was given a producing credit as partial payment for taking a lower salary" that I commented on is clearly not correct.
As to the "decisions", I'm sure he didn't sit down and sweat the operational details ("decisions"), where to get film, etc. But for decisions such as "who'll be the DP?", "we'll shoot in Santa Fe because it allows for non-union crew", or minimally chiming in on the production crisis and crew accommodations issue, are you seriously claiming Alec Baldwin was just hanging out chit chatting with the crew and was not involved at all? He's not some airhead pretty face, he's a business man as well and he is making a film with partners.
Rust has (currently) 5 credited executive producers, 6 producers, and a co-producer.
Even if Baldwin’s producer credit reflects an actual responsible role and not a producer credit in lieu of additional pay, no one not involved in the production can say from the credits alone that Baldwin had any responsibility over the actions that led to the incident, beyond that which he had as an actor (which is not none, to be clear.)
1) I find it unlikely that anything propelled by a blank charge had enough oomph to hit the gal and exit her body and strike the director.
2) no one outranks safety. Anyone picking up a firearm, or being handed one, needs to verify its state, and treat it as if it was loaded.
3) Baldwin pointed it at people and pulled the trigger. It wasn’t a “misfire” or “accidental discharge”. It was a “negligent discharge”.
There were multiple violations of basic firearms safety regs here. Not a single violation is acceptable. Keep it up long enough and someone is going to be killed.
A blank has a normal amount of gun powder. Brandon Lee was killed by the tip of a dummy bullet that was propelled by a blank charge. Unless someone snuck live ammo on set, then it seems like something like that must have happened here.
As to your first point: firearms just don’t go off. He pulled the trigger, while pointing it in an unsafe direction.
I won’t point a weapon at anything I’m not willing to kill EVEN IF I have rendered it inert (removing a firing pin or similar). Basic fucking rule of handling a firearm. If it’s a gun, you treat it as if it’s loaded all the time, every time. Cuz shit happens, and 99.9999% of the time it’s human error.
1. This was a period western and could have been using older single action revolvers that have fewer modern safety mechanisms to avoid accidental discharge. From quora: “ With many single action (cowboy) revolvers, the hammer does rest on a cartridge beneath it. They will fire if they land on the hammer. For those, you leave one chamber empty and keep that one underneath the hammer. That makes them completely safe, too.”
2. Are blanks uniform in amount of gunpowder? Not sure what happens today but I read that in the Crow incident they were overloading blanks with more than the typical amount of gunpowder to overemphasize the muzzle flashes.
3. While your points about gun safety are reasonable, this appears to not be how it is done in movie sets. The armorer is specifically in charge of safety checking all guns repeatedly. Not the actor.
They really need to learn from the professionals.
https://deadline.com/2021/10/alec-baldwin-fatal-shooting-bul...
However I think this is all just based on the original press release the union put out which said "live single round". According to the LA Times - in movies a blank is considered a live round.
And it is coming out that the Assistant Director on this shoot has a lengthy history of blowing off firearm safety: https://consequence.net/2021/10/alec-baldwin-shooting-crew-w...
From the op:
But after filming began, the crews were told they instead would be required to make the 50-mile drive from Albuquerque each day, rather than stay overnight in nearby Santa Fe. That rankled crew members who worried that they might have an accident after spending 12 to 13 hours on the set.
Hutchins had been advocating for safer conditions for her team and was tearful when the camera crew left, said one crew member who was on the set.
“She said, ‘I feel like I’m losing my best friends,’” recalled one of the workers.
As the camera crew — members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — spent about an hour assembling their gear at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, several nonunion crew members showed up to replace them, two of the knowledgeable people said.
One of the producers ordered the union members to leave the set and threatened to call security to remove them if they didn’t leave voluntarily.
“Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting,” the knowledgeable person said.
The shooting occurred about six hours after the union camera crew left.
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-baldwin-rust-assista...
In any event, they have the shell (with possible fingerprints), and prints on the guy as well. 3 people are supposed to have touched the gun (armorer, ad, and actor), and only 1 person's prints should be on the shell, the armorer. No doubt forensics will be important in this investigation.
There are hundreds of specialized pieces of equipment on a film set and a gun is just one of them. It's not anyone's job but the person responsible for that category of equipment to ensure safety. Here, that would be the armorer, who appears to be have gotten her job through family connections and is clearly a mortal danger to herself and others.
But the buck doesn't stop there. This wasn't even the first misfire on this particular set. A few days prior, when two rounds were negligently discharged, anyone responsible for weapons should have been immediately fired. This didn't happen, showing that the gun safety issues were not only the armorer's fault, but also a symptom of irresponsible and dangerous management at the higher levels of the production.
As a matter of fact, according to the article, the movie's managing team routinely cut corners on the filming environment, forcing crews to commute 100 miles round trip for 12 hour work days, delaying paychecks, and bringing in scabs to keep shooting (both cameras and guns, apparently) when a half dozen crewmembers walked off set to protest working conditions.
Underlying all of this, and at least partly to blame, is the hard truth that every dollar spent to make the set safer for the crew is a dollar that won't be going into the pockets of the people backing the film. Notably, one of the financiers for this movie is BondIt Media Capital, which specializes in lending to troubled or otherwise high-risk productions, and surely expects to be repaid commensurate with that risk.
So in the end, would gun safety have prevented this tragedy? Yes. But the gun was just the weakest link in a chain that was "Rust"ed through from the start.