The more I hear about this "Rust" story, the sadder it makes me. I have to believe at this point in Alec Baldwin's career, this was a money thing, and he was "on set" for as little as possible. he's not doing these movies for anything more than a paycheck. I'm not excusing his actions, but I have little doubt this was because he was given proper training, and then defied those methods show to him. dude got handed what he thought was a prop, shown his mark, said his lines, and pulled the trigger.
There was one story I saw that some of the crew had been out plinking earlier that day, and that's why there were live rounds.
I'll stand corrected on this, but the last story I read was that the prop master handed him the gun, said, "Cold gun!" loudly and then the cast/crew rehearsed a scene where Baldwin was to break the fourth wall, point the gun at the camera and pull the trigger (which he did). I'm completely ignorant of movie protocol, but...isn't that all that an actor is required to do? I don't understand why this is being placed on Baldwin's shoulders and why big platforms are calling that he be charged with manslaughter or murder. We didn't shit all over whoever the actor was who shot and killed Brandon Lee. If I, an actor, who knows nothing whatsoever about guns, is also expected to know how to operate and inspect a gun prior to use and ensure it has no shrapnel or bullets...that seems really unwise. Also, why the fuck do movies use real guns? You're telling me we can't have fake or inoperable firearms on movie sets? I agree. The whole situation is sad. I just can't see blaming Baldwin for this. If he thought he had a prop knife and it turned out to be a real, sharpened one and he wound up slitting another actors throat...this is no different. IMO.
The police investigation says it was the assistant director who grabbed the gun and handed it to him.
Okay, so the AD handed it to him and said, "Cold gun," and then they rehearsed. If it comes to pass that every actor is legally liable for whatever they handle on set, including items they think are props and acting as instructed by the directors...hard pass. Go wait tables or something. You don't need that kind of risk.
Baldwin the actor was part of a horrible accident. Baldwin the producer, who was in charge of the whole thing, appears to have been criminally negligent in violating safety standards to cut costs. It sounds like they were using normal revolvers instead of dedicated props, and on top of that were firing them with live ammo between takes. I've read that they are supposed to have plexiglass shields in place for shots where an actor is pointing a gun towards the camera or crew. I assume that they should have had them in place for rehearsal, but they obviously didn't. Of course we could, but that would either look wrong or be more expensive.
I can't imagine being handed a gun and NOT checking to see if it's loaded or not, safety is on/off, etc. I also wonder if this means a lot of films being done in places like Georgia might be re-thought, because laws governing this kind of thing might be less....amenable. Ie, you might be guilty of manslaughter in some states, whereas in Cali, it's incidental homicide, or some shit. Like, if you're doing a film in some places, you'd use fake guns or CGI or whatever, because the insurance won't carry the risk.
So how much is this movie gonna make now? I assume before it was one of those straight-to-Netflix things. Now? Any chances it actually sees the light of day? Like it’s really morbid to think about, but what if they went and re-created that shot properly without killing someone? People would flock to theaters just to watch that one moment. With the way Hollywood is all about money, and struggling now, I can only imagine there will be some attempts to push this through
I can imagine being handed a gun on set ready to use for its intended purpose for the scene. Maybe it was supposed to have blanks. Him cycling the action before beginning the scene would have ejected the shell from the chamber requiring the gun to be set up again. I can imagine in his whole acting career, it’s not a concern he probably ever had before. I’m just assuming absolutely everything I just said. But I don’t view like this it was a dipshit displaying poor gun range safety.
Yeah… the legal implications will be interesting to watch play out. I have to think that this is 100% on the armorer. They should have been in 100% control of the firearm at all times. That is their job. An AD should not have been allowed near it, “Cold gun!” should have been refuted and counteracted immediately. I bet it’s because she was so young and didn’t feel comfortable exerting that kind of authority or control on set.
It's a wakeup call to producers, I would think. It's been all the rage for DECADES that once you get a big enough name, you get a producer credit so that you can share in the back-end profits. However, that title carries the weight of "board member" or "director". Be really aware of you become liable for when you get a fancy title and a cut of the pie. If Baldwin was a producer in name only, because it's part of his contract, then he'll still be hauled to court with everyone else.
I 100% agree that some sort of fear of being yelled at/ego damage played a role somewhere. If you ever watch those air disaster shows in Smithsonian channel, so many of the crashes were caused by a fearful copilot failing to speak up to the captain who is far more experienced, or verbally abusive, or what have you. Same thing with medical errors in the operating room. People too scared to open their mouths to the big bad surgeon.
The plot of the movie takes place in 1880, the weapon in question was a revolver. With few exceptions, it's pretty easy to visually check whether or not a revolver is loaded without ejecting or disturbing the round to be fired. That said, since the era of the film was 1880s it increases the likelihood the weapon was one of those exceptions. I won't speculate on what Hollywood procedures are right before filming a scene where a weapon is fired, but I do know that it would take everything in me not to instinctively cycle or break the action on any weapon handed to me to check it's condition, even if I watched the armorer load it and immediately hand it to me. Also, you can severely injure or kill someone with a blank due to the speed of the gases exiting the muzzle. Depending on the type of blank, they may also contain wadding that could act as a projectile. Minimum safe distance when firing blanks is 20 feet.
I definitely think the fear of getting yelled at trumps a lot of shit. Actors aren't often known for their patience, and neither are the people on those sets. Heard a lot of nightmare tales from friends working on set construction about the way ambitious people treat others.
From what I've read, the AD is a part of the firearms safety process on set and the armorer reports directly to the AD. Which, if true sets up the scenario that you described...the age and inexperience of the armorer contributed to her not immediately countermanding the AD. It's also come out that this particular AD is a known clown show and was fired off another set for lax firearm safety My suspicion is she was young, inexperienced and was was trying to be fun and friendly with the rest of the production crew, meaning she was lax on policy & procedure, letting people play with the weapons, let production crew/actors take weapons out to shoot live rounds in between filming, etc.
I think we've all see young, lesser experienced people take unsafe actions because some shithead yells at them or threatens their jobs. Some of the seniority brings the confidence and authority to just say "No" to unsafe actions.
I remember reading that the movie “Lord of War” used all real guns, because it was cheaper to buy that many real guns than to pay for prop guns. Plus they got to sell the guns afterward.
One interesting part about revolvers is that sometimes they put fake (but real looking) rounds in the cylinder so that they look loaded to the camera, especially for a dramatic close up... so it could be quite normal to have an actually safe, "unloaded" weapon that still looks like it has live rounds in the cylinder.
If you pick up a gun, point it at someone, pull the trigger and kill them, but thought it was unloaded, you’re going to get charged with involuntary manslaughter. I’m not sure why it would be different for Alec Baldwin because he was playing pretend for money.