Rust
- Thread starter Peter C.
- Start date
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/04/rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-fine
The fine, as explained in that article, is the maximum that can be levied against a commercial entity. Obviously, private law suits will use this ruling as the basis for their own compensation claims. And the legal costs would be pretty stiff too.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-rust-shooting-fired-pulling-trigger-fbi-report/story?id=88311336
Not the most grammatically correct sentence by ABC News. Nonetheless.
I find these reports frustrating as they leave me with questions, like what is "quarter- and half- cock positions" and what are they for? This video has a good explanation that clarifies what the FBI reported. The video is a bit over-the-top with the sensationalism. It's tolerable and worth watching for the explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lImxZbBaaSM
Peter C.
Well-known member
Alex hasn't done himself any favors the way he has handled it. When I saw those YT videos on the gun it was clear he had pulled the trigger whether or not he believes it. In my mind his guilt didn't depend on whether he pulled the trigger. People have argued he should of checked the gun despite when someone who's only job is to do that... legally he's not at fault. If there was anything I'd fault him for is not being aware or ignoring the numerous safety issues on set.
In the current cancel culture environment there are people to weaponize this event against him because they don't like him and his political views.
In the current cancel culture environment there are people to weaponize this event against him because they don't like him and his political views.
Peter C.
Well-known member
That is true in normal circumstances but not when filming a movie. Safety protocol is different because unlike real life situations a prop gun shouldn't be loaded with live ammo. In a movie prop guns need to be pointed at someone if the scene calls for it.
The rule how I understand on a movie set is not to point the gun directly at the camera. It should be slightly off access which he did. It's described that they were repositioning the camera and were behind a monitor and while he was demonstrating how he would pull out the revolver that's when he pulled the trigger. They probably should have had a shield or positioned themselves out of the line of fire.
You bet your life they aren't irrelevant. She's dead.
This was a prop gun in name only. Any movie producer who would use a real gun capable of firing real bullets as this one did, is simply putting profit ahead of safety of people.
That movie producer being Alec Baldwin himself.
Peter C.
Well-known member
Live ammunition is not allowed on movie sets. Who ever broke that rule in combination with the armorer not doing her job are the people who are at fault. While using a real gun is more dangerous there are reasons to do so but it's not based on profit. Getting angry and blaming people without understanding the industry practices is misguided at best. There is an argument to be made for not using functioning weapons as props but that is a separate argument that isn't related to accusation against Baldwin.
Industry practices failed Halyna Hutchins, that much anyone can understand. Mr. Baldwin hasn't been accused of anything.
FrameFarmMedia
New member
Industry practices weren't followed that's what caused the death.
People failed Halyna not practices.
People failed Halyna not practices.
Industry practices were directly responsible. That’s the conclusion from the New Mexico safety agency after fining Rust Producers the maximum allowed.
Practices that permit companies to shield liability and finger point at others. Companies deliberately used to avoid responsibility putting profit ahead of safety. That’s the legacy of so called “Industry Practices.”
”In April, New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau issued the highest level citation and maximum fine allowable by state law of $136,793 for numerous violations of safety protocols on the set of Rust. It found that the production company demonstrated a “plain indifference” to the welfare of cast and crew, pointing to the introduction of live ammunition and a failure to train crew on how to properly handle firearms.”
Bears repeating, “numerous violations, plain indifference” to the welfare of cast and crew, just like what’s happening right here in this topic, by those who who ascribe full and sole responsibility to the lowliest wage earner on the set, completely indifferent and indeed patently ignorant as to defend the use of real guns as necessary “props.” That mindset is exactly what failed Halyna Hutchins, resulting in the accidental, human failure that followed.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...cer-denies-liability-shooting-1235213459/amp/
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
This legal argument that the producers were not employers, that the crew were independent contractors--this goes against everything we have been hearing in the past decade on union productions as the government cracks down on the definition of same vs employees. We are told when and where to show up to work, and are given direct supervision on a daily basis by production. From what I see, the lawyers for the producers are attempting to set a legal precedent. I will be surprised if it sticks.
It's a direct chain of events. The producers were looking to maximize their individual profits and make the film as cheaply as possible. Numerous experienced armorers turned the show down because it was a bad deal, so a lesser experienced person took the job. Further corner-cutting and sweeping-under-the-rug by the producers resulted in an unsafe set. I'm familiar with the contents of the emails the outgoing AC Lane Luper had with them (he is a good friend and I had him on a shoot a week ago) and I've experienced plenty of this thinking before.
Many years ago a friend was hired to do Steadicam on a low budget movie. They told him he would be flying X camera. He told them it was too heavy, so they promised him Y (lighter but more expensive) camera. When he got to the set X camera was waiting for him. He dutifully attempted to fly it, and the springs broke on his Steadicam arm the first day. It cost several thousand in repairs. Turned out that another friend was producing on this film, and she reached out to me to ask me my opinion, she didn't think it was fair that production should have to pay since the incident occurred on the first day, surely that was an issue with his equipment and not their responsibility.I told her that first or last day was irrelevant, he was hired for his expertise and he had raised the possibility of damage in adevance--he literally predicted the outcome--yet a decision was made to ignore that advice for financial reasons. I said, a low budget film takes a thousand risks because the "money isn't there" and most of the time it works out, so that gives a false impression that it was the correct choice. That one time in a thousand it doesn't work out and producers are shocked...SHOCKED...that they have to pay out, against all the times they got away with it. With "Rust", a similar chain of events lead to the tragic loss of a human life.
It's a direct chain of events. The producers were looking to maximize their individual profits and make the film as cheaply as possible. Numerous experienced armorers turned the show down because it was a bad deal, so a lesser experienced person took the job. Further corner-cutting and sweeping-under-the-rug by the producers resulted in an unsafe set. I'm familiar with the contents of the emails the outgoing AC Lane Luper had with them (he is a good friend and I had him on a shoot a week ago) and I've experienced plenty of this thinking before.
Many years ago a friend was hired to do Steadicam on a low budget movie. They told him he would be flying X camera. He told them it was too heavy, so they promised him Y (lighter but more expensive) camera. When he got to the set X camera was waiting for him. He dutifully attempted to fly it, and the springs broke on his Steadicam arm the first day. It cost several thousand in repairs. Turned out that another friend was producing on this film, and she reached out to me to ask me my opinion, she didn't think it was fair that production should have to pay since the incident occurred on the first day, surely that was an issue with his equipment and not their responsibility.I told her that first or last day was irrelevant, he was hired for his expertise and he had raised the possibility of damage in adevance--he literally predicted the outcome--yet a decision was made to ignore that advice for financial reasons. I said, a low budget film takes a thousand risks because the "money isn't there" and most of the time it works out, so that gives a false impression that it was the correct choice. That one time in a thousand it doesn't work out and producers are shocked...SHOCKED...that they have to pay out, against all the times they got away with it. With "Rust", a similar chain of events lead to the tragic loss of a human life.