The "decision" was the one to not confirm the call of "cold gun" from the AD with a simple backup check of the unholstered pistol for possible loaded cartridges. How much of a hurry could the production have been in that they could not afford the miniscule amount of time to make a life saving final check for loaded rounds?
Prop Gun Kills Cinematographer
- Thread starter jonpais
- Start date
- Status
The "decision" was the one to not confirm the call of "cold gun" from the AD with a simple backup check of the unholstered pistol for possible loaded cartridges. How much of a hurry could the production have been in that they could not afford the miniscule amount of time to make a life saving final check for loaded rounds?
When I was a kid, we had a toy gun that fired off a paper roll with matchstick type percussion loads. They made a tiny flash and a sharp noise but were only harmful if someone took the whole roll and set it on fire. Then it fired at once and the bang was quite loud.
In any case, the "improper" caliber round will still work, just not to the gun's stated specs.
High1ander
Well-known member
I can chime in on that resentment. The resentment doesn't get any better when the villains of the story are being given condolences and the "no-one could have seen this coming" BS, people could see it coming and they did what they could to prevent it they tried to stop being apart of the failure by leaving the production, yet the powers that be let it slide and kept going.
I've worked on smaller budget and projects than this and this sort of behavior would not have been tolerated. You simply don't take shortcuts with other people's safety.
I've worked on set with an armourer and only 3 million dollar budget TV-series in Sweden, but that was over 11 years ago so I don't remember the protocol used (except I felt safe, and it was the first time using blanks). But what I can say is that if someone screwed up once with that I would leave the production (my life is worth more than a TV-show, and so is my colleagues). I tell people that work for me not to do stupid stuff that higher ups says to them if they feel it is unsafe. It is just a job, and safety is paramount if you want to be at it for 30-40 years. If people want to cut corners, then don't film the shootout scene. As a producer it is also so extremely short-sighted, you think they gonna deliver this movie on time now? You think they gonna make money on it? Cost versus reward, losing a life and probably the entire movie, for what?
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
Dave Halls, the Assistant Director, was fired from his last movie after a prop gun there discharged and hurt a crew member. "He did not have any care whatsoever to those conditions in any of our experiences" --- Margaret Goll, prop maker.
"By all means, I'm still learning. I think loading blanks was, like, the scariest thing to me, because I was like, oh, I don't know anything about it." --- Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, armorer, age 24. This was her 2nd movie.
paulears
Veteran
The word ‘prop’ simply indicates something an actor uses, nothing else. Who looks after props depends on what they are. The general props person or department might not store, maintain and test certain props, like technical ones, or legal/safety ones, like chemicals, guns, electrical or hazardous substances. A prop gun is simply a gun used by an actor. It’s short, after all, for property, not as used in the media, ‘pretend’.
As this story emerges and morphs, it’s clear the wrong people were in charge, and many people seem to have been in way above their skill level. You do have to wonder why a talented, young and inexperienced cinematographer (not my words) was doing what she did?
As this story emerges and morphs, it’s clear the wrong people were in charge, and many people seem to have been in way above their skill level. You do have to wonder why a talented, young and inexperienced cinematographer (not my words) was doing what she did?
briandrys1
Active member
Are you referring to the armourer on the film, rather than the cinematographer?
jonpais
Well-known member
I haven't seen a single story suggesting the gun was a pretend weapon or anything of the sort. I'm also not seeing anything morph. What I am seeing is more information emerge. But I don't get my news from fb.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Please heed Mitch's post (#56). He and I have talked to people who were working on this film, yet we are the least likely to engage in public conjecture. There are so many bits of misinformation in this thread, I don't have energy to correct them all, and neither Mitch nor I are going to leak any information we have that isn't already out there because there is a criminal investigation going on which far supersedes the temptation to "gossip".
Indeed, thus my comments about taking the NTSB approach. But alas, tragic stories like this are the grist for newspapers and forums.
Nullius in verba.
Peter C.
Veteran
I'm curious what happened but I'm not interested in the blame game. Who ever was at fault will be punished. Without knowing the details it sounds like safety wasn't taken seriously enough and lead to a tragic result that no one benefited from. Hopefully some good will come out of it to improve safety or remind those in charge the consequences of not following the proper protocols. I think this fatality brings up the question of whether functioning guns have a place on movie sets. Maybe nothing needs to change and this was freak accident.
paulears
Veteran
My point was that the term 'prop' in the media reports seems to have been used to denote it was not a real functioning weapon. Many people believe props are imitations. For info, the source material was on the BBC feeds, not Facebook.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Peter C.
Veteran
I'm no expert but reading that sounds like who ever was in charge should bare the most responsibility to allow such a sloppy handling of a deadly weapon, live ammunition and that a similar incident had already happened on set. I can't think of anything to defend.
Last edited:
I don't think any laws were broken by Gutierrez-Reed or Halls. About the most you can be looking at there are employment terminations, or civil liability. Baldwin could face a federal firearms charge for negligent discharge of a firearm resulting in death. We'll just have to wait and see what charges are filed but the target shooting horseplay beforehand, misidentification of loaded guns, handing of a loaded gun to Baldwin; while they are possible contributing factors nevertheless didn't break any laws. The way people seem to be trying to look at this is through the lens of broken film set protocols, but with guns, federal law rules and I don't think an exception will be made because someone told Baldwin his gun was "cold." As the person in control of his firearm, he had his own responsibility to operate it safely. I think all the facts are probably in, and the New Mexico attorneys are deciding how to move forward.
If there were a projectile in it, then the prop master would bear the bulk of the responsibility. But the likely story was that it was just a cartridge with a propellant. Which is also dangerous and can be deadly up to several feet from the muzzle.
And I have no idea how those present on the set would be able to elaborate further. Obviously, if there was a live bullet, the victims in question would show the immediate signs of being penetrated by it. But the investigators would have to stage a ballistics test and examine the weapon itself to determine if the cartridge itself had excessive propellant for the particular event.
High1ander
Well-known member
True I think it is a bit eschewed to "filter" this thru a film accident with its laws and regulations, when it might not be under the "film jurisdiction", and it would be nice with some information from some of the ones working in the business in the US to tell exactly what the difference is when working in California, IATSE and "Hollywood standard", and what it is like when doing low budget outside of California and no Union-rules (because I guess there isn't union rules when the crew responsible or partly responsible weren't union).
What I'm trying to get at is how and when, does the whole thing become a "film issue" or falls into rules for filmmaking. I mean, do a youtuber making gun reviews have to have an armorer on his filming? I'm just wondering how it works in the US when something becomes "you legally must have an armorer and do this and that" and when it is just "whatever".
Also, here is a great link to Alister Chapmans take on safety on set, which really is what I've been trying to get to as well: Safety isn't just one persons job. -And yes, there are obstacles in the way that make it hard sometimes to advocate for safety (and this is true in all workplaces), but really, I take being fired every day over being mutilated, humiliated, killed or watching my colleagues get the same treatment. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Either you enable a behavior or you don't.
https://www.cined.com/safety-and-res...ister-chapman/
Last edited:
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Are you a lawyer? Do you know both New Mexico law as well as Federal statutes? Do you have all of the facts in evidence on this particular case?
This is what I'm talking about, right here. You think you know but perhaps you don't. Yes civil liability is different from criminal. Yes some information has been made public. But none of us can claim to know everything that occurred here. There could be criminal negligence. There could be manslaughter. There could be a lot of things.
- Status