Prop Gun Kills Cinematographer

[Noel Evans]

Personally I think Mitch's previous post summed it up best as to what we do and don't know.

I see there's some posts here that have diverged from debate to personal. Removing a couple of those as they are more personal argument to each other than anything else. DM each other if you want to debate in that fashion. I'd suggest, before having a hair trigger on what someone else says, look for common ground and discuss your points in a reasoned manner.

 

[jonpais]

There's a distinction to be drawn between the words resignation and walking off, however subtle it might appear to the layman.

Walking off the job because of immediate safety concerns is not necessarily identical to resignation. The deliberate avoidance of the words 'walked off' raises alarm bells.

 

[Run&Gun]

Personally I think Mitch's previous post summed it up best as to what we do and don't know.

I see there's some posts here that have diverged from debate to personal. Removing a couple of those as they are more personal argument to each other than anything else. DM each other if you want to debate in that fashion. I'd suggest, before having a hair trigger on what someone else says, look for common ground and discuss your points in a reasoned manner.

No hair trigger. I've been observing for days and finally felt something needed to be said. But all-good, because much like what I was commenting about, it didn't add anything useful or constructive to the conversation here. You probably made the right call...

 

[paulears]

One of the 'rights' of union membership is to walk off jobs - it's been a method of doing things for a very long time. We all know that you can be told by your union to stop work, irrespective of your own views, because the union are your nominated representative. In some cases, they even pay you. People working without the protection of a union, can also walk, but will stop being paid and no doubt have trouble getting payment for work carried out already. Unions can be great, by stopping dangerous practices, but they can also over-react and attempt to control productions. Now, if one or more people leave, then the production company replace them. There are always hungry people willing to accept a worse deal. The unions in the US are still more powerful than ours in the UK. Ours have become kind of associations, and for many, liability insurance, either cheap or free is the only carrot. I have to actually organise a meeting with a union rep for a production starting shortly. The Production company allow them 30 minutes of production time to do a selling job on the non-members we will have. Every year it gets harder to make people go to the meeting and their membership rarely goes up. In the past - this union was a closed shop. To work, you had to be in the union and to get into the union, you needed to be working already - so new members were kind of recommended in by other members. That has all gone now. They'll take anyone willing to pay, offer very little and have no power at all. The ONLY one that still has a little oomph is the Musicians Union - we still do their hours, their rules and their pay.

The story here where the crew walked should be taken at face value, they walked. Why is most likely to be pay vs conditions, rather than safety. Sadly, given a choice between a higher rate OR a higher safety system, I suspect most would take the pay.

The one thing I learned years ago that has not changed is NEVER EVER give an actor any safety responsibility, or anything remotely dangerous. If you give one a sharp knife - let's say a Stanley knife type thing, you tell them first - do not touch that, it's very sharp. Your second question is always "Where did that blood come from?" Of course there are exceptions, but in the main - treat them like children. Never ever let an actor do a stage illusion. They'll stick that sword through that hole even when the person inside clearly cannot have time to get out of the way.

 

[jonpais]

The story here where the crew walked should be taken at face value, they walked. Why is most likely to be pay vs conditions, rather than safety. Sadly, given a choice between a higher rate OR a higher safety system, I suspect most would take the pay.

I suspect most would choose safety, which was one of the reasons cited for the crew walking off the set.

It was inarguably not a matter of pay vs. poor working conditions.

According to sources, it was a matter of long working hours, safety procedures, housing accommodations, long commutes and waiting for paychecks.

Nowhere is it reported that the crew would not have walked off had the poor working conditions remained unchanged but pay would be increased.

Even typing those words is difficult, because they sound so alien to me.

Neither was it reported that the crew had asked for a raise prior to walking out; nor do I recall reading anywhere that the crew
walked off because the pay was too low.

"Seven crew members reportedly walked off the set of the film Rust to protest working conditions hours before Alec Baldwin discharged a prop firearm, accidentally killing the cinematographer and injuring the director. One camera crew member anonymously told The Associated Press that those working on the upcoming Western raised concerns about problems ranging from safety procedures to their housing accommodations before Thursday's accident, which left cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42, dead and director Joel Souza, 48, under emergency care." - USA Today

"Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions. The camera operators and their assistants were frustrated by the conditions surrounding the low-budget film, including complaints about long hours, long commutes and waiting for their paychecks, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set". - LA Times

"Camera crew walked off job to protest safety concerns on Alec Baldwin movie" "Seven camera crew members working on the film “Rust” walked off the set to protest a myriad of issues several hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot and killed a cinematographer, The Associated Press reported. The news outlet, which spoke to one of the employees who walked off the job, said that crew members had complained about issues including accommodations for their housing and safety procedures". - The Hill

"In the production’s early days, crew members began complaining of poor working conditions and safety issues, leading many to walk off the set in protest early Thursday, according to social media posts". - Santa Fe New Mexican

 

[Ken1212]

[No message]

 

[paulears]

I think that’s the point for me safety through to housing? Very, very different complaints, and rarely used together, which suggests to me an unhappy crew looking for things to be unhappy with. My speculation is based on my experience of what people say, and how it’s reported, often getting context blurred. When people are unhappy with one thing, others often get linked. My experience sadly also links pay with safety. Disgruntled staff often find safety issues to bolster complaints.

 

[Alex H.]

This will be the final warning. Y’all are still taking things from healthy debate to personal pissing matches, Much of it is from the same people who have already had posts removed, and it needs to stop.

If it continues, there will be some heavier moderation.

There’s still a whole lot that we don’t know about what happened on the set of Rust, and until a formal investigation is closed and results are made public, everything is speculation. So, how about we wait until we know for sure what happened?

 

[markfpv]

There’s still a whole lot that we don’t know about what happened on the set of Rust, and until a formal investigation is closed and results are made public, everything is speculation. So, how about we wait until we know for sure what happened?

+1000

 

[combatentropy]

until a formal investigation is closed and results are made public, everything is speculation. So, how about we wait until we know for sure what happened?

If it's all right with you, I will continue to post articles from major news outlets and maybe add my own reaction based on that information, with the standard understanding that more information may change things.

production staff ordered custom T-shirts mocking camera-crew requests for accommodation. The shirts said, "Error 404: Housing Not Found" and "ABQ is an hour away".

As it stands, based on this story and several others, I would like to say that this production seems like it was outstandingly toxic.

 

[DLD]

I'd have to disagree with Noel and Alex on "speculation".

I'll tell you why. On June, 24, 2021, South Florida witnessed a horrible tragedy. The Champlain Tower South, located in Surfside, collapsed, taking with it ninety eight lives. Immediately after the event, the national and local airwaves were filled with (mostly) legitimate experts who were trying to elucidate an average TV viewer about the construction of the building and the possible causes of the disaster. They were admittedly speculating some. Or a lot. They did not know exactly what happened. And that's because no one did and quite possibly no one may ever know exactly what happened there over the course of forty years. But people wanted to know and the "experts" were there to shed some light on the situation. And those living in the area made adjustments based upon what the experts said. Since June, 24th, a number of similar buildings have undergone repairs of the various types. Without the experts warnings, they were unlikely to do so.

Not all experts stay on topic, obviously. The worst of the blowhards that I came upon was a recent USA Today article that was syndicated to the Yahoo News, speculating absolutely baselessly about the purported money laundering and the drug trade of the 1980's somehow being a contributing cause. Naturally, Miami has been home to both. Naturally, there is no specific or even a tangential proof of them being a factor. Which didn't stop the US Today staff from writing about it. A purported "major news source".

 

[ahalpert]

Newsshooter article and podcast discussion with an armorer about the Rust tragedy and prop gun safety protocols: https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/11/02/gun-safety-on-film-sets/

 

[paulears]

At some point, people with the pips on their shoulders will determine the accurate chain of events, revue the evidence and direct blame. A court then decides the outcome. Our job as observers is a simple one. To investigate at a distance, using any information we can get and put some kind of weight on. Some will er on the side of caution before suggesting things, others will be outraged. It doesn't matter because it's not us who will decide, but world wide outrage at the outcome, no matter what the cause was is enough to make an impact on the future. A quiet investigation, and unreported court case would not improve safety - our often well meant but probably wrong conclusions will make sure the causes are well reported which helps us all.

I'm a railway fan and like reading the archive we Brits have of railways accidents - ever since they had trains, we had army officers doing reports and the things people actually did through ignorance, poor education and bad behaviour and even low intelligence are documented in an accurate and clear manner. The conclusion names those who were in error and those who did their jobs well. Some of these are truly amazing chains of events, and if they were on TV now, every railway person would be shouting very loudly.

We are being loud because frankly, what we are hearing, leaked out in little bursts is so amazing we just cannot believe the reports.

 

[Peter C.]

I'd have to disagree with Noel and Alex on "speculation".

I'll tell you why. On June, 24, 2021, South Florida witnessed a horrible tragedy. The Champlain Tower South, located in Surfside, collapsed, taking with it ninety eight lives. Immediately after the event, the national and local airwaves were filled with (mostly) legitimate experts who were trying to elucidate an average TV viewer about the construction of the building and the possible causes of the disaster. They were admittedly speculating some. Or a lot. They did not know exactly what happened. And that's because no one did and quite possibly no one may ever know exactly what happened there over the course of forty years. But people wanted to know and the "experts" were there to shed some light on the situation. And those living in the area made adjustments based upon what the experts said. Since June, 24th, a number of similar buildings have undergone repairs of the various types. Without the experts warnings, they were unlikely to do so.

Not all experts stay on topic, obviously. The worst of the blowhards that I came upon was a recent USA Today article that was syndicated to the Yahoo News, speculating absolutely baselessly about the purported money laundering and the drug trade of the 1980's somehow being a contributing cause. Naturally, Miami has been home to both. Naturally, there is no specific or even a tangential proof of them being a factor. Which didn't stop the US Today staff from writing about it. A purported "major news source".

I don't see the harm of speculating and discussing events. I watched a couple of Youtube channels from people in the construction industry that examined the evidence as it came out from Surfside. It was far more educational than the coverage of the mainstream media.

No matter the event assigning blame is a long drawn out process often resulting in flawed verdicts because they're restricted to the letter of the law. Knowing someone is bad and proving they broke the law are two different things. In this case, it sounds like there are a number of people with varying degrees of culpability and I doubt we are going to get any satisfaction of "justice".

Who knew and allowed recreational shooting with live rounds on set is going to be the primary question. Followed by determining how much blame should be assign to those in charge and the armorer.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I see big problems with speculating. When people read a lot of info in their recollection they can confuse hard facts with such speculation. This leads to rumors and misinformation. It's a huge problem with tons of precedence.

 

[briandrys1]

Issues with buildings or machines can be explained easier, than the industrial relations and interactions that involve people. With aircraft crash investigations, the human elements will usually come out at the end, when everything has been examined, including the culture within an airline and the backgrounds of the people involved. They usually don't come out in the early stages after an accident.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I will note that statements from the Armorer's lawyer and today the AD's lawyer directly contradict some of the details that have been reported elsewhere. Soon enough there will be detailed testimony from enough people who were present that a much clearer understanding will be known. But in the meantime we may or may not have accurate information. It is potentially inaccurate enough to change our judgements as to who was responsible for what occurred and to what degree, so a good lesson on not rushing to judgement.

 

[Thomas Smet]

I'd have to disagree with Noel and Alex on "speculation".

I'll tell you why. On June, 24, 2021, South Florida witnessed a horrible tragedy. The Champlain Tower South, located in Surfside, collapsed, taking with it ninety eight lives. Immediately after the event, the national and local airwaves were filled with (mostly) legitimate experts who were trying to elucidate an average TV viewer about the construction of the building and the possible causes of the disaster. They were admittedly speculating some. Or a lot. They did not know exactly what happened. And that's because no one did and quite possibly no one may ever know exactly what happened there over the course of forty years. But people wanted to know and the "experts" were there to shed some light on the situation. And those living in the area made adjustments based upon what the experts said. Since June, 24th, a number of similar buildings have undergone repairs of the various types. Without the experts warnings, they were unlikely to do so.

Not all experts stay on topic, obviously. The worst of the blowhards that I came upon was a recent USA Today article that was syndicated to the Yahoo News, speculating absolutely baselessly about the purported money laundering and the drug trade of the 1980's somehow being a contributing cause. Naturally, Miami has been home to both. Naturally, there is no specific or even a tangential proof of them being a factor. Which didn't stop the US Today staff from writing about it. A purported "major news source".

Not sure thats even close to the same kind of a situation. Discovering a potential safety problem and using that information to repair buildings in Florida is different than people pointing blame during a criminal investigation. This case/situation impacts none of us in our daily lives. We speculate almost entirely for entertainment purposes or to make some sort of social point.

My point is that all of us speculating about this is not really helping anybody right now. Its shock and entertainment for the masses. People love to form opinions that are hard to shake once the truth does come out.

The only helpful lesson that needs to be taken out of this unfortunate event by society is that guns are not toys and sources of entertainment. Of the now three gun related deaths I know of on set in Hollywood all three were due to bored crew members. Its ridiculous to speculate on who is to blame here because its a criminal investigation. It also doesn't matter what our personal views are in regards to the actor is the one pulling the trigger or the armorer is solely to blame. Only the police, lawyers and courts can make that decision now. Its completely out of our hands as it should be. We are not a society based on judging criminal situations just based on personal views or speculation. Innocent until proven guilty is there for a reason. Our mass hysteria society seems to forget that all too often.

 

[DLD]

Not sure thats even close to the same kind of a situation. Discovering a potential safety problem and using that information to repair buildings in Florida is different than people pointing blame during a criminal investigation. This case/situation impacts none of us in our daily lives. We speculate almost entirely for entertainment purposes or to make some sort of social point...

First of all, the guilty and potentially guilty parties will hire lawyers and clam up and the individual testimony will often counter the physical evidence.,

Second of all, they will blame each other and, most of all, the diseased. Because she can't reply.

Third, I don't have the highest regard for either the "authorities" nor the media. There was enough badly staged theater across the US over the last few years. (I don't have anything specific against the New Mexican police per se but I had a friend who once lived in the high desert there and his experience was very bizarre, to say the least)

Fourth, I have even less regard for Hollywood, which has very low standards for both decency and honesty. Alec Baldwin already blasted those who blasted Alec Baldwin and this will go back and forth for a while.

Fifth, even assuming this will go to a trial somewhere down the road, it's highly possible that an independent observer will arrive at a different conclusion than the jury. And it's not because I watch Court TV.

Sixth, as Bill Barr said a couple of years ago, “history is written by the winners". He was right but you should reserve a right not to believe them.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Fifth, even assuming this will go to a trial somewhere down the road, it's highly possible that an independent observer will arrive at a different conclusion than the jury. And it's not because I watch Court TV.

You're right.
OJ was found not guilty in a court of law by a jury of peers, so at least we know he didn't kill anybody. Anyone who questions the verdict is speculating.