Rust

Tom Roper said:
”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.”
Click to expand...

The quote you posted demonstrates that they weren't following proper industry protocols for safety on set hence why they are being fined. Maybe you and I have a different idea of what 'Industry practices' is but I take it as following the safety rules and proper procedures set out for each role on set. If proper procedures were followed this wouldn't have happened at all. Either way its a tragedy that shouldn't have happened and was easily avoidable.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
Maybe you and I have a different idea of what 'Industry practices' is but I take it as following the safety rules and proper procedures set out for each role on set. If proper procedures were followed this wouldn't have happened at all.
Click to expand...

There is no "proper" procedure for having a loaded pistol with cocked hammer pointing at a person and pulling the trigger, which is exactly what happened. Preventing accidental death required that every link in the chain remain unbroken, up until the last link, the producer himself with the last clear chance to avoid tragedy.

They held the belief that industry practices would keep them safe such that they could replace safety rules with movie making rules. Sub-contracting safety to third parties was the first broken link, a cost cutting move. Using real guns that fired real bullets in lieu of props was another. Skipping safety training saved time and money. Dummy bullets made to look real were easily confused for the real thing. They even had their own movie-making slang for unloaded guns, "cold gun!" Why would you even need a term like that when live ammunition wasn't supposed to be "within 5 miles" of the set? Because the possibility was real and they knew it! They took chances anyway, numerous times! They could not be slowed down by the inconvenience of confirming that a gun was unloaded because they assumed the likelihood of an accident was small. There were other accidental discharge incidents noted. People were complaining about lack of safety. This was a cultural failure of industry practices, their industry practices at the center of it.

Having proper procedures to follow are one thing but people do not perform like robots. That's the goal of training, to have a process of repetition. It has to be cultural or people won't buy in. The tragedy here started long before someone handed Alex Baldwin a loaded pistol.
 
CharlesPapert said:
It's a direct chain of events. The producers were looking to maximize their individual profits and make the film as cheaply as possible.
Click to expand...

Sadly, in my corner of the video production world, I would say this has nearly become "industry standard or practice". Taking more risks, whether they be with safety or experience or equipment - or just a combination of them all trying to shoot 2 days worth of footage in one, all to maximize profits, is rampant in commercial & corporate production as well. Maybe this will be a wake-up call...as it certainly should be... but I'm skeptical.
At the end of the day, it's up to us, to walk away from the type of jobs that would put profit above all else, especially risking human life.
 
markfpv said:
Sadly, in my corner of the video production world, I would say this has nearly become "industry standard or practice". Taking more risks, whether they be with safety or experience or equipment - or just a combination of them all trying to shoot 2 days worth of footage in one, all to maximize profits, is rampant in commercial & corporate production as well. Maybe this will be a wake-up call...as it certainly should be... but I'm skeptical.
At the end of the day, it's up to us, to walk away from the type of jobs that would put profit above all else, especially risking human life.
Click to expand...

It's everywhere and obviously not just in the production world. This is what our culture has become.

There are different flavors of risks being taken daily on a given job. Tragedies like the ones that occured on Rust and Midnight Rider should never have happened, but they have in their wake given a voice to culpability. The very week we lost Sarah Jones I was raising concerns about a freedrive situation on a job with producers who were used to working with a devil-may-care director, who used the phrase "we've done it a million times, won't be a problem". They quickly changed their tune thereafter. There is a reason we continue to put her name on slates, it is to remind producers of their responsibility for safety that in the past has been swept under the rug. Even a heartless asshole is going to respond to the possibility of financial and legal responsibilities if procedures are being skirted (i.e. hitting them where they live). I encourage everyone even on the smallest job to be vigilant about speaking up on safety concerns.
 
DLD said:
Nah, it's always been like that. In every culture, in every land. Human nature and all.
Click to expand...

well...yeah to a certain degree. Obviously there have been far worst times in history than now in terms of worker protection (see: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire) but in terms of the film industry, there was a time when it was more common for a producer or studio to be fighting to protect the artistic vision at least in balance with the bottom line. That was for me one of the more interesting things in the Apple TV+ series "The Offer", how Bob Evans went to the mat to support Coppola. Would Jaws have been allowed to go as far over budget with an unproven young director today as it was back then without Universal replacing him or pulling the plug? This is not the same as worker safety and work conditions (many of which are far more regulated today), but the environment is massively more corporate than it was even ten years ago. As union members, we have to do many hours of safety training classes on a regular basis, from hazardous chemicals to scissor lift operation to harassment, none of which are required for above-the-line personnel (it is common belief that the ultimate goal of these is to mitigate liability if there is an accident--"we trained you, it's not our fault").
 
DLD said:
Nah, it's always been like that. In every culture, in every land. Human nature and all.
Click to expand...

I know remarks like this are meant to be somewhat flippant, and maybe not 100% literal, but I think this kind of thinking is (1) wrong, and (2) dangerous.

The assumption that the state of things right now is representative of "human nature" usually just means "this is how things have been in the Western / Western-influenced world for the past few hundred years, so it must be universal." That ignores literally tens of thousands of years of human history and countless other cultures. Assuming such a thing as "human nature" exists it probably can't be much more generalized than saying that we are social apes who tend to walk upright and adapt to a variety of habitats. That's about it.

There were similar arguments made about why things like colonialism or the practice of slavery were justifiable—i.e., it was "human nature" that some groups were inherently superior to others and thus they had a right to dominate. That's a dangerous, and erroneous, belief system.

There is nothing in human nature that says we need to exploit people for maximum gain with no regard for personal safety or consequences. Rather, such a belief system is the result of many, many years (decades, centuries) of *some* groups of people making *some* choices that pushed us in this direction. As difficult as it may be to envision a better, less cynical, less profit-driven society, it is possible—not overnight, and maybe not in a decade, but in a lifetime or a couple generations, absolutely.

Also, we shouldn't let people who cause these sorts of tragedies off the hook due to "human nature." We have a pretty good idea of how to prevent lots of disasters—people just choose not to take those steps.
 
drboffa said:
I know remarks like this are meant to be somewhat flippant, and maybe not 100% literal, but I think this kind of thinking is (1) wrong, and (2) dangerous.

The assumption that the state of things right now is representative of "human nature" usually just means "this is how things have been in the Western / Western-influenced world for the past few hundred years, so it must be universal." That ignores literally tens of thousands of years of human history and countless other cultures. Assuming such a thing as "human nature" exists it probably can't be much more generalized than saying that we are social apes who tend to walk upright and adapt to a variety of habitats. That's about it.

There were similar arguments made about why things like colonialism or the practice of slavery were justifiable—i.e., it was "human nature" that some groups were inherently superior to others and thus they had a right to dominate. That's a dangerous, and erroneous, belief system.

There is nothing in human nature that says we need to exploit people for maximum gain with no regard for personal safety or consequences. Rather, such a belief system is the result of many, many years (decades, centuries) of *some* groups of people making *some* choices that pushed us in this direction. As difficult as it may be to envision a better, less cynical, less profit-driven society, it is possible—not overnight, and maybe not in a decade, but in a lifetime or a couple generations, absolutely.

Also, we shouldn't let people who cause these sorts of tragedies off the hook due to "human nature." We have a pretty good idea of how to prevent lots of disasters—people just choose not to take those steps.
Click to expand...

Being horrified or shocked by human indecency is traumatic, so sometimes being more aware of the potential atrocities, it can help you be more fast to prevent or react to such behaviors, rather than be blind sided. DLD is on point.
 
drboffa said:
I know remarks like this are meant to be somewhat flippant, and maybe not 100% literal, but I think this kind of thinking is (1) wrong, and (2) dangerous.

The assumption that the state of things right now is representative of "human nature" usually just means "this is how things have been in the Western / Western-influenced world for the past few hundred years, so it must be universal." ...
Click to expand...

As the world gets more technologically advanced, it becomes more productive and wealthier and its modes change from warfare to a far more productive trade and cooperation. But the profit motive always remains at the forefront.

PS. I discuss sociology and economics with others on a number of sites/pages. But the subject of hybrid video-photography rarely comes up.
 
CharlesPapert said:
It's everywhere and obviously not just in the production world. This is what our culture has become.

There are different flavors of risks being taken daily on a given job. Tragedies like the ones that occured on Rust and Midnight Rider should never have happened, but they have in their wake given a voice to culpability. The very week we lost Sarah Jones I was raising concerns about a freedrive situation on a job with producers who were used to working with a devil-may-care director, who used the phrase "we've done it a million times, won't be a problem". They quickly changed their tune thereafter. There is a reason we continue to put her name on slates, it is to remind producers of their responsibility for safety that in the past has been swept under the rug. Even a heartless ******* is going to respond to the possibility of financial and legal responsibilities if procedures are being skirted (i.e. hitting them where they live). I encourage everyone even on the smallest job to be vigilant about speaking up on safety concerns.
Click to expand...

All great points Charles - and hitting them where they live is certainly a perfect way to describe getting their attention. :thumbsup:
 
This is Alec Baldwin talking to Halyna's husband . . . "You're not gonna sue us, I'm gonna make you an executive producer and you'll be a big guy in Hollywood". The only difference is her a-hole husband takes the deal.
 
It is mystifying. Seems ripe for a murder mystery. And someone who can solve it. Sherlock Holmes. Poirot. Lt. Columbo. Angela Lansbury. The settlement is justice for all. Well, not exactly. Not for Halyna. The Santa Fe district attorney and sheriff, who have been taking their sweet time could not have expected this. Suddenly, there are potential motives that have emerged. This was believed by everybody to have been an accident. It may well have been one. But now, especially now there is more urgency, of a duty to investigate for motives, conflicts of interest, background and conduct between the players and what they stood to gain. A wrongful death payout would have been expected. A promotion or offer of employment to the surviving spouse, that raises eyebrows. YOU can be a part of her touching story! This will be big! This pointless, low budget, unoriginal story that's been told a thousand time takes on real meaning thanks to the sacrifice of Halyna!
 
Think about it. If you were the attorney representing the family of Halyna, and I'm not one, would you recommend accepting now, a career advancement on a low budget western over a potentially large settlement from the courts, relegating you as the attorney to crafting contract law for the client? This is sleazy!
 
I thought executive producer was the title they gave to the financiers. It doesn't mean he's involved in the production or that the credit will advance his career. My guess is that it means he's taking some of the profit
 
(Reuters) - Actor Alec Baldwin filed a lawsuit on Friday against the armorer and three other crew members over the deadly shooting on the set of the Western movie "Rust," in which a gun that Baldwin was using during rehearsal killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin's suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court as a cross complaint stemming from a previous suit in which a different member of the crew named Baldwin and the others as defendants....
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alec-baldwin-files-lawsuit-deadly-014644950.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top