Rust

Michael Shannon weighs in on Rust. Not that his opinion matters, I just happen to agree with him, although it's interesting he doesn't feel like Baldwin followed proper procedures, including putting his finger on the trigger. Some excerpts from the interview:

But “Rust” is an example of a problem I see in filmmaking more and more these days. On smaller productions, independent productions, the producers keep wanting more and more for less and less...

The financiers say, well, Joe Blow made a movie for a million, we’re gonna give you a million, too. And you’re, like, “But I need $3 million to make it the right way.” And they say “Well, I guess you won’t do it, then.” They whittle the budget down to the bare minimum — but the one thing you can’t cut corners on is your armorer. If you have guns in your movie, that’s no place to cut corners.

The person on “Rust” clearly was not qualified for the job. She should not have been there...

If it were up to the actor to determine whether a firearm is safe or not, you wouldn’t need an armorer in the first place. Being an armorer is a hard job, a demanding job, and I have nothing but respect for them. But in this instance, it was going into the ER and finding out your doctor isn’t a real doctor.
When you’re rehearsing a scene with a gun in it, and you’re on set, the gun you’re given almost always is not a gun. It’s a rubber replica. Maybe a plastic one. It is not a firearm. That’s what you have during any sort of rehearsal or walk-through, right up until you’re figuring out the shot, and what your firing line will be, all of that. You shouldn’t have the actual weapon in your hand until immediately before doing the take.

Now, sometimes that doesn’t happen. Sometimes they’ll give you the actual gun to rehearse with a little closer to filming. But there’s a procedure for that. They open the barrel. They show you there’s nothing in there. They show you the chambers, they show the assistant director, and it’s a visual confirmation. The AD’s supposed to check it, the actor checks it and the armorer has checked it. All three of those people have to see there’s nothing in there. And then they hand it to you.

With “Rust,” before that gun went into his hand, (Baldwin) should have seen with his own eyes there was nothing in it.

Q: But not on his own initiative?

No. The armorer should’ve brought the gun over to him and said: Here is your firearm. It is empty. Or maybe (the gun) has decoy or dummy rounds in it; you pull the trigger, nothing happens. But you never settle for walking up to an actor and handing the gun over without showing them what’s inside of it. Ever. That was the cataclysmic event on “Rust.”

As an actor, if I’m handed a weapon, my finger does not go in the trigger hole at all. I learned this at a very young age as an actor. You lay your finger outside, along the barrel of the gun. You do not put your finger in the trigger hole unless you’re going for a take. If you’re holding a firearm between takes, which you shouldn’t be, you point it at the ground until somebody comes and collects it from you.

I’m not condemning Alec. I feel horrible for the guy. It’s a nightmare. I feel terrible for everyone on that production. But this is what happens when you lowball and cut corners and hire people that may not be qualified, and pay them next to nothing, and make the movie on the cheap. People get jobs in this business because they’re willing to work for a low enough fee. I see it all the time.

Since this happened, I think the armorer might become obsolete. There’s a big push now to do (all the gunfire) in post, you know, postproduction. No more live firing on set, period. So you act like you’re firing a gun when you’re not. It’s called “acting.” And it’s truly not worth dying for.
Click to expand...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/ente...0230124-vx4ampwci5em5kxxxyey67sbnu-story.html
 
ahalpert said:
Michael Shannon weighs in on Rust. Not that his opinion matters, I just happen to agree with him, although it's interesting he doesn't feel like Baldwin followed proper procedures, including putting his finger on the trigger. Some excerpts from the interview:

......SNIP......
Click to expand...

I agree with that assesment. Though in some takes you do need DUMMY rounds in the gun (also the gunblets, bandoliers etc. ) There should never be live rounds on a set.

As for fingers on triggers.. That is "real gun" safety. On film sets you have a prop and no live ammunition on set. Often you need the character to "fire" the weapons. In many cases load and fire. So the actor has to rely on the Amourer and the person who hands them the gun, and if needed *DUMMY* ammuntion. The Actor is in no position to confirm the dummy rounds are not live. How can they? The dummy rounds for film use look as real as possible. Dummy rounds fro training in the military are very clearly dummy, you could not use them in a film.

Other than the Armourer it comes down to procedures for runnign the set. That is where the arguments will be. Hence the AD pleading guilty and giving evidence. That wil get messy in court as they all blame each other.
 
JAMedia said:
As for fingers on triggers.. That is "real gun" safety. On film sets you have a prop and no live ammunition on set. Often you need the character to "fire" the weapons. In many cases load and fire.
Click to expand...

I think that Shannon was referring specifically to rehearsals, since they were doing a rehearsal when Hutchins got shot. I'm guessing this may be a common safety measure but that it may not be formally written in a rulebook. He said: "You do not put your finger in the trigger hole unless you’re going for a take."
 
The person on “Rust” clearly was not qualified for the job. She should not have been there...
Click to expand...

Which is the producers fault. It's like that old line from "Married ... with Children" - a chimp shoots someone with the gun, you don't blame the chimp, you blame the idiot who gave him the gun.
 
DLD said:
Which is the producers fault. It's like that old line from "Married ... with Children" - a chimp shoots someone with the gun, you don't blame the chimp, you blame the idiot who gave him the gun.
Click to expand...

Right, but they didn't hire a chimp. They hired an armorer. Now, if your armorer is legally required to have some sort of license or certification or union card, and they hired an armorer without that, then they're clearly at fault. (And maybe that is a requirement? I don't know.) But otherwise, you're in a gray area where the producer has to make a judgement call based on the armorer's experience level and demonstrated abilities.

The reality is that the armorer is assuming tremendous liability when they're hired to ensure the safety of others. This armorer is super young and super green, but she is an adult and she should have known that.

Personally, I blame the producers as well. I've known producers who have gambled with the safety of others. I just think it would be difficult to prosecute them.
 
Gulp, I agree with that. But, wait, there's more.

We know the responsibilities, but what are armorer's powers on the set? Can she tell producers/directors and star actors to mind their own business or is s/he like a caterer, "If you don't like ham&cheese, take tuna", i.e., no power whatsoever. After all, she is merely an employee and, while seeking to start up her career, she has to play ball with big shots.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...er-attorney-181422989.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
 
DLD said:
Gulp, I agree with that. But, wait, there's more.

We know the responsibilities, but what are armorer's powers on the set? Can she tell producers/directors and star actors to mind their own business or is s/he like a caterer, "If you don't like ham&cheese, take tuna", i.e., no power whatsoever. After all, she is merely an employee and, while seeking to start up her career, she has to play ball with big shots.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...ycsrp_catchall
Click to expand...

I think this part is potentially exonerating: "She said she "fought for training, days to maintain weapons, and proper time to prepare for gunfire but ultimately was overruled by production and her department."'

If she has documentation of that, it's helpful.

The problem is that there was a singular incident where the AD carried a gun from her to set and called cold gun. What happened there? Did she assume the gun was empty and fail to check it? If she needs more time, then she should take it and make them wait. It's like the cab driver being ordered to speed scenario. They can refuse.

And broadly speaking, the positions responsible for safety can bring a shoot to a halt. I AC'd on a Ray Liotta movie where it was raining so hard one night that the lighting cranes started tilting over in the mud. The key grip ordered the shoot to wrap. That's his job and his authority and if producers refused to listen to him then he would probably need to walk off. But realistically they can't proceed without him or his department. Just like Rust would have had to prepare the guns themselves if she refused and then assumed the liability themselves.
 
ahalpert said:
Michael Shannon weighs in on Rust. Not that his opinion matters, I just happen to agree with him, although it's interesting he doesn't feel like Baldwin followed proper procedures, including putting his finger on the trigger. Some excerpts from the interview:



https://www.chicagotribune.com/ente...0230124-vx4ampwci5em5kxxxyey67sbnu-story.html
Click to expand...

What Michael Shannon describes would seem to be the normal procedure based on my limited experience. In this case, though, the armourer wasn't allowed on set due to the covid protocols they were following. Perhaps if the crew would have followed through with normal procedure for handing off the gun, the bullets would have been flagged and questioned.
 
cpreston said:
. In this case, though, the armourer wasn't allowed on set due to the covid protocols they were following.
Click to expand...

Interesting - I hadn't seen the covid protocol limitations much mentioned. That might be a good angle to play for the armorer both because any jurors opposed to covid safety protocols will probably be sympathetic to her on account of those impediments; and it also buttresses the argument that if she couldn't be near camera, they should have beefed up safety protocols for after she made the hand-off.

Pretty much none of that matters, though, if the AD told her they were doing a rehearsal and she handed him a loaded gun.
 
ahalpert said:
Lori Loughlin shouldn't be discussed alongside Weinstein....
Click to expand...

She pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. And, while she did serve her time, it didn't seem to hinder her career whatsoever. Which brings up an old cliche about "bad publicity".

PS. Loughlin does have a personal connection to GAF via its Chief Creative Officer Candace Cameron Bure from the original Full House TV series.
 
ahalpert said:
For the producers -- I think that if there were a record of discussions where someone expressed doubt about the experience level of the armorer and then someone responded that they should hire her anyway because they don't have the budget to hire someone more experienced; and then there was a record of the armorer complaining about doing double-duty as the props manager, and the producers responded that they didn't have the budget to hire a dedicated props person; and then you already have complaints from the crew about the long commute times, although I don't know if the armorer complained as well -- if you have records like that, you could argue that the producers shared responsibility for the catastrophe that occurred. Or even if there were records of a complaint about the state of the armorer's secure area that the producers chose to ignore..
Click to expand...

I know from being told first-hand (i.e. crewmember on the show) about an email chain that involved discussion about gun safety issues on set, and producers' responses to it. I can't go into the details, but let's just say it is shocking. I too am baffled that the producers (the actual ones involved in hiring decisions and running the day-to-day) have managed to escape being held accountable. They are doing everything they can to deflect blame, of course.
 
You point out exactly what is puzzling me. Why is Alec Baldwin charged as a producer and the other producers are not? This really doesn't pass the smell test at all. Something seems rotten in New Mexico. This is a new DA coming from the side of being a defense attorney. Is this her 15 minutes of fame? Charging the other producers and not Alec Baldwin doesn't get media attention.
 
Paul F said:
You point out exactly what is puzzling me. Why is Alec Baldwin charged as a producer and the other producers are not?
Click to expand...

That is puzzeling me too. Unless they want to see how it plays out in court first and then use the statements from that court to justify charging the others?
It is the same with the Jan 6th stuff. They started chargeing the people at the bottom ie the average Joe who went up the steps and using their testomony to work their way up the ladder to the leaders. Though I have no idea what is in the mind of the DA and the sublties of the legal system there.
 
Paul F said:
Good point. Make charges and see what comes out of it. See if Alec Baldwin throws somebody under the bus.
Click to expand...

You want the Truth? You can't handle the truth!
Yes I cut down the procedures!

Stop the trial the witness has rights!
Read the Colonel, I mean Producer, his rights.

(Will we see Tom Cruise and Demi Moore in the film of the trial? )
 
You've got it. If there is no Alec Baldwin in the trial, there is no world news coverage, no daily interviews of the DA on national news, no book deal, and worst of all, no movie with [fill in DA's favorite female star] playing the DA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top