Merged: Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by xjx388

If you need a totally realistic gunshot in your movie . . . Maybe you need to rethink your movie. I can only speak as a moviegoer who has watched a lot of action movies with a lot of gunplay: Not once have I ever looked at a gunplay scene and thought, “no way are they firing real guns…their arms and bodies aren’t reacting like they would to real gunfire!” I KNOW THAT! It’s fake! It’s a frickin’ movie!

[hilite]To me, this is the fault of whoever conceived of a scene in which a gun would be fired directly at the DP and director in the first place. The writer, the director, the armorer, the stunt coordinator…and ultimately, legally, it’s the responsibility of the producers that hired these people.[hilite]


As a movie fan, trust me, I know all this is fake. Don’t go for realism when lives are at stake. And yes, that goes for all those stunt people needlessly dying or becoming disabled for “the scene.”

What's absurd is there's like 3 dozen ways to achieve the "muzzle-on" shot without putting anyone in danger.

The director gets a tent with big huge monitors to see the shot, go sit in there.

The DP doesn't need to be at the camera when the gun is pointed. How does a major production not have a remote focus pull?!

Or, another option, a ballistic shield.

Are we fiddling with the f-stop between takes? Then he should have an unarmed prop for blocking (going through the scene without rolling). The only time a weapon with any live ammo should be in the actor's hand is after several people have said "A speed/B speed/sound speed/etc." At this point, most everyone is doing an impression of a statue and very little chance exists that anyone will do anything or be anyplace unexpected. Only then can the armourer comfortably release the weapon to the talent, knowing all crew have long since been told where not to stand.

[Bob001]

New development: Apparently Baldwin was told gun was "cold" when he was handed it.

Quote:

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — An assistant director unwittingly handed Alec Baldwin a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to use in the moments before the actor fatally shot a cinematographer, court records released Friday show.

“Cold gun,” the assistant director announced, according to a search warrant filed in a Santa Fe court.

https://apnews.com/article/entertain...ign=SocialFlow

[Warp12]

A little background chatter on the 911 call. Oh boy:

Quote:

"They just ********* AD yelled at me at lunch talking about revisions," she said. "These *************** … Did you see him come up to my desk and yell at me? He's supposed to check the guns. He's responsible for what happened."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-call-released

[Delphic Oracle]

Okay but...

Quote:

The gun was one of three that the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, had set on a cart outside the wooden structure where a scene was being acted, according to the records. Assistant director Dave Halls grabbed the gun from the cart and brought it inside to Baldwin, unaware that it was loaded with live rounds, a detective wrote in the search warrant application.

That assistant director and armourer are toast.

The weapons were out of their sight between preparation and use, the weapons were not checked upon retrieval, and an affirmative declaration about the weapon's state was made without actually knowing.

These are, in fact, the two people on set who should know these precautions backwards and forwards and be drilling everyone else on relentlessly.

Quote:

The film’s script supervisor, Mamie Mitchell, said she was standing next to Hutchins when she was shot.

Pardon the all caps, but...

HOW MANY ******* PEOPLE WERE DOWNWIND OF THE MUZZLE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

[Jim_MDP]

Late father was a smith, I'm genetically incapable of not checking a firearm I've just been handed. Don't care if you're across the table and I was the one who handed it to you. Been that way since I was ~6 or 7 years old. There's never been a person on the planet I trust that much.

Guess no acting career for me.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Okay but...



That assistant director and armourer are toast.

The weapons were out of their sight between preparation and use, the weapons were not checked upon retrieval, and an affirmative declaration about the weapon's state was made without actually knowing.

These are, in fact, the two people on set who should know these precautions backwards and forwards and be drilling everyone else on relentlessly.



Pardon the all caps, but...

HOW MANY ******* PEOPLE WERE DOWNWIND OF THE MUZZLE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

Toast is the word, for sure.

I had an odd thought, not to lay blame, that if they were still blocking/framing... why did he pull the trigger?
I have no set or theater experience so I'm open to the thought he was "fully" going through the motions. I don't t like it, but if so, so be it.

[Delphic Oracle]

Armourer was Hannah Gutierrez Reed, daughter of Thell Reed, a well-respected exhibition shooter, armourer, and consultant.

She appears fresh out of college, has one 4-month stint as armorer for Yellowstone Film Ranch on her LinkedIn and not a scrap of film credit on IMDB.

How this person is armourer on a movie featuring lots of gunfighting is...well it isn't beyond me. She's a hottie and has family connections.

I understand crewing up involves some favors done for old friends, it is a business, after all. But maybe let's exempt "the person in charge of the guns that can kill people" from the list of positions that are considered patronage to be served out.

ETA: Some articles say she was armourer for Nicholas Cage's upcoming The Old Way, but still, a 24 year old as weapons master for not one but two westerns is...odd.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Armourer was Hannah Gutierrez Reed, daughter of Thell Reed, a well-respected exhibition shooter, armourer, and consultant.

She appears fresh out of college, has one 4-month stint as armorer for Yellowstone Film Ranch on her LinkedIn and not a scrap of film credit on IMDB.

How this person is armourer on a movie featuring lots of gunfighting is...well it isn't beyond me. She's a hottie and has family connections.

I understand crewing up involves some favors done for old friends, it is a business, after all. But maybe let's exempt "the person in charge of the guns that can kill people" from the list of positions that are considered patronage to be served out.

ETA: Some articles say she was armourer for Nicholas Cage's upcoming The Old Way, but still, a 24 year old as weapons master for not one but two westerns is...odd.

Is Yellowstone Film Ranch, Costner's current series "Yellowstone"?
Not a period show, but plenty of west/western/ranching... and guns.

.

Love Costner, it's a weakness, but I only made it through the pilot episode. I think it's going on a third season or somesuch.

[Captain_Swoop]

Why would there be a gun loaded with live rounds on the table anyway?

What would it be used for on a film set?

Why did the AD grab it rather than the armourer handing it to him?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Perhaps not quite the one-off accident that it seems:

Quote:

‘Rust’ crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting

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.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

Perhaps the accident was the result of a budget squeeze that resulted in cutting corners.

Normally this isn't something an actor would be responsible for, but Baldwin is also producing this movie. Hard to say what that means, producing can be very hands on or just mean you forked up a bunch of money.

I get the feeling whoever was calling the shots and responsible for cutting corners regarding safety is going to get a fair bit of blame.

Supposedly "cold" gun had two incidents prior to the fatal shooting. Not a good sign of rigorous safety culture.

Quote:

Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Normally this isn't something an actor would be responsible for, but Baldwin is also producing this movie. Hard to say what that means, producing can be very hands on or just mean you forked up a bunch of money.

Yikes, this is about as hands on as you can get...

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I get the feeling whoever was calling the shots and responsible for cutting corners regarding safety is going to get a fair bit of blame.

Are you doing this on purpose?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by xjx388

If you need a totally realistic gunshot in your movie . . . Maybe you need to rethink your movie. I can only speak as a moviegoer who has watched a lot of action movies with a lot of gunplay: Not once have I ever looked at a gunplay scene and thought, “no way are they firing real guns…their arms and bodies aren’t reacting like they would to real gunfire!” I KNOW THAT! It’s fake! It’s a frickin’ movie!

To me, this is the fault of whoever conceived of a scene in which a gun would be fired directly at the DP and director in the first place. The writer, the director, the armorer, the stunt coordinator…and ultimately, legally, it’s the responsibility of the producers that hired these people.


As a movie fan, trust me, I know all this is fake. Don’t go for realism when lives are at stake. And yes, that goes for all those stunt people needlessly dying or becoming disabled for “the scene.”

Oh please - who didn’t have the lobby gunfight scene from the Matrix totally ruined because the shooting didn’t look real!

[RecoveringYuppy]

But it wasn't real, it was the Matrix. I'm confused.

[RolandRat]

"The cinematographer that was killed... Her husband worked for the law firm that defended the Clintons in the Russian probe. One of the law firm was just indicted. Weird? Coincidence?"

The conspiracies are out!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

But it wasn't real, it was the Matrix. I'm confused.

It was sarcasm because as with the Matrix every other movie that features guns was also not real.

[Delphic Oracle]

The 24-year-old head armorer of Alec Baldwin's movie 'Rust' told a podcast she 'almost didn't take' her last job because she wasn't sure if she was 'ready'

Quote:

She had just finished shooting the movie "The Old Way" with Clint Howard and Nicolas Cage. "It was a really badass way to start off a really long and cool career," she said on the podcast.*

"It was also my first time being head armorer as well," Gutierrez-Reed said. "I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready, but, doing it, like, it went really smoothly."
Gutierrez-Reed added that she was initially fearful of loading blanks. "I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me because I was like 'oh, I don't know anything about it,'" she said. But her famous father, she said, helped train her up.

If "not sure I'm ready" translates to "let's go ahead and do it" I'm thinking that person lacks a basic quality necessary for any kind of safety job.

Another unwritten rule of production, don't agree to a task you aren't qualified for. Don't try to impress people by being eager. Be honest about your self assessment and let the department head/above the line types decide if this is a teaching moment or if time constraints mean they need to pass on you this time.

Having to redo a scene because of mistakes is bad, even cripping to a production. Or someone could, y'know, get hurt.

Make no mistake, I still have quite a dose of ire for the AD, however.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yeah, The AD does seem to be the proximate bit of stupidity here, but it sounds to me like this production was really on the wrong track. The reports make this production sound toxic and there were multiple weapon mistakes already. That's not normal, right?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Yeah, The AD does seem to be the proximate bit of stupidity here, but it sounds to me like this production was really on the wrong track. The reports make this production sound toxic and there were multiple weapon mistakes already. That's not normal, right?

I'm not sure on the average incidents per firearm.

But, from other reporting I read, the incidents were not officially recorded in the production log, no meetings held over the issue, etc. This starts to reek of "intentional" plausible deniability and would move the issue closer to criminal liability.

[William Parcher]

Has it been reported what kind of a gun this was?

[deverett]

Originally Posted by casebro

The close up camera shot of a revolver would require lead bullets in the cylinders NOT behind the barrel. If a dunce "armorer" used live rounds there, and put one blank behind the barrel, when the revolver gets cocked the cylinder rotates, a life round comes under the hammer, and....oh no. I wonder is the camera took a pic that shows a start crimped round in the chamber next to the barrel?

I would expect the base of all cartridges on a set to be color coded with a Sharpie. Blanks from inert dummie rounds?

If the bullet would be visible in the revolving chamber, I have made up dummy bullets for this and I show the DOP how to shoot(film) this to look right. I would put a spent casing in the cylinder currently in the firing position, dummies in all the others, other than the cylinder that will revolve into the firing position when the trigger is pulled, in this cylinder I pace the blank. With the camera on the correct side, the camera sees a fired shell comes into view and a blank revolves into the firing position and is fired.


The dummies I show how they were made, that the primer has been fired and will put it into the revolver and pull the trigger in a safe direction to show they are inert.


If they want to see an angle from other side, then the revolver needs to be positioned so you can't see into the chambers.


No live rounds are ever allowed on set, under any circumstances.


Dave

[deverett]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why would there be a gun loaded with live rounds on the table anyway?

What would it be used for on a film set?

Why did the AD grab it rather than the armourer handing it to him?

All valid questions, none could have acceptable answers.



The AD does not hand guns to actors, the armourer does, and only after showing them clear. If they want to do a lineup, I hand them either a plastic gun or open the chamber and hand it to them in that state so everyone can see it's not loaded while it is pointed in their direction. If that's not possible, then I show each person in front that it is unloaded.


Dave

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by deverett

All valid questions, none could have acceptable answers.



The AD does not hand guns to actors, the armourer does, and only after showing them clear. If they want to do a lineup, I hand them either a plastic gun or open the chamber and hand it to them in that state so everyone can see it's not loaded while it is pointed in their direction. If that's not possible, then I show each person in front that it is unloaded.


Dave

Yes. A whole catalogue of errors/failings appears to have happened in this incident (and it's often the case that the worst disasters happen as the result of a chain of errors/failings rather than one single huge error/failing).

But that aside, I find myself going straight back to the one error which ended up making the (fatal) difference in this case: the presence of a live round on set.

As many, many others here have already correctly pointed out, there's simply no conceivable need/requirement to have live ammunition on any film/TV set. Heck, that was even true in the 1960s. But with the amazing things that can be done in post these days with very little outlay or effort, it's inexplicable to me that a firearm with a live round in the chamber found its way into Baldwin's hand.

Yes, lots of other things also needed to have happened in order to make this the tragedy it became - most notably having crew (apparently) directly adjacent to the camera for a down-the-barrel shot (as others have said, standard practice is to block the shot using a dummy weapon, then for the shot itself, have all crew retreat well back and to the side of line of fire). But how in all hell did one of the firearms - the one which, fatefully, was handed to Baldwin - end up having a live round in the chamber.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by deverett

If the bullet would be visible in the revolving chamber, I have made up dummy bullets for this and I show the DOP how to shoot(film) this to look right. I would put a spent casing in the cylinder currently in the firing position, dummies in all the others, other than the cylinder that will revolve into the firing position when the trigger is pulled, in this cylinder I pace the blank. With the camera on the correct side, the camera sees a fired shell comes into view and a blank revolves into the firing position and is fired.


The dummies I show how they were made, that the primer has been fired and will put it into the revolver and pull the trigger in a safe direction to show they are inert.


If they want to see an angle from other side, then the revolver needs to be positioned so you can't see into the chambers.


No live rounds are ever allowed on set, under any circumstances.


Dave

If this was 19th century cartridge revolver, the rounds would have been easily visible. Actually a revolver is easier to check then a auto in this regard.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I'm not sure on the average incidents per firearm.

But, from other reporting I read, the incidents were not officially recorded in the production log, no meetings held over the issue, etc. This starts to reek of "intentional" plausible deniability and would move the issue closer to criminal liability.

Th occasional misfire is to be expected when using 19th century firearms, and are easily handled.
It's misfires happening repeatdly on the same weapon that indicates a problem.

[dudalb]

Now CNN is dragging the death of Vic Morrow by helicopter blade into the discussion. A lot of media ignroance on the reporting.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

.....
But that aside, I find myself going straight back to the one error which ended up making the (fatal) difference in this case: the presence of a live round on set.
.....

I just note that there has been no confirmation that a real cartridge with a bullet was used. The stunt people use "live round" to mean anything with a powder charge, including blanks, and blanks have caused severe damage more than once. Apparently they were using old-West-style cowboy revolvers. Even if the guns weren't actually constructed to just be props, it seems unlikely that there would be real cartridges for it lying around by chance, or that a cartridge from a modern gun would have fit.

What really seems obvious is that the "armourer" was in way over her head.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I just note that there has been no confirmation that a real cartridge with a bullet was used. The stunt people use "live round" to mean anything with a powder charge, including blanks, and blanks have caused severe damage more than once. Apparently they were using old-West-style cowboy revolvers. Even if the guns weren't actually constructed to just be props, it seems unlikely that there would be real cartridges for it lying around by chance, or that a cartridge from a modern gun would have fit.



What really seems obvious is that the "armourer" was in way over her head.

Normal people who don't have connections start as a PA. They may then be "loaned" to the art department, then possibly become prop assistant and spend a lot of time under an armourer's supervision "helping out," then comes the day they get to be an armourer on something with blades, learn how to relentlessly keep track of sharp-real, dull-real, totally fake, retractable-dry, retractable-squib ("blood" comes from inside the handle after the blade retracts), etc.

Then maybe a film with one or two firearms scenes, and so on.

No 24 year old should be a "head" armourer on a movie full of guns.

ETA: technical proficiency isn't even the main reason, it is the social aspects of working on a set and the self-respect and force of personality to look a pushy director in the eye and tell them they aren't getting their way. A 24 year old trying to "break through" doesn't have the foundation for that.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Now CNN is dragging the death of Vic Morrow by helicopter blade into the discussion. A lot of media ignroance on the reporting.

LOL! Some guy still watching CNN and is thinking it is not exactly a great news source.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I just note that there has been no confirmation that a real cartridge with a bullet was used. The stunt people use "live round" to mean anything with a powder charge, including blanks, and blanks have caused severe damage more than once. Apparently they were using old-West-style cowboy revolvers. Even if the guns weren't actually constructed to just be props, it seems unlikely that there would be real cartridges for it lying around by chance, or that a cartridge from a modern gun would have fit.

What really seems obvious is that the "armourer" was in way over her head.

I strongly supsect the guns were replicas rather then ropos" and some people probably don't know the diffreence.

You seem unaware the manfacture of working replicas of 19th and 18th Century fierarms is a fairly big industry.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I just note that there has been no confirmation that a real cartridge with a bullet was used. The stunt people use "live round" to mean anything with a powder charge, including blanks, and blanks have caused severe damage more than once. Apparently they were using old-West-style cowboy revolvers. Even if the guns weren't actually constructed to just be props, it seems unlikely that there would be real cartridges for it lying around by chance, or that a cartridge from a modern gun would have fit.

What really seems obvious is that the "armourer" was in way over her head.

That's all true - but the projectile appears to have gone right through the first victim and hit the second with enough force to require treatment. I can't see a blank propelling a bit of debris in the barrel with enough force to do that.

Time will tell, of course. But it sure looks like it was a bullet.


ETA: I mean, of course debris in the barrel can be deadly and people have died that way. But this thing carried a significant chunk of force along with it to pass through one person and into the next. That suggested a pretty tight fit with the barrel and maybe rifling/spin stability along with a decently heavy projectile. It's one thing to lodge a few inches inside a person, it's another thing to go through that person and into the next one.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You seem unaware the manfacture of working replicas of 19th and 18th Century fierarms is a fairly big industry.

Are you saying that because of what he said about the ammo? You could extend his question to be why would they have real (using that word to avoid the ambiguity of live in this context) replica ammo?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I strongly supsect the guns were replicas rather then ropos" and some people probably don't know the diffreence.

You seem unaware the manfacture of working replicas of 19th and 18th Century fierarms is a fairly big industry.

Well, technically, a prop is anything an actor uses on stage. But just as a whiskey bottle could be made of real glass or breakaway sugar "glass," a prop gun could be plastic or a toy or a realistic piece designed to only hold blanks or a real firearm that could fire real bullets if it was mistakenly loaded with them. You may not understand that replica guns are not designed to fire real bullets.
http://cowboyprops.com/replica-western-guns.html
http://replicaweaponry.com/replica-g...-replica-guns/

If they were using a "replica" on the set they couldn't have loaded it with a real cartridge.

[mgidm86]

"When you see Arec Barrwin, you will see the true ugriness of human nature.


You are worthress, Arec Barrwin!"


- Kim Jong Il

[Travis]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Now CNN is dragging the death of Vic Morrow by helicopter blade into the discussion. A lot of media ignroance on the reporting.

Seems relevant to me. That was also a film production that had a lot of issues before everything hit the fan. They had multiple opportunities to not do the thing that killed three people, including two children, and just kept charging ahead deadset on finishing the film.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, technically, a prop is anything an actor uses on stage. But just as a whiskey bottle could be made of real glass or breakaway sugar "glass," a prop gun could be plastic or a toy or a realistic piece designed to only hold blanks or a real firearm that could fire real bullets if it was mistakenly loaded with them. You may not understand that replica guns are not designed to fire real bullets.
http://cowboyprops.com/replica-western-guns.html
http://replicaweaponry.com/replica-g...-replica-guns/

If they were using a "replica" on the set they couldn't have loaded it with a real cartridge.

A 'replica' can be a fully functioning gun.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, technically, a prop is anything an actor uses on stage. But just as a whiskey bottle could be made of real glass or breakaway sugar "glass," a prop gun could be plastic or a toy or a realistic piece designed to only hold blanks or a real firearm that could fire real bullets if it was mistakenly loaded with them. You may not understand that replica guns are not designed to fire real bullets.

http://cowboyprops.com/replica-western-guns.html

http://replicaweaponry.com/replica-g...-replica-guns/



If they were using a "replica" on the set they couldn't have loaded it with a real cartridge.

Dudalb may have meant that with modern repros, or "replicas", available in any number of current popular calibers, as well as many period appropriate ones... finding live ammo is hardly difficult.
That was my read anyway.


.
You may be in the minority using "replica" to mean non-firing. I don't know.
The only replica I ever handled was a small flintlock kit I only half finished, in the late 70s.
I assure you .. it would have been fully functional.

[a_unique_person]

Headline in our national newspaper.

Baldwin movie shoot goes horribly wrong.

[figarot]

I have to wonder if Alec will ever want to play a role again where his character has to fire a gun.

[Captain_Swoop]

A person dies from a prop gun in a movie set, everyone talks about its safety relentlessly but when kids die from mass shootings in schools it's always 'too soon' to talk about it.

[a_unique_person]

There is the gun culture irony of everyone being shocked when a Hollywood movie, that seems to have way too many guns, actually involves the death of someone.