Yeah, someone commented that actor Alec Baldwin was not at fault...PRODUCER Alec Baldwin, on the other hand...
I agree that Trudy will know best.
There are benefits to having things be as real as possible onset. If you've seen an actor swinging around a clearly empty cup of "coffee" or an unconvincing cgi location, you get the idea.
There are strict protocols for safe firearms handling on-set (and onstage, for that matter) when they are followed, it's pretty safe. It's when people get sloppy that things go wrong, and this was clearly a sloppy production.
On the issue of "live" ammo. One of the two exemplars of on-set deaths was an actor who was fooling around with a gun loaded with a blank. He
put it up to his head and pulled the trigger. The explosion force went down the barrel, which was empty, but rather than dissipating into the air, as it would have in the planned scene, it ran into his skull at the end and pushed a chunk into his brain.
IMO, the moral of the story is not "ban dangerous things" as anything can be dangerous if mishandled but, rather, the absolute need for safety protocols in line with the level of risk in a given scenario. Discipline is hard, and takes time (=$) and isn't fun (unless you're into that sort of thing) but it's the thing that makes the fun possible.
Yes, blanks would be called "live" even though they aren't bullets - they can indeed kill someone (like happened with Jon Erik Hexum) at close range. That's why they're treated as "live."
To make it more confusing, there is some concern that it actually WAS an actual bullet - there are stories of people target shooting on set. Nothing on a set should be capable of doing that.
Any gun-appearing item on a set is treated as a gun. They don't "lie out on carts" to be picked up. They're taken from the weapons master and returned to the weapons master who locks them up. Even if they're solid rubber. You can't wear it to lunch. You can't wear it to the can. I saw a dude politely fired for wearing his "gun" to crafty to get a snack. "Sorry, we're going to have to send you home."
When we shot the riot on OitNB the safety meeting happened repeatedly for a gun that was one solid piece of metal because it was being drawn and pointed at people. On a quiet set, the AD (standing with the weapons master) held up a the gun and said: "This is solid metal. It cannot be fired. It has never been a real gun. It has no moving parts. It is as heavy as a real gun and could hurt someone if used to hit them. We are not doing that in this scene. The barrel is blocked. It cannot be fired. ::shines flashlight into barrel:: "If anyone would like to inspect the gun please raise your hand."
Then he brought it to people who had raised their hands. And a few people who hadn't raised their hands. We did some version of this every time we left the set and returned to it - lunch, breaks, turn-arounds. One time I did take a look at the gun, shine the flashlight in the barrel. When it was pointed at me later I was really happy I had. Shooting riots can get scary. Obviously you know its pretend (you're on a sound stage, there's cameras everywhere) but you're trying to get upset and everyone around you is trying to get upset and there's yelling and sometimes smoke. Sets are hazardous even when you're not shooting a riot - there's cables everywhere, booms, and cameras and light rigs swinging around. Everything was put in place to be broken down easily and an area that was clear for your exit five minutes ago is a pile of stuff now. And you're incredibly careful with even the coldest of cold guns..
Tom's article makes me wonder if they hired someone relatively inexperienced they could push around in the name of "saving time."
Mostly I am waiting for some official account to answer questions. I keep seeing various experts on tv speculating. A number of people know what happened and things like whether it was a bullet in the gun. The fact that they haven't said is concerning. It is just so heartbreaking for all concerned.
Well, that seems like a disturbing pattern
That seems like a gigantic lawsuit waiting to be unleashed.
That seems like a gigantic lawsuit waiting to be unleashed.
Somebody in the commentariat-verse noted that this incident is the outgrowth of (a) vastly increased film/TV production as streaming services are all creating new content; and (b) digital film creating cheaper production costs; plus, (c) many investors are using film production as a tax dodge.
So to feed this vastly increased demand for new filmed content you've got all these new crews out there, shooting on the cheap and looking to cut corners at every turn. They don't have experienced people in key jobs and they don't have the production experience / institutional knowledge to understand why labor/time intensive safety practices were put in place originally.
I can see all of those things having an effect, but they mostly look like excuses to me thanks to COVID. Production is still down and skilled people are out of work. The things that are shooting are using smaller casts and crews than they would have. Even with restrictions loosening to the degree they have much of that new content uses simple setups with as few people you need to spend money testing (usually twice) as possible.
In this case at least the errors were SO basic. Lock up the guns. Don't hand them to an actor without them being opened in front of you. Don't take them without them being opened in front of you. There's no level of expertise that would have made a succession of people (who all knew better) ignoring really basic rules safe. The culture of this environment was bad and dangerous and IATSE members had already walked over it.
In this case at least the errors were SO basic.
That's true, there was no adherence to even the basic protocols.
