Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





What I see from most posters are these points:
Ah. I was not attempting to respond to the aggregate opinion of most posters, if that's the issue.

1) The responsibility of making sure that a weapon on a film set is safe to use falls on the person whose literal job is making sure that a weapon on a film set is safe to use.

2) It is unclear to many of us the type of safety training received by the actors and whether or not it would be appropriate for an actor to open a prepped weapon OR if an actor would be able to distinguish if a gun had been incorrectly loaded. My personal understanding of the difference between a blank and a live round is that they look different at the tip. It's unclear to me if you could tell the difference without actually removing the round. This is compounded if the weapon is historical.

3) Baldwin was working on this film in two capacities: as an actor and as a producer. Many of us (going back to point #1) believe that the safety surrounding props is a responsibility that falls on the people who prepare and provide those props, not on the actor. I mean, the assistant director who handed Baldwin the gun didn't check it either, apparently. But if Baldwin as a producer was aware of safety issues and went into the scene knowing that there had been misfires OR if he was one of the voices urging a faster shooting schedule at the expense of proper safety procedures and a qualified crew, then he has responsibility for creating an unsafe working environment.
Pretty sure I agree with all this.

I feel that there has been more emphasis on him not following "the rules" (and I again question how those rules apply in the very special context of a film set) than on the gross negligence of the prop person.
Agreed, but I don't think that emphasis is inappropriate, since it's the difficult question. That is to say, it makes sense that the difficult questions would receive disproportionate emphasis because the culpability of the person responsible for the prop itself is fairly obvious, and because this is the question that's receiving some level of pushback.

I'm also just not a fan of auditing focus or attention levels since it can fall into whataboutism pretty easily, and there's almost always a worse offense we could be talking about.

I honestly do not believe that Baldwin (the actor) bears responsibility here.
I'm honestly not sure where I come down on the question. I think it would depend on the specifics, which is one of the reasons I'm reading this thread and hope more people with specific knowledge of these issues continue to expound on what it's actually like in that position.

I go back to my lug nuts argument. I know someone who got her tires rotated and the place didn't tighten them correctly. While she was on the interstate several of the lug nuts came off. Is that on her or is that on the mechanic? (It only takes 3 minutes with a tire iron to see if they are on properly).
Right, per the above, I think how easy or obvious it is to see the problem is probably the biggest question.



I agree, but want to note the phrase "ultimate responsibility," since parsing that from just "responsibility" full stop is obviously the hard part, and the part about which reasonable people can disagree.
The fact that you could ask "did anyone argue the he had more responsibility than the people in charge of the prop?", when one poster in particualur has been arguing that even on this page is pretty staggering. This is not an either/or discussion of Baldwin's culpability. This is everyone else pointing out to one poster, who has already stated their personal issue with Baldwin's political issue with guns, how movie sets work.


I just don't think people are communicating properly, and if I'm being blunt, I think that's because people are sometimes replying for reasons other than the clear communication of ideas, as I alluded to earlier.
Yeah, no.



I'm honestly not sure where I come down on the question. I think it would depend on the specifics, which is one of the reasons I'm reading this thread and hope more people with specific knowledge of these issues continue to expound on what it's actually like in that position.
I feel as if there are about four or five things I want to know to really solidify my opinion.

Did he know that there had been previous misfires?

Could someone with a beginner or intermediate understanding of weapons distinguish between a blank and a live round without actually unloading the weapon?

Did any of the other crew present during the filming of this scene (the AD, the director, the DP, the camera person) know about the past misfires?

Did Baldwin participate in the hurrying of the schedule or in any way contribute to the systemic issues that precipitated this tragedy?

What protocols are actors taught as part of the "gun on set" safety course? Are they encouraged/discouraged from personally checking the weapons after they've been handed over by the prop person? Is checking a weapon in a scene yourself in any way "industry standard" or an expectation?

The expertise I'm interested in at this point is not just people who know about guns, it's people who know about the use of guns on a film set, because I think that's a significantly different context from something like a gun range.



it's kinda weird that you'd pick me as the emblem to go after here, as if I were anywhere near the most apologetic towards Baldwin in this thread. My entry into it was literally to argue that considering his blame is reasonable. I guess you just jumped into the middle of the thread, saw that incredibly modest suggestion of nuance, and just decided to reply without reading anything else.

you are yoda, the boss here, or not?
there is a death and you talk too much of possibilities
since when there is ignorance among veterans of movie business involved with managing money within cheap budget?
king?
you share investments, you share responsibilities, you share risks, you take losses and profits
doing elusive actions on the blame of this murder by Alec Baldwin shows he knows EVERYTHING done on the producers board
anyway, you aid him with senseless explanations
here i end my arguments



By all means though, correct Takoma. She's the one that needs intervention here.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
There is a database for guns in movies

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Main_Page

It details which firearms are real and fake or fudged to be another gun (a lot of real guns are featured in films).

I think that the prop masters have largely done their jobs well as this appears to be an exceedingly rare occurrence.

On the other hand, Ruby Rose just torched the WB over alleged unreported serious injuries to stunt people on Batwoman, so who knows how much stuff, in general, is suppressed. Even so, a gun injury or death would seem to be hard to suppress as a story. I'd guess that there are some people politely carrying shrapnel and who have a scar or two from movie sets which involved an incident with a gun, but that it is unlikely that there are many, if any, unreported deaths. All in all, Hollywood has a solid safety record with firearms.

Even so, guns are still deadly weapons and you only have to mess up once. You have a legit question with regard to why real guns should be on movie sets.

Moreover, the idea that the prop master is God can also make the prop master the sin-eater (it's YOUR fault if anything goes sideways). The tragedy here is that Baldwin could have popped open the loading gate and turned the cylinder to inspect the condition of the weapon. Baldwin isn't a bad guy and it's ludicrous to think he was thinking of doing anything other than trying to make entertainment... ...but... but... ...if he'd inspected the gun, he could have discovered its condition.

From time to time we would perhaps do well to remember that people occasionally die or really hurt themselves to give us a brief thrill as we sip soda and munch popcorn (think of all those Jackie Chan injury reels).

I am not a fan of method acting and hyper-realism the exposes actors, stunt people and hands on set to real danger, is in the same category. I mean, I love Sorcerer, but Friedkin was a madman and took unnecessary risks (just as he did on The French Connection).
I was just curious, what does method acting have to do with being unsafe?



Where was Yoda on "escalation" when Corax was all-capsing on Flicker? I'm just curious how this works?



Where was Yoda on "escalation" when Corax was all-capsing on Flicker? I'm just curious how this works?
I didn't use all caps. It was a judicious and tasteful use of italics and bold print.

And the post to which I was responding was itself an escalation, a blatant attempt to shift blame in the dialogue to the "NRA,""gun nuts" and "the good guy with a gun" trope (i.e., gun rights advocates) and away from Baldwin. The poster attacked simple prudential reasoning as if this, in itself were a political distraction (rather than the central point) and loudly claimed that Baldwin bears no responsibility whatsoever.

The post was well past the mark.

Beyond this, your posts are making quite clear that you're more fixated on me in this thread than the issue at hand. And when demanding for a flag from the ref hasn't worked, you've attacked the ref!

I propose that we both us take a break from this thread for 24 hours.

Deal?


Or if you wish, feel free to scream at me in PMs or something.



I was just curious, what does method acting have to do with being unsafe?

The cult realism. To really feel pain you must be in pain. To really convey threat use a real gun. The lure of the promise that the main actor did his or her own stunts (real danger!). We want our fiction to be very close to reality in some ways.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay. It's just I have done method acting before, but I never considered it dangerous to others, unless maybe it wasn't method therefore.

But my heartfelt condolences really go out to the actress and her family.



The fact that you could ask "did anyone argue the he had more responsibility than the people in charge of the prop?", when one poster in particualur has been arguing that even on this page is pretty staggering.
Have they? I guess I have to ask you to give me a quote this time, then. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the producer stuff. I think (hope?) we all agree that's a significant complicating factor.

This is everyone else pointing out to one poster, who has already stated their personal issue with Baldwin's political issue with guns, how movie sets work.
Yes, but you've been doing that even while the other person has made it quite clear that they're talking about the inherent moral considerations with the act, regardless of how movie sets "work." I guess I could say not realizing this is "staggering" but then I'd be guilty of the same kind of needless confrontation and accusation that keeps creeping into these responses, even when the other person is being vaguely conciliatory.

Anyway, you can agree or disagree with the bit about inherent moral considerations, but obviously just finding 50 ways to say "this is how it usually works" is not addressing any point of conflict.

No to what part? There's no history here, or there is, but you're maintaining it has somehow had no influence on the exchange?



Beyond this, your posts are making quite clear that you're more fixated on me in this thread than the issue at hand. And when demanding for a flag from the ref hasn't worked, you've attacked the ref!
That's what trolls tend to say. I guess Yoda can't see a flop when it's right in front of the bleachers.



Where was Yoda on "escalation" when Corax was all-capsing on Flicker? I'm just curious how this works?
How it works is that I often get called into these after they've escalated needlessly. And I care a fair bit about who escalates to a certain level. For example, the first person to blatantly/needlessly personalize a discussion. I tend to think that's a bad faith thing to do, and a crucial point of no return.



Have they? I guess I have to ask you to give me a quote this time, then. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the producer stuff. I think (hope?) we all agree that's a significant complicating factor.
I'm frankly insulted you'd ask. Here's another wager, let's try to find a Corax post where he places equal blame on anyone other than Baldwin. I'll give you a hundred if you can.


Yes, but you've been doing that even while the other person has made it quite clear that they're talking about the inherent moral considerations with the act, regardless of how movie sets "work."
No, not regardless. In spite of.


I'd be guilty of the same kind of needless confrontation and accusation that keeps creeping into these responses, even when the other person is being vaguely conciliatory.
Yeah, "vaguely". Dare I say insincerely. I honestly don't think you've been reading this thread until about two hours ago. Thanks though.



Also, it's pretty lame to do the whole "why didn't you catch THIS?" thing, anyway, even if it were equivalent (which it isn't). I'll save you the trouble and admit upfront that any time you catch me mentioning a rule or asking people to meet a standard of behavior, there are totally examples of me not doing that elsewhere. It does not happen, cannot possibly happen, every single time, and suggesting you're being unfairly targeted because of that simple logistical reality is a little over the top.



Hey, man. Imma let the thread speak for itself. Nice hopping.



I will point out, since you brought it up, that this is about the third thread I've seen where, for whatever reason, you've chosen to call out Takoma, when she's clearly not the one pushing controversial opinions. I'll let you work out why.



I'm frankly insulted you'd ask.
This is a little rich, given that you just called something I'd said "bullsh*t" and demanded I prove it. I've made a similar (but much, much more polite) request and you're "insulted" I'd even ask? Oof.

I don't know what good will you're appealing to given how increasingly antagonistic these replies are. I'm not sure why you'd expect this style of response to lead to anything other than anger or bitterness, either, as it seems to have.

Here's another wager, let's try to find a Corax post where he places equal blame on anyone other than Baldwin. I'll give you a hundred if you can.
So, you've done two things here. First, you've inverted the burden of proof: initially you said he'd put more blame on Baldwin, now you're just saying he didn't say otherwise.

Second, you've invoked a false dichotomy, since he obviously could say neither.

No, not regardless. In spite of.
Okay, but my point (the one you omitted from the quote, which seems to be a running problem) is unchanged: it's totally pointless to argue past this disagreement by finding as many ways as possible to say "this is how sets usually work" when what's being question is, well, the way sets usually work.

Yeah, "vaguely". Dare I say insincerely.
I was talking about me, not Corax. I have not been insincerely conciliatory. If you think I have, kindly let me know so I can opt out of being pointlessly abused further by someone who's not going to believe me when I state my intentions.

I hoineslty don't think you've been reading this thread until about two hours ago.
You're mistaken, and I don't know what you hope to accomplish by marbling in these kinds of jabs all the time.

Right, like that.



I will point out, since you brought it up, that this is about the third thread I've seen where, for whatever reason, you've chosen to call out Takoma, when she's clearly not the one pushing controversial opinions. I'll let you work out why.
And I'll let you Google "confirmation bias."

Look, I'd like to continue being diplomatic here, but you've slapped away most of my attempts to do so and you've graduated to pretty much openly accusing me of favoritism, which for a moderator is a pretty huge problem. So I'll be blunt: you're simply wrong.

My first post (other than the initial "Heartbreaking " days ago) is here. It does not mention Takoma, and that's not because I was subtweeting: it is specifically about you and Corax, though I had the tact not to call either of you out, since that would be exactly the kind of needless confrontation I was advising against.

Takoma then replied to me, and we went from there. And that's what usually happens: Takoma is very active in these discussions. Good for her. I like that about her. But it also means we end up getting into it a lot. But to my memory it's always been nice, civil, and (at least for me) illuminating and enjoyable. Which is an example to emulate, contra the apparent desire to sharpen every conflict as much and as quickly as possible.

In case there's any doubt, I find Takoma to be one of the most refreshingly civil and substantive people here, and I almost always find her thoughts thoughtful and nuanced. That, too, is another reason to end up in a lot of discussions with someone. It's a lot easier to respond to what someone says when you have confidence it'll be worth your time to hash it out.



The trick is not minding
Where was Yoda on "escalation" when Corax was all-capsing on Flicker? I'm just curious how this works?
I imagine he was busy with his life outside of the forum.
If it eases your mind any, although I highly doubt, and I have zero qualms outing myself here….I was the one who alerted him to this thread, mainly about posts you’re referencing, but, although I didn’t mention you specifically, the fact that this thread was about to escalate.
This was apparent from not only his posts, but your own as well.