I wonder how much of the production budget went to Baldwin’s salary, whether a modest reduction might have allowed the production to afford a proper (experienced) armorer with no other duties, and whether this movie (a low budget film) would have even been made without a big name star’s name to tease audiences to see it.
Whatever Baldwin’s role as a producer, he was “the heavy” on set. Even if he had no official authority, I’d wager he could have influenced things for the better if he’d expressed greater concerns over safety after two earlier firearms incidents and the concerns expressed by camera crews.
In May 2020, it was announced that Alec Baldwin would produce and star in Rust, a Western based on a story he created with writer and director Joel Souza.[5] Baldwin told The Hollywood Reporter that he was elated to work with Souza after missing the opportunity to star in Crown Vic (2019). He compared the screenplay to the film Unforgiven (1992), and said it was inspired by a true story…Rust was being produced on a $6–7 million budget and has been described as a “passion project” for Baldwin.
So it was Alec Baldwin’s passion project for which he got paid surprisingly little considering his reputation. Yes, he could definitely influenced things for the better safety wise.
Good finds, thank you. Baldwin’s salary (not a whole lot, surprisingly, but way way more than the armorer, and I bet he gets a share of the revenue, too) and his role in getting this film green lit are at the very least of moral, if not legal, significance to me. Because it’s not like he’s just some working stiff doing what he’s told, scraping by on wage: he is a prime mover on this project. So while he might not have been the one calling all the shots from a production standpoint, he was hardly powerless to influence the production.
To be clear, I don’t think that should, by itself, equate to criminal liability for any and all harms arising from the production, but at the very least I will sleep just fine at night with Baldwin being put under a spotlight and, depending on how things go, perhaps becoming a textbook case (literally, like if he is initially convicted, and so inevitably appeals, I could see the appellate court’s decision ending up in law school textbooks) on the contours of negligence.
As would be suggested by reports early on in the story (mentioned earlier in this thread) that there were calls to reputable armorers, who declined upon learning how on-the-cheap this operation was being run.
Almost as if the production’s lack of reasonable precautions, bordering on (or surpassing?) negligence, were readily apparent to experienced armorers after only a cursory review of expected conditions. One wonders if any of these experienced armorers, in declining employment, communicated their concerns to the production team in a way that might have put producers, including Mr. Baldwin, on notice as to the (I daresay unreasonable, in light of these professionals’ understanding of industry’s standards?) risk the project posed to cast and crew…
Was it on the cheap for a movie of this budget? The $7000 really tells us nothing unless we know what a similar budgeted movie would pay for an armorer. There must be hundreds of shoot 'em up movies filmed every year that go straight to video that are made on the cheap. Literally no one has been killed with a live round on any of them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if these now experienced armorers wouldn’t have jumped at $7000 early in their career. Everyone on this film was making shit money. That’s part of why they had Souza and Hutchins working on the film in the first place. They were willing to do this film because this was the type of film available to them at their level of experience. If they could have done better film-wise/money-wise, they would have. Just look at their IMDB pages. I’m guessing no one here except movie buffs have heard of 99% of their work, much less seen it. It’s not like they paid top of the line for everyone connected to the movie, then decided to go cheap on the armorer.
Yeah, but relatively few of the people in those other positions had the potential to kill someone if they didn’t do their job right. A stunt coordinator, or a gaffer hanging a lighting instrument unsafely or rigging some other big equipment incorrectly, perhaps.
It should be noted that Baldwin and Hutchins’ family came to a resolution. So while his legal liability is still being determined, as long as her family is happy with his restitution, I think his moral debt is paid.
I’m not going to go back upthread to look, but I think they searched his work cache of ammo and found no live rounds. I think I posted the same article you did earlier when they thought the ammo came from him.
Definitely plenty of stupidity going around. I just think Baldwin is way down on the list of people who should be charged. In any business, you have to depend on your safety people to follow protocol because you can’t check everything for safety. If you end up doing the safety stuff yourself, why have an armorer or AD look at the guns at all?
Depending on how the truth plays out, the DA may have given a pass to the person with a big chunk of responsibility. If Halls did indeed take the gun without approval from Reed, didn’t check it himself and then told everyone it was a cold gun. he should be right there in the hot seat. Instead he got a light tap on the wrist and agrees to testify for the prosecution.
I agree here.
Absolutely, it’s that simple. AFAIK, this is a unique instance. I don’t think anyone has ever been killed by a live round while filming a movie before. Money has nothing to do with it. She agreed to the wages, she should do the job.
Slightly off topic: Since Hutchins is now a producer on the film, is he exempt from any lawsuits against the production company that may yet arise from the shooting?
It is noted. But this kind of harm is, IMHO, more than a private matter between Baldwin and Hutchins’ estate. It relates to work place safety practices in a major industry and as such is of public concern. Not just legally, but morally too.
Can you explain what you mean by morally in this case? Who exactly is owed something morally and why? As a member of the public, I don’t feel that I’m owed some kind of moral redress. It was a one off in millions of hours of filming shootings in movies. It’s literally never happened before. I fail to see where moral obligation comes into it outside of the Hutchins family. And they seemed to have been satisfied with the solution reached months ago.
@ASL_v2.0 will need to answer for themselves, but I believe people have a moral obligation to create and enforce just laws. But that’s rather diffuse–there’s no systematic injustice going on here. I can’t think of any moral obligation Baldwin has failed to pay, presuming he continues to submit to the legal system.