Yeah.
The courts will be sorting this one out for years as they all scurry for cover and point fingers at the other guy/gal.
I seriously doubt that Baldwin was involved in hiring decisions, personnel management, and the logistical and administrative details of the movie in any way.
He was a producer in the sense that he was working on the script and consulting with the director about the storyline and the look and feel of the movie.
I am curious where the buck stops on things like this?
If the company (or people) that funded the production went cheap so corners were cut do they share some responsibility? Who hires who? Are they responsible if a person they hired was bad at their job (or worse, they hired someone they knew would cut corners so as to save money)? Who has to listen to complaints that someone is not doing their job? Are they accountable if they ignore those complaints and something bad happens as a result?
It’s a tangled mess and will take a long time to unravel.
[quote=“GuanoLad, post:624, topic:952960, full:true”]
The simple truth is, the hierarchy of responsibility is unknown to any of us outside of that particular production, and we should stop speculating on it. [/quote]
Maybe this is a stupid question, but given the job title, wouldn’t the 1st Assistant Director be directly subordinate to the Director? I know Souza was shot too, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be responsible for what happened.
Apparently it doesn’t work that way in modern times. The title is misleading.
Historically, assistant directing was a stepping stone to directing work … This was when the role was more general and encompassed all aspects of filmmaking such as set design and script editing.
This transition into film directing is no longer common in feature films, as the role has focused into a more logistical and managerial position.
The Director is more on the creative and artistic side.
I don’t know New Mexico law or case law.
I do know the laws in my state which will be similar. Criminal charges like manslaughter will need more direct action (or negligent inaction) for there to be probable cause. Where the buck stops is not enough proximate cause. Being the guy who hired the guy who caused the death is not enough for a criminal charge. I think someone will be charged and relatively soon with at least what appears to be a 4th degree manslaughter charge. It won’t be Alec Baldwin. A civil lawsuit is an entirely different matter.
True, but isn’t the Director still the ultimate authority on any film set?
The first news article I saw about this movie in looking back through history is one mentioning the Baldwin and Travis Fimmel (of Vikings fame) had “signed on” for the movie, with Baldwin also producing. The fact that Baldwin “signed on” at least makes it seem like this wasn’t his personal passion project, but some sort of already-structured opportunity he was brought into. It seems uncertain to me that he was basically the CEO of the movie.
I think the director is in charge of each “take” of filming, but the director generally has bosses unless they’re also producing and/or have negotiated full control, which isn’t typical. Like Quentin Tarantino and Stanley Kubrick typically only worked on movies where they basically were made complete kings of the production, with final say on almost everything. But I think that’s an example of “exceptions that prove the rule” sorta thing.
OK, so at the time of the shooting, who was in charge of the set? Not, who was in charge of safety, or who was in charge of where the camera was pointed, but who was in charge, period? Who was the “ranking officer”?
On the other hand, Baldwin still seems to be on good terms with Halyna’s family.
He visited her husband and son, and was photographed hugging Halyna’s husband. There have also been positive comments about him from Halyna’s family.
It’s not like a military operation.
The impression I’m getting, subject to correction by people in the movie industry, and bearing in mind that individual movies may be run differently, is that no one person was in charge overall.
Different people had different areas of responsibility, and they were all ultimately responsible to the financers of the movie, who could fire them, but were not involved in the day-to-day details on set.
They will all have contracts that specify their responsibilities, and that will determine their legal liability.
This is taken from a NY Post article. Its too soon to say whether he will be charged or not.
Alec Baldwin could face liability in shooting of Halyna Hutchins: legal experts (nypost.com)
Sure, Baldwin could wind up in front of a judge and jury before all this is over. He was, after all, involved in a fatal accident. It was his finger on the trigger of the gun. I don’t expect a murder charge, that would be entirely over the top, but something like involuntary manslaughter is possible. A quick google tells me that in New Mexico that’s a “fourth degree felony” with possible sentence of 18 months in prison and probation (if a lawyer comes along there might be more and better information/detail on that). From a legal/life standpoint that’s not the end of the world for Baldwin IF convicted - and it’s far from certain he would be. Given that he’s a celebrity, though, social and professional fallout might have more impact long term. This will certainly dog him for a long time, perhaps the rest of his life, and it’s definitely going to be at least a paragraph in his wikipedia entry. And having a felony conviction on your record can impose other problems, from restriction of rights (voting and possessing firearms, for example) and could bar him from traveling to various other countries for exotic location filming.
There is also the potential for one or more civil cases against Baldwin.
Baldwin might decide to opt for a plea deal in a criminal case, or try to negotiate and out-of-court settlement for civil ones.
And finally, I’ll point out that Baldwin has not been charged at all in this incident up to this point. No one has. Clearly, the sheriff department is conducting an investigation rather than having a knee-jerk reaction.
I suspect (as a non-lawyer) that these two are going to be the ones found most at fault at the end, given their professional and legal responsibilities for set safety.
If a mechanic screws up repairing an airplane and deaths result it’s typically the mechanic found at fault, not the boss of the repair facility or the CEO of the airline. There are exceptions to that, but they’re just that, exceptions.
This is why we have courts, and why trials can take considerable time.
I don’t work in the business but my understanding was:
The producers (real producers and not vanity credits) put up the money so in theory have ultimate control. But since they have money invested they are desperate to see the film made even if they have to compromise.
The director has artistic control and shapes the film. The director also has to compromise. The director might want a big name expensive star plus an expensive set built plus to film in a specific location. The producer might say they have to film in a cheaper location. Or they can have one car chase and a small explosion or no car chase but a bigger explosion.
Some directors have sufficient clout they can force the producers to keep increasing the budget. In other films the director is much weaker and simply obeys the producers. Or gets sacked.
Depending on their status in the industry a star actor can have a lot of clout and they have to be accommodated. The cliche is actors always require being gently cajoled and having their ego massaged. However the reality is some actors pretty much guarantee some decent box office on the opening night. Plus some actors have sufficient skill and charisma they can more or less carry a poor film.
Traditionally (pre 1970s) producers clearly had power. Post 1970s directors and actors gained power. These days producers are trying to reclaim power.
In theory all budget and creative decisions should be agreed pre-production between producers, directors and any sufficiently important actors. It should all be decided well ahead of serious production. But then once they start filming it can all change…
TCMF-2L
“Producers” are a wide category. A really, really wide category.
The latest explanations and revelations on the case excerpted from this longish article:
The shot that killed a cinematographer on a New Mexico film set last week was fired as actor Alec Baldwin was practicing drawing his gun, according to the director who was injured in the shooting, an affidavit for a search warrant shows.
…
Souza spoke to investigators Friday, according to the affidavit released by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office on Sunday.Souza told them Baldwin was “sitting in a pew in a church building setting, and he was practicing a cross draw,” the affidavit said. A cross draw is when a shooter pulls the weapon from a holster on the opposite side of the body from the draw hand.
…
Both Souza and Russell acknowledged difficulties on set that day because of a walkout of some members of the camera department over payment and housing. Due to the labor problems, Souza said they had only one camera available to use that day, and it was not recording at the time of the incident.
…
According to the warrant, Souza said three people had been handling the guns or firearms for scenes – they were checked by the armorer and first assistant director and then given to the actor using them.The investigator said Souza was unaware of anyone on set being checked to see if they had live ammunition on them before or after the scenes were filmed.
“The only thing checked are the firearms to avoid live ammunition being in them. Joel (Souza) stated there should never be live rounds whatsoever near or around the scene,” the affidavit said.
…
According to the affidavit, Russell told investigators Baldwin was “trying to explain how he was going to draw out the firearm and where his arm would be at when the firearm was pulled from the holster.”Russell “was not sure why the firearm was discharged and just remembered the loud bang from the firearm,” the affidavit says.
When asked how Baldwin handled the firearm, Russell told investigators the actor “had been very careful” and recalled an earlier instance when Baldwin “made sure it was safe and that a child wasn’t near him when they were discharging a firearm during that scene.”
TL;DR: Baldwin had been conscientious about gun safety. He was demonstrating the cross-draw he wanted to use when the gun went off. Allegedly the armorer and first asst. director checked the guns before giving them to actors.There was only one cameraman at the time due to the walkout.
Clearly, something did not happen this way.
Which part is open to question.
Would an actor even know enough about guns to check safely? Unless its someone with previous military experience, like say Adam Driver, I doubt it. Even for those with said experience would they have sufficient understanding of that particular gun? I mean, I know a bit about guns and my Dad was a career Army officer, but a couple of years ago we had the chance to fire an old British Martini-Henri rilfe at a range and if the expert wasn’t standing right next to us guiding us through the process, I for for one may have caused an accicent.
There is a good description of this further up the thread (from someone who does this for a living). Absolutely the actor is not expected to mess with the mechanism and see if the gun is safe. Instead the armorer is meant to open the mechanism and show it to the actor before giving him the gun. At that point the actor just has to say “no I don’t see a bullet”, which doesn’t require military training. The armorer then closes it up and hands it to the actor for the scene.
Clearly nothing like this was done in this case.