Thank you.
Yes, the possibility has been posed and discounted. It has been reported, but not confirmed, that some of the crew were out in the desert and screwing around with the movie set guns and firing them in the desert. The possibility is that the live ammo was mixed with the dummy rounds, or even that the gun was returned to the movie set hot and not inspected.
In that article Baldwin is referred to first as the executive producer then later as the “main producer”. Producers and exec. producers are two different things. So many people are playing so fast and loose with terms they know nothing about. Reporters, writers, and many wildly speculating Dopers.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. First, malicious intent is certainly a possibility. Not as likely as a simple accident, but not out of the realm of possibility.
Second, if the guns had been fired in the desert, then cleaning afterwards would be necessary. A fired pistol can be smelled and would be noticed. If the crew that was screwing around and firing them in the desert knew anything about guns (which is likely, if they were screwing around with them), they would know they would have to clean them afterwards or their evil deeds would become evident. The question, then, is if they cleaned the guns afterwards, why did they put the real bullets back in? Maybe they just got confused? Maybe they lost the dummy rounds and just faked it with real bullets to keep from being found out?
Now, it has only been reported that the guns had been fired in the desert. This might be a red herring. If true, then finding how they got possession of the gun and what they actually did with them and why they replaced them with real bullets in them is an important part of this that I have not seen anything reported.
I’ve been thinking that too. I’d love for there to be a downturn in the depiction of gun use in productions. I don’t think we will be so lucky though …
As long as Westerns, crime movies, and war movies remain popular genres, there’ll still be a lot of firearms depicted in films.
Yeah, I’d love to see fewer of those too.
The document you linked to was issued in 2003.
It did not come from SAG or any other union but from a training and certification non-profit called Contract Services Administration Trust Fund.
It is a list of recommendations, not rules, so it doesn’t “require” anything.
One thing in there I found interesting was it indicated the Prop Master is ultimately in charge of prop weapons and their usage, and the Armorer is below them.
But again, this is an 18 year-old list of recommendations from a non-profit.
Your very avatar depicts a person ruining across a battlefield under heavy fire.
Not just webspace.
(too late to put into my previous post)
Which case are you speaking of? The shooting on the Rust set? If so let me ask you: how do you know the prop gun would be loaded with dummy rounds? Aren’t you guessing and assuming a lot just from reading some very spotty information from poorly trained writers of what amounts to click-bait?
You assume that because the round in Baldwin’s prop gun ended up killing/wounding people apparently near the camera there just HAD to be a shot lined-up that revealed the bullet tips in the revolver necessitating cosmetic dummy bullets in the prop gun?
Or do you have a cite saying dummy rounds were in the gun?
I’m sorry if it seems I’m picking on you and your post. The thing is there has been a lot of inaccuracy and low-grade gossip in this thread, yours just happened to be one I responded to.
You’re assuming they knew anything about guns. I suspect there was a lot of, “Hold my beer and watch this,” involved.
I expect if anyone is going to have a strong stance on gun control, it’ll be a person under heavy fire.
I saw it in the LA Times, I think, but it turns out the original source is TMZ–not exactly a bastion of quality journalism.
Multiple sources directly connected to the ‘Rust’ production tell TMZ … the same gun Alec Baldwin accidentally fired – hitting the DP and director – was being used by crews members off set as well, for what we’re told amounted to target practice.
And:
There’s also this … one source who was on set and familiar with the goings-on of the crew tells us that when cops showed up, they found live ammo and blanks were being stored in the same area – another possible explanation for how an actual bullet slipped got in the gun.
So I’m going to say no, we don’t know for sure that happened. Of course, we don’t know for sure that it didn’t happen.
Well, somebody knew what rounds to get so they could have their shoot-out in the desert. Either they knew that they would need to clean the gun afterwards or they didn’t. If they knew, somebody cleaned them afterwards. If they didn’t, anyone who handled the guns afterwards would know they had been fired. If you don’t believe this, you haven’t fired guns, much. Guns have to be cleaned after firing. It is not optional. If they are not, the next person handling the gun will know. It doesn’t have to be a complete disassembly, but they must be cleaned.
It was issued in 2003, but it has apparently not been changed in all this time and is still current.
The training and certification organization is the one officially used by the SAG, and their web site safety information links to it.
This document is the only one I’ve seen referenced anywhere, but it makes clear itself, and industry professionals have also said that…
Reading about this, I find it interesting that cinematographer is historically the deadliest job in film (even more so than stuntperson). Most of the deaths appear to be in helicopter or plane crashes.
ISTM (and I know nothing about this) that the standard is to inspect each gun before it is given to the actor. While several people here say that the armorer will usually demonstrate the state of a gun to an actor, I can see how an actor who is used to taking the word of the armorer, might trust them without a manual inspection. I am still not clear if this is mandatory or something that the actor can (and usually does) request. However, I can’t see how there is not clear negligence here in 1) leaving guns out on the set where presumable somebody other than the armorer could grab them 2) not clearing said guns before leaving them out 3) grabbing a gun and handing it to an actor before ascertaining that it is cleared and 4) announcing it without direct knowledge.
I can see where the armorer could be the most liable by asserting that the guns on set have been examined and were cold but I can’t get over the fact that they weren’t in her direct care the entire time before the AD declared the gun cold and therefore safe. I still think that the AD ran a sloppy set and based on reports from prior shoots may have been intimidating and aggressive. While the armorer should not have been in the job without the ability to stand up to the AD and do it correctly, I still fault the AD.
From what I can see, Baldwin clearly trusted that the gun was cold. Again, I would have to see more data on whether the actor is allowed to trust the experts but has the option to double check or is required to double check. If not required, I can actually see Baldwin having a case for emotional distress. Whatever my personal thoughts about him he did seem absolutely devastated.
If someone knew enough to clean the guns, why did the gun Baldwin fired have a live round? And apparently the gun wasn’t checked on the set the next day, or a live round wouldn’t have been in it.
Or they are guns that are fired everyday for a few weeks (blank or live) so they aren’t spotless. There is no reason to expect the guns were sitting there showroom quality every day. You are way overstating the need to be clean. Putting a few live rounds through it popping targets would not make it nearly as dirty as blanks do.
Many reputable media sources have reported this.
Actor Alec Baldwin was drawing a revolver across his body and pointing it at a camera during a rehearsal on a US film set when it fired with tragic results
If he was pointing it at the camera, it would be standard procedure to have dummy rounds in the revolver, so that it would look natural to the camera.