That’s possible. But first, she should not have left the guns out where others can get them, and second, she should have re-checked the guns that morning. In other words, she has no excuse.
Yeah, in no way do I think that is an excuse. I was only responding to the idea that early hours might mean five or 6 AM, which would be a totally different time frame.
Right–the timetable is interesting, but ultimately she and the AD should have rechecked rather than assuming the gun was cold.
Legally no but the media seems to be taking that angle. I’ve read so many opinion pieces that talk about how irresponsible it was for an “inexperienced young woman” to be put in charge of guns on a movie set, implying that women are inherently inferior because guns are a man’s realm. There is no other reason to continually reference her gender in these articles when talking about how she wasn’t ready for this job.
And I’m not someone who seeks out signs of misogyny, it’s just that this is really blatant.
There’s a lot to unpack in your post.
I don’t think the articles reference her gender because woman are inferior (or seek to imply that), just unusual in that capacity at this point in time. The reasons for that historical fact may well (almost certainly do) involve misogyny but I doubt the articles are calling for that or seeking to reinforce previous notions of male hierarchy.
Do you decry the use of gender specific pronouns in these articles and elsewhere? Are they also “really blatant”?
Was there anything wrong with describing Halyna Hutchins as a woman?
I think the descriptor is used because it’s a descriptor.
Yes. From the media? No. From pundits? Possibly. From Joe Internet? Yes indeed.
As part of the complaint, yes. And I’ll note that not all articles do it. Here is one that doesn’t:
They highlight that she’s “inexperienced” and “green”. Her gender is mentioned frequently but not as part of the reasons why she’s unqualified.
Contrast to this article:
“There is no way a 24-year-old woman can be a professional with armory; there is no way that her more-or-less the same-aged friend from school, neighborhood, Instagram, or God knows where else, can be a professional in this field,” Svetnoy said.
Now, in this case the article is providing a direct quote and that’s not the language of the author of the article, but that’s the language that I take issue with.
Here is another one:
“I have never met this young lady, I don’t know her from Adam, but what I can tell you is she screwed up and now someone is dead. It’s as simple as that.”
Maybe I was hasty in blaming the media. They are only providing quotes. But the language is clear in painting the picture that women shouldn’t be doing this work. I think combining that with tabloids who show salacious selfies she took will paint a picture of her gender being at least partially at fault.
I thought the same thing at first but I checked a longer transcript to verify my hunch and I’m not sure. It’s still unclear to me but she seems uncertain about even loading blanks into a gun.
“I think loading blanks is, like, the scariest thing to me because I was like, ‘oh, I don’t know anything about it,’ but, you know, he taught me that, and eventually by the time I was, like, trying to figure out how to make a specific blank go when you want it to rather than it hitting, like, the empty cylinders and everything — I figured that out on my own.”
“Explain that process,” a podcaster asked.
“Uh, so, normally, if you, like, you know, you open the loading gate, you put the bullet in, you have to put it right around, so right before — you have to bring that bullet — that blank all the way around to right before the cylinder, so then that way, the next time someone pulls back the hammer and shoots it, it will go off, yeah, and you have to look at the front of it and determine which one’s the blank if it’s dummied up, you know, that’s how I tell, at least.”
The podcaster asked if the rest of the cylinder is generally filled with “dummy wads.”
Gutierrez said that usually it was.
So maybe it was loading (i.e., making) blank cartridges that scared her until her dad taught her or maybe it was loading the blank cartridges into the gun that scared her but once she knew, she was at least able to figure out how to make the blank round the next one under the hammer. In any event, she doesn’t seem to have the experience to be an armorer.
Interesting. The armorer described in the same interview how she would load a blank firing round along with dummy rounds (which look from the front like real rounds) for the same shot. So perhaps she both confused dummy rounds for real rounds when loading the gun and failed to chamber the blank round in the gun to fire first.
It doesn’t seem likely that Baldwin checked the gun in compliance with the SAG rules as you describe them. Perhaps he got lax about safety checks after decades of professional armorers who handed him safe guns.
That lept out at me in a quote posted earlier in this thread:
“There is no way a twenty-four-year-old woman can be a professional with armory”
Why, I wondered, did the author not just say 24-year-old?
In that quote it appears that she means scared more in terms of screwing up the shot rather than anything dangerous. Putting a blank into a revolver is not something even a novice shooter would be afraid of. Loading a blank into the wrong chamber and screwing up the shot makes sense for an inexperienced armorer to be apprehensive about.
Here’s an interesting LA Times article I stumbled on while reading one of the articles in a previous link.
It’s about a guy that interviewed to be prop master for the production, and ultimately declined the job because he saw too many red flags, ie. they were cheap and disorganized. The last straw was their refusal to hire a dedicated armorer - they wanted that person to double as the assistant prop master. Apparently Gutierrez was performing both jobs.
That’s the first I’ve seen of the actual name of a hiring production manager, Row Walters. Just skimming the internet, she doesn’t seem to have much experience (if I’m looking at the right person).
ETA: while I’m interested in hearing the story from the prop master who turned the job down, I also balk at the inevitable emergence of people who do somewhat make the story about themselves and their feelings. I don’t 100% trust those narratives.
Holy frick. Look,TMZ is by definition a tabloid. Yes, they’ve published stories on more substantive issues than celebrity gossip, and they’re undoubtedly more reliable than tabloids like the National Enquirer. But paying for stories is generally considered pretty unethical among journalists and more respected news media, and TMZ pays widely and well for the juicy tips the site gathers. It doesn’t help that TMZ is owned by Fox, which is also not known for its journalistic integrity.
So no, TMZ is not a bastion of quality journalism. And you might reconsider your baseless conclusion that the people who think it’s not are “lazy”. We might just have, you know, ethical standards for news media.
Yeah, we were involved in a car accident last year – the other driver fell asleep – and when I was given the DPS officer’s field report, DesertRoomie was listed as the driver of the other car along with a drivers license number, not hers.
First reports are not always reliable.
I thought, given the forlorn looking set, that the title alluded to some sort of decay, when it’s Baldwin’s character, Harland Rust.
Consciously, most people will not assume that gender plays a role in their perception of Gutierrez’ fault. If directly asked, I’m guessing the typical response would be an indignant “of course I’m not sexist! Her gender has nothing to do with my judgment that she’s unqualified!”
And I would believe that they believed themselves free of bias, especially since one doesn’t need to be biased to think that the evidence shows she had no business being in the job. The same characteristics in any 24-year old would paint a pretty grim picture. But on an unconscious level, it’s hard to believe that people won’t include her gender in their overall assessment of her qualifications.
In any case, @ZipperJJ isn’t claiming that Gutierrez is being unfairly blamed because it’s assumed she’s incompetent due to her gender. What ZipperJJ is saying is that it is a shame that other women may be more likely to feel the effects of unconscious bias in the future, because it’s been a long, slow road toward eliminating gender bias, and this terrible incident is a real setback.
I would be interested in the reason behind loading mixed rounds in a gun. That seems like an accident waiting to happen. Almost guaranteed to happen.
I can see why armorers would make their own blanks. You can then make them with foam wadding that is very easy to spot and would likely disintegrate in a short distance.
Thank you. That makes sense and answers my question.
And this is what I still don’t understand. If she was out by the cart and not on the set, wouldn’t she have handed the gun to the AD? And if she was on set and not out by the cart, who was minding the cart? And why would she not have double-checked the gun was “cold”?
I know we probably won’t get answers until more facts come out. While there’s a lot of disagreement and speculation on this thread, I really am learning a lot, which is why I keep reading.
The point seemed more about accuracy than ethics. TMZ might be sleazy, but are they often wrong?
I’ve never heard a tla for them…
And for the record. The terms in live theater are:
Dummy rounds = completely inert rounds used to simulate the look and feel
Hot rounds = blanks or caps, that have a charge to simulate the firing of a round.
Live rounds = rounds with actual projectiles.
I don’t know for sure if it’s the same in the movie industry, but live rounds or live ammo is strictly prohibited in any theatrical setting.