Most of what we think authentic western wear was is colored by viewing of old sepia tone photos. That soft brown tint is the result of a chemical process that took place in the darkroom. Its purpose was to prevent fading and prolong a photograph’s life and archival value. But it disguised the actual colors they wore. I’ve read several accounts that claim cowboys tended to wear garish colors.
But, of course, to modern movie viewers that wouldn’t seem “authentic”.
Not unlike the impression people have that Greek/Roman statuary was all white, when we know now that a lot of it was painted, and rather vividly at that.
And something like a quarter of American cowboys were Black, but if you portrayed that realistically, the usual suspects would scream about woke activism invading their beloved mythology.
Same holds true for Victorian clothes. Aniline dyes came into use in the 19th century, and were widely used for women’s clothing. Men wore black, grey and brown, but women’s dresses were often brightly colored, in shades we’d now think of as clashing.
And bowlers rather than Stetsons
Movies made pre-WWII also had little gore, and for two reasons: the limitations of cinematic technology of the time and The Hays Code, which explicitly stated
Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.
and
The use of firearms should be restricted to the essentials.
You’d have to establish that veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. who were alive after The Hays Code was lifted and as special effects tech improved, have avoided movies with graphic violence (and not just war movies). EMT’s and others who deal with the gruesome consequences of violence would also have to demonstrate an aversion to such films.
Hollywood in general in its move towards “realism” seems to universally show “historical people” in very muted neutral colors most of the time, unless it’s some specific type of culture that is well established in the zeitgest as being known for elaborate dress (i.e. like the nobility in Downton Abbey or in period pieces set in the 18th century nobility etc etc.)
But oddly enough a lot of shows like Vikings and The Last Kingdom which show all the Viking elite and Saxon elite dressed in dun colored cloth and leather (which by the way, the huge % of people just wearing leather jerkins everywhere as daily clothing is also not right) is way off the mark. Both the Saxons and the Vikings prized vibrant colors and fine clothing, now absolutely if your TV show is about actual peasants of the time, they didn’t have easy access to vibrant colors and the expensive dyes that go into them. But the Viking warrior elite for example, absolutely did, and were very proud of being able to display their accumulated wealth, and figures like King Alfred the Great dressing little better than a common stable hand is also highly unlikely.
Were you not expecting real blood or the red scarves as substitutes? When audiences see a high school play or community theatre production, they note that the gunfire is a sound effect and that there’s no resulting gore, but it doesn’t throw them because their expectation is that they’ll need to suspend a lot more disbelief than they would otherwise.
I’m very sensitive to gore and generally avoid movies with a lot of graphic violence. I made myself watch Saving Private Ryan, though, because I knew it was important to see Normandy invasion as the guys storming the beachhead saw it, and I’d read that when Spielberg screened it for D-Day vets, some had to walk out because it was so close to what they’d experienced. It took real fortitude not to close my eyes, but if I had, or if I’d merely watched The Longest Day, I wouldn’t have realized how shocking and grisly their experience was.
War movies in particular should never make carnage look palatable and wounds seem tidy. Doing so romanticizes and idealizes war, and while viewers may understand some of the loneliness and loss, they’re left with only vague impressions of the horrors. Maybe if more people saw war as graphically as it is in real life, they’d better understand why veterans can’t just put the war behind them and why PTSD is so prevalent.
That is why my cop buddies like Barney Miller. Realistic- and funny.
Bad coffee, nasty bathrooms, yep. Snide office humor? Well, not quite as good as the show, but yeah.
I don’t think we ever saw a gun fired during the show? iirc They took them for some issues, iirc.
Nope. Well, yes, no Stetsons as that company hadn’t come around yet, but cowboys wore wide brimmed felt or straw hats, not bowlers. They wore bowlers for staged photos. Teddy mention in a period book that they saw some guy wearing a bowler and harassed him off the streets. Period in the field photos show those hats.
That article was poor research. She did find out that Stetson company, which made those wide-brimmed felt hats stylish, did not come around until the ending years of the cowboy period. True. She saw all those posed photographs of the cowboys, like the infamous Butch & Sundance with their gang- they jumped to a bad decision.
I meant i wasn’t expecting scarves, but i suppose i wasn’t expecting actual blood, either. It was a live production.
My point was that the symbolic “spurting blood” worked surprisingly well.
Back to the original topic: Gutierrez=Reed’s attorneys are claiming:
“There was a box of dummy rounds and the box is labeled dummy. Hannah did take from that box which she by all accounts should have been able to rely on, that contains only dummy rounds,” said Gutierrez Reed’s lawyer Jason Bowles. “She loaded rounds from that box into the handgun only to later find out – and she had no idea – she inspected the rounds, that there was a live round. Now we don’t know, however, whether that live round came from that box. We’re assuming it did. We’re assuming somebody put the live round in that box, which if you think about that, the person who put the live round in the box of dummy rounds had to have the purpose of sabotaging this set. There’s no other reason you would do that.”
So Gutierrez-Reed couldn’t tell the difference between dummy rounds and live rounds when she loaded the gun, which she then left unattended for 2 hours.
According to the article, she thought the scene was going to be filmed outside, even though they’d been setting up inside the church. She also thought an armorer wasn’t needed during technical preparations.
She spun the barrel to show Halls it contained six dummy rounds, didn’t recognize the one live round, and handed the gun to him.
Is it just me, or are her attorneys as inept as she apparently is? How does this add up to “not her fault”?
should have been able to rely on
Nope. Her job was to check, not to assume.
Yeah, that seems to be flat out admitting that she didn’t check the cartridges when she loaded them and just assumed the box labeled dummies contained all dummies.
Didn’t she supply the box of blanks?
Or - maybe in those two hours someone loaded a live round in their for some stupid reason?
No matter the procedence of the rounds being put in the chambers, the nature of each one had to be verified. Every time.
They’ve already backtracked on the 2 hours and are saying it was 5-10 minutes.
Maybe – having paid attention during the Trump administration – her lawyers are settling on the Gish Gallop strategy.
For the sake of his client, that lawyer should really stfu. There’s no reason for any statement beyond “My client has no comment on this matter while it is under investigation.” There is zero possible legal advantage to spouting off in public, and plenty of of potential disadvantage.
Now obviously if the negligence in this case primarily lies with Gutierrez-Reed I have no issue with her taking the rap. But she doesn’t deserve to have her own lawyer sabotage her case.