Yeah, both of them should. The article mentions attorneys Jason Bowles and Robert Gorence. Apparently two lunkheads are better than one.
Absolutely.
If you look at TV shows like Gunsmoke you can see a glimpse of the brighter colors used. I always thought it was a function of “made-for-TV” theatrics or they got a good deal on bolts of brightly colored fabric.
The gun action in that show seemed realistic enough to me. Not sure if it passes the hyper-critical realism test.
It’s possible the primer end of the bullets are similar if not identical. You would pull them out of the box that way… I would expect the normal procedure is to line up 6 cartridges sitting on the primer end so you could see the projectile end because that’s how you identify them.
You know far more about guns and ammo than I do, so please correct my understanding:
-
A dummy round has a dimple on the primer end; a live round does not.
-
Dummy rounds typically have crimped ends on top, while live rounds do not.
If either or both of those are wrong, what differences would an armorer note? And the closer to identical the dummy round is to the live round, the more important a careful examination would be, yes?
-
A dummy round may have a dimpled primer if it was made using an expended primer rather than just a fake primer.
-
You are thinking of blanks, which still have powder in them, but a crimped end rather than a bullet.
To recognize a dummy round would depend on how it was made exactly. It will either rattle because the powder has been replaced by BBs or it will have a hole drilled in the side. (or both I guess)
The armorer’s statement is very strange from a professional perspective. If she had been doing her job properly, none of the sabotage she alleges would have come anywhere near resulting in the on-set death.
My guess is her legal team is going to try to thread a very tight needle, allowing professional negligence while avoiding criminal negligence. End the career but stay out of jail.
You could also look at works from Western painters like Frederic Remington or Charles Marion Russell, the latter of whom had been an actual cowboy, for impressions of what people dressed like.
This seems unlikely to me. How many pacifists (or even just war avoiders) do you suppose Saving Private Ryan created? An important theme in the movie Jarhead is that it’s nigh impossible to produce an anti-war film. Whatever reactions realistic depictions of violence might produce by way of association in those who have “been there/done that,” it will likely not have that same effect on those who haven’t.
I’d say it was more likely to highlight the new technology of color TV. Gunsmoke ran from 1955 to 1975, straddling the switch to color that happened in the mid-1960s. Viewers who just bought their first color TV didn’t want to see dull, muted colors, even if they were more “accurate.”
Ryan was never intended to be an antiwar movie. I mean, if there’s one thing we know Steven Spielberg hates, it’s Nazis. He’d never, ever imply that fighting them in WW2 was wrong.
I mentioned upthread my sister and brother in law are actors who’ve used guns on set. What I failed to mention is that despite neither having any experience with firearms off set, they never felt unsafe using them on set. Why? Because the safety procedures were followed absolutely by the numbers.
One of my irritations about movies like that - or for that matter ones set in medieval times, or post apocalyptic times, or whatever - is that people have almost never deliberately dressed in drab, ugly shit. My other irritation is that poor people in film are portrayed as living in dark homes full of filth and mess. In fact, at almost all times in history, people have adorned themselves with color and beauty, and have tried to keep clean.
I’m afraid you misunderstood my post. I must not have been clear. I don’t believe movies, let alone a single movie, could convince an audience to become pacifists, a wildly idealistic notion. No, my premise–and note the “maybe” in the bit you quoted–is that when people see graphic depictions of the brutality of war, they might better understand the psychological toll it takes on so many veterans. Certainly it seems more likely after seeing such a movie than it would be after seeing the sanitized versions produced during the Hays Code years.
Perhaps. I will just note that, sadly (by way of analogy), I didn’t really begin to empathize with people getting hit in the face until I took a semester of boxing (it was mandatory at my particular college). Sometimes seeing isn’t enough. Which isn’t to say that one needs to experience war or getting hit in the face (or touching a hot stove for that matter) to know, as an academic matter, that such things are bad or might take a “psychological toll,” only that I think the full lesson sometimes does require a bit of a hands on approach, and that merely seeing it, absent having the psychological experience along with it, might lead one to underestimate the harm done to the recipient.
I guess if I had to arrive at a point back on topic, it would simply be that I am open to the idea that maybe realistic portrayals of violence do not serve society well enough (if at all) to justify the use of real actual firearms as “props” in movie sets. Personal opinion stamp goes here.
It is perhaps instructive on the relative level of safety on movie sets using guns that the American film industry averages, what, one gun death every 20 years?
The USA outside film sets has about one accidental gun death every eighteen hours.
Yeah, as I said above:
The solution lies in ensuring those rules are followed, by a. not working crews to distracted exhaustion and b. protecting workers from professional blowback when they point out violations.
That’s an excellent point. I wasn’t going to go into this, but when I was teaching US history, I hit PTSD and the issues returning veterans face pretty hard, and maybe that guidance makes all the difference. My high school students weren’t watching (the first 30 minutes of) Saving Private Ryan with a bunch of friends for entertainment. And they’d already All Quiet on the Western Front when we studied WWI. All Quiet had its graphic moments (graveyard battle scene), but I mostly wanted them to understand the psychological impact of war: the soldiers couldn’t go back to being the innocent youths they’d been before the war and couldn’t comprehend who or what they’d be when it was over. In fact, when Paul, the narrator and main character, is home on leave, he realizes nobody who’s been in that particular war could have any understanding of what it was like. We referred back to All Quiet during every subsequent war we covered. And during our coverage of Vietnam, we listened to the song “Still in Saigon.”
Of course, there was much more we studied in conjunction with each war, and other important aspects we hit hard, but my point was that if we’re going to send people to war, we have the obligation to understand what we’re sending them to and to help them cope with the physical and psychological damage afterward. And I saw that my students got that. But again, that was guided, not just watching one movie with a bunch of friends for pure entertainment.
Your point is well-taken.
Also it would seem that most of the serious set safety issues revolve around motor vehicles rather than revolvers. Nobody seems to bat an eye at a stunt driver being killed in a crash, which has happened a whole lot more often than people dying in gun accidents.
I think I was the first one in this thread to mention the possibility of sabotage. It may not still be probable … yet … but it seems to have become more of a possibility than it was, what with more reports of disgruntlement over working conditions. I’ve known plenty of people who would be capable of slipping in a live round or two just to stir up some shit.