Given that this is the first death from a gun prop since the filming of the 1994 film “The Crow”, the track record of using guns as props is INCREDIBLY safe. We are talking MILLIONS if not billions of blank rounds fired in various films, large and small, with no one killed. That is a fantastic safety record.
This isn’t a failure of the practices being put in place to prevent death and injury, this is a failure of not adhering to those practices. Gross negligence that Baldwin as a producer is probably liable for.
Movie stunt work has some inherent risks. Way more stunt doubles get injured or killed doing vehicle stunts or other acrobatic stunts. But that doesn’t mean that stunts in films can’t be done safely.
Given that this is the first death from a gun prop since the filming of the 1994 film “The Crow”, the track record of using guns as props is INCREDIBLY safe.
The Crow incident led to new procedures, which greatly improved gun safety on set. These procedures all depend on people consistently doing the right thing. People make mistakes, and some give in to pressure to take shortcuts because of the pressures of production schedules. One of those procedures says live ammunition should never be used or brought onto a set.
While the safety record is impressive, accidents still happen. An extra was shot twice in Revenge of the Scorpion (2003). Sometimes injuries can require hospitalization, but aren’t fatal, such as in The Cardinal in 2016.
If I recall correctly, Baldwin’s incident was the third unintentional firing of a weapon in the production of Rust. Fortunately the first two didn’t cause injuries.
Movie stunt work has some inherent risks. Way more stunt doubles get injured or killed doing vehicle stunts or other acrobatic stunts. But that doesn’t mean that stunts in films can’t be done safely.
Agreed. But a key difference is that the risks are almost entirely limited to the trained stunt performer(s). The crew might also face some risk from the stunt (e.g., debris flying where it wasn’t expected to), but that’s for a very specific and limited time period.
A firearm, even one loaded with blanks, is dangerous for the actor handling it and for everyone around them, from their fellow actors to the script supervisor. And the danger exists not just while shooting a scene, but all of the time that it’s out of lockup. Baldwin was rehearsing his blocking. Actors get some training when they have to handle firearms, but I doubt that’s as extensive as the safety training a stunt driver undergoes.
I’ve just learned that some productions have gone all-digital for gunshots. I hope that’s the beginning of a trend.
And, AND, why the fuck was any gun capable of firing live ammunition anywhere near a goddamn film set? Like, ever? And it’s not even the first time.
(ETA: just noticed that was, in fact one of your bullet points. Me fail do reading good)
This signals either a dismal failure of basic gun handling by the actors, or there was something mechanically wrong with the firearm(s). Both should are the responsibility of the person(s) in charge of handling the firearms and training people on use.
That doesn’t matter. Just because a person is better trained and their job has an acknowledged higher risk, doesn’t make it more acceptable when one of them are killed or injured. As you said, people make mistakes, even highly trained stunt people.
Of course it isn’t as extensive as stunt drivers. It doesn’t need to be. The task of properly handling a firearm on set is not that difficult. If the death is not due to some mechanical failure, but because Baldwin had his finger on the trigger while letting go of the hammer, then he shares some responsibility. The rest of the blame is what ever lead to live rounds on the set.
This is like the phenomenon of “stacked tolerances”, some minor differences in parts will allow them to still fit together. Too many small differences and then the parts won’t fit together. When it comes to safety practices, they usually have some redundancy. When you keep stacking those violations is when you end up with a death or injury.
It absolutely is a tool used by some film makers, just like some use CGI for vehicle stunts or stunts involving actors doing a dangerous fall or jump. And there is nothing wrong, per se, of going that route. Of course, this isn’t doable in all instances. But IMO, both options are viable if the stunt can be performed safely.
Danielle Radcliff’s stunt double broke his neck and became paralyzed from the chest down. His stunt didn’t involve vehicles or weapons. So the risk of any scene requiring stunts is never zero. IMO we should continue to strive for and adhere to best practices. CGI should be used when appropriate, but shouldn’t be the default catch all.
I was involved in a situation where somebody was killed…? Really? Not “I was criminally negligent, and killed someone”… She just magically “was killed”.
