Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

own responsibility on the soundstageRe: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Big RR »

OK, BP, but why place that responsibility i the hand of an acotr, who may or may not know much about guns and loading them, ratherthan a trained armorer? I see no benefit in placing this responsibility (or shared responsibility) on the actor. Ditto for making sure the stage is sound and will not collapse, the lighting won't fall, etc. Everyone has their own responsibilities, and they are not diluted in making them have shared responsibility for other things they are not trained for. Now maybe there are some things Baldwin either did or did not do (which were his responsibility) and which contributed to the death, and he might be rightly charged, but relying on other people doing the jobs they are supposed to do and doing one's own is the way mot work gets done. If I have my brakes repaired by a reputable shop and they fail and kill someone, I don't think it is my responsibility, I think the same thing applies here.

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: own responsibility on the soundstageRe: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Big RR »

OK, BP, but why place that responsibility i the hand of an acotr, who may or may not know much about guns and loading them, ratherthan a trained armorer? I see no benefit in placing this responsibility (or shared responsibility) on the actor. Ditto for making sure the stage is sound and will not collapse, the lighting won't fall, etc. Everyone has their own responsibilities, and they are not diluted in making them have shared responsibility for other things they are not trained for. Now maybe there are some things Baldwin either did or did not do (which were his responsibility) and which contributed to the death, and he might be rightly charged, but relying on other people doing the jobs they are supposed to do and doing one's own is the way mot work gets done. If I have my brakes repaired by a reputable shop and they fail and kill someone, I don't think it is my responsibility, I think the same thing applies here.


A number of years ago I was in a community theater production where the last scene had the female lead take a gun out of the draw and shoot me; the pistol was placed there by the person responsible for the gun (the only person who had access to it and loaded). I doubt either of us could have practically checked it, we had to rely on him; it was a real firearm (a 38 revolver) loaded with a loud report blanks. I think that's pretty much the way things work on the soundstage as well.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: own responsibility on the soundstageRe: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by BoSoxGal »

Big RR wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:29 pm
A number of years ago I was in a community theater production where the last scene had the female lead take a gun out of the draw and shoot me; the pistol was placed there by the person responsible for the gun (the only person who had access to it and loaded). I doubt either of us could have practically checked it, we had to rely on him; it was a real firearm (a 38 revolver) loaded with a loud report blanks. I think that's pretty much the way things work on the soundstage as well.
Just curious - did they aim the firearm at you dead on, or did they aim it so it looked to the audience like you were being shot at by the aim was actually off center so a projectile would not actually hit you?

If it was me, I wouldn’t play the part without it being staged to include the optical illusion that makes the safety of the target more secure. Of course if a projectile was somehow loaded and emitted from the firearm, stagehands in the wings could be the unintended target of a misfire.

With today’s CGI I really don’t understand the need of functional firearms on any movie set. I don’t think they need to be in the theater either.

I have mixed feelings about this case against Baldwin, less so against the idiot armorer who allowed firearms from the set to be used for live firing on breaks. That is clearly negligent because it opened the set to fully functional ammunition.

It will be interesting to see this case unfold. I feel bad for Baldwins little kids - don’t think he should have had 7 or 8 of them at his age anyway, but the toll this incident is taking on his health is pretty obvious from the aging happening before our eyes and I suspect the whole thing will shorten his life expectancy.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Bicycle Bill »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:40 pm
With today’s CGI I really don’t understand the need of functional firearms on any movie set.  I don’t think they need to be in the theater either.
With today's CGI literally every film on the screen these days is an animated movie.  The only difference between modern CGI and Disney's "Snow White" is that humans are no longer putting paint on celluloid and then photographing it one frame at a time.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Burning Petard »

Or go back to Disney's 'Song of the South' that has been yanked for political correctness. It had real actors with animated birdies flying around their head, or' Fantasia' which had Mickey shaking hands with the human conductor.

snailgate

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Big RR »

O Mary Poppins with the penguins.
Just curious - did they aim the firearm at you dead on, or did they aim it so it looked to the audience like you were being shot at by the aim was actually off center so a projectile would not actually hit you?
It was directly across a desk in a little theater so there wasn't a lot of leeway; as I recall, it was supposed to be aimed slightly to the left of me, but the actress "shooting" me knew very little about guns and aiming and, I'd bet she aimed it directly at me more often than not (I recall being hit by the wax at least once--it was a longtime ago). I relied on the stage hand's professionalism, but I understand what you say. The problem is, unless we got someone who was an experienced pistol shooter is both roles (or at least in the shooter's role) there is no way to keep the illusion and have the safety of an off-target aim. I imagine now they would use a replica gun that could not fire live ammo, but I don't recall them at that time.
I have mixed feelings about this case against Baldwin, less so against the idiot armorer who allowed firearms from the set to be used for live firing on breaks. That is clearly negligent because it opened the set to fully functional ammunition.
I agree re the armorer; this is beyond negligence and in the realm or recklessness; there is no real defense to it so far as I can see. Is it a crime--I guess the trial will show if the behavior meets the elements of the crime. As for Baldwin, while I am no fan of his (he seems like he can be a real jerk at times), but I would like to see what theory behind charging him is (other than letting the prosecutor get in the paper).
Last edited by Big RR on Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Jarlaxle »

Burning Petard wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:46 pm
Not that hard with a revolver, which is what Mr. A.Baldwin had. Point the barrel up and look at the front of the cylinder, pull the hammer back slightly to unlock the cylinder and turn it so you can see the chamber that was under the hammer. Agreed, not so simple with pistols. The answer is to use replica versions of the pistols or revolvers that will not handle real ammo. Such props have been designed for theatrical use for for along time. If you must use the real thing the actor loads the firearm themself. On repeated takes,might be good training for the performer to know just how much trouble it is to load the 9mm double stack magazine typical today.

I think the most important part of this incident is determining just how in hell the live ammo got on set. The continued assertion 'I did not pull the trigger' is pretty weak, considering the technical examination that has been done after the shooting. I suspect the modern safety rule "keep your finger out of the trigger guard and against the frame of the firearm until actually firing" is not taught to many actors. The 'cowboy' revolver style used in most western movies was intentionally designed so the trigger was very close to the back of the trigger guard and moved a very short distance. Modern 'good' triggers on hunting or target rifles are designed to take lots of pressure to fire, but little or no perceived movement.

snailgate
Unlike modern revolvers, many Peacemakers CAN fire without pulling the trigger.

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Burning Petard »

'Unlike modern revolvers, many Peacemakers CAN fire without pulling the trigger. "
W/o pulling trigger AND without cocking? I don't think anyone is considering the occasion when the revolver is dropped and the hammer hits the ground first. By the by, the infamous 'Luger' could fire even when typically dismantled for cleaning.

In this particular situation, the actual gun in the shooting has been technically inspected almost to the molecular level and there is agreement that it would not fire unless the trigger is pulled.

Remington made a bolt action rifle that was very highly regarded by official snipers and American hunters--the Model 700, After the bean counters began running the company, they simplified production and produced a trigger assembly that was basically unsafe and cost them a big bag of money in legal settlements. Seems if the gun was loaded with a cartridge in the firing chamber and the safety 'on' (normal use of the safety) if then the trigger was pulled with safety engaged, Nothing would happen, which is the desired situation. BUT when the safety was disengaged, without touching the trigger the rifle would fire. Demonstrating one of the common sense rules of firearms: Never point the gun at anything you don't want to shoot, even if you know the gun is unloaded.

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Scooter »

Burning Petard wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:46 pm
Not that hard with a revolver, which is what Mr. A.Baldwin had. Point the barrel up and look at the front of the cylinder, pull the hammer back slightly to unlock the cylinder and turn it so you can see the chamber that was under the hammer.
Seeing the back of the bullet in the chamber isn't going to help distinguish whether it's real or a blank.
If you must use the real thing the actor loads the firearm themself.
Completely impractical (where is the actor supposed to stash this ammo that no one else has access to), and doesn't solve the problem, because the actor is always going to have to hand he weapon to someone else who repositions it in order to ensure perfect continuity from take to take.
I suspect the modern safety rule "keep your finger out of the trigger guard and against the frame of the firearm until actually firing" is not taught to many actors.
Advice that is helpful only to the point when the scene calls for an actor to fire the weapon.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

liberty
Posts: 4408
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: own responsibility on the soundstageRe: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by liberty »

Big RR wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:29 pm
OK, BP, but why place that responsibility i the hand of an acotr, who may or may not know much about guns and loading them, ratherthan a trained armorer? I see no benefit in placing this responsibility (or shared responsibility) on the actor. Ditto for making sure the stage is sound and will not collapse, the lighting won't fall, etc. Everyone has their own responsibilities, and they are not diluted in making them have shared responsibility for other things they are not trained for. Now maybe there are some things Baldwin either did or did not do (which were his responsibility) and which contributed to the death, and he might be rightly charged, but relying on other people doing the jobs they are supposed to do and doing one's own is the way mot work gets done. If I have my brakes repaired by a reputable shop and they fail and kill someone, I don't think it is my responsibility, I think the same thing applies here.


A number of years ago I was in a community theater production where the last scene had the female lead take a gun out of the draw and shoot me; the pistol was placed there by the person responsible for the gun (the only person who had access to it and loaded). I doubt either of us could have practically checked it, we had to rely on him; it was a real firearm (a 38 revolver) loaded with a loud report blanks. I think that's pretty much the way things work on the soundstage as well.
Baldwin was the boss, and when you're the boss, everything is your fault; if she wasn't doing her job, it was his fault.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Burning Petard »

I doubt the script called for the gun to be pointed at the cinematographer.

Looking at the front of the cylinder you would see the actual bullet in a live round, or the flat plug of a blank.

snailgate.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Scooter »

The blocking of the scene and the director's instruction tells the actor where to point.

You're not going to see the bullet in the cylinder lined up with the barrel from the front of the gun.

You're attempt to retcon how movies (according to you) should be made in order to find some way to blame actors for something that has NEVER been within their control.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Jarlaxle »

Burning Petard wrote:
Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:31 am
'Unlike modern revolvers, many Peacemakers CAN fire without pulling the trigger. "
W/o pulling trigger AND without cocking? I don't think anyone is considering the occasion when the revolver is dropped and the hammer hits the ground first. By the by, the infamous 'Luger' could fire even when typically dismantled for cleaning.

In this particular situation, the actual gun in the shooting has been technically inspected almost to the molecular level and there is agreement that it would not fire unless the trigger is pulled.
There are MANY Peacemaker-clone guns made; if the exact model has been made public, I have not seen it. Some have a transfer-bar hammer system, some have the original type. Engaging the hammer safety improperly on an original could actually cause a Peacemaker to fire. So could dropping it on the muzzle.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Crackpot »

Liberty may actually have a point here. (it had to happen sometime) As Alec Baldwin was also a producer of this film, his culpability may be in the hiring and the general running of the production. (Which by all accounts was dismal)
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Scooter »

Except that the village idiot's "theory" is that Baldwin killed Hutchins deliberately, so no, he doesn't have a point.

If the theory of the crime is that Baldwin's culpability derives from his role as producer, then there should have been several other people charged as well.

We'll see if this survives the preliminary hearing. I don't see it, myself.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Big RR »

Crackpot wrote:
Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:01 pm
Liberty may actually have a point here. (it had to happen sometime) As Alec Baldwin was also a producer of this film, his culpability may be in the hiring and the general running of the production. (Which by all accounts was dismal)
Perhaps from a civil liability perspective (if he actually did anything as the "producer"; sometimes it's just a way for the actor to get more recognition and, hopefully if the movie does well, money. But I would think the director is the ultimate authority on the set; I guess some producers get more involved than others, but using a sports example, the producer is more like the general manager than the coach (or manager of a baseball team); I would think they might be able to dismiss the director (depending on the contract and the studio/production company rules, but unless they do this, the producer is hardly in charge on the set.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Crackpot »

My thought is if there is a charge there is a reason. From the actor side there are few reasons that I think he would be charged (something along line of purposely targeting the cinematographer maybe?) as far as the set goes from my understanding producers “outrank“ directors and are generally in charge of running the set outside of what is going on film. Therefore it could be said that the lack of safety precautions on the set was Baldwins fault. There would be a substantial but not impossible string of evidence to prove this role in this case as you rightly point out as “producer” generally runs the gamut between arranging funding for the movie (Alec Baldwin will be in it you are assured of your investment based on that) to actually running the set. (hiring the people behind the scenes and managing the set AKA the business side of the movie) If Baldwin had taken on the later role (something that is not unheard of) he may have some share in the responsibility.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6717
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Long Run »

Despite wide coverage of this, there does not appear to be any evidence disclosed that would support a criminal charge either as an actor or as a "producer". So either there is evidence that the public is not privy to, or the DA felt compelled to bring charges for non-legal reasons.

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Jarlaxle »

Negligent homicide looks open and shut.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Sue U »

Long Run wrote:
Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:13 pm
Despite wide coverage of this, there does not appear to be any evidence disclosed that would support a criminal charge either as an actor or as a "producer". So either there is evidence that the public is not privy to, or the DA felt compelled to bring charges for non-legal reasons.
That's a fair assessment.
Big RR wrote:
Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:42 pm
Crackpot wrote:
Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:01 pm
Liberty may actually have a point here. (it had to happen sometime) As Alec Baldwin was also a producer of this film, his culpability may be in the hiring and the general running of the production. (Which by all accounts was dismal)
Perhaps from a civil liability perspective (if he actually did anything as the "producer"; sometimes it's just a way for the actor to get more recognition and, hopefully if the movie does well, money. But I would think the director is the ultimate authority on the set; I guess some producers get more involved than others, but using a sports example, the producer is more like the general manager than the coach (or manager of a baseball team); I would think they might be able to dismiss the director (depending on the contract and the studio/production company rules, but unless they do this, the producer is hardly in charge on the set.
The civil liability case here doesn't really turn on who's individually responsible for what on the set. This is a case of "res ipsa loquitur," meaning that negligence can be assumed just from the occurrence of the incident alone. The liability claim therefore need not be against Baldwin to prove his personal negligence, but as long as he was acting within the scope of his duties on set, the production company and/or studio behind it (and its/their liability insurer(s)) would bear responsibility to pay damages for the injury and wrongful death.
Jarlaxle wrote:
Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:38 pm
Negligent homicide looks open and shut.
No, it doesn't, and under the New Mexico involuntary manslaughter* statute it's an exceptionally weak case on its best day -- unless, as Long Run notes, the prosecutor has some blockbuster evidence beyond what's already been made public.


____________________________
* There is no "negligent homicide" offense in New Mexico.
GAH!

Post Reply