248
Jury finds 'Rust' armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed guilty of involuntary manslaughter
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
248 points (97.7% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2022 readers
66 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree. The entire situation is bad, and it's gone on for years. I imagine anyone would have been going through hell all this time if they had any connection to the chain of events. Time in prison is pretty harsh at this point.
Edit. I think blaming Baldwin like they are (her lawyers) is also pretty disgusting. Which actually might have determined the harsh sentence for this lady.
Baldwin is responsible as an executive producer (along with whomever else was producing). It's obvious the armourer was out of her depth and should've never been hired. Not saying she doesn't bear any responsibility, but if you as an employer cut corners to save money, and someone dies because of that, there should be consequences.
That's not what they're arguing though. Read the article. They're arguing he physically pulled the trigger.
I mean, he did. He pointed a gun at someone and shot them. Not saying that Reed is innocent; the fact that live rounds ever made it into the gun seems to be her fault. But Baldwin absolutely should not have pointed a gun at someone in the first place.
That's standard procedure on a film set. Thousands of blanks a year are fired while pointing at people. That's literally the point of blanks. I'm not saying that's actually entirely safe, but it does mean that it is reasonable for the actor to expect it to be. Especially when you're under the impression that a professional gun safety person has loaded the blanks by hand and that the gun has been checked twice by two separate people before given to you.
Judging by the downvotes, this seems to be a common thought here. Let me cite some applicable industry standards: https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/
https://www.csatf.org/01_safety_bltn_firearms/
And I want to re-iterate, Baldwin did not shoot another actor who his character shoots in the film. He was not supposed to have his finger on the trigger for this shot, nor was he even supposed to fully draw his weapon. This was not the first time he pointed a gun at a camera person and fired off-script; the footage played in the trial showed him shooting directly at the camera after the director yelled "cut".
And again: even if it were industry standard to shoot blanks directly at another person: that's a stupid and reckless standard, and any reasonable person should refuse. I really feel like most of the defense of Baldwin is borne out of well-meaning ignorance.
How else do you film a scene where you point a gun at someone? It's really common to do this for a movie. That's the entire point of why the role of the armorer exists, not make things like that safe on set.
You cheat the perspective. You use CGI. You use electronic sim guns.
John Wick, one of the most gun-heavy actions films in recent memory, never had one actor point a live firearm at another, because that's stupid and dangerous.
https://www.slashfilm.com/1227707/john-wick-4-director-chad-stahleski-gets-candid-about-live-firearms-on-film-sets/
I agree with that article, though I'd argue John Wick is the worst example to use as proof it can be done in other ways sure, they've got a lot of guns firing, but first is it's super fast paced, so you can't actually see a single shot. Second is that with that many rounds firing they probably wouldn't have a choice, at least for interior scenes. Taking into account multiple takes, that would be so much gunpowder going off that you'd probably have to take a lot of time between takes for the smoke to clear.
For a slow scene with only one or a few rounds fired close to the camera, perspective tricks probably wouldn't work, and CGI likely wouldn't look as realistic either. Is that a good enough reason? I don't know. I'm not a director or actor. I know some directors will go through a ton of effort for a tiny amount of added authenticity. John Wick goes the opposite direction with all their gun-magic after the first movie.
I tend to assume an actor's idea of executive producer is doing coke in his trailer and making a phone call before filming.
To be fair, I also assume that's what real executive producers do, minus the filming.
She learned how to be an armourer from her dad and it seems like he was the one who provided her a live round. She had no idea what she was doing, he's a bad armourer and a bad parent who raised and taught another bad armourer.
I don't disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don't think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.
The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can't recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.