Prop weapons & personal responsibility

[Darth Scandalous]

I'd like to make clear - this post is not intended to get into the specifics of the deeply unfortunate incident involving Alec Baldwin. It's a sensitive topic and there's much that's not known. What does seem clear however is that there was a poor safety culture in play on set, and that the wider film industry has failed to learn from previous lethal events.

I'm posting because I'm interested in what the discussion is revealing on other forums and media. I'm mystified at the level of feeling (in the UK at least) that he as an actor was not responsible in any way for the incident.

My instinct is that when a potentially lethal object / material / process is in use in a workplace, the system needs to be robust and include a requirement of basic competency on the end user. Many, many others disagree with me. I am ex-Forces and don't think it's an onerous expectation for the end user to be competent enough to differentiate between live rounds, cosmetic rounds, blanks and squibs.

What do people here feel?

Without getting into great detail, I've worked in and adjacent to this industry, as well as my wife who stage managed professionally for several years. We both have friends who have been or are weapons wranglers and fight directors. There are multiple layers of safety that *should* be built in anytime firearms are used on set. The final safety cut out is *always* the actor holding the weapon. They're responsible for knowing if and how it's loaded, and maintaining blocking in such a way that the muzzle is never actually in line with another human. (Execution "gags" are always done with a dummy weapon, for instance).

The reality is, actors don't always take those things seriously. Mrs. Scandalous was "shot" with a blank round the very first rehearsal where the weapons were used, in a production of Assassins. Immediately after the rather lengthy safety lecture, no less. She was fortunately not seriously injured, but had a massive bruise on her shoulder as a result. Most productions take this stuff deadly seriously, because it *is* deadly, and not following procedures will get an actor replaced and blacklisted. Usually.

I know another fight director who made a video of what blank rounds will do to melons, and makes actors and production staff watch it prior to any fight work involving any weapons, blank-modified, dummy, or otherwise.

Again, the final cutout is always the actor. Not all of them take it seriously, and that's how people get hurt or dead.

(none of this covers how live rounds made it on set, but that's an entirely different problem).

 

[Anu]

Then it looks like we agree to disagree. The main point of an actor’s job is acting not gun handling as your job was definitely not „acting“ but „doing/preventing“ stuff.

If this would be about Moby Dick we would be discussing throwing a real harpoon vs. one with a rubber point. Yes it would be more obvious for the actor but a prop is a prop until it is the real thing.

Precisely, there's literaly an army of people responsible for each minutiae on set, each with their carefully devised set of responsibilities, and yes, it is daunting from a managerial standpoint. Aside from the obligatory battery-of-arms and gun safety knowledge, there's not much to be asked for.

 

[MurderousCrow]

I do not disagree that it is not unreasonable / disproportionate to ask that actors using 'prop' weapons fulfil a basic firearms competency, but it is the responsibility of the producers directors of the project to provide that education and the willingness of actors to participate. That is why most employ armorers to handle there weapons to provide this training and education, But unfortunately depending on the willingness of the actors and the producers providing a budget to do this, it will never "always" happen. If you look at the training involved in the making of John Wick 3 you will see it goes above and beyond minimum familiarization.

Maybe I'm making my point badly. I don't think that actors should be expert with firearms. I think they should be basically competent. And able to ask the right questions when there's doubt i.e. don't assume safety.

 

[Jbird45]

It's easy for us to sit here and play critics without knowing all the facts. I may not be a fan of Baldwin, but I can't imagine what he is going through. It's just a very, very unfortunate situation.

That being said, I believe some common sense and proper gun handling could have prevented this. I don't know what kind of gun was used, but I am assuming in a Western movie that a .45 Colt would be a safe assumption. I have a Ruger Colt clone, and it's pretty obvious looking between the frame and cylinder if there are rounds in the gun. It head spaces on the rim, so you can see the rims sitting on the cylinder.

Also, I don't want to make assumptions, but if a real weapon is going to be used on a set, or even one capable of firing blanks, I believe all aspects of gun safety should be followed. Treat firearms as if they are loaded, keep the muzzle in a safe direction, etc. I don't care if someone is anti-gun, 30 minutes of basic gun safety should be required for any handling of firearms, even blanks.

I get that an actors job is to act, but it only takes ten seconds to check a Colt if it's loaded, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[Whisky]

I having a hard time understanding why there was live ammunition on the set at all. When we would go to training even following all gun safety rules no live ammunition was allowed period. Pockets were checks, mags were locked into a box, and every weapon and person was checked by at least 2 people to ensure no one accidentally forgot about a a mag if live rounds in their pocket or a round in the chamber. The only person who had live ammo was the one officer specifically chosen to basically stand guard while there were a bunch of unarmed officers practicing building clearing on abandoned, but not necessarily uninhabited, buildings. That officer did not remove his weapon from its holster and did not participate in the training. It sounds like there were multiple issues with the film shoot safety and otherwise.

 

[ZJ68]

If it was a live round, I have to question what business live ammunition has on a movie set. I can’t think of any reason. If it was a blank round, or something other than a live round, I have to ask with the current state of practical and special effects, why are functioning firearms used on movie sets?

Apparently this wasn’t the first incident with this director or even this film. I wonder how often negligent discharges happen and we don’t hear about it because no one was killed.

 

[Acmemfg]

Point to consider:
Go watch any shoot ‘em up movie or TV show you choose. Its a safe bet any “prop” firearm you see is in fact capable of chambering and firing a round…yes, real live piece of ammunition. The problem lies with the projectile, or lack thereof. A “blank” is more often than not composed of a case, primer, powder charge, and…..projectile, the thing that comes out of the muzzle. Now if you are filming a scene that has an actor dumping a full Glock magazine into something or facing down a Desperado at high noon, something has to go “bang”. That requires a “loaded gun”.
The negligence surfaces when it isn’t a blank chambered, it’s a REAL round with a big chunk of lead sticking out one end.
And even when a honest to goodness “blank” is in the mix, things can go sideways. Many years ago during a sanctioned training exercise at a regional police academy, a pistol loaded with blanks (projectile was a cotton wad) managed to blow out a recruit‘s knuckle from the palm out the back of her hand. Indeed the Standards & Training Commission had a field day with that one.
It might be said “Life is a calculated risk”;
or to paraphrase Judd Nelson (John Bender) in “The Breakfast Club”…..
”Screws fall out all the time. The world is an imperfect place.”

 

[luvmysuper]

Star Wars was made 44 years ago and there really wasn't lasers coming out of Princess Leias blaster.
CGI has improved somewhat since then.
There's no logical reason to have a functional firearm on a movie set.
But it's cheaper.

 

[FarmerTan]

Star Wars was made 44 years ago and there really wasn't lasers coming out of Princess Leias blaster.
CGI has improved somewhat since then.
There's no logical reason to have a functional firearm on a movie set.
But it's cheaper.

Good point. And after the lawyers get done picking the bones of this case, it'll be cheaper to use CGI.

Again, it's just so sad this had to happen, because a guy that probably hates guns couldn't be bothered to check for a live round before "practicing" a cross body draw.

I know it's like 3 or 4 generations removed, but can anyone see this happening to the Duke? Me either.

 

[APBinNCA]

I don't like to get into firearms, but I have been reading every story the LA times has published on this.

By live rounds, they don't mean bullets. They mean bang bang. Whether somebody brought a real bullet in is another story. It was explained that in previous accidents, pieces of previously fired blanks became projectiles when the firearm wasn't checked. This was the ADs job, he picked up 1 of 3 firearms from a cart that the armorer put out. COVID procedure it was mentioned. I have more to add, but I have lost my thought. I just read about the poor lady's final words and it deeply troubles me.

 

[nikonNUT]

The more I learn about this more troubling it is.
Found on another gun forum:

Here is the Screen Actors' Guild (SAG) safety bulletins and guidelines. These are the standards crew and actors are held to on a set. There is a specific section for firearms. It has the obvious rules of gun safety and a bit more. This is the first statement of the entire document:

"AS AN ACTOR, YOU ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY AND THE SAFETY Of YOUR FELLOW CAST MEMBERS. Production management and crew are responsible for creating and maintaining safe conditions, but it is your right and responsibility to double check the set up to ensure your own Safety."

Here is an excerpt from the Actor's Equity Association page on gun use on set. This association is the union for the actual actors, and Alec Baldwin is a confirmed member:

"Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside."

 

[FarmerTan]

The more I learn about this more troubling it is.
Found on another gun forum:

Here is the Screen Actors' Guild (SAG) safety bulletins and guidelines. These are the standards crew and actors are held to on a set. There is a specific section for firearms. It has the obvious rules of gun safety and a bit more. This is the first statement of the entire document:

"AS AN ACTOR, YOU ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY AND THE SAFETY Of YOUR FELLOW CAST MEMBERS. Production management and crew are responsible for creating and maintaining safe conditions, but it is your right and responsibility to double check the set up to ensure your own Safety."

Here is an excerpt from the Actor's Equity Association page on gun use on set. This association is the union for the actual actors, and Alec Baldwin is a confirmed member:

"Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside."

I heard early on in the reporting that a squib may have been in the barrel.

If that's true, why was this gun being used to shoot any kind of rounds? And if it miss fired, how could the last user of the weapon not known it, and checked it out and fixed it or reported it right then?

The whole thing stinks, and a man and his son are in incredible pain tonight.

 

[hairless wonder]

I wonder if these prop guns use plastic flags to indicate an empty weapon. They're used regularly at shooting ranges.

Along those lines, why are real rounds on the set at all? Why not ban real rounds from the set and allow only blanks (shells with everything but the lead bullet that gets fired)?

Also, from an article I read, some members of the cast and crew even used the prop guns to shoot off-set. This makes zero sense to me.

From a common sense safety perspective, the weapons should be locked up in a safe by the armorer when not in use. They should then be checked out only by and to the armorer for use when needed for a scene (and/or for cleaning/maintenance).

Additionally, I wonder why the armorer wasn't on set (at least that was according to a report I read). Shouldn't she be the only one to handle the prop weapons? Why even allow anyone else to touch them except the actors who will use them (right before using them in a scene)? Also, why not have the actors who are to use the weapon watch the armorer load the weapon (if not have the armorer watch the actor load the weapon)?

A lot of this just doesn't make sense from a common sense perspective.

 

[APBinNCA]

What I meant to add was that due to the low budget and the chaos of the whole production, there weren't the normal number of prop masters and assistants on scene. The part about the firearms being on a cart, it was mentioned that the were just sitting out there. They had apparently been handled by multiple people who normally wouldn't have access to them in violation of safety protocols. This is the part about how the armorer was disconnected and AD became the final verifier. I just read there were two accidental firings inside a building previously. They were only rehearsing drawing the revolver and had no reason to be using a functional firearm at that time. So many safety protocols completely ignored, repeatedly.

 

[nikonNUT]

I heard early on in the reporting that a squib may have been in the barrel.

If that's true, why was this gun being used to shoot any kind of rounds? And if it miss fired, how could the last user of the weapon not known it, and checked it out and fixed it or reported it right then?

The whole thing stinks, and a man and his son are in incredible pain tonight.

I agree totally, Dave and APBinNCA but here is the part that bothers me. Supposedly victims were checking the staging behind the camera. Alec is practicing his draw. Gun is a Colt SAA so to have this horrible tragedy unfold he 1) Pulled the revolver 2) He COCKED THE HAMMER 3)He pointed it at human beings and pulled the trigger. I get all the "others were supposed to give permission", "others we supposed to check the weapon", "the actor is supposed to check the weapon or overview checking of the weapon", etc. I get the whole Brandon Lee thing but certain changes were put in place because of his death. IF he was practicing why not a inert rubber replica? I won't even do dryfire drills in the same room as my ammo is in just in case. Too many variables that reek to me from not allowed near the weapon because of Covid protocols to a large portion of the crew including the armorer walked off the set due to safety concerns (Both rumors I admit). It matters not... A life was lost and people are in pain due to a horrible mistake filming a stupid movie. This one is on Alec... Goodnight, Gentlemen. I shall say no more.

 

[Anu]

A lot of this just doesn't make sense from a common sense perspective.

If only 'common sense' would, and could, be truly common... I concur entirely, it stinks.

 

[Anu]

I agree totally, Dave and APBinNCA but here is the part that bothers me. Supposedly victims were checking the staging behind the camera. Alec is practicing his draw. Gun is a Colt SAA so to have this horrible tragedy unfold he 1) Pulled the revolver 2) He COCKED THE HAMMER 3)He pointed it at human beings and pulled the trigger. I get all the "others were supposed to give permission", "others we supposed to check the weapon", "the actor is supposed to check the weapon or overview checking of the weapon", etc. I get the whole Brandon Lee thing but certain changes were put in place because of his death. IF he was practicing why not a inert rubber replica? I won't even do dryfire drills in the same room as my ammo is in just in case. Too many variables that reek to me from not allowed near the weapon because of Covid protocols to a large portion of the crew including the armorer walked off the set due to safety concerns (Both rumors I admit). It matters not... A life was lost and people are in pain due to a horrible mistake filming a stupid movie. This one is on Alec... Goodnight, Gentlemen. I shall say no more.

There was an editorial a year ago, after the 1st wave, disseminating the perils that befell various Hollywood productions, causing cancellations and delays. Well, it turned out that the insurance costs for both production and cast soared, aside from other contingencies, and lockdown related adverse effects. Now, whether they fell prey to irreverence in the process, remains to be seen. One thing is certain though, no happy ending on this one, for no-one.

 

[APBinNCA]

I didn't want to get off into the weeds, but we are dealing with people who are technically children with firearms. They don't understand, and respect, them to a degree that boggles the mind. It's simply a tragedy when a child shoots another child. The fact that these are adults means some of them have responsibility, whether they understood that any better than children aside.

One assumes Baldwin is not exactly adept at drawing a firearm hence the need for practice. The witness heard a "whip and a bang." I can only think of one way this might go down. Because he is probably straining to do this fast enough, he probably had his opposite hand heading for the hammer while raising the revolver. He very well may have only bumped his palm with it and released. I believe it is possible to set off the charge this way without pulling the trigger, since the witness said "whip," not click. I concede I may be wrong, but if he fumbled the draw and pulled the trigger it seems more likely to happen before being fulled raised.

 

[FarmerTan]

I didn't want to get off into the weeds, but we are dealing with people who are technically children with firearms. They don't understand, and respect, them to a degree that boggles the mind. It's simply a tragedy when a child shoots another child. The fact that these are adults means some of them have responsibility, whether they understood that any better than children aside.

One assumes Baldwin is not exactly adept at drawing a firearm hence the need for practice. The witness heard a "whip and a bang." I can only think of one way this might go down. Because he is probably straining to do this fast enough, he probably had his opposite hand heading for the hammer while raising the revolver. He very well may have only bumped his palm with it and released. I believe it is possible to set off the charge this way without pulling the trigger, since the witness said "whip," not click. I concede I may be wrong, but if he fumbled the draw and pulled the trigger it seems more likely to happen before being fulled raised.

Thanks for that. Yeah, I have been trying to think of what would cause a sound that someone described as a "whip" noise.... I just couldn't get it. Your hypothesis is as good as I ever would have come up with.

It all just seems like a perfect confluence of a cluster of breeding worms, and everything that could go wrong DID go wrong.

I've been around negligent discharge situations where the shot went into the ground that truly just as easily could have gone into a cranium.

Every single day you wake up on this side of the sod is another chance to start over. Life is just so precious, and so taken for granted.

I challenge all of us to tell people we love that we love them, every single chance you get.

And to go out of your way to meet people and say hello to them, because I will bet you a nickel you and I walk past folks every day that are hurting so bad they would do anything to stop that pain. Anything.

 

[MurderousCrow]

Without getting into great detail, I've worked in and adjacent to this industry, as well as my wife who stage managed professionally for several years. We both have friends who have been or are weapons wranglers and fight directors. There are multiple layers of safety that *should* be built in anytime firearms are used on set. The final safety cut out is *always* the actor holding the weapon. They're responsible for knowing if and how it's loaded, and maintaining blocking in such a way that the muzzle is never actually in line with another human. (Execution "gags" are always done with a dummy weapon, for instance).

The reality is, actors don't always take those things seriously. Mrs. Scandalous was "shot" with a blank round the very first rehearsal where the weapons were used, in a production of Assassins. Immediately after the rather lengthy safety lecture, no less. She was fortunately not seriously injured, but had a massive bruise on her shoulder as a result. Most productions take this stuff deadly seriously, because it *is* deadly, and not following procedures will get an actor replaced and blacklisted. Usually.

I know another fight director who made a video of what blank rounds will do to melons, and makes actors and production staff watch it prior to any fight work involving any weapons, blank-modified, dummy, or otherwise.

Again, the final cutout is always the actor. Not all of them take it seriously, and that's how people get hurt or dead.

(none of this covers how live rounds made it on set, but that's an entirely different problem).

Wow. Thanks for the expert insight. Reassuring that control is tight in most environments, and that the person using the weapon is the final safety cut out.