Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

[PrairieWind]

Can we agree that the use of a live real firearms on a movie set should be prohibited?

 

[Laughing]

SAG refuses to support any actor who commits an act of violence on a set. They made that very clear re: Will Smith's slap at the Oscars.

It's my understanding that the purpose that day was to determine camera angles and that is why so few were there. AB still insists he did NOT fire the gun that day. I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

JMO

Statement on the 2022 Oscars

www.sagaftra.org

March 28, 2022
“As the union representing presenters and other performers working on the Oscars, SAG-AFTRA is focused on ensuring our members always work in a safe environment. Violence or physical abuse in the workplace is never appropriate and the union condemns any such conduct. The incident involving Will Smith and Chris Rock at last night's Academy Awards was unacceptable. We have been in contact with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and ABC about this incident, and will work to ensure this behavior is appropriately addressed. SAG-AFTRA does not comment on any pending member disciplinary process.”

bbm

So under SAG rules, why wasn't AB holding this:


image from Bluegun

Who asked for/requested/insisted on the working revolver if you're sure they were working on camera angles?

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[cocomod]

Can we agree that the use of a live real firearms on a movie set should be prohibited?

I agree that they should and could use very good look-a-likes. I do think you will be very hard pressed to get guns off of sets all-together. Kevin Costner is filming a "good old-fashioned" western (more like John Wayne type stuff). There will always be guns in westerns. However, I completely agree that with the technology today, they could print a gun without a working mechanism. CGI has come a very very long way.

 

[PrairieWind]

I agree that they should and could use very good look-a-likes. I do think you will be very hard pressed to get guns off of sets all-together. Kevin Costner is filming a "good old-fashioned" western (more like John Wayne type stuff). There will always be guns in westerns. However, I completely agree that with the technology today, they could print a gun without a working mechanism. CGI has come a very very long way.

I would agree 100%.

 

[ch_13]

Can we agree that the use of a live real firearms on a movie set should be prohibited?

Chad Stahelski, the director of the John Wick series, has said that with modern technology and CGI, there's no reason to have firearms on set, even for shooting blanks. And he should know. That franchise has some of the most violent scenes ever put on film.

John Wick Director: No Movie Should Use Real Guns on Set

The John Wick series is of course entirely filled with firearms, all of them fake.

www.pastemagazine.com

He says in the article that the only reason that Hollywood hasn't switched over is solely due to the extra cost of the special effects and that there's a lot of infrastructure built up around the current status-quo.

 

[Marantz4250b]

The key here is everyone is forgetting this is not a home and normal rules. At home, yes, you always treat a gun as if it is loaded. On the movie set, they are treating the gun as if it is a fake gun. Because there should never be live ammunition in the gun. So they do not consider it a loaded gun in the same sense that we would consider it a loaded gun. They do put safety glass in front of the camera and in front of the people that are filming. They did not have that since they were blocking and not filming. I am certain that the sweet lady that passed away knew that the gun had something in it; but nobody knew it was live ammo! This is a movie set - yes there are rules on set, but The rules are different, and the roles are different. Yes, AD Hall should and would be there during shooting and/or blocking. Absolutely the armor should have been there, even though they were only blocking and not actually filming.

Yes, the armor is at fault because it was her job to secure the guns and ammo on site. Yes she is majorly at fault for allowing live ammo on site! I cannot stress this enough! She is the one that would’ve inspected the ammo, and would have the knowledge to know that that was live ammo on site!

I disagree. You cannot hold one specific class of firearms user to a lower duty of care than you do for everyone else.

They are not treating them as though they were fake guns (and if they were then that's even more egregious). If that were the case then why does SAG (and likely other organisations) have specific codes of use and safety for them? If they were as innocuous as fake guns then those rules would not need to exist because no one could get hurt. The rules exist because they are real guns and real ammo might indeed be present.

Lets assume a hypothetical situation whereby it was impossible for live ammo to have been present. There is still a possibility for blank ammo to get into the gun as that was definitely present on the set. The safety protocol for use of blank ammo wasn't even followed here by DH and AB!

Neither AB nor DH actually checked what was in the gun and DH is not an "expert" as SAG says is required. Both DH and AB knew this yet AB still took the gun from him and took his word that it was safe to use.

You say that HGR is responsible for allowing live ammo on site. You cannot state that as a fact because we don't know how it actually got there. Yes, she's responsible for the gun related safety stuff but if other people are bringing ammo onto the set without telling her then how is she to know? A person cannot be held responsible for safety issues they have no knowledge of and could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of.

 

[Marantz4250b]

You keep saying that HG was not allowed inside. Everything I have read is that she was not called in when they started. She was not refused entrance or told she was not allowed inside, they just neglected to call her in when the rehearsal started. That likely would be on Dave Hall!

I'm sure it was mentioned in one of the earlier articles that she was not allowed inside due to Covid regulations. I'll see if I can find a link.

In any event, the fact remains that she was not actually there. It is against the published rules for the actor to take a firearm from anyone other than the armourer and AB and DH well know this.

Yes, there are questions to be asked as to why the guns were out of her immediate control but that's a separate issue and one which she may have to answer for. The fact is that they were and that she didn't have sight of them for an unknown period of time. Maybe a few minutes, maybe some considerable time. We just don't know yet. It cannot be said with certainty, then, that the cartridges she loaded it with were the same ones in the gun when AB was waving it around.

 

[Betty P]

Can we agree that the use of a live real firearms on a movie set should be prohibited?

Yes.

That said, there are still many other things (explosions, fire) on movie sets that make them dangerous. It's to the industry's credit that serious accidents are rare. They seem to have developed very good safety regulations and tools to reduce risk. They and regulatory agencies have also done a good job of policing workplace safety.

With better special effects, it seems a good time stop use of real firearms on movie sets.

MOO

 

[PrairieWind]

I disagree. You cannot hold one specific class of firearms user to a lower duty of care than you do for everyone else.

They are not treating them as though they were fake guns (and if they were then that's even more egregious). If that were the case then why does SAG (and likely other organisations) have specific codes of use and safety for them? If they were as innocuous as fake guns then those rules would not need to exist because no one could get hurt. The rules exist because they are real guns and real ammo might indeed be present.

Lets assume a hypothetical situation whereby it was impossible for live ammo to have been present. There is still a possibility for blank ammo to get into the gun as that was definitely present on the set. The safety protocol for use of blank ammo wasn't even followed here by DH and AB!

Neither AB nor DH actually checked what was in the gun and DH is not an "expert" as SAG says is required. Both DH and AB knew this yet AB still took the gun from him and took his word that it was safe to use.

You say that HGR is responsible for allowing live ammo on site. You cannot state that as a fact because we don't know how it actually got there. Yes, she's responsible for the gun related safety stuff but if other people are bringing ammo onto the set without telling her then how is she to know? A person cannot be held responsible for safety issues they have no knowledge of and could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of.

I guess I would disagree a bit. There has been some discussion of this. Some actors have no firearm experience and maybe don't even like guns, but their roles call for them to have one. They have basic instructions. They are not to open the firearm, to open the cylinder, or remove the magazine, depending upon the firearm. They are handed it and told what to do. That would be a way for something unintended to happen with the firearm.

It is unfortunate that law enforcement was not able to determine how the live rounds made it to the set. Certainly, there are those involved that know full well how. I am fairly sure HGR knows. You stated that "A person cannot be held responsible for safety issues they have no knowledge of and could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of." That would also apply to AB. He knows there are people hired to make sure this gun, the gun he is handed is not loaded, that is their job. He is told the gun is not loaded. From a criminal stand point, I believe he should be allowed to rely on that. But it WAS HGR's job and other live rounds were found in her stuff. She loaded the gun. Is she alleging someone else then put a live round in? If she is, she is essentially saying someone committed murder.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Chad Stahelski, the director of the John Wick series, has said that with modern technology and CGI, there's no reason to have firearms on set, even for shooting blanks. And he should know. That franchise has some of the most violent scenes ever put on film.

John Wick Director: No Movie Should Use Real Guns on Set

The John Wick series is of course entirely filled with firearms, all of them fake.

www.pastemagazine.com

He says in the article that the only reason that Hollywood hasn't switched over is solely due to the extra cost of the special effects and that there's a lot of infrastructure built up around the current status-quo.

I get what he's saying. As he points out, however, the main reason that movies have not switched over 100% to fake guns is cost. Cost is an entirely valid reason, imo. Although these things are do-able they are expensive and not every movie is a multi hundred million dollar production with millions in the effects budget alone. I think that Rust had a budget of $6m total?

In addition, I think that shots which require very close up work may not look right unless actual firearms are used. We are in an age of ultra precise and clear high definition cinematography and some things just won't look right unless they are the real deal, is my suspicion. I have a 4K projector with a large screen. A high def movie is an awesome thing to behold. It's not that long ago that most cinema screens didn't look nearly as good. I think that something like a Colt SAA would be very hard to make look right in closeup on something like that. You can often spot fakes - indeed, one of the guns pictured in the police pics on the rust set is a fake and you can tell that it is. That's just from a pic on my rubbish old computer monitor on a news site. It would be screamingly obvious in close up on my 136" screen in 4K, I think. (John Wick in 4K looks stunning on it, btw)

Having said that I think the cases where real guns would be essential to use these days are fairly minimal.

 

[Betty P]

I get what he's saying. As he points out, however, the main reason that movies have not switched over 100% to fake guns is cost. Cost is an entirely valid reason, imo. Although these things are do-able they are expensive and not every movie is a multi hundred million dollar production with millions in the effects budget alone. I think that Rust had a budget of $6m total?

In addition, I think that shots which require very close up work may not look right unless actual firearms are used. We are in an age of ultra precise and clear high definition cinematography and some things just won't look right unless they are the real deal, is my suspicion. I have a 4K projector with a large screen. A high def movie is an awesome thing to behold. It's not that long ago that most cinema screens didn't look nearly as good. I think that something like a Colt SAA would be very hard to make look right in closeup on something like that. You can often spot fakes - indeed, one of the guns pictured in the police pics on the rust set is a fake and you can tell that it is. That's just from a pic on my rubbish old computer monitor on a news site. It would be screamingly obvious in close up on my 136" screen in 4K, I think. (John Wick in 4K looks stunning on it, btw)

Having said that I think the cases where real guns would be essential to use these days are fairly minimal.

JMO, its not much different than using fake blood and human gore instead of the real thing. Knowing I'm seeing fake blood in a movie doesn't bother me. I prefer that to seeing the real thing.

If only gun fans with HD type tvs can tell the difference, it doesn't seem like a huge loss to go with artificial weapons. Special effects are amazing these days. I recently watched Napoleon and found the battle scenes, etc. very realistic.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I guess I would disagree a bit. There has been some discussion of this. Some actors have no firearm experience and maybe don't even like guns, but their roles call for them to have one. They have basic instructions. They are not to open the firearm, to open the cylinder, or remove the magazine, depending upon the firearm. They are handed it and told what to do. That would be a way for something unintended to happen with the firearm.

It is unfortunate that law enforcement was not able to determine how the live rounds made it to the set. Certainly, there are those involved that know full well how. I am fairly sure HGR knows. You stated that "A person cannot be held responsible for safety issues they have no knowledge of and could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of." That would also apply to AB. He knows there are people hired to make sure this gun, the gun he is handed is not loaded, that is their job. He is told the gun is not loaded. From a criminal stand point, I believe he should be allowed to rely on that. But it WAS HGR's job and other live rounds were found in her stuff. She loaded the gun. Is she alleging someone else then put a live round in? If she is, she is essentially saying someone committed murder.

Yes, I agree with most of that. And, actually, the comments about actors who know very little or nothing about firearms are not unreasonable. In one sense, someone who has zero knowledge is perhaps better than someone who has a little, or, a lot but is either not as skilled as they think they are or has become complacent.

Having said that, AB and DH have worked with firearms before, AB extensively, and knows the rules. They both know that the armourer checks this stuff rather than them. And, to add to that, they know that the protocol calls for the armourer to demonstrate to the actors and potentially anyone else present the state of the gun with lights shone down barrels, etc. This is the procedure that Jeffrey Wright said happened when filming Westworld. An excellent series, btw!

I'm still not fully convinced as to what anyone knew regarding how the ammo got there. I don't think that HGR actually knows how it got there, tbh. Live ammo was found in various places including gun belts and on carts which suggests to me that it had probably been in circulation around this set - or previous sets or storage places - for some time.

We know that this was handloaded ammunition rather than factory made. The company which provided the dummy rounds handloaded those but the offices and stores of that company did not have any stocks of the components used in the live rounds in their inventory when the police searched them so unlikely that they made it. It seems very unlikely that the live ammo was in the box of dummy rounds when it came into HGR's possession, imo.

I suspect that it had probably been in the gun belts for ages - long before HGR got them - and managed to find its way into the gun via some means or other.

 

[ch_13]

We know that this was handloaded ammunition rather than factory made. The company which provided the dummy rounds handloaded those but the offices and stores of that company did not have any stocks of the components used in the live rounds in their inventory when the police searched them so unlikely that they made it. It seems very unlikely that the live ammo was in the box of dummy rounds when it came into HGR's possession, imo.

I suspect that it had probably been in the gun belts for ages - long before HGR got them - and managed to find its way into the gun via some means or other.

In some of the court documents there's a box of ammo that seemingly appears out of nowhere and it's possible that was the source of the live rounds.

Edit - Found it. It was in the civil suit that HGR filed against the prop house and its owner.

37. When Hannah arrived at the prop truck that same morning, she saw a box labeled “dummy rounds .45 LC”, completely full, which someone had placed on top of Hannah’s equipment bag. Hannah had not seen a full box of dummy rounds in weeks and nor was this full box on the equipment bag when Hannah had last been in the prop trailer.
...
42. No one in the prop truck acknowledged or claimed to be the source of the full box of .45 caliber Long Colt dummy ammunition that morning.

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Gutierrez-Reed-Complaint_Redacted-2_Redacted-USE.pdf

 

[Marantz4250b]

JMO, its not much different than using fake blood and human gore instead of the real thing. Knowing I'm seeing fake blood in a movie doesn't bother me. I prefer that to seeing the real thing.

If only gun fans with HD type tvs can tell the difference, it doesn't seem like a huge loss to go with artificial weapons. Special effects are amazing these days. I recently watched Napoleon and found the battle scenes, etc. very realistic.

Yes, I hear what you're saying but it's not quite the same thing. Rust had a budget of $6m (I think). The effects in Napoleon will likely have run into several million on their own.

If we're going to go down the whole "Everything can be done with special effects" road then what about motor vehicles or planes? Movie sets have seen serious and fatal accidents with those (Twilight Zone, Cannon Ball Run III) so why not do any moving vehicle scene with CGI? In fact, why not just remove all risk and make every movie with 100% CGI including the actors? Impossible for anyone to get injured that way.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Can we agree that the use of a live real firearms on a movie set should be prohibited?

Possibly for the most part but not entirely for the reasons already mentioned. Having to use CGI would make a lot of "gun heavy" movies (such as Rust) not viable to make.

A world where the only movies that get made are the uber-expensive high concept stuff would be a worse one, imo. Lets not forget that Chad Stedheski, along with every other director, didn't get their start directing $100m+ blockbusters.

 

[Betty P]

Yes, I hear what you're saying but it's not quite the same thing. Rust had a budget of $6m (I think). The effects in Napoleon will likely have run into several million on their own.

If we're going to go down the whole "Everything can be done with special effects" road then what about motor vehicles or planes? Movie sets have seen serious and fatal accidents with those (Twilight Zone, Cannon Ball Run III) so why not do any moving vehicle scene with CGI? In fact, why not just remove all risk and make every movie with 100% CGI including the actors? Impossible for anyone to get injured that way.

I don't think everything should be done with special effects, though.

Would prop houses charge that much more for realistic, fake guns?

ETA: Wouldn't these high quality fake guns be used in many movies, allowing prop houses to rent them many times to make it profitable? That's different from expensive props designed specifically for a certain movie and characters?

 

[Marantz4250b]

In some of the court documents there's a box of ammo that seemingly appears out of nowhere and it's possible that was the source of the live rounds.

Edit - Found it. It was in the civil suit that HGR filed against the prop house and its owner.

35. When Hannah arrived at the prop truck that same morning, she saw a box labeled “dummy rounds .45 LC”, completely full, which someone had placed on top of Hannah’s equipment bag. Hannah had not seen a full box of dummy rounds in weeks and nor was this full box on the equipment bag when Hannah had last been in the prop trailer.
...
41. No one in the prop truck acknowledged or claimed to be the source of the full box of .45 caliber Long Colt dummy ammunition that morning.

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Gutierrez-Reed-Complaint_Redacted-2_Redacted-USE.pdf

That document is quite detailed. One point which stands out to me is;

65. Halls said to Hannah that he would just be “sitting in” with the gun, meaning the gun wasn’t going to be used at all since this wasn’t a scene or rehearsal.

66. Hannah told Halls to let her know if Baldwin came back so that she could come back inside the Church and re-inspect the weapon and provide it to Baldwin herself as she had done every time before on set. Her point was that if plans were to change for use of the gun to be more than just “sitting in” status, Hannah needed to be called back into the Church.

So, Hannah did make it clear that she needed to be called back to inspect the gun. Dave Halls didn't do that.

Dave Halls was given explicit instructions by Hannah that she had to personally hand the gun to AB herself and check it if he was going to take possession of it! Exactly the way that the SAG protocol says it should be done.

People are berating her for "not doing her job" but it appears to me that she was doing exactly what she was there for. She knew what she was doing and what had to be done each time. Clearly DH and AB knew what had to be done as well as it was exactly what had been done each time before.

If this account is correct then we cannot say with certainty that Hannah was the one who loaded that live round as the gun was out of her possession for at least 15 minutes.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I don't think everything should be done with special effects, though.

Would prop houses charge that much more for realistic, fake guns?

ETA: Wouldn't these high quality fake guns be used in many movies, allowing prop houses to rent them many times to make it profitable? That's different from expensive props designed specifically for a certain movie and characters?

Fake guns would likely be cheaper but the special effects to make them "fire", especially ones which didn't make things look cheap and nasty, would not be. A production such as Rust wouldn't have that budget available to it.

 

[Marantz4250b]

On the subject of the use of real firearms. Film is art and there are, imo, entirely legitimate artistic reasons for their use.

Real firearms, even though discharging blanks, are different to replicas or airsofts in that they have an affect on how the actors have to react and behave with them. Compare something like John Wick with something like Lethal Weapon or Die Hard of 30+ years ago where real firearms were used. The scene where Bruce Willis is under the boardroom table shooting at the bad guy on top of it complete with ejected cases bouncing into his face. Or the scenes in Terminator 2 which required Robert Patrick to train himself not to blink or react to the blanks. There's a scene at the end of Dirty Harry where Clint is chasing Scorpio through the rock crushing facility at the quarry; he fires his Model 29 and the blast from the blank causes dust to fly from the cross beams (admittedly, that may have been a well thought out prop effect but I don't think so).

You just don't get these types of things with guns which don't move or go bang.

 

[PrairieWind]

If HGR is going to claim that someone loaded a live round into the gun in between the time she gave it to DH and the shooting, the DA is going to have to explain why they quickly gave DH such a sweetheart deal.