Should be ultimate accountability though - and isn't the director normally part of the production company too? A lot of them are spun up and closed down after filming aren't they (with massive losses)?
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Soldato
In a way this wasn't a great result for Baldwin, much better that he had stood trial and been found not guilty. I assume now he'll be tied up in civil cases for ever and a day.
edit: doh!
edit: doh!
Last edited:
Soldato
Nope, and for context, my position has always been that, as part of the 3 person chain which ended with a persons death, he should stand trial.............. BUT if he had I think he'd have been found Not Guilty or, at absolute worst, got some form on minor misdemeanour if it had managed to get that far, for the reasons most in here point out.
Errrrrrr
I agree however. Having the case dropped on a "technicality" (because the prosecution is dumb) isn't as good as being found Not Guilty.
Because in this case there were multiple producers (there always is) and there was a gun handling policy in place. So the majority of the culpability lies with the person who ignored the policy.
I do think he should have stood trial and he did, unfortunately the prosecution were inept and he got off on a technicality. I also believe based on the available facts, that he would not have been convicted.
Last edited:
You can be found criminally innocent and still have a civil trial rummage through your pockets.
Commissario
The director is boss on set. There is only one director on most films or a director and a "second unit" director who is in charge of as the name suggests the secondary team (IE the crew that might be filming elsewhere), and possibly assistant director.
A producer cannot normally for example dictate how a scene is lit, or how the cameras are laid out, or what the actor does with a prop, at least not without the consent of the director or replacing the director.
You can be a producer for a film and only be on the set for a couple of days of a 6 month shoot, or potentially never make it to the set, and whilst in theory a sufficiently senior/influential producer can fire a director* it's usually easier to resolve a conflict by moving the producer to a different project.
And yes some production companies spin up for a film or two then shut down either because they don't make enough money to keep going (in the same way a limited liability company works), or because they were specifically created only to do that one project, other production companies go on for decades.
*A lot of established directors pretty much automatically come with their regular people in key roles as they know how to work well together, so replacing a director tends to cause issues.
Sure - but do they not set the standards? The industry self regulates; someone must be accountable...
No, they don’t set health and safety standards. Like every other industry there are preset guidelines and practices that should be followed. The fact an individual does not follow them does not lead to some ultimate accountability (unless a manager deliberately pushed employees to ignore those guidelines). More often than not any individual who has been negligent or deliberately broke the guidelines, it is down to them.
In this particular case the prosecution attempt to prosecute Baldwin as a producer was rejected for the above reasons. He did not force the crew to ignore safety guidelines and the prosecution failed to get written testimony provided by other crew members stating, “the set was not chaotic and unsupervised” as they (the prosecution) were alleging.
He owns the production company though.
This isn't just some famous actor getting a production credit situation.
In this case, in addition to starring in the movie and being a producer, he was a co-writer of the story and would make it happen via his production company El Dorado Pictures.
It's been cited as his "passion project", he was ultimately the big boss here, he was calling the shots not just as a star with some influence but as the owner of the film production company and the main guy behind the whole thing.
And yet none of that was deemed relevant according to the judge.
Doesn't matter, it's relevant to the thread.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,413
Why not?
If you're taking control of something highly dangerous, most reasonable people would want to be as sure as they reasonably could that they're doing it safely.
Given how simple firearm safety is, I think it reasonable grounds for a trial.
There may be no precedent for such a trial, but then that's why you 'try' it.
Baldwin may have had no intent to kill, but evidence suggests he most likely did something predictable and preventable that contributed to the incident, hence involuntary manslaughter.
The CSATF safety guidelines include the following quotes:
"It is important to treat all firearms and prop firearms, whether they are real, rubber guns, non-guns, non-functioning replicas, or replicas with recoil simulators, as if they are working, loaded firearms".
"Whenever the Property Master gives a firearm to a performer, the Property Master shall advise the performer of the type of blank or dummy round being used and afford the performer, cast, and crew the supervised opportunity to verify the same".
Not just "in effect", that is exactly what I'm saying, along with the insistence that everyone should require certified training before they're allowed to lay hands on a firearm.
Tried, yes. As above.
This one would be less likely to succeed, as most standard safety checks would not require examining the barrel for a stuck round.
I understand SAG, Equity and similar all state that the armourer is responsible for, among other things, ensuring every relevant person on set has been properly trained in the safe handling and operation of firearms.
Their duties also include "Allowing cast and crew who are required to stand near the firing sequence to witness the loading of the firearm".
So I would argue that actors should indeed have been trained in loading their weapons, in verifying their safety, and know how to check exactly what they're being loaded it with.
It's possible, yes, but given the test results it's highly unlikely, so statistically unreasonable.