Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
LightDreams wrote:
JSouthworth's "Greatest Hits" on the Rust Shooting "Murder Conspiracy" (over the last 1 1/2 YEARS)
See if you can keep track of "WHO DID IT". Although, my personal favorite was the "Donald Trump Conspiracy Theory"...!
JSouthworth, in his own words:
-And, on and on it goes... Not sure how trump got involved, but the logic is definitely trumpian.
Meanwhile, the prosecution has proven so inept, no one may be held accountable for this fatal negligence.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45553
San Jose, California, US
So much crap brought into this thread by someone who believes in conspiracy theories. I don't want to discuss any "theories" or unproven BS, okay? My firm belief on all this is that it was an accident. As we should all be aware that accidents do happen! So enough discussion on that, please!
Safety on movie sets is proven to be quite excellent over the many decades that movies have been made. Of all the times that guns have been used on the set, the ratio of accidents is extremely low. Nothing is perfect however. I was hoping that maybe we can associate this discussion with our own experiences and photo shoots. So let's look at some factors that led to this accident, shall we?
The gun: I know about guns. My family are country people and I learned to shoot at a young age. Does that qualify me to be an armorer? No, it does not! I have mentioned an incident where my elder brother was sitting down while his old style 45 revolver was strapped in his holster and went off accidently as he pulled it out. He was surprised by it discharging, but fortunately the bullet missed his foot by an inch or two.
Later on I had the opportunity to examine my brothers gun that I thought was a Western Colt 45. I had even shot it when i was a teenager. Turns out that upon further examination, it was a German made replicate of some sort. My brother had many older guns, but it was critical to keep these guns maintained or else they would be dangerous. My elder brother had 17 guns to be exact, as he was a collector. Towards the end of his life, I was his caregiver. I went through his collection, and after years of neglect due to his failing health in not being able to up keep his collection, nearly everyone of his fire arms were in need of repair or even unsalvageable. In other words, those once working guns were dangerous!
Again, I am NOT a professional armorer, however I do know that it is a very important job! If a gun is neglected, it might not even be something noticed at first, but it is something that an armorer must keep on top of. For me, it is very believable that the gun fired on accident. So I do believe Alec Baldwin when he said he did not pull the trigger. Another factor is that he had no reason to believe that there were live rounds loaded in that weapon. Moving on from there, the next factor is the armorer.
In some respects, I feel badly for Hannah Gutierrez Reed, as the responsibility as armorer lands on her shoulders. Based on her father being Thell Reed does not mean that she has any of qualifications to be an armorer on a movie set herself. It was her second movie? The budget was low? They overloaded her with not only the position of armorer but props too? On down time there was live ammo to target practice with? It was a formula for disaster. For one thing, there should never be live ammo on a movie set! I feel somewhat sympathetic to Hannah because this is going to stay with her for the rest of her life. I doubt anyone is going to give her a chance to be an armorer on another set movie set ever again!
I don't think Hannah should shoulder all the blame. The AD David Halls handed Alec Baldwin the gun calling it cold. If I were to pick up a handgun off a cart while the armorer was not around, I would open the chamber myself and check if there are rounds in it before I declare any damn thing. That is just the way I was raised is to be in the chain of safety when handling guns. I'm not going to make an assumption with something that could be deadly. Halls trusted that the armorer had done her job, but she wasn't even there. It's interesting that he took a plea bargain before anyone.
Let's consider this a lesson for our own sets! Be conscientious of safety when handling weapons. It's not that hard to do.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Let's consider this a lesson for our own sets! Be conscientious of safety when handling weapons. It's not that hard to do. Agreed. It isn't that hard. It's common sense, and the stakes are very real. Models asked to pose for "hot girl with a gun" sessions need to be especially wary.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
‘RUST’ ARMORER LIKELY WAS HUNGOVER WHEN SHE LOADED THE GUN USED IN THE FATAL MOVIE SET SHOOTING, PROSECUTORS SAY
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/entertai … index.html
This prosecution has been inept from the start. While I believe the armorer must bear responsibility for a live round loaded into a prop firearm, this kind of unsubstantiated charge seems way out of line.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 2099
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
Focuspuller wrote:
Not sure how trump got involved, but the logic is definitely trumpian.
Meanwhile, the prosecution has proven so inept, no one may be held accountable for this fatal negligence. If someone were to deliberately aim a loaded .45 caliber revolver directly at you, pull the trigger and shoot you, would you (or your bereaved relatives) believe them if they told you afterwards that it was an accident? In this instance at least, the answer would surely have to be in the negative. Unless your personal devotion to Alec Baldwin as a fellow film industry professional is such that you would actually consider it a privilege to be shot dead by him on a movie set.
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4886
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
JSouthworth wrote:
If someone were to deliberately aim a loaded .45 caliber revolver directly at you, pull the trigger and shoot you, would you (or your bereaved relatives) believe them if they told you afterwards that it was an accident? In this instance at least, the answer would surely have to be in the negative. Unless your personal devotion to Alec Baldwin as a fellow film industry professional is such that you would actually consider it a privilege to be shot dead by him on a movie set. To make an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS CORRECTION to the alternative universe nonsense spouted above...
"If someone were to deliberately aim a .45 caliber revolver directly at the movie camera and pull the trigger. And this was done as part of their acting job for a movie scene, where everyone on set had been verbally told by the A.D. that it was a "Cold Gun" (part of the normal safety protocols). If the actor was following the specific directions of the director who, being behind the camera, was one of the people shot... Would you believe that it was an accident?"
See what a massive difference "living in the real world" makes?
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4886
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Congratulations to JSouthworth! He has now pushed his absolutely absurd murder conspiracy theories, on just this one single topic alone, for over 20 months straight!!!
And in all that time, and all of his various ever-changing "who did it" murder conspiracy claims, not one claim that he has made has EVER actually panned out in ANY investigation of any kind. That's almost statistically impossible.
Clearly they are ALL IN IT TOGETHER, in a massive conspiracy plot to make people seriously wonder about JSouthworth's condition.
He must have witnessed some MAJOR "TOP SECRET" EVENT that has them ALL working SO HARD, to make him look so completely "uncredible". Rather successfully, it seems.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
LightDreams wrote:
To make an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS CORRECTION to the alternative universe nonsense spouted above...
"If someone were to deliberately aim a .45 caliber revolver directly at the movie camera and pull the trigger. And this was done as part of their acting job for a movie scene, where everyone on set had been verbally told by the A.D. that it was a "Cold Gun" (part of the normal safety protocols). If the actor was following the specific directions of the director who, being behind the camera, was one of the people shot... Would you believe that it was an accident?"
See what a massive difference "living in the real world" makes? " If someone were to deliberately aim a loaded .45 caliber revolver directly at you..."
Who in their right mind would actually believe this scenario is in ANY way analogous? Who in their right mind would not see immediately this argument is beyond ridiculous? Who in their right mind would present such an insanely flawed argument expecting it to be accepted? We are not dealing with a rational mind.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45553
San Jose, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Let's consider this a lesson for our own sets! Be conscientious of safety when handling weapons. It's not that hard to do. Focuspuller wrote:
Agreed. It isn't that hard. It's common sense, and the stakes are very real. Models asked to pose for "hot girl with a gun" sessions need to be especially wary. That was the simple message I started this with, and yet this one wont die with the conspiracy theories that should not keep it going!
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 2099
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
Do we know who loaded the gun yet? Early on the lawyer for Gutierrez Reed was categorically denying that it was her client, while claiming that she knew who did load the gun, although she didn't name the person concerned.
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8287
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
JSouthworth wrote:
Do we know who loaded the gun yet? Early on the lawyer for Gutierrez Reed was categorically denying that it was her client, while claiming that she knew who did load the gun, although she didn't name the person concerned. Gee. A lawyer categorically denying the client did something wrong. Well, certainly the lawyer must be right because the lawyer was on the scene verifying every move the client made in real time.
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4886
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
JSouthworth wrote:
Do we know who loaded the gun yet? You have been REPEATEDLY provided with the answer, as filed by the woman involved with both the authorities and with the courts. Which is completely contrary to your claims to the contrary.
Not that you EVER listen or pay attention to the facts...
So, JSouthworth, just how many threads have you personally managed to get locked so far TODAY? And do you ever learn from it?
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
JSouthworth wrote:
Do we know who loaded the gun yet? Early on the lawyer for Gutierrez Reed was categorically denying that it was her client, while claiming that she knew who did load the gun, although she didn't name the person concerned. The inept prosecution may result in no-one being held accountable, accusing the undisputed responsible party, the armorer, with "likely" being hungover from alcohol and drugs when she loaded the gun. "Likely" is not proof, and contaminates the case.
Photographer
exartica
Posts: 1399
Bowie, Maryland, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
That was the simple message I started this with, and yet this one wont die with the conspiracy theories that should not keep it going! What keeps it going is everyone replying to someone who should have been simply ignored a long time ago. It’s been entertaining and disturbing to watch. For all of the complaining that he won’t accept reality all the rest of you can’t accept that part of reality.
Admin
Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.)
Posts: 29556
El Segundo, California, US
 Moderator Note! exartica wrote:
What keeps it going is everyone replying to someone who should have been simply ignored a long time ago. It’s been entertaining and disturbing to watch. For all of the complaining that he won’t accept reality all the rest of you can’t accept that part of reality. Indeed.
Ignore the trolls. Please
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.) wrote:
Indeed.
Ignore the trolls. Please I think it would be helpful if MM define "trolling" and then declare a policy prohibiting it. I cannot find such if it exists. I do not think it is practical or realistic for the Forums to police themselves with regard to trolls. Typically, it takes many posts for a troll to reveal him/her self as a troll. By then, personal responses from trolls are difficult to ignore. Ignoring a troll would be a more viable option if MM had a policy where a thread with only one participant for a certain amount of time be closed. We currently have a poster who is happy to post endlessly, responses or not.
Photographer
JQuest
Posts: 2562
Syracuse, New York, US
Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.) wrote:
Indeed.
Ignore the trolls. Please Seems like it would be far more effective for MM to remove the trolls ability to post than have to depend on the entire community to decide and then come to a consensus on whether or not a certain poster should be ignored.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45553
San Jose, California, US
Focuspuller wrote:
I think it would be helpful if MM define "trolling" and then declare a policy prohibiting it. I cannot find such if it exists. I do not think it is practical or realistic for the Forums to police themselves with regard to trolls. Typically, it takes many posts for a troll to reveal him/her self as a troll. By then, personal responses from trolls are difficult to ignore. Ignoring a troll would be a more viable option if MM had a policy where a thread with only one participant for a certain amount of time be closed. We currently have a poster who is happy to post endlessly, responses or not. I agree that it would be helpful to have an explanation as to what trolling is.
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 2099
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
We know who pulled the trigger. The question of who loaded the gun with live rounds is also pretty important. If it was a different person, that raises various possibilities, we could speculate about some kind of conspiracy. But to convict anybody of anything, there would of course have to be evidence. And a motive, if the charge was murder.
If Gutierrez-Reed had a hangover on the day of the shooting incident, what if anything occasioned the heavy drinking? Was Baldwin drinking as well?
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
HANNAH GUTIERREZ REED CHARGED WITH TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN ‘RUST’ CASE
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/entertai … index.html
"Gutierrez Reed transferred narcotics to another person “with the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of herself,” the amended complaint says."
The defense response:
"“It is shocking that after 20 months of investigation, the special prosecutor now throws in a completely new charge against Ms. Gutierrez Reed, with no prior notice or any witness statements, lab reports, or evidence to support it,” Bowles said in a statement responding to the new charge against his client. “This comes on the heels of the state letting its lead investigator go, and the investigator raising serious concerns about the investigation in an email. This stinks to high heaven and is retaliatory and vindictive.”
Investigator Schilling: "“The conduct of the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office during and after their initial investigation is reprehensible and unprofessional to a degree I still have no words for,” he said in the email dated June 20. “Not I or 200 more proficient investigators than I can/could clean up the mess delivered to your office in October 2022 (1 year since the initial incident…inexcusable).”
The prosecution appears to be on track in totally blowing the case against the one person responsible for firearm safety on the "Rust" set.
Photographer
Docta Shock Fotografix
Posts: 1807
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
I've done shots with guns (never real guns), but even in using fake guns, I always show the model that the gun is not loaded/ I even throw away the plastic (bullets) that come with the gun. Always, safety first.
Photographer
exartica
Posts: 1399
Bowie, Maryland, US
Focuspuller wrote:
I think it would be helpful if MM define "trolling" and then declare a policy prohibiting it. I cannot find such if it exists. I do not think it is practical or realistic for the Forums to police themselves with regard to trolls. Typically, it takes many posts for a troll to reveal him/her self as a troll. By then, personal responses from trolls are difficult to ignore. Ignoring a troll would be a more viable option if MM had a policy where a thread with only one participant for a certain amount of time be closed. We currently have a poster who is happy to post endlessly, responses or not. JQuest wrote:
Seems like it would be far more effective for MM to remove the trolls ability to post than have to depend on the entire community to decide and then come to a consensus on whether or not a certain poster should be ignored. Patrick Walberg wrote:
I agree that it would be helpful to have an explanation as to what trolling is. This is… sad. “Please, won’t somebody stop me before I feed the troll, again!”
A formal community consensus is not required, beyond community consensus simply being the common actions of an individual multiplied by a large group. Why do you need some official imprimatur to simply stop replying to someone who has posted nothing but nonsense for pages and pages and pages?
Technically, the poster in question might not actually be a troll. They could genuinely believe their nonsense. I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. It is obviously a waste of time to engage after the second or third time.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45553
San Jose, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
I agree that it would be helpful to have an explanation as to what trolling is. exartica wrote:
This is… sad. “Please, won’t somebody stop me before I feed the troll, again!”
A formal community consensus is not required, beyond community consensus simply being the common actions of an individual multiplied by a large group. Why do you need some official imprimatur to simply stop replying to someone who has posted nothing but nonsense for pages and pages and pages?
Technically, the poster in question might not actually be a troll. They could genuinely believe their nonsense. I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. It is obviously a waste of time to engage after the second or third time. I want you to know something about the forums at risk of getting brigged again. I was accused by a model (who I believe I owe money to) of trolling HER on the THREE POSTS that I was the OP of. How could I be trolling myself? In my humble opinion in rereading the comments, I think she trolled me. HOWEVER the forum seems to be on it's last gasp. There were only three, maybe four models actively posting on here when I came back after not logging on for sometime to see how I could liven up the forums. Now it seems like there might be one .. maybe two left posting in the forum. Anyone who remembers what these forums used to be like can see it has slowed down to a snails' crawl.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45553
San Jose, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Let's consider this a lesson for our own sets! Be conscientious of safety when handling weapons. It's not that hard to do. Focuspuller wrote:
Agreed. It isn't that hard. It's common sense, and the stakes are very real. Models asked to pose for "hot girl with a gun" sessions need to be especially wary. Back some years ago, I had made an important post regarding the safety of models and photographers around railroad tracks. The reason was because of a terrible accident while filming a movie that killed Sarah Jones and injured 7 other crew members while shooting on train tracks for Midnight Rider. The film was being made based the life of Gregg Allman. During the filming Sarah Jones was the camera assistant.
Director Randall Miller, along with his wife producer Jody Savin, producer Jay Sedrish and first assistant director Hillary Schwartz, were charged with involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespass. Miller took a plea bargain and did time while the others were able to avoid stiffer sentences. It was a landmark decision for those of us who work in the film, photography and other areas of this industry as to the importance of safety on the set!
I have tried to find that old post, but was not successful. This is link to an ABC News Story is well worth watching to the end!
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mi … d=29758781
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
exartica wrote:
This is… sad. “Please, won’t somebody stop me before I feed the troll, again!”
A formal community consensus is not required, beyond community consensus simply being the common actions of an individual multiplied by a large group. Why do you need some official imprimatur to simply stop replying to someone who has posted nothing but nonsense for pages and pages and pages?
Technically, the poster in question might not actually be a troll. They could genuinely believe their nonsense. I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter. It is obviously a waste of time to engage after the second or third time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You expect a spontaneous consensus to form against posts that you can't even define. Troll, non-troll, "it doesn’t matter." Just a vague, "obviously a waste of time to engage after the second or third time."
Good luck. And even if that could possibly happen, you would STILL have the troll/non troll polluting the thread unchallenged. The best solution would be MM step in and police their forum.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Let's consider this a lesson for our own sets! Be conscientious of safety when handling weapons. It's not that hard to do. Back some years ago, I had made an important post regarding the safety of models and photographers around railroad tracks. The reason was because of a terrible accident while filming a movie that killed Sarah Jones and injured 7 other crew members while shooting on train tracks for Midnight Rider. The film was being made based the life of Gregg Allman. During the filming Sarah Jones was the camera assistant.
Director Randall Miller, along with his wife producer Jody Savin, producer Jay Sedrish and first assistant director Hillary Schwartz, were charged with involuntary manslaughter and criminal trespass. Miller took a plea bargain and did time while the others were able to avoid stiffer sentences. It was a landmark decision for those of us who work in the film, photography and other areas of this industry as to the importance of safety on the set!
I have tried to find that old post, but was not successful. This is link to an ABC News Story is well worth watching to the end!
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mi … d=29758781 The Sarah Jones tragedy still infuriates me. Her crew let her down.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45553
San Jose, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Let's consider this a lesson for our own sets!
I have tried to find that old post, but was not successful. This is link to an ABC News Story is well worth watching to the end!
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mi … d=29758781 Focuspuller wrote:
The Sarah Jones tragedy still infuriates me. Her crew let her down. I've worked in the industry with small roles or jobs on films & TV sets. Safety is not so much on the crew, as it is on the shoulders of the director Randall Miller. You should really watch this entire episode of ABC's 20/20 .. Sarah's death, and injuries to 7 other crew members was absolutely preventable!
I'm happy to see this thread last so long on the forums that have slowed down to a snail crawl, as the safety and protection of models, actors, crew, photographers ... and even the directors needs to be considered. Film footage of the tragic event shows Randall Miller falling while trying to remove the bed, and a camera operator puts her camera down to help him up. It was a pop up, gorilla style .. "we didn't get permission, but let's shoot anyway" style of that director. He had Oscar Winner William Hurt in the lead roll as Gregg Allman for Christ sake! Allman was so infuriated that he sued to stop any further production of that film. All that said, it is extremely rare that anyone dies in an accident on the set of films or photo shoots for that matter.
There are safety standards for the film industry. That is why I believe in my heart that this discussion is important. We had a recent tragedy of a submersible imploding and killing 5 people including the CEO of the company Oceangate. That had to do with the man in charge letting his engineering ego get in the way because he believed he know better than the regulations his sub would have had to pass if he were to run his business in United States territory. He simply did his own thing without the testing and protocol for safety for his industry.
Okay, what does all that have to do with the Rust movie set? Someone was responsible for the gun handed to Alec Baldwin that day. The movie production had their permits. They had an armorer. She wasn't immediately present on the set at the time of the rehearsal of the scene. So the assistant director hands Baldwin the the gun calling it "cold" .. David Hall took a plea deal. I think he felt guilty for not checking the gun himself. I put most of the blame on him because he was the last one to handle it before giving it to Baldwin .. but that is just my opinion. If it were me, I'd have taken one last good look at the gun & ammo before handing it to the actor.
All these tragic events were accidents. Mistakes that could have been prevented! There should be no talk of conspiracy theories. < Give me a break! I'm going to remind everyone reading this that there have been photographers, models, and musicians electrocuted before on sets .. usually not fatal, but still a "shock!" we don't want to happen. Other people I know who shoot out on ocean beaches have gotten injured .. so my entire point is BE SAFE!
Photographer
3440266
Posts: 948
Pacifica, California, US
JQuest wrote:
Seems like it would be far more effective for MM to remove the trolls ability to post than have to depend on the entire community to decide and then come to a consensus on whether or not a certain poster should be ignored. A “mute” feature, where as an individual premium member, I can choose to not even be shown the ramblings of any user who lives under the bridge would be a great addition, but it likely would be a heavy lift to implement against the current forum software.
Back in the Usenet days (yeah, I am that old) any good newsreader software would support a “kill file” which would prevent the software from displaying any poster who was listed within. WTMKF (Welcome to my kill file) was a common benediction to many a troll…
I really, really think MM would be better off without the forums at all.
Short of that…”Do not feed the energy creature”
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
I've worked in the industry with small roles or jobs on films & TV sets. Safety is not so much on the crew, as it is on the shoulders of the director Randall Miller. You should really watch this entire episode of ABC's 20/20 .. Sarah's death, and injuries to 7 other crew members was [b]absolutely preventable! Sorry, but it is absolutely the responsibility of every single person on a set to speak up if you feel unsafe. When you, as a camera assistant, are told to place a camera on a narrow trestle bridge over a river on active train tracks, and there is no representative of the train company on set with a radio tuned to the frequency of any train approaching because there is no permission to shoot on the track,YOU SAY NO. PERIOD. END OF STORY. It is exactly what I or 50 camera assistants I could name would have done. There was no "accident" that horrible day. It was the direct result of criminal acts by the director, the assistant director, and the production company.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45553
San Jose, California, US
Focuspuller wrote:
Sorry, but it is absolutely the responsibility of every single person on a set to speak up if you feel unsafe. When you, as a camera assistant, are told to place a camera on a narrow trestle bridge over a river on active train tracks, and there is no representative of the train company on set with a radio tuned to the frequency of any train approaching because there is no permission to shoot on the track,YOU SAY NO. PERIOD. END OF STORY. It is exactly what I or 50 camera assistants I could name would have done. There was no "accident" that horrible day. It was the direct result of criminal acts by the director, the assistant director, and the production company. Quoting you again as your statement is very important! "it is absolutely the responsibility of every single person on a set to speak up if you feel unsafe." but Sarah was so young at 27 years. It's sad!
It is said that William Hurt, who was primary actor questioned the director as to the safety of shooting on that railroad trestle bridge. Anyone in the entire crew could have walked off, but they trusted the people incharge of their safety instead of going with their own instinct. The larger the crew, the more important it is for everyone to do their job on down the chain.
In a situation like the Rust set, I did lay the most blame on the AD because he was the last in the chain being that he handed the gun to Alec, HOWEVER then it could be said that Alec Baldwin should have also checked the gun! In your thinking regarding the other movie, then could you blame Sarah for her own death because she did not refuse to go on that railroad trestle bridge? Where is the fine line of taking personal responsibility for oneself as well as the safety of the crew verses trusting the directors, photographers and others who are part of the crew??? I say it's instinct. Truth is much of the crew had walked off of the Rust set. That should have indicated something was wrong.
As for the safety of models, and others when doing photo shoots, I agree with you that if a model feels unsafe in any manner, then she or he should communicate that. If their instinct is that the situation is so hazardous, then they should leave. Knowledge is critical to safety. If I were with the crew of Randell Miller that day shooting a scene for Midnight Rider, I like to think that I would have refused to go on the tracks. However, I know that in my younger days, I would probably have gone along with the rest of the crew. From my experience with guns, I believe I would more likely have double checked the gun if I were the Assistant Director handing it to Alec Baldwin .. in fact I am more sure of that than how I would have reacted as a camera operator on the crew of Midnight Rider. Hindsight grows stronger with age.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Patrick Walberg wrote:
Quoting you again as your statement is very important! "it is absolutely the responsibility of every single person on a set to speak up if you feel unsafe." but Sarah was so young at 27 years. It's sad!
It is said that William Hurt, who was primary actor questioned the director as to the safety of shooting on that railroad trestle bridge. Anyone in the entire crew could have walked off, but they trusted the people incharge of their safety instead of going with their own instinct. The larger the crew, the more important it is for everyone to do their job on down the chain.
In a situation like the Rust set, I did lay the most blame on the AD because he was the last in the chain being that he handed the gun to Alec, HOWEVER then it could be said that Alec Baldwin should have also checked the gun! In your thinking regarding the other movie, then could you blame Sarah for her own death because she did not refuse to go on that railroad trestle bridge? Where is the fine line of taking personal responsibility for oneself as well as the safety of the crew verses trusting the directors, photographers and others who are part of the crew??? I say it's instinct. Truth is much of the crew had walked off of the Rust set. That should have indicated something was wrong.
As for the safety of models, and others when doing photo shoots, I agree with you that if a model feels unsafe in any manner, then she or he should communicate that. If their instinct is that the situation is so hazardous, then they should leave. Knowledge is critical to safety. If I were with the crew of Randell Miller that day shooting a scene for Midnight Rider, I like to think that I would have refused to go on the tracks. However, I know that in my younger days, I would probably have gone along with the rest of the crew. From my experience with guns, I believe I would more likely have double checked the gun if I were the Assistant Director handing it to Alec Baldwin .. in fact I am more sure of that than how I would have reacted as a camera operator on the crew of Midnight Rider. Hindsight grows stronger with age. The two cases are very different.
In Rust, you have an inexperienced and apparently negligent person failing to do the job she was hired for: safe handling of all prop firearms; and a production failing to maintain a safe set despite apparent evidence of unprofessional behavior by the responsible person. Concerned crew did complain and quit the production, with no apparent response from production. However, I do not believe there was any criminal intent, despite wild and unfounded conspiracy theories by an amateur Detective Columbo manqué. In the end, it was an unintended, and preventable, accident.
In Midnight Rider, we have criminal intent in causing a film crew to trespass on active railroad tracks without permission. The production was treating the day as a "pre-shoot", meaning it was not considered a production day in the schedule, not requiring a full crew, like a medic. The production not only did not have permission, they were DENIED permission to be on those CSX tracks, which had to have been known by the principals involved .Like the director. Like the AD. Like the producers. It was an overt criminal act that caused Sarah Jones to lose her life, and Randall Miller got off lightly, IMHO. Sarah, as a relatively inexperienced and newer member in the camera department, would not have been expected to refuse to participate in the placement of the camera on those tracks; that responsibility should have been exercised by her superiors in the department, who had to know the situation was absolutely unacceptable. No film is worth the risk they knew they were taking. A train had already passed on those "safe" tracks. That should have put the fear of God in them
. I don't know what you would have done; I can only repeat that had I, or numerous others been there on that day, Sarah Jones would most likely be alive today. This was not an accident or the result of negligence. It was a conscious criminal act.
Photographer
Rakesh Malik
Posts: 505
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Focuspuller wrote:
The Sarah Jones tragedy still infuriates me. Her crew let her down. One of the reasons that I left these forums for a long time was that there was an idiot here claiming that Sarah Jones was at fault for "playing on the railroad tracks," clearly ignoring the fact that she was on the tracks because she was doing her job after being assured by her employers that they had followed the required protocols to safely film on the tracks.
Her employers got off far too easy for that.
Photographer
Rakesh Malik
Posts: 505
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Focuspuller wrote:
Sorry, but it is absolutely the responsibility of every single person on a set to speak up if you feel unsafe. When you, as a camera assistant, are told to place a camera on a narrow trestle bridge over a river on active train tracks, and there is no representative of the train company on set with a radio tuned to the frequency of any train approaching because there is no permission to shoot on the track,YOU SAY NO. PERIOD. END OF STORY. It is exactly what I or 50 camera assistants I could name would have done. There was no "accident" that horrible day. It was the direct result of criminal acts by the director, the assistant director, and the production company. Most production assistants have no visibility into the required protocols, let alone whether or not they are being followed. Newbies in film also quite often fear that if they report a safety issues that they will be blacklisted, ending their careers.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Rakesh Malik wrote:
Most production assistants have no visibility into the required protocols, let alone whether or not they are being followed. Newbies in film also quite often fear that if they report a safety issues that they will be blacklisted, ending their careers. There was one relative "newbie" on the camera crew that day and she was killed, because members of her team who should have known better failed to act.
California, at least, is moving in the right direction:
NEWSOM AND LAWMAKERS CUT A GRAND DEAL FOR HOLLYWOOD: REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT AND NEW SET SAFETY RULES
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor … fety-rules
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Rakesh Malik wrote:
One of the reasons that I left these forums for a long time was that there was an idiot here claiming that Sarah Jones was at fault for "playing on the railroad tracks," clearly ignoring the fact that she was on the tracks because she was doing her job after being assured by her employers that they had followed the required protocols to safely film on the tracks.
Her employers got off far too easy for that. Sorry I missed this previous post. Sarah Jones was absolutely NOT responsible for her death. The director, assistant director, and the producers were, in my opinion, responsible. However, more experienced members of her camera crew should have recognized the inherent danger in the situation and refused to place a camera on those tracks on that bridge. She was too green and too far down the food chain to be expected to bear that responsibility.
And of course there is the ethic of "getting the shot" and not being flagged as a problem employee in effect as well.
Photographer
Rakesh Malik
Posts: 505
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Focuspuller wrote:
Sorry I missed this previous post. Sarah Jones was absolutely NOT responsible for her death. The director, assistant director, and the producers were, in my opinion, responsible. However, more experienced members of her camera crew should have recognized the inherent danger in the situation and refused to place a camera on those tracks on that bridge. She was too green and too far down the food chain to be expected to bear that responsibility. Even in BC, newbie PAs are often reluctant to say no to their superiors for fear of reprisal, and here we have government support. You get asked to fly an 18K in a Condor in high winds and say no I'm not going up there in these conditions and get fired for it, all you have to do is report it to ActSafe and your union rep. Odds are the production will be shut down post haste.
Productions here know that, so they take worker safety VERY seriously. Most of the time the abuses that PAs tolerate around here are disrespectful rather than unsafe as a result -- not that that makes it ok, mind you. I'm not saying that at all... but being disrespectful rarely gets anyone fired, while getting someone injured or killed through negligence almost always does around here.
And of course there is the ethic of "getting the shot" and not being flagged as a problem employee in effect as well. Yeah... getting the shot is definitely not worth putting workers at risk.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
ALEC BALDWIN SET TO FACE NEW INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES, ‘RUST’ PROSECUTORS SAY
"“After extensive investigation over the past several months, additional facts have come to light that we believe show Mr. Baldwin has criminal culpability in the death of Halyna Hutchins and the shooting of Joel Souza,” said Special Prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis..."
https://deadline.com/2023/10/alec-baldw … 235575942/
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 2099
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
The bottom line is that Alec Baldwin shot two people, one fatally and then claimed that the gun fired itself. I don't believe him and neither do the FBI's experts.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2998
Los Angeles, California, US
JSouthworth wrote:
The bottom line is that Alec Baldwin shot two people, one fatally and then claimed that the gun fired itself. I don't believe him and neither do the FBI's experts. Regardless what you believe or don't believe, up until the firing of the gun, that scenario had been played out in one form or another thousands of times over 100 years with the utmost safety. What made this a fatal accident is the failure of the armorer to do her job, and possibly the AD, as default safety officer, who handed Baldwin a gun and declared it "cold", without the armorer on the set. Absent that failure, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. The idea that actors in scenes involving gunfire are responsible for the safety of their props is neither practical nor safe nor actual practice.
|
Moderator Note!
