SAG-AFTRA defends Alec Baldwin after new Rust shooting indictment
The union argues that it's not an actor's job to be the on-set firearms expert
Aux News Rust
Last week, a grand jury in New Mexico indicted Alec Baldwin on one count of involuntary manslaughter over the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie Rust in 2021. Baldwin, who has maintained throughout all of this that he did not pull the trigger even thought he was holding the gun, was charged in connection to the shooting last year, but charges were dropped a few months later with the understanding that they could be refiled following further investigation into the prop gun.
Now, actors union SAG-AFTRA has released a statement defending Alec Baldwin, noting that it shouldn’t be his job on set to know if a firearm is safe to be used. “An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert. Performers train to perform, and they are not required or expected to be experts on guns or experienced in their use,” the union said (via Variety). SAG-AFTRA also noted that the movie industry has specific “qualified professionals” who are supposed to “oversee their use and handling in every aspect.”
The statement goes on to say that, while actors are given “training and guidance” on firearm use (Baldwin says he was trained not to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger), the “careful supervision and control of the professional armorer and the employer.”
Rust’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, will go on trial for her own charges of involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering, having been accused of mistakenly loading a live round into Baldwin’s gun. As Variety notes, prosecutors will have to prove “criminal negligence” in both cases, which goes beyond carelessness and requires “reckless, wanton, or willful” behavior.
SAG-AFTRA’s full statement can be seen below.
To the extent that the charges filed on January 19 are based on an accusation of negligent use of a firearm predicated on this or any actor having a duty to inspect a firearm as part of its use, that is an incorrect assessment of the actual duties of an actor on set.
An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert. Firearms are provided for use on set under the guidance of multiple expert professionals directly responsible for the safe and accurate operation of that firearm.
The Industry Standards for safety with firearms and use of blank ammunition are clearly laid out in Safety Bulletin 1, provided by the Joint Industry-Wide Labor Management Safety Commission. The guidelines require an experienced, qualified armorer to be put in charge of all handling, use, and safekeeping of firearms on set. These duties include “inspecting the firearm and barrel before and after every firing sequence,” and “checking all firearms before each use.”
The guidelines do not make it the performer’s responsibility to check any firearm. Performers train to perform, and they are not required or expected to be experts on guns or experienced in their use. The industry assigns that responsibility to qualified professionals who oversee their use and handling in every aspect. Anyone issued a firearm on set must be given training and guidance in its safe handling and use, but all activity with firearms on a set must be under the careful supervision and control of the professional armorer and the employer.
49 Comments
If you’re an actor that’s one thing, but wasn’t he also an EP? Sort of changes the conversation if he was in charge of hiring the firearms “expert.”
Executive producers aren’t in charge of hiring below-the-line crew members like firearm “experts.” If there was some evidence, like an email or a text message of Baldwin recommending Gutierrez to the line producer or UPM, then I guess you could hold him accountable. And when the civil suits start coming in, I don’t think he should be excluded as a co-defendant. But hiring people is a full-time job on a production. He wouldn’t have time to act.
Plus there are EP roles that mean “I raised the money for this” and those who are actually running the production. I think I know which category Baldwin falls into.
Plus there are EP roles that mean “I raised the money for this”And even less active EP roles that basically mean “I’m putting my famous name here so you, the actual working producers, can use it as a selling point when you try to raise money for the film.”
Vince McMahon got an executive producer credit for Scorpion King for giving the Rock time off to shoot the movie.
Most likely it’s a producer that means basically nothing and was most likely added to entice him when they couldn’t pay what he though he was worth. That’s pretty standard with low or mid budget movies.
Is “The producer is in charge of the guns, right?” going to have to go on the next round of AV Club Commenter bingo cards?
Is “The producer is in charge of the guns, right?” going to have to go on the next round of AV Club Commenter bingo cards?
Are you seriously asking if executives have no responsibilities when things go wrong? Oh dear.
Oh dear, oh bother, oh heavens to Betsy and also to Murgatroyd. That completely invalidates my comment, reality as a concept, and myself to boot. I am vanquished.
Conversations can change in a variety of ways if you assume imagined job duties.
So if he is being charged because he was a producer, why not charge all the producers. Even small movies usually have more than one.
“Executive Producer” can mean pretty much anything. It’s not the same as a hands-on producer. In all likelihood – although I don’t know this for a fact – Baldwin helped get a low-budget film off the ground due to his presence as a marketable star. He asks for an executive producer credit for that, and he gets it. It often means a hell of a lot less than that. Guaranteed, he was not worrying himself with which armorer would be hired, one way or the other.
The New Mexico prosecutor’s office is managed by one of those drinking bird toys
My guess is someone is trying to make a name for themselves for a political career, even if they lose it’s probably good to get their name in the news
Precisely. This is a recently-elected DA who entered her office months before the shooting and is building a brand.
I don’t want to end up back in the did he/didn’t he argument, but maybe actors who are going to work with weapons should get some training beforehand. Keanu Reeves is a good example. Maybe he just loves guns, but he spends a lot of time on the ranges.
I don’t disagree, but at the same time…look at the movies Keanu is in. Clearly there are very different requirements.If you’ve got something like a crime drama where there’s maybe a scene or two where people are actively handling guns and maybe a mag or two are expended, if that… Obviously teach them basic weapon handling and safety, etc.If you’ve got a crazy action movie where a small European nation’s entire GDP worth of ammo is expended……. Yeah. Teaching them more than which direction to point it is definitely in order. 😅Plus, like, with the John Wick movies, Keanu is doing absurd tactical gun-fu shit that people spend years just learning to do at all nevermind do well. So it’s no surprise he’s been doing firearms training and range time from hell to breakfast. 😂
IIRC, the Wick movies don’t even use functional guns or blanks. All the gunshots are added in post.
Wait, seriously? I mean, I guess that shouldn’t surprise me because holy shit… But at the same time…that totally surprises me… I couldn’t tell, and I’ve literally done those kinds of VFX! 😂
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/john-wick-4-guns-chad-stahelski-interview-1234823769/
Stahelski, a long-time stuntman and armourer, has specifically gone on record saying that there is absolutely no reason to use live guns, and thus have no reason to have live ammo, on set. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/john-wick-filmmaker-chad-stahelski-sequels-oscar-stunt-snubs-firearms-1235343132/Guitterez-Reid had real guns, and, not only that, was allegedly fucking around shooting them with live ammo on set between takes.
Guitterez-Reid had real guns, and, not only that, was allegedly fucking around shooting them with live ammo on set between takes.It would seem to me that this is the real crux of the matter here… That’s just fuckin’ irresponsible on so many levels, I can’t even! 🤦♂️For starters there should never be live ammo anywhere near a movie set, period. And it all just gets worse from there! 😬
Same for the Star Wars movies.
That’s how people who are standing three feet away from Keanu Reeves repeatedly manage to miss him.
I’ve heard that too, about the Wick movies and others. Honestly there seems no reason to ever use a blank or a functional gun in a movie. Maybe some (most) actors would need some firearms training on a range, just to get what firing a gun feels like, but bringing real weapons to a film set hasn’t been necessary for a long time.
I expect going forward that a lot more productions will do things the way the Wick movies do, because why even have a risk at all if it’s not necessary. The problem is that there’s an entire industry of prop houses and armorers that provide real and modified guns to Hollywood, and have a vested interest in continuing to do things the same way. Plus I’m sure there will be directors/actors that insist on continuing to use real guns firing blanks for realism or whatever.
I think he simply enjoys shooting for sport, but he’s also said he wants to look natural when handling them in roles (Wick being the obvious standout).
There’s also something to be said for being comfortable when using the weapon when your character is supposed to be as well.Flipped past “The King’s Man” last night and saw a great example of this. There’s a fight somewhere in the movie that in part takes place in shadow in front of a projector. When the actors are in the scene, they’re doing what comes natural to someone who doesn’t use swords for ‘fighting’ – they’re trying to lean as far back from their opponent as they can and sort of swinging in front of themselves wildly. When the “shadow” fight in front of the projector is shown they’re suddenly leaning into the fight and attacking with some degree of aim – presumably doubles with more skill. It was a pretty obvious disconnect in the scene.Kinda reminded me of the old “Hot Shots” sequel.
My buddy worked on “Heat,” and the actors in that movie got EXTENSIVE training before filming that incredible shoot-out sequence. They all knew exactly what they were doing. But that’s hardly always the case.
That’s Michael Mann’s MO though. One of the things that make him such a pain in the ass to work for (I’ve heard) is his absolutely insane attention to detail.
Keanu Reeves has a lot of training that would not have made a difference in this case.
I don’t agree. I don’t know if Baldwin has any training at all but people who are used to handling guns, imo, respect them far more and are sensitive to everything about that weapon and what it can potentially do. If he wasn’t set to perform an action he should not have been pointing it in any direction that wasn’t safe. If there was no safe direction it should have been holstered. He’s an idiot. Never point a weapon at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
Actors point weapons they don’t intend to shoot all the time. That’s what their job is (sometimes).
Thank goodness it isn’t all the time then.
Absolutely. That would make for very repetitive movies.
They’re right, it’s specifically someone’s job to make sure the firearms on set are safe. Alec Baldwin is not that person.
Next you’re going to tell me that it isn’t the bus driver’s job to do a full, in-depth inspection of the bus, engine, chassis, every nut and bolt and valve and hose? We’re supposed to have mechanics for that?
It is just such a crazy world!
Anyone issued a firearm on set must be given training and guidance in its safe handling and use, but all activity with firearms on a set must be under the careful supervision and control of the professional armorer and the employer.Knowing that, why did Baldwin take the gun when there was no professional armorer on the set? The guidelines need to add that any “cold” gun be test fired in view of the actor. Either into a bullet trap or at the feet of the armorer. Go ahead, punk, do you feel lucky?
Baldwin says he was trained not to point a gun at someone and pull the triggerIsn’t that exactly what he did, though? Seems he should still bear some culpability if he wasn’t following clear training.
I don’t know how to tell you this, but actors often have to point guns at other people and pull the trigger on camera. That’s why productions employ armorers, and have guidelines and procedures in place to keep cast and crew members safe.There was a specific point of failure here, and it lies with the armorer and the AD, not the actor being directed to point a gun in a specific direction.
I will never understand people who have these sorts of critiques of movies.“OMG, I can’t believe he played Hitler, history’s greatest monster!”Yeah. It’s called acting and it’s a job.
Totally, but at the same time… I think Alec Baldwin is (unsurprisingly) putting his foot in his mouth by saying stuff like that. It would be like if an actor played Hitler and then went around making a big show of how they were raised to love people of all races and creeds. Sure, there’s a minority of people who don’t understand the difference between reality and make-believe, but most people understand that he was just acting.
David Schwimmer, among many others, gets hate simply because of the character. Several years ago, some mentally ill Twitter moron tried to start an entire thing against Krasinski. The Internet was a mistake
No, actors should NEVER point real guns at anyone. They are specifically trained to NOT do that. If it needs to be pointed at someone, it needs to be a prop gun, not a real one.
Actors are trained to follow direction. Yes, the gun should have been a prop gun, not a real gun. There should never have been live ammo on set. The failures started before Alec pointed the gun where he was directed to point it.
I’m no firearms expert either, but that’s never stopped me from not killing anyone.
(Baldwin says he was trained not to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger)Hey Alec, you might want to keep that to yourself on this one, bud.
Whatever the outcome with Baldwin I hope sets with firearms are safer moving forward.