The amount of stupidity that led up to the Rust shooting is depressing and mind-boggling
Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed goes on trial next week; reports of dysfunctional conditions on the low-budget Western's set continue to emerge
Aux News Rust
Earlier today, a New Mexico court shut down a request from the attorneys for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who had been asking that the case against her—i.e., the involuntary manslaughter of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, killed on the movie’s set in October of 2021—be thrown out of court. Gutierrez-Reed’s team had been making the case that, after more than two years’ worth of public information about the case (including private messages from Gutierrez-Reed) being dropped into the public sphere, it was now impossible for her to get a fair trial in a prosecution for Hutchins’ death. (A judge, obviously, disagreed.)
Interestingly, the news of the failed dismissal—which arrives a week before Gutierrez-Reed’s trial proper is set to start—comes alongside one of the deepest dives to date into what sounds, increasingly, like the horrifyingly messy state of things on the set of the low-budget Western. THR’s Rebecca Keegan posted a sort of semi-profile of Gutierrez-Reed earlier this afternoon, which serves, in its own way, as a timeline of the confluence of terrible decisions that appear to have contributed to Hutchins’ death. The piece is fascinating, even if it waxes a bit too lyrical in places—it’s hard to really care what Gutierrez-Reed’s high school drama teacher thinks of her these days, if we’re being honest—because it lays out so much of the dysfunction apparently inherent to the Rust set. While also making the not-wholly-unpersuasive point that Gutierrez-Reed, one of the lowest-paid, least-experienced, least powerful people on the movie’s set, is the one most likely to face legal consequences for the events of October 2021.
(Compare, for instance, the treatment of Dave Halls, the first assistant director on the film, who Gutierrez-Reed has testified told her “We don’t have time” when she approached him for a weapons check on the gun that killed Hutchins on the day of the incident. Halls, a film veteran, took a plea deal last year on a charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, and has already fulfilled his six months of unsupervised probation; according to Keegan’s piece, he’s since left the entertainment industry.)
Some of the most damning stuff in the piece is easy to fact-check, and pretty shocking: Gutierrez-Reed, for instance, only got the job—her second armorer job while working solo, outside the mentorship of her step-father, veteran industry armorer Thell Reed—because multiple, more experienced armorers turned it down. Not just for pay, which was low, but because the armorer was being asked to split duties as a prop assistant, with at least one person calling the splitting of attention on such a gun-heavy movie “completely unsafe.” There are also multiple reports of both Gutierrez-Reed and her boss, prop master Sarah Zachry (expected to testify at Gutierrez-Reed’s trial in exchange for immunity) saying they disposed of rounds or otherwise hid evidence in the aftermath of Hutchins’ death—to say nothing of the general chaos surrounding multiple members of the crew walking out on safety concerns before Hutchins died.
(Figuring out the origin of the live bullet that was in star/producer Alec Baldwin’s gun when it discharged, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza, remains its own infuriating can of worms; investigators apparently left the film’s props unwatched, unsearched, and unguarded in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, making tracking the provenance of the live ammo extremely difficult. Baldwin, who’s back up on charges of involuntary manslaughter himself, after prosecutors previously screwed up and charged him with a law that wasn’t on the books yet when the shooting took place, has thrown a lot of his considerable clout toward pushing focus on the origin of the bullet, and away from any other factors that might have made Rust an unsafe working environment.)
The upshot of all this is that Gutierrez-Reed’s trial is likely to be just as messy as the awful events that led up to it. (Among the info that’s been made public since 2021, there are a number of texts where she talks about alcohol and drug use while working on the movie; expect to see that point hammered unduly hard when the prosecution makes its case.) The thing that keeps cropping up here is that criminal trials, as such, aren’t really set up to handle situations where a bunch of people made a number of terrible decisions, leading to a terrible outcome. (Although expect civil cases against the producers of Rust to keep rolling out for a good long while; Hutchins’ husband, Matthew Hutchins, has settled his case, in exchange for profits from the yet-to-be-released film to help pay for the care of the couple’s son, but there are still others out there pending.)
Keegan’s piece makes the case, though, that Rust was an inherently dysfunctional set. The litany of improper safety procedures in the report is as extensive as it is depressing: The lack of safety glass to protect the people behind the camera; the failure by multiple people whose job it was to check the weapon to actually check the weapon; the repeated assertions that short shrift was given to training for the actors holding firearms, which may have contributed to Baldwin failing to follow proper procedures when he pointed the gun at people. (And, yes, the question of why, in the name of god, at least eight live bullets—including the one that killed Hutchins—were on the movie’s set.) The list of perpetual, apparently systemic failures on display is horrifying. And yet, for now, the finger of blame points solely at Guiterrez-Reed; it remains to be seen how that’ll shake out when her trial actually starts next week.
104 Comments
In what way does “the finger of blame point solely at Gutierrez-Reed?” As the article discusses, Dave Halls already pleaded guilty for his role in the shooting. Baldwin is charged. So that’s at least three people who the “finger of blame” has pointed to.This is an astonishingly sympathetic article about the person who was most directly responsible for a person’s death. I particularly like the assertion that Baldwin “has thrown a lot of his considerable clout toward pushing focus on the origin of the bullet, and away from any other factors that might have made Rust an unsafe working environment.” Does the writer think the fact that a live round wound up in a prop gun, and that it was most likely put there by Gutierrez-Reed, is a minor factor in what happened here, and that we’re only focusing on it because Baldwin is a movie star?
Baldwin is pushing away from the unsafe working conditions on the set because he was also acting as a producer on the set.
He is credited as a producer. Where do you get that he was acting as a producer on the set?Many actors who get credits as producers are not asked to do anything with what happens on the set. They helped, sometimes just by having their name attached to a project, find investors and fundings, they made a few phone calls, they suggested somebody they knew as… For low-budget productions, it’s often a convenient way to reward your lead actors without having to spend more. Besides, producers do make money on the gross (as they’re entitled some percentage automatically), if the film wins some award, they get a trophy, etc.Of course, Baldwin may have been more involved. His contract may have stipulated that his production company (if he still had an active one) was supposed to handle some stuff on the set, etc. And, of course, as any person there, if he had spotted something really dangerous or simply unsafe, he was supposed to report it to the people in charge.Without a copy of his contract as a producer, it’s impossible to say that it was his job to check the working conditions. Getting a title as a producer doesn’t automatically imply that you’re responsible for whatever happens. There are many films (including franchises such as Fast & Furious, X-Men, Alien, etc.) where half the names credited as producers had very little involvement with the actual production on the particular project, they simply signed a contract long ago that grants them the title (and the income) associated with any sequel, with very little or even nothing required from them in exchange.
What’s telling about the “Alec Baldwin should be held responsible, he was a producer!!!” types of posts/sentiments is that they literally never (not one!) say anything about holding any of the other producers on the project, of which there were seven (including Baldwin, along with 4 EPs and the line producer), liable.It’s literally entirely because he’s the famous one, and/or politics.
Alec Baldwin should be held accountable because he did not check the gun for bullets (as every human should always do; also Baldwin’s ACTOR’S Union contract explicitly gives him the right to check the gun for bullets); he pointed the gun at another human being; he pulled the trigger. Also, there is NOTHING political about Baldwin. He took a gig; that’s it.
That ACTOR’S union contract doesn’t REQUIRE him to check the gun for bullets because safety protocols put the responsibility on other crew members. Those protocols have been in place for decades and work when they’re followed, and the actors union has already stated that it was not his responsibility. Baldwin is famously liberal. That you’re unaware of that displays your own ignorance.
Alec Baldwin has never done a single “Liberal” thing in his entire life. He is an actor. When this actor is being paid to do a “Liberal” thing you mistakenly attribute his actions to the real person. However, when he kills someone through his own carelessness and negligence you mistakenly say “he’s just an actor it was someone else’s job to be a human for him.” It is true that Baldwin was within his rights to choose to save 30 seconds by not checking the gun. So he chose to be careless and negligent (George Clooney, who has actually done “Liberal” things IRL, always checks the gun himself when he is on set). Baldwin also pulled the trigger (which was not in the script) and killed someone. Even if he were the living Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. he should pay for killing someone out of his own stupidity and thoughtlessness. His politics are irrelevant.
He is not known for being a Liberal because of the things he does; he’s known for talking about Liberal causes. He tweets Liberal things, vocally supports Liberal candidates, and generally says things that Liberals like to hear. He’s famous for it. Casting him as conservative CEO Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock was a deliberate joke because he was playing against his public image. I agree that his politics should be irrelevant, but it’s really, really, really weird that you’re denying that he has a public image as a Liberal.However, when he kills someone through his own carelessness and negligenceBut it wasn’t through his carelessness and negligence – at the very least, it wasn’t his alone. There is supposed to be a person on set whose sole job is to ensure that 1) live bullets don’t end up on set and 2) an actor is never handed a gun with a live bullet. It is then the first assistant director’s duty to double-check and make sure that said person did their job and announce to the set that the gun is cold. That’s how sets work, and these safety protocols keep people safe when they’re followed.It’s clear that in your mind, Baldwin is solely responsible for this awful tragedy. Just don’t expect the justice system to agree with you.
The “justice” system in this country is so immoral, illogical and illiberal that if it DID agree with me I would greatly doubt my own reason and morality. It is true that our system of justice focuses too much on intent, rather than harm. Our system also assumes that humans are incapable of taking full responsibility for the harm they do with machines. If I punch a child and she dies I will be punished, If I run her over with my car I’ll get a ticket for “failing to yield” and no more (unless I am drunk or high). Every single person who touched the gun and did not (adequately) check for bullets is responsible for Hutchins’ death. Baldwin is also responsible for pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger. They should all be punished even if they get an intern to fight with MAGAs on X (BTW 30 Rock started in the same year as Twitter so I am not sure you are correct about that alleged “joke” of Baldwin’s casting, not that it matters one single bit: this is life and death not a freaking game ffs).
I mostly agree with you and am happy to leave it at that. …But the tweeting thing was just one example. He has been supporting Liberal candidates and expressing Liberal views for years before Twitter and 30 Rock. His political views have its own section on Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin#Political_viewsAgain, I agree that it doesn’t matter one single bit. It’s just a very well-documented thing about him. It’s one thing to not know that he holds Liberal views; it’s denying that he has a reputation for being an outspoken Liberal that confuses me. It would be like me trying to argue that Jon Voight isn’t Conservative.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Voight#Political_views
I agree that MANY (millions?) people believe that Baldwin is a “Liberal.” I will also concede that I have less than complete knowledge of his publicly stated political views. He could be more “Liberal” than I will ever know.
Oh okay so let’s ignore the other thing! Grrrr fucking rich people am I right? Agendas!
For someone who claims to not care about this case, you sure have a lot to say on this article alone.
He was one of numerous producers, and likely was given a producer credit to negotiate a smaller salary or something along those lines, which is common (especially when a big name actor/actress is starring in a smaller low budget film such as this). The odds that he was responsible for hiring crew and whatnot are exceedingly slim.
This thread is worth a read on the subject.
Great thread. Yeah, I don’t get the Baldwin-must-pay-at-all-costs drive people have. Is he an arsehole? Probably. Doesn’t mean he should do time for a death he wasn’t responsible for. There is, rather famously, no law against being an arsehole. I’m willing to be, however, it’d be a great feather in a conservative DA’s cap to nail noted liberal Alec Baldwin…and on, joy of joys, a firearms-related beef.
I doubt Santa Fe has a particularly conservative DA.
Buddy, SAN FRANCISCO has a conservative DA. It’s a conservative job by definition. Every DA, with the exception of a few activists, it’s a conservative. Stop being retarded.
The right wing wants to hang Baldwin because he’s a liberal who made fun of Trump onSNL. That’s crime enough in their eyes.
Well, he was the one holding the gun and pulled the trigger so…
That’s just a link to a lone Xtacle though. He should really do an article on it, Xtacles are a trash way of presenting information.
Yep, this. I’ve never had a Twitter account, and I’m not fucking starting now.
Exactly! And the whole ‘I’m gonna tell a story in a series of 50 Tweets’ thing is/was stupid as hell anyhow.
Stay Doomed
BOOSH!I’m really trying to get traction on ‘Xtacle’ here, it’s a perfect name now that we can’t call them Tweets.
We can, and should, still call them Tweets.Or use the past tense: Twats.
Yeah that was fun for a while but now it’s ‘Xtacles’.
Everyone still calls them tweets.
Yep and that’s why I’m trying to get traction!
X-taclessssss…More than you bargained forrrrrr…
That thread is exactly correct, in just about every aspect.
I’m torn because I think Gutierrez is ultimately culpable for the events that led directly to the tragedy and should therefore be held accountable, especially if the prosecution proves that she brought the live ammo to set (ammo she clearly knew about). But I still believe the factors that made the set an unsafe working environment are relevant. I think offering the first AD the plea deal they did was bullshit. And I think the producer who rolled the armorer and prop assistant roles into one should be punished. I know that’s not going to happen, and I know it opens up another can of worms (other people would have had to sign off on that budget; are they as culpable?), but I’m really sick of low-paid people at the bottom being punished for situations they only found themselves in because of decisions made by people at the top, who are left free to repeat their mistakes.It reminds me of the (I believe) Wells Fargo scandal where bank employees were opening accounts in customers’ names to meet insane quotas that were set by executives. Only the people at the bottom were punished. The executives IIRC didn’t get more than a slap on the wrist. This isn’t sustainable and I’m really sick of it.
Actually, it _IS_ sustainable from the point of view of Wells Fargo. They’ve been caught in major, major violations of banking rules over many years, they continue to be profitable and regulators have always backed off from shutting them down. Their CEO refers to stealing money out of their customers’ accounts as “historical matters.” When they were fined $1.7 billion last spring, NerdWallet wrote:“This is hardly the start of Wells Fargo’s run-ins with the CFPB and other federal regulators. The bank’s fake accounts scandal — in which Wells Fargo admitted in 2016 to creating millions of fraudulent accounts for customers without their consent — was followed by a string of CFPB reprimands and other federal actions.“Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, is the nation’s third-largest bank based on domestic assets, $1.69 trillion as of September 2022, according to the Federal Reserve.In its third-quarter earnings, filed with the SEC in October, the bank reported $2 billion in operating losses due to “litigation, customer remediation, and regulatory matters primarily related to a variety of historical matters” in the quarter, Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf said on the company’s earnings call.”
I largely agree, though she is a fucking gun nut dipshit so I don’t feel *too* bad that she’s being railroaded.
For me it’s not about feeling bad for her. Pointing out that the People In Charge can make reckless decisions doesn’t absolve her of her own responsibility, full stop. From what I’ve read, it sounds like she’s most likely the one who brought the live ammo to set. At best she knew that there were live rounds on set, which would be terrifying to think about even if nothing had happened. So I hope it doesn’t seem like I don’t think she’s responsible for her own actions (I’m just putting that out there for the record; I’m paranoid about how my comment reads).
Oh definitely. Your post sounds how you want it to. That was more me expressing a disdain for her gun advocacy/weird machismo. You’re absolutely right that while she bears personal responsibility there are also a ton of people above her whose decisions resulted in her even being in the position to fuck up that badly. The AD in particular pisses me off. He has a very well known reputation for being a reckless piece of shit.
Don’t know her but at least guns are her career, not just a lunatic fantasising about fighting the government or going John Wick on home invaders
We have a lot of different mechanisms to punish people for wrongdoing, all of which seem to be being employed here. There are the criminal cases targeting the people most responsible (and Baldwin). There are the civil cases, the most prominent of which (by the victim’s husband) has resulted in a financial settlement. New Mexico has also fined the producers of the movie for violating safety law.I’m not sure anyone’s getting off with a slap on the wrist, so much as different people with different levels of responsibility for what happened here are facing different levels of legal danger.
I’m not convinced that the different mechanisms are sufficient, at least in this case. The safety violation fine was $100,000, which feels far too low to be punitive to me (and I assume that it’s not meant to be; the producers will probably just file an insurance claim). The fact that the most prominent lawsuit has already been settled and includes a percentage of future profits as compensation seems like it will discourage any punitive damages in the future. And as for the criminal cases, the first AD has already accepted a plea deal, and the case against Baldwin is laughably weak and politically-motivated. Meanwhile, two of the other producers apparently have a history of running unsafe productions, and assuming that Gutierrez is successfully prosecuted and the movie gets released, will probably suffer no meaningful consequences.Like this piece points out, it seems like our justice system isn’t set up to judge the level of responsibility for so many people.
The people at the top didn’t bring live ammo on set. The people at the top didn’t repeatedly leave the guns they were responsible for lying around unattended. The people at the top werent getting drunk and stoned while handling those guns. One person had the specific job of ensuring gun safety, ensuring that dummy rounds were used, and checking the guns before a scene was filmed. That person failed to do that job. Not only that, but that person also stupidly brought love rounds to the set, and even more stupidly had them in the same f**king container as the dummy rounds. Im also going out on a limb and guessing that it isn’t actually very “low paid.” Compared to many other roles/ people on a movie set, sure. In the grand scheme of things compared to normal 9 to 5 jobs, very doubtful. Nor would that be a valid excuse for the numerous stupid and lazy decisions that she made or her failure to do her job adequately.
And there it is. Nowhere did I say that the people at the top are responsible for bringing live ammo to set, or for leaving guns unattended, or for getting drunk or stoned while on the job. They did, however, create an unsafe work environment that was likely to result in injury sooner or later. A producer was responsible for hiring one person as both the armorer and a prop assistant instead of two people like on any other set. A line producer chastised Gutierrez for “spending too much time” on her armorer duties and not enough on her prop assisting duties. No where did I argue that Gutierrez should not be punished, nor did I suggest that she deserves a lesser sentence because of the people at the top. Just because she is held fully accountable for her role doesn’t mean that others aren’t partly responsible as well.Working on a set is not a 9-5 job, full stop. That she was low-paid compared to other roles, specifically the producers, was my point. I wasn’t making an excuse for Gutierrez. I’m arguing that the producers were also negligent for not even bothering to hire her as the armorer full-time.
Why would a firearm that can discharge live ammo be referred to as a prop-gun, instead of just a gun?
Prop gun is a specific type of gun, either non-firing or modified to fire blanks.
It was literally her job to make sure no live bullet was in the gun.
Yeah like, sure there’s tons of dysfunction on the set, this one low level person should not be expected to change invade working conditions, nobody giving a shit about proper protocol, safety, etc. I think that’s a reasonable take. But that’s not the primary issue here. Fact is this one person was solely resistive for the live ammunition on the set. Why there was any love ammunition on the set at all under any circumstances is move boggling to me, much less how it made its way into a gun being used, but that’s the whole point! At some point she should have accounted for and pulled all the live ammo. It’s like saying everyone is at fault for a car accident because they were acting wild in the car. No, it is the driver’s fault. They are responsible for driving. If it’s unsafe, you stop driving the car.
The THR article includes a bit where they mention that the line producer chastised her for focusing too much on the armorer part of her job and not enough on the prop assisting part (which are normally two separate jobs to begin with). I think she’s still ultimately responsible (why was there live ammo on set to begin with???), but when taking all of the information into account, I think the metaphor should be the car accident was caused by a young driver who the grown-ass passengers specifically picked to drive them around because they knew she couldn’t give them a hard time if they acted wild in the car. She’s still at fault, but they put her behind the wheel and then wonder how they got in a car accident.
Right, there are a lot of lessons here. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the primary thing that went wrong was that there was live ammunition on set, and that ammunition wound up in a gun that was to be used in a scene.
“No, it is the driver’s fault.” Exactly, it is primarily Baldwin’s fault. He did not check the gun for bullets (as every human should always do; also Baldwin’s ACTOR’S Union contract explicitly gives him the right to do this); he pointed the gun at another human being; he pulled the trigger.
This is an astonishingly sympathetic article about the person who was most directly responsible for a person’s death. I particularly like the assertion that Baldwin “has thrown a lot of his considerable clout toward pushing focus on the origin of the bullet, and away from any other factors that might have made Rust an unsafe working environment.”For some reason known only to them, AVClub has been pushing really really hard for Baldwin to swing (literally) for this since the very beginning. I presume it’s personal, or part of G/O’s general penchant to attack other liberals?
So much of the site’s coverage of news seems to be based on the idea that there are people we should like and people we should hate. People we should like can do no wrong, and all criticism of them is unfair. People who we should hate are always blameworthy in all circumstances. Baldwin is a rich, famous, old white man who seems like he’s kind of a dick, particularly to women. So, the site’s attitude is that anything bad that happens to him is good.
Maybe it’s because he failed to check the gun, pointed the gun at a person and pulled the trigger?
Baldwin is not a Liberal. He took a gig making fun of A president that’s it.
There is absolutely, positively, 100% no excuse for live (as in normal, standard, buy-at-Walmart) bullets to be anywhere near prop guns, and it is the armorer’s job to keep it that way.
Others might be responsible too, but the simple fact is that this gun had a real bullet in it, and there is only one person that is in a position to allow that to happen. Everyone else might be able to catch the mistake, maybe.
“…it was now impossible for her to get a fair trial in a prosecution for Hutchins’ death.”I’m a local, and I can assure everyone that 90% of the people in Santa Fe know nothing about this case beyond someone got shot and Alec Baldwin was there. This is almost entirely an internet phenomenon. Gutierrez-Reed’s attorney only has to weed out the tragically-online people from the jury pool and she’ll be okay.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s actually a concern, which is why the judge turned it down flat. It’s just some spaghetti the defense attorney threw against the wall in the hopes of getting something to stick. Kind of the same way a certain orange maggot’s lawyers shit-bomb the court with pathetic motions.
Even half of the extremely online set has almost no idea what actually happened, with large parts believing in complete fabrications that circulated the day of the incident, and others just making up half the details in their own heads.
For sure, but the attorney had to give it a shot.
Unfortunately Gutierrez-Reed was the armorer
Oof.
And I expect the same would be true if the trial were moved to another county, so there’s no benefit to changing venue.
Being “pre-biased” wasn’t ever supposed to a factor in the whole getting a fair trial thing in the first place. A fair trial is supposed to just mean “no on the jury personally knows the defendant or prosecution or benefits from the results of the trial.” Not “no one should have heard about this case and have opinions.” Jurors aren’t supposed to be completely naive, just be able to put aside any bias. Somehow that has mutated into “juror must know nothing about anything.”
Keep being loud and fucking wrong, bitch.The issue is about the jury being exposed to inadmissible, unfairly prejudicial information. Not whatever dumb fuck shit you’re spewing from that anus on your face.
“…on the set of the low-budget Western.”Everyone keeps referring to the movie as “low-budget”. That makes it sound like Son of Rambow or some art school project. But it had a budget of $8 million. Granted, that’s not Marvel money, but $8 mil ain’t nothing to sneeze at.What the hell do movie productions spend their cash on? You’d think that for that kind of scratch they could at least hire someone competent enough to check if the gun’s loaded with real bullets.
$8 million is low-budget for a professional feature with a unionized crew. Everyone knows it’s not some art school project because Alec Baldwin was involved. Movies with no-name actors and non-union crew like Son of Rambow are typically referred to as “micro-budget” or “ultra-low budget.” That’s just reality, so I’m not sure why everyone (meaning industry and entertainment outlets that report on entertainment news) wouldn’t refer to it as what it is.This article points out how they weren’t able to find someone competent or experienced enough to check for live bullets because they were requiring the armorer to work as a prop assistant, a job that paid less. Clearly, whoever came up with the budget was an idiot who shouldn’t have tried to get away with something like that, and should have looked to trim from a different department. But for $8 million, it’s also not hard to believe that the budget was really tight and they were trying to mash together roles. It costs a lot of money to hire all of the people needed to make a professional movie.
$8 million is an objectively low-budget film, especially for a film with gunplay shooting on location. The low budget is a big part of why so many safety protocols were ignored: safety costs money!
It IS low budget, especially for a period piece. Typically anything below 10-12 million is “low” budget.How do productions spend that money? Look at the credits. All of those people need to be paid from the actors down to the PAs. Equipment needs to be rented, locations or studio space needs to be rented, props and costumes need to be purchased and tailored, sets need to be constructed and dressed, all those things and people need transport to and from set and/or parking near set, security guards for set, maybe police to secure a street, permits need to be pulled depending on location, craft services needs to be brought in to feed people each day possibly twice a day, shooting on film requires the purchase of film stock, digital requires a DIT on set, hard drives, etc etc. This is just the physical production mind you (which is the most expensive part). There is a pre-production office that starts long before shooting does to make sure everyone and everything is in the right place at the right time when shooting does begin. There is post production that goes on long after the cameras stop rolling. Etc. etc. etc.Movie making is expensive, and has many MANY more moving parts than the average viewer realizes. Source: My wife is a producer of low budget movies like this.
Yeah, the period element is a much bigger deal than people might realize. Costumes and props alone are a huge expense.
I hate to break it to you slugger, but…. $8 million is indeed very low budget for a movie.“What the hell do movie productions spend their cash on?”Ffs… is this a serious question? Have you somehow never seen the credits for a movie, and seen just how many people are involved? All of which obviously get paid for their work?
What sets us apart is our commitment to accuracy and relevance.
Each listing is carefully verified and optimized to ensure it reflects the true
essence of your business. From detailed descriptions to captivating visuals, we
craft listings that captivate and engage your target audience, compelling them
to choose your brand over competitors.https://dehradundirectory.in/
The amount of right wing glee over this whole situation just made everything so much worse.
What’s sad is that is what you’re mostly upset about.
Who gives a shit? it’s not like we need him to hold the Senate. Rather they chortle over Baldwin than spend more time obsessing over trans kids
If you hadn’t noticed, they are completely capable of doing both. Performative outrage over shit that doesn’t affect them is their drug and they are constantly jonesing for a fix, 24/7.
“Halls, a film veteran, took a plea deal last year on a charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, and has already fulfilled his six months of unsupervised probation”So… he was sentenced to… nothing? What even is “unsupervised probation”? Was the entire sentence really just, “Don’t get caught committing another crime during the next six months?” A multimillionaire who owns several mansions can get as drunk, high, or wild as he likes at home. Sounds like a vacation. That’s not a punishment at all.
Yeah he got the Borat town rapist sentence.
While the sentence was definitely nothing, I have to say: “film veteran” doesn’t mean multimillionaire. Assistant directors aren’t taking home lottery jackpot-type salaries.
Counter-point – Should he be put in an overcrowded and understaff prison for being involved in what was really an accident. There was criminal negligence on the set but the kind that makes people have to pay others lots of money. Not sure putting anyone in prison over this serves the public good at all.
exactly. More people deserve this sentence
Where did I say that he should be stuffed into a cell that’s already beyond capacity? You set it up as a strawman (one that I never said) so that you could attempt to dismiss every other thing that I actually did say. Lame. There are many, many other options other than the dumb thing you assume I said.
Where did I say that he should be stuffed into a cell that’s already beyond capacity? You’re right, we should have put him in a 30×30 luxury cell by himself. Got those all over the place… in countries that don’t lock up ridiculous percentages of their populations for profit.
Just FWIW:https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/unsupervised-probation/Unsupervised probation is a form of probation where you do not report to a probation officer. Rather, you are released into the community (as opposed to incarcerated) after a criminal conviction and report to either the court, or a private company under contract with a state’s Probation Department.By contrast, ordinary probation in criminal cases is where an offender is released into the community and is under the supervision of a probation officer.As with supervised probation, you still have to comply with certain terms and conditions.Depending on the facts of your case and the criminal charges you were convicted of these conditions may include:making all court appearances and providing the court with progress reports,not committing a new offense,paying fines, andperforming community service.
Thank you for sharing the distinctions. That’s exactly what I’m getting at. There are many kinds of sentences that can “punish” a person without necessarily sending them to a prison cell that requires housing, food, etc. There are people here on this website who don’t understand that very basic thing.
Everybody involved in this acted incredibly recklessly. Even the director and DP who were wounded, share some of the blame because they were wounded doing something you NEVER do on a set. They were setting up a scene that called for a “down the barrel” shot, i.e. one in which the gun is pointed more or less at the camera. They were standing behind the camera, checking the frame, checking action, when the accident occurred.When you have a shot like this, you never, ever, ever frame it like this. You never stand in front of a live gun, even if it is unloaded. You always assume it’s hot. And you always stand out of the line of fire, and check the shot using a monitor safely out of harms way. If they had been doing it properly, they never would’ve been shot to begin with. Every single safety protocol in place was violated, and frankly, anyone involved in this production – producer, director, armorer, you name them, should be blackballed.
Yup. As I get to thinking how complex incidents often have blame assigned in percentages, certainly this young armorer takes a great deal of blame. But the production also has quite a bit too. She shouldn’t have taken the job but I could see how an eager 24 year old would be willing to do it, and then proceeds to get steam rolled into questionable situations by assholes who should know better. I saw it all the time when I was getting started in the industry. It sounds like this production was an incredible parade of assholes.
Honestly, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Reed because clearly she took the gig as her opportunity for herself. God knows in my younger years I was so hungry for any chance I could to get on a set. It’s really, really, really hard to say to say “No,” especially when you’re at that early stage where every single chance you accept could be the way you break through. And given her legacy as the kid of an industry pro, she seemed eager to prove her own mettle.She clearly wasn’t prepared to stand her ground against other people in on the crew. An experienced armorer would’ve raised HELL if anyone dared touch one of the weapons without their say-so, because the chain of custody on those things has to be rigorous. Honestly, this film set is a great example of why movies need the same kind of crew resource management practices that the airlines have adopted, in order to foster a more collaborative crew environment. Crew on set need to feel safe and free to challenge producers and directors and ADs when they see something is unsafe, without fear of reprisal. It said so much that the safety culture was so lax and toxic that the only recourse some crew felt they had was to walk off set. And this is where I think Alec Baldwin should be held liable with the others. Not because he fired the gun that killed Hutchins (though, as an experienced actor, he should’ve known better than to accept on faith that weapon was cold, given that it was not shown to be such). Because as a producer, it was his job to ensure the production was run safely. There were multiple instances where he needed to hit the brakes, leading up to the crew walk off in the day preceding the accident. But he and his team plowed ahead, hellbent on making their piece-of-shit little western….
If you read interviews with her or listen to the podcast she was on prior to the film she’s an egomaniac and a gun nut. I think part of the problem was that she DIDN’T feel the need to prove herself, she already thought she was The Shit.
Jfc, this comment is so stupid on so many levels.She brought love rounds on set. Even more stupidly, she had them stored in the exact same container as the dummy rounds. She did that, nobody else. That has nothing to do with supposedly being unable to speak up or stand her ground. That is her being a grossly negligent and irresponsible dumbass. I’m going to go way out on a limb and assume that none of the higher-ups told her to bring live f**king rounds on set and she was afraid to say no. Im going to also assume that they didnt order her to get drunk and stoned while working, otlr to repeatedly leave guns unattended, or any of the other dumb bulls**t that she did. Acting as if she was somehow a victim here due to her youth and inexperience is asinine (and that’s even if we ignore the fact that she had more experience on sets than you seem to realize). What the f**k does your baseless assertion that she was afraid to stand her ground have to do with this in any way, shape, or form? Furthermore, Baldwin was one of multiple producers, and the odds that he was a set producer with any responsibility at all for hiring crew and whatnot, are slim to none. Actors are often given producer credits, especially when starring in smaller low budget films such as this. That doesn’t mean that he was an acting producer and was responsible for crew, set, hiring, etc etc. So claiming that he bears responsibility for set conditions and for which crew were hired is ridiculous.
Yeah- though also with her industry connections you’d also think she’d be in the position to ask her dad if things were a good idea. She wasn’t a young armorer trying to make it in Hollywood alone, she was a nepo baby
Fuck Hannah Gutierrez-Reed — she has blood on her hands.
Can journalism please stop asking me to care about this it’s been two years! I realize it’s a huge , life-changing deal to the people involved but I truly truly do not care and would prefer if there wasn’t a headline everytime someone involved in Rust farts. Jesus Christ guys.
No one is asking you to care, much less forcing you to click the articles, poopshoe.
Ok main character
Sir, this is an Arby’s.By which I mean you’re frequenting a website partially dedicated to film. This is about a film. It’s kinda a big deal in the film world.
If this was an Arby’s, I would have diarrhea after reading an article from here.
Do you realize how narcissistic it is to comment on an article saying you don’t want to read the article? Do you realize nobody gives a shit?
It’s as if you’re actively trying to sound like as much of a complete and utter dipshit moron as possible…
You got the simple part right.
Baldwin isn’t a murderer how is this thing not over yet? How many angles do they need to look at that gun from. My God this is insane.
He’s not being charged with murder. He’s being charged with involuntary manslaughter. I might disagree with the charge but I understand where it’s coming from.
I don’t. It’s asinine. There was a person on set who was being paid explicitly to ensure gun safety, to check the guns before each scene, etc etc. He’s being charged with involuntary manslaughter for believing that the person being paid to do this actually, you know… did her job? Why would he, or any other actor, assume otherwise? Why should he have been expected to go against established protocol and check the gun himself (which is frowned upon anyways, from my understanding)?
Hey bud? That’s why I said I might disagree with the charge. So maybe don’t with the tone, cool?The problem is that whole “involuntary” part of “involuntary manslaughter”. Did you know, for example, that the driver of a car can be held accountable if in an accident their passenger doesn’t wear a seat belt and dies in an accident? Even if it was the passenger’s choice to not wear the belt.I agree with your rationale for why the charge doesn’t stick. But I also see why it was brought. It’s not crazy. Just not, as far as I can tell, supported by evidence. But we’ll see, won’t we?
It’s more about workplace safety than anything. Which is important because it sets a precedent for how these things will be handled in the future
She is going to jail big time and Baldwin ,actor ,and producer at the scene will follow her ,although he will end up with a Juicy Smollet punishment {fine ,probation , community service and at most a min sentence in a min security facility .60 minutes Australia did a damning piece as did 20/20. look on u-tube.The producers KNEW she was a problem and even tried to find a replacement ,but did not want to Pay .Baldwin says he spent over an hour learning to fired the gun with her . FIRING the GUN , implication of real ammo being used .Another example of how lazy and money crazed humans are.