Forum menu
As sad as this story is i would be interested to know what the deal is for filming with guns in the uk. Imagine you were the set manager or whoever was responsible for doing the risk assessments. There are exemptions for firearms licences for filming purposes but even so i imagine trying to get insurance ( well, you would hope so) would involve huge amounts of hoop jumping. Im meeting a chap tomorrow who has been in a few action films in the uk so i shall ask him.
In the UK I would think there is a far lesser risk of getting a real shell mixed up with blanks?
So much easier to walk into a shop in America and buy your hearts content. Only takes someone to bring some on set for Lord knows what reason and things could get complex.
That said, there is no info I can find that a real shell was used anyway?
According to BBC some crew members walked off set before the incident, wonder if that included the armourer??
I think they also said that it was the director or assistant director that handed over the gun, not the armourer.
Reading the news reports this morning about live rounds getting mixed up with blanks had me gobsmacked.
How can something like that happen in such a litigious country like the USA?
I hope whoever responsible has a good legal team (although that doesn't bring back the dead).
There was an armourer on Radio Scotland yesterday morning, basically because it was a period piece it was almost certain that they would be using live firearms. What they didn't understand was how a live round could be mixed in since they should be using specially constructed blanks (nothing special about them but it tends to be the same individuals who make them for the movie industry). Brandon Lee was mentioned but from what he said that was big enough that anyone competent should be considering that eventuality every single time.
Tragic accident, absolutely.
@cougar I've often considered that myself, why not propane actuated (like nail guns) so you can still get muzzle flash?
Yeah a few more details this am that it was a live round, the armoured and others had walked of set and the assistant director handed the gun over saying “cold gun” which is used for a unarmed gun.
Visual inspections, press checks etc. I guess its a training thing across the board. Lets see what comes out in the report in a few weeks time.
As sad as this story is i would be interested to know what the deal is for filming with guns in the uk.
Its not any different really- there are an enormous range of circumstances in which you might feature a gun, (or what looks like a gun) on screen and an enormous range of circumstances in which you'd fire it and appear to fire it - and at one extreme that gun will be a cast replica in foam rubber and at the other it would a real AK47 and live rounds. The first choice is always to fake it and you only have something that actually goes bang if you really require it to (not least as mentioned above - it just eats time and money). All the crap above about 'crazy Americans ' and the idea that someone would just pop into Walmart and just buy a few rounds of live ammo for a film is horse shit frankly - down to something as innocuous as a paper bag the things you put in an actor's hands on set are very rarely real.
They just kept dumping the experienced crewmembers who complained and replacing them with non-union people. By the time of the accident, the film’s armorer was a 24 year old woman who’d only worked on one film before. Just a lack of experience through cutting corners.
theres a lot be said in this particular moment about the circumstances the world of film-making is in. Post covid you have a unique situation where there has been a year long break in film making and drama production and in that time a housebound audience who have consumed all the film and TV available to them. Production companies and streaming services are absolutely desperate for content because if they don't refresh the list fast they're going to lose subscribers. They are commissioning and making as much and as fast as they possibly can right now. In that sense its a boom time. I've been working solidly since July 2020 with hardly a break and I'm booked through to next May. Its the most constant and consistent workload I've been under in the last 30 years. My bank balance looks nice, my garden is a mess.
There was already a shortage of experienced crew prior to lockdown - in the context of the current boom its great that theres so much work but frustrating that you can't get the expertise you need to do that work with you. On my current and previous production there were quite a few people acting up into senior roles for the first time and on this current one there are key roles that are just unfilled - we're working in a studio - there is no studio manager. The most senior role in my department is actualy working two jobs in tandem - we're lucky if we see him two days a week - which means everyone below him as well as doing their own job is actually also have to do aspects of hus. And that skills shortage will be a global one at present
The film world is routinely one of long hours and no breaks - very much so in the UK (we make a lot of boast about productions 'choosing to come and film in the UK' but the attraction is really just one weak unions of un-regulated working hours seemingly make us good value compared to our neighbours (although in practice because tired people make mistakes long working days are in reality no more productive)
But the US is worse and the length of working day, unpaid extra hours and travel time beyond that to and fro to set means crew are routinely working car-crash tired week in week out. Listenng to colleagues over there - it can be a weekly occurance to stop at a traffic light and just fall asleep there. Its truly mind boggling the length of day and lack of sleep crew are expect to function on.
These two things have created a perfect storm really - people are working beyond their experience, for exceptionally long hours, without the necessary number of key qualified crew around them. It was already coming to a head - The US crew sector for were already on the verge of a strike in the last week or so - without doubt they will be in a day or two.
On the production where this took place crew were already refusing to turn up on set as the crew accommodation they'd been booked into was 50 miles away from the location they were filming on - adding two hours unpaid time to an already long working day.
Looking at the incident in question its worth knowing who the people involved actually are and what they do. Its kind of obvious what an actor does - but in the context of a scene where this might have happened - they don't walk on set until everything is ready to go - a prop - like a gun - won't be put in their hand until that moment. (don't be distracted by mention of Baldwin being a 'producer' on the film - thats usually nothing more than a deferred pay deal - trading an up-front fee for royalties effectively makes them a financier of the film)
Also involved were the Director, the 'Director of Photography' and the 'Assistant Director' - these three people are the three most important and senior people on set when cameras and cast are there.
The Director is the director - obviously - you sort of know what they do - they have the artistic vision and shape the action on screen
The victim in the this instance was the Director of Photography - they're not 'the camera man' although they may well be holding the camera - if they're not they're glued to a monitor and directing the person who is - but they're alsoin charge of the whole lighting and filming of the scene - camera depaprtment, the grips, the gaffer and lighting department all work under them
The 'Assistant Director' is also mentioned - this sounds like a minor role as it has the word 'assistant' in it - its not the Director's PA - at some point in the evolution of cinema the job of Director split into two roles - the artistic lead of the film and the managerial lead of the shoot.. They are the most senior management role on set in a change of all the other on-set departments. If you ever stand on a film set you will hear the AD's voice all day - working with a radio ear piece in it feels like you have two internal monologues - your own thoughts and the AD's. Everyone on set marches to their drum - they schedule and manage everything about the shoot - they decide when you get up in the morning, when you can eat, when you can go home - when you hear 'action' and 'cut' its the AD that says 'action', its the director that says 'Cut'. Its baffling to see a good AD work - I don't know how they can keep so many plates spinning, minute by minute all through the day.
They're also in charge of safety - they issue the RA's for the day - and the buck very much stops with them.
In this instance, no matter who the armourer, is it was the AD who hand the gun to the actor and declare it to be safe. The circumstances in which the gun was used, and where it was pointed, and who was in the room were all under the AD's control and instruction. Whether the gun was handed to the AD by the armourer or whether the AD picked up what he believed to be the correct gun is unclear at present. As is why a live round was even present on that day or even on that production. There may have been perfectly good reasons for a live round to be available for something on that day but obviously not for the moment in which that gun was handed to the actor.
Thing for me, as people all over the internet are saying, is that gun safety training is always about "every gun is always loaded" should be your assumption every time you pick up a gun. If someone hands you a gun and tells you it's unloaded, you still open it and check for yourself. Even though actors may not be required to handle live firearms, they should still be trained to follow standard safety procedures when handed guns.
If someone hands you a gun and tells you it’s unloaded, you still open it and check for yourself. Even though actors may not be required to handle live firearms, they should still be trained to follow standard safety procedures when handed guns.
That sounds straight forward - but in the particular circumstance of a filmset - the door might not be a door, the chair might not be a chair, food might not be food and a gun might not be a gun. It might not open and if it does - maybe you see a 'bullet' but the bullet might not be a bullet. More often than not things are fake but every effort is made to make them look real. Its the job of crew around the actor to know what the 'things' are and the job of the actor to make us think the things are real.
a gun might not be a gun
Yes, so you check what it is when it is handed to you. If it's a real gun, you open the breech and check that it's not loaded.
If someone hands you a gun and tells you it’s unloaded, you still open it and check for yourself. Even though actors may not be required to handle live firearms, they should still be trained to follow standard safety procedures when handed guns.
Whilst I have sympathy for that point. If he's been told it's loaded with a blank and to point it at the camera and shoot*, how is the actor to know which are the blanks and which are live (having just been told that it's a blank).
Should they also know how to fly a plane incase that need ever comes up whilst filming in the back seat of a Cessna? Not really, that's how delegation works. In this case as Maccruiskeen says, they're all working under the AD, they can delegate the tasks, but the buck stops with them for making sure they're done.
*supposing this is what happened
If he’s been told it’s loaded with a blank
He was told it was a "cold gun", i.e. not loaded with any live ammunition. If he had been told it was loaded with blanks, he should have treated it as a gun loaded with real ammunition.
Yes, so you check what it is when it is handed to you. If it’s a real gun, you open the breech and check that it’s not loaded.
As per what @maccruiskeen wrote, why would an actor know how to do that or have any need to do it? Besides, the whole point of this is that it [b]should[/b] be loaded for the scene you're about to do - blanks, drill rounds or live ammo depending on what's being filmed.
The procedure for handing weapons over is that you do the unload, check it, show it to the person you're handing it to with a phrase to the effect that it's a safe weapon, the person receiving it checks it then takes it. But that wouldn't apply on a film set where you're handing a prop to an actor in the state where the actor can then use it in the take.
Oof, be interesting to see how this pans out. My experience on set as an extra of a few productions varied in terms of weapons safety, from downright shocking to rigid.
All depends on the armoury company and trainers. Briefly tempted to apply for a job with a company, but decided the risks outweighed the gains! Some people just don't take safety seriously.
why would an actor know how to do that or have any need to do it?
They would need to know it if they were on a job where they were required to handle firearms.
They would know how to do it if they were given a 30 minute training session on firearm safety.
This. ^
Most decent productions want actors to look natural with weapons so will often have some form of training package for them.
Time will tell once the police finish their investigation.
Am I the only one that fears this was malicious? Crew all replaced by non union crew, next day this happens?
Whatever there are some serious questions about the safety procedures and the skills / experience of the folk involved.
Its the sort of thing that should never happen. Procedures should be watertight with multiple redundant checks
The various threads over on Reddit seem to be at odds with @maccruisekeen insay that in the US absolutely everything related to firearms on set is the sole responsibility of the armourer. A few have chimed in with what, to me, seem like fairly sensible run downs of how they run the firearms side of things down to having firearms and ammunition in separate locked boxes that only they touch and only they have the keys for, processes for confirming what kind of ammunition is loaded, etc. There seems to be a degree of shock that the gun was handed to Baldwin by anyone other than the set armourer.
Which then brings up the stories about 3 previous accidental discharges this week, unionised crew members walking off set because of safety concerns, inexperienced non-union crew members being brought in to cover and the set armourer being a 24 year old film college graduate with only one previous film under their belt.
Edit: misinterpreted maccruisekeen's post, as you were
I'd just wait until the investigation has been completed, reality is this was with an old style revolver, either genuine or new build, so the issue could be mechanical, such as the sear being damaged, or issues with other areas as well as live ammunition being in the weapon, very rarely is this type of accident down to just one thing going wrong.
As for this scenario, i have no clue how they work weapon safety into films, i'd also wonder about their terminology for an armourer, i doubt it's the same level of profession as in other weapon users areas, i just don't have a clue why they'd want real ammunition to be anywhere near a film set, what would you need this for when you have blanks and you have dummy ammunition for close up stuff, the big issue with live ammo is there is no way of stopping the projectile coming out the barrel, so no chance of adding any mitigation to stop this happening again.
and the set armourer being a 24 year old film college graduate with only one previous film under their belt.
This may or may not be true - She's been named in the press as a result of someone having seen a copy of the call sheet for the day which refers to her as the 'Head Armourer' but the actions or otherwise of an armourer (her or anyone else) haven't been part of any description of the event that I've seen so far. So she may not have been present - maybe there wasn't armour present which was why the AD was handling the gun
The head of a department isn't necessarily the person on set. I'm an HOD currently and I'm not even allowed on set when the cast and shooting crew are there - the shoot crew are their own covid bubble and on a different, more stringent testing regime to the rest of us. Each department is as much involved in preparing for future elements of the shoot as the actual day's filming - that department will have a 'standby' on set managing those specific daily needs but it wouldn't likely be the Head of Department unless its a department of one.
Yeah I can understand that, but then what's the worst that could happen if Head of Continuity isn't on location? The cast of Downton end up using an anachronistic set of bone china for tea in the drawing room. My point being it's not life or death.
Of all the disciplines you'd think would be included in the "covid bubble" surely Armourer should be top of the list, especially on a set and for a scene where they're handling/firing revolvers.
"Lets see what comes out in the report in a few weeks time"
Of all the disciplines you’d think would be included in the “covid bubble” surely Armourer should be top of the list,
I'm not saying that an armourer wouldn't be on set just that 'Head Arnourer' implies theres more than one on the production and just by being named on the call sheet it doesn't imply that they should or would have been the one present on set.
Kinda sure I posted a clip of Partridge shooting one of his guests on his talk show….. 🤔
You did. What do you think might happen if you posted it again?
I was actually wondering if live rounds might be needed for some shots (for instance, the archetypal target practice/breaking bottle scene)?
Live rounds on set? Holy shit.
I was actually wondering if live rounds might be needed for some shots
Sure, but common sense would dictate that you keep a log of all ammunition and lock it back into storage once the live shooting is finished. The record of ammunition purchased should match the remaining stock plus the ammunition fired. And all weapons should be checked that they are unloaded and signed back into the armoury as soon as the live firing is finished. Having a mixture of loaded and unloaded weapons lying around and people not knowing which is which is just asking for trouble.
Sure, but lots of folk seemed surprised that there would be live rounds on set at all, or, you know, Americans..
If they were using prop guns to fire live rounds as 'target practice' (shooting tin cans in the desert possibly), as suggested above, then this would explain a lot..........
Without making light of the incident, by bizarre coincidence, it happened 27 years to the day, when Alan Partridge did the same on Knowing Me Knowing You.
I can't imagine a scenario where they would be (legitimately) using live rounds on set?
Surely the "bloke shoots bottles on a tree stump" scenes are done with blanks and then something to make the bottle shatter? Or are they expecting Alec Baldwin to actually hit something with an old colt army revolver?
I can’t imagine a scenario where they would be (legitimately) using live rounds on set?
One potential situation is filming weapons being loaded. You need rounds that look real for that, so you need real bullets even if the round doesn't contain propellant. One potential problem is that if the bullet (or wadding, or anything) from a prop round lodges in the barrel and a live dummy round (i.e. with propellant but no bullet), then you have accidentally assembled a fully functioning live round with both propellant and a bullet.
thols, that's what happened with the Jet Lee incident isn't it?
Given the potential for something to get stuck in the barrel you'd have thunk that clearing the barrel by pushing a rod down the barrel after and before each discharge would solve that problem.
thols2
Free Member
I can’t imagine a scenario where they would be (legitimately) using live rounds on set?One potential situation is filming weapons being loaded. You need rounds that look real for that, so you need real bullets even if the round doesn’t contain propellant. One potential problem is that if the bullet (or wadding, or anything) from a prop round lodges in the barrel and a live dummy round (i.e. with propellant but no bullet), then you have accidentally assembled a fully functioning live round with both propellant and a bullet.
You'd use dummy rounds, look like live rounds but without any propellant or primer in them, looks exactly the same, just has no explosives in it.
Same with shooting stuff, all would be done primarily with pyros, or digitally added after, not many scenes would have the actor firing and effect in the same frame where it would be hard to do digital these days. There's a lot of scenes where it's all digital in terms of the effect, they dry fire the gun and the flash and so on are added after.
Without making light of the incident, by bizarre coincidence, it happened 27 years to the day, when Alan Partridge did the same on Knowing Me Knowing You.
Third time brought up, still not funny.
Third time brought up, still not funny.
Never said it was funny.
Just an absolutely bizarre coincidence.
You’d use dummy rounds, look like live rounds but without any propellant or primer in them, looks exactly the same, just has no explosives in it.
Yes, but if the bullet from a fake round lodges in the barrel and a dummy round with propellant is then loaded, you have a live round with propellant and a bullet. Even if the bullet is just rubber or plastic, it will still be lethal at close range.