Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I think its going to be interesting in terms of safety on film sets moving forward.
That being said, I hear they're thinking of approaching Baldwin to direct the remake of 'The Crow?'
 |
Dark laugh.
Yeah, honestly as someone who has worked on multiple movies that are in the same budget range and the vibe is very similar to what is described on Rust. Every department overstressed and under staffed (usually with inexperienced people for the sake of lowballing them) and safety standards routinely side-stepped for the sake of saving money on time or personel or equipment. I myself routinely end up on high ladders in precarious places that should require things like a lift and safety harnesses etc... but no way the production will provide for it. Big films with big directors and names etc... they have the funding (and interest) to keep things proper according to union protocol etc. so they are generally safe and when accidents do happen (like on Deadpool 2), then they generally are exactly that, accidents, not negligence.
The lesson is probably in, if you can't provide for proper safety/personel, you shouldn't be filming something dangerous, and that's on the producers. Especially as someone in the cast as well, you'd think Baldwin would be very concerned about the experience of the armourer and the safety of the weapons. In the videos there's quite a bit of evidence of him being pretty idiotic about the use of the guns and, as a seasoned Hollywood professional, should be well aware and interested in adhering to the protocol. I sort of feel bad for the armourer, I know her position and you have to be able to stand up to people and just say no or walk away because of exactly this. You don't want to be responsible for someone else's safety if the environment isn't going provide that. From the amount of gunplay being filmed she should have had multiple assistants helping her. They are nailing her lack of professionalism and organization, which is totally fair, but I also know that it's very difficult to professional and organized when you literally don't have enough people to do your job in the proper manner, and the guy that's paying you is yelling at you to go faster. It's BS. But she is still responsible. She could walk away any time. It's tough when its your income at stake though and you don't have the union backing. Baldwin is present for a lot of the mishandling of weapons, including being guilty of it himself. If there's a problem with the armourer, ultimately it's his (and other producers') responsibility to remove/replace her. For the difference to get a real armourer on this set, you're probably talking an extra $300-$400/day just on them. Then she should probably have an assistant for at least the days when multiple people are handling weapons at once, which probably doubles that. So for less than $1000/day for a handful of days, the producers could have made the decision to make this set safe. If it wasn't in the budget, it could (should) have came out of someone's pocket at the top.
I would say this testimony from a LEGIT armourer and firearms expert is the most damning and most informative. Basically walks through exactly how he would do things during video and the contrast between him and the armourer is stark. But when he describes the type of team he would have on a larger movie, that's kinda the point too.