MovieChat Forums > Alec Baldwin Discussion > The George Clooney Testimony -- and how ...

The George Clooney Testimony -- and how guns are fired at people on film

posted 2 years ago by ecarle (14979)
21 replies | jump to latest

Perhaps somewhere back in time...Alec Baldwin beat out George Clooney for a role.

Because Clooney really turned on Baldwin.

Clooney told Marc Maron on a "WTF" podcast that he always checks the gun on movie sets when he is handed one: "I show it to the person I'm pointing it to, we show it to the crew. Every single take you hand it back to the armorer when you're done, and you do it again."

These remarks were read to Baldwin during his televised interview with George Stephanopoulos.

BEGIN:

"Well, there were a lot of people who felt it necessary to contribute some comment to the situation, which really didn't help the situation. At all. If your protocol is you check the gun every time, well, good for you. I've probably handled weapons as much as any other actor in films with an average career. Again, shooting or being shot by someone. And in that time, I had a protocol, and it never let me down."

END

It does seem that George Clooney's "testimony" will be at the heart of the discussion even if Clooney's words aren't used. Must the actor check the bullets(marked as blanks?) before aiming at another human being?

I've been thinking about how "people get shot" in movies these days. Usually the first camera angle is on the person shooting -- and then we get another "shot"(angle) of the person being hit by the bullet.

So the person filmed shooting is generally NOT shooting AT anybody -- they are just shooting into the distance. Then we get the shot of the person being hit -- and that "hit" is an exploding blood packet from an electric charge -- which can be dangerous: Sean Connery was sent to the hospital after having a group of blood packets explode on his chest in "The Untouchables."

The old Hays Code used to FORBID showing a shooter and their victim being shot IN the same shot -- too violent an image. Modernly, I think even when that IS the shot, the shooter aims the blanks to side of the victim...the camera picks up the death as "faked"

Also modernly, I can name two "recent" movies -- "John Wick" and "The Irishman" -- in which close range shots to the victims' heads are CGI animation of blood. I noticed this fakery in both movies, but decided, "well, that must be a safer way to keep shooting men point blank in the head on screen."

I expect we will see more of that fakery for safety purposes, and we will just have to get used to it. OK by me.

The irony remains, as well, that Baldwin fired the fatal shot not during a scene being filmed, but evidently just during a camera rehearsal.

It will be interesting when these theories reach a jury. IF these theories reach a jury. Maybe a plea?

[–] DancingintheDark (1609) 2 years ago

I don’t feel that Clooney “turned” on Baldwin, instead he made a decision to correct the blatant lie that Baldwin made, as well as essentially throwing the entirety of his colleagues under the bus by saying, and I’m paraphrasing here, “As an actor it’s not my job to check the weapon.”
Frankly I’m glad Clooney decided to take up the mantle of defending his colleagues and righting Baldwin’s lie.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Fair enough. I suppose I intended that analysis as a bit of a joke -- I mean, Clooney clearly came out against Baldwin's judgment -- does he maybe not like him? -- and Baldwin's response isn't too good.

I might add that while Clooney seemed to come right at the issue, other stars like Nicolas Cage and Matthew McConaghey said pretty much what Clooney said, but less directly: the actor doing the shooting DOES have responsibility for gun safety.

Which is why this WILL be an element of the prosecution of the case, in terms of Baldwin holding the gun and firing it.

Meanwhile, Baldwin took a producer credit(stars all do, for extra cash) and he has further possible culpability there.

[–] TMC-4 (20121) 2 years ago

For those who missed it, this is what Nicolas Cage and Matthew McConaughey said about the Rust tragedy:
*Nicolas Cage says actors need to know how to use a gun:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/06/nicolas-cage-gun-rust-shooting-alec-baldwin

*Matthew McConaughey talks about shooting incident ...:
https://www.geo.tv/latest/379215-matthew-mcconaughey-talks-about-shooting-incident-involving-alec-baldwin

[–] randir14 (253) 2 years ago

He's an idiot. Anyone familiar with gun safety knows to check if a gun is loaded regardless of whatever you're told by the person handing it to you.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I wrote:

It does seem that George Clooney's "testimony" will be at the heart of the discussion even if Clooney's words aren't used.

Update:

I thought about this and remembered something.

A corollary to this case is the "Twilight Zone tragedy" during filming in the hills near Los Angeles County in 1982 for a movie released in 1983.

The movie was a Steven Spielberg production, and the director of one segment was John Landis(Animal House, The Blues Brothers) and three people were killed when a helicopter fell on them during the filming of a Vietnam War sequence. The three were actor Vic Morrow("Combat") and two Vietnamese children.

Hollywood in general and many fellow film directors "closed ranks" in support of Landis. "Blues Brother" star Dan Ackroyd claimed, "this was a basic industrial accident" and that criminal charges should not have been filed. When Landis got to direct ANOTHER movie in 1985("Into the Night" with Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Pffeiffer), the movie was filled with "guest cameos" by other directors, again in support of John Landis.

Bottom line: when the time came for a criminal trial against Landis, nobody really BIG in Hollywood was willing to be an expert for the prosecution on safety procedures. As I recall they got Jackie Cooper, a former child actor of the 30's and older TV star from the 50s on -- plus a director of the TV series MASH -- to testify on safety against Landis. But nobody bigger.

So: I don't think the prosecution will be able to get George Clooney, or Nicolas Cage, or Matthew McConaghey to take the stand against Alec Baldwin on gun safety.

On the other hand, I haven't seen Baldwin swarmed with support in Hollywood as John Landis was. Mickey Rourke has come to his defense, who else?

Bottom line: if this goes to trial, WHO will testify that the gun should be checked by the actor before firing it?

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 2 years ago

if this goes to trial, WHO will testify that the gun should be checked by the actor before firing it?

The armourer?
or .... isnt it written sown anywhere ?

If I had an industrial accident by using a ladder bigger than I was trained on it would be cut and dried who was at fault due to H&S at work regulations , which are written down , published , and enshrined in law !

it doesent require gun nuts on movie sites to recall them , or celebrity cameos frm G Clooney!

[–] Keelai (34858) 2 years ago

Why would an actor know how to check a gun? That's the armorer's job. The armorer is supposed to open the gun's chamber and show that it's empty to the actor while stating that it's empty.

Nevertheless, Baldwin shouldn't have been pointing the gun at anyone.

[–] DancingintheDark (1609) 2 years ago

“Why would an actor know to how to check a gun?”

Because actors are just as capable of learning how to minimize risk as anyone else, because guns fire bullets, and bullets kill people, like that first grade teacher who was just blown away by her 6 year old student. I take it you feel the child’s parents shouldn’t be held accountable either because they’re not professional soldiers and since they have no formal training in armed combat should be cleared of any wrong doing what so ever.

[–] Keelai (34858) 2 years ago

The school needs to be held accountable because the teacher repeatedly complained to them including a few hours before she was shot. The child said he wanted to set her on fire and watch her burn to death. That kid should not have been in a classroom with other children. Thankfully, none of them were shot.

Did the armorer give gun safety lessons? I doubt it!

[–] Darren (1342) 2 years ago

Actually, according to the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, she tried to give gun safety instruction, and Baldwin blew it off as something he didn't have time for.

“Hannah emphasized the importance of training Mr. Baldwin in the cross draw, which is dangerous,” the statement said. “He never accepted the offer and Hannah was not able to conduct that training as well as other training she wanted to do, because of budgeting and being overruled by production.”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-lawsuit-hannah-gutierrez-reed/index.html

Now, of course, that is a claim made by Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the movie's armorer, and she is charged as well, so one can't discount that she may have an ulterior motive -- but so does Baldwin in attempting to throw all the blame on her.

And Baldwin's own statements to the press undermine his claim that none of this is his fault, and he just followed procedures as he understood them:

"The prosecution used Baldwin's comments to media against him, saying the investigation showed he deviated from firearm safety protocols that he laid out in television interviews."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/alec-baldwin-armorer-be-charged-over-rust-shooting-2023-01-31/

[–] Keelai (34858) 2 years ago

An armorer must be an authoritative leader. Gutierrez-Reed sounds like a lightweight who everyone ignored, therefore she shouldn't have been an armorer. The studio should have hired her experienced father rather than her.

Halls should have also been charged since he handed Baldwin the gun and told him it was unloaded.

[–] Darren (1342) 2 years ago

Yes, perhaps Halls should have. And while I would agree that the circumstances certainly do indicate that Gutierrez-Reed was in over her head, I also know that she is the daughter of Thell Reed, who has been a stuntman and firearms expert for decades. Thell Reed is, along with Ray Chapman, Elden Carl, Jack Weaver, and Jeff Cooper one of the founding fathers of modern IPSC and IDPA combat-shooting sports. Guttierez-Reed is not her father, but I think it is safe to say she grew up with firearms, and unlike Baldwin, is familiar with the rules of gun safety. She is not an anti-second amendment activist like Alec Baldwin, and does not disdain to learn gun safety because of a distaste for firearms. Baldwin appears to have done just that.

That said, Guttierez-Reed is a twenty-four year-old -- not much more than a kid -- and Alec Baldwin is a bona-fide movie star who has been in the business for decades, and starred in several classic films, and he was also one of the producers of this movie. Who do you really think had more pull on that set? Who do you think would have been let go if it had come to a confrontation?

Personally, if I had been her, when Baldwin and the producers refused her requests to conduct some safety training, I'd have said "very well gentlemen, I cannot and will not be responsible for the safety on this set if my safety recommendations are going to be ignored," and I'd have walked. But, again, she's twenty-four, and just starting out, and probably felt she couldn't turn down the work without killing her career.

Pity, because being involved in this has surely killed it now.

[–] Keelai (34858) 2 years ago

Baldwin had handled guns in previous movies, so he probably believed he didn't need another lesson. Likely arrogance.

It doesn't matter if Guttierez-Reed grew up around guns. She didn't have enough training, experience, discipline and authority to maintain gun safety on a movie set. Nobody should have had access to those guns for target practice with live ammo.

Baldwin is suing her, Halls and two prop workers:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/alec-baldwin-files-lawsuit-deadly-rust-shooting-2022-11-12/

[–] Darren (1342) 2 years ago

It does matter if you grow up around guns. When you grow up with one of the nation's premier firearms experts as your father, you can be reasonably assumed to have a very high level of training and familiarity with guns. The training and experience angle are pretty thoroughly covered, as far as I can tell. Her personal discipline, and her ability to exert her authority as an expert are another matter -- though I still maintain that it is not remotely implausible that a wealthy, established, big-name movie star like Alec Baldwin couldn't blow her off with impunity on literally any movie set that ever existed.

Yes, Baldwin is suing her. This impresses me very little. From the instant Halyna Hutchins' body temperature began to drop, Alec Baldwin started evading his responsibility in the matter. Throughout this whole affair, he has consistently shown a total unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his role in Hutchins' death. Suing the armorer is what is colloquially referred to as "getting out in front" of a situation. In other words, he is deflecting blame. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed has considerable responsibility for this situation, but so does Baldwin, and Baldwin is attempting to throw all of his onto her, rather than admit he did anything wrong. She's not guiltless. But, neither is Baldwin, and this incident has not revealed one single thing that is remotely admirable about his character. He's displayed nothing but stupidity, arrogance, entitlement, recklessness, evasion of responsibility, and moral cowardice.

[–] Keelai (34858) 2 years ago

It's obvious he didn't train her well enough since she knew nothing about basic gun safety and gun protocol on set. She was completely incompetent at her job. I've heard armorers say that she could've worked as a trainee under an experienced head armorer, but she shouldn't have been in charge.

I'm pretty sure that her father wouldn't have allowed Baldwin to blow him off nor would he have allowed target practice on set. Low-budget film producers too cheap to hire an experienced armorer. Other producers should also be charged along with Baldwin if they knew about the complaints and target practice.

My issue is that more than two people should be charged.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

keelai can you please check on your sock account WhoToTrust i have not heard from them in while i am getting worried!!!

[–] clashwho (758) 2 years ago

That teacher is alive, thank God.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 2 years ago

I don't particularly like Clooney, but in this instance he is 100 percent correct. It doesn't matter who hands you a gun--the armorer, your own mommy, or Jesus Christ Himself--the first thing you always do is check to see if it's loaded, and if so, with what. If Baldwin had done that, nobody would have got shot. It's not a big technical deal requiring a lot of training, either. Anyone can learn how to do it in about half a minute. Taking someone else's word that the gun was "cold", then firing it in the direction of people on the set, was about as stupid and irresponsible a thing to do as possible. As for Baldwin's claim that it went off spontaneously, any gunsmith can have a quick look at it and determine if that has any plausibility.

[–] strntz (12224) 2 years ago

If Baldwin had done that, nobody would have got shot.

Would you bet your life on it? Be honest.

An assistant director checked it and the professional armorer (whose *only* job was to certify it safe) checked it and *they* got it wrong. Our last line of defense is going to be an untrained actor? Maybe they should have 10 people check it. By that time, it would have been statistically unlikely that a loaded weapon would escape their notice. On the other hand, two people checking it including a professional armorer would make it statistically unlikely a loaded weapon would make it to the actor's hand, yet here we are.

According to what I read from other armorers (those not on the Rust set), an actor cannot open a certified weapon to check it without it needing to be then recertified by the armorer. If he hands it back to the actor and the actor opens it again, well...

If I was a paid armorer, no one including the actor would open a gun after I certified it safe lest some nut sneak in a live round. If my ass is on the hook liability wise, no one including the actor is touching the weapon after me or I walk.

How about this scenario: Baldwin is handed the gun that is declared safe, and witnesses see him open the weapon to check. Now the gun goes off. Uh-oh Andy. Did Baldwin sneak in a live round (conspiracy theorists love this one) or perhaps he didn't notice a single live round in the cylinder or didn't know the difference between a blank and a live round. Imagine the legal trouble *that* would bring.

It's impossible to eliminate *completely* the possibility of a gun accident on a movie set. The simple and obvious solution is to not have any weapons whatsoever on set. Use foam rubber guns and have CGI fill in the details.

[–] FilmFreak5 (8) 2 years ago

I gotta say, I don't like either of them. At all. However, I'm not convinced Alec is as culpable as an actor in this situation so much as the producer.

I am fully aware of the gun handling safety code; treat every firearm as if it's loaded, and check to see if it's loaded each time you pick it up, even if you just checked it before.

However, do you think the actors in Black Hawk Down check their belt fed light machine guns? Or went through every single round in the magazines of their M16A2s (or whatever rifle they were using)? Of course not. That's the armorer and his/her crews job. Granted, this is a western and he was using a SAA, so maybe in the grand scheme of things context counts in this situation legally, but I do think it's a weak argument.

Now, him as the producer, who is in charge of on set safety, and if he was responsible for hiring that armorer, then he certainly shares some of the blame and should have to reconcile that whatever way the court deems fit.

[–] strntz (12224) 2 years ago

Agree on all points. Baldwin liable in some way as a producer? Absolutely - he had a say in hiring an armorer who clearly wasn't ready for the job.

As an actor handed a gun the armorer checked to be safe? I can't get there on that charge.