variety.com: The director called “action,” and Alec Baldwin emerged from a wooden shed and advanced toward the camera, firing shots from an old pistol. As soon as he heard “cut,” the actor wanted to do the take again.
“One more! One more! One more! Right away!” Baldwin shouted. “Let’s reload!”
1 comment:
I didn’t realize that the armorer on this shoot was only a part-time armorer and props assistant until reading this article. What has made the Rust case drag on in media is its shock value, but also, its balancing act between blame and liability. So many individuals are to blame for what happened on the Rust shoot, those who knew better for by standing, the hiring team, the producing team, and more. This being said, what makes someone liable? And since this armorer was not unionized, how does that change her protections? The fact that only one part-time armorer was hired for a big-budget production with multiple shots involving weapons is baffling to me. Does this fall on producing, and hiring? Additionally, the armorer took the position and continued with the position even once realizing there was no checks and balances system. But does taking a position someone is hired for make them liable? What about the other props people? Who was the armorer’s manager? This situation remains confounding to me and I really don’t know what outcome would make this right. There isn't any justice for this chaotic reckless event.
Post a Comment