Posted on 10/26/2021 3:25:06 PM PDT by marcusmaximus
The cinematographer wasn’t behind the camera when Baldwin blasted her in the chest.
That’s a nice story that gets repeated here by people who I don’t believe are making movies.
I was listening to Joe Escalante on Sunday as I like to do. Joe does make movies and he is a lawyer so this is kind of in his wheelhouse. And he didn’t make any of those points you just listed.
What he did discuss is who is responsible for guaranteeing that guns are safe to fire and how it’s done. He didn’t see anything odd about filming a shot with the gun fired at the camera. That’s a common shot directors like to use. There was no mention of a ballistic shield or of having the crew stand aside. The gross negligence that he did mention isn’t the set of “rules” being touted by the legal offices of the freeper film guild. But maybe they’ll be right, although I doubt it.
Who said it was supposed to have a blank chambered? There was obviously live ammo nearby. And why the bleep would a sane person point a gun loaded with a blank directly at a person.? I make blanks of various types. To make a blank work and do something besides burn powder it is necessary to put filler material in place of a bullet. The filler material is typically a wooden or cardboard plug that is crimped in and produces just enough resistance for the powder to burn and make smoke or noise depending on the application. Even the non-metallic wad can sting a lot if it hits skin. “Supposed to” doesn’t get it. Baldwin clearly pointed a loaded gun at the chick,cocked the hammer, shot the round, and hit what he was aiming at. That is all stoopid-to-the-MAX-—
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.