• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Method acting has its draw backs and one of them is safety.

    “That’s just how actors are” is a shitty, pathetic excuse for putting other people at risk.

    Particularly when that risk is from a weapon fundamentally designed to kill people, and it certainly doesn’t absolve anyone of criminal liability.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yes it is, which is why there is a weapon master to (usually) ensure people aren’t put at risk.

      Brandon Lee was killed by a gun with dummy bullets. Before that, no one had even thought that sort of thing would happen. Before Rust, no one thought this would happen because no one had been killed by an arms master being this negligent before.

      I think things will be different in the future, but expecting an actor to understand the nuances of firearms, let alone be able to do that when they’re trying to prepare for something, should not have been something people should have expected.

      And really, your bringing up choreography shows why. Actors are trusting the people who give them the swords that the swords won’t actually cause serious damage. No one is expecting the actors to test that out on watermelons before shooting.

      Also, note I have said nothing about criminal liability.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        A little curious as to how you make 2-3 pounds of sword-shaped steel “safe”.

        It doesn’t matter if it’s not sharp. It’s still going to brain a person if they get hit the wrong way, and any one older than a 10 yo would recognize that the moment they picked it up.

        So if your hypothetical weapons master were to say “no no really, it’s safe, just hit them upside the head,” as a rational adult you kinda have to stop and think about it.

        And again? My suspicious nature says they hired her specifically because she was inexperienced, and wouldn’t know to push for those more strident safety protocols. Which cost time and energy and get in the way of “artistic” shit.

        Knowing that, and knowing that there were prior incidents of accidental discharges… you’d have to be an idiot for taking these people’s word that it was safe.

        (Wasn’t Hutchins organizing the Union to strike because of those safety problems? I also dont think it was an accident, but I don’t have more than my gut feeling on that.)

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Maybe so, but remember, Baldwin was the one who hired her and fired the gun. So he clearly trusted her to know what she was doing. Was that stupid and negligent on his part because of who he hired? Definitely since it was her second job and there were already complaints about her previous job. Was it stupid and negligent on his part because he trusted the idea that the weapons master made the weapon safe? If so, virtually every Hollywood actor given a gun capable of firing real bullets is just as stupid and negligent.

          I really don’t think we should start charging actors for crimes when all they were done was handed the gun and told what to do with it, not expecting to cause anyone any harm.

          Charge Baldwin with negligence for being a producer, sure. That’s an entirely different issue.