I'm not a film expert. So, I'm not the best person to ask this to. I just think that if we are relying on or allowing the failure point to be an Actor, the system will fail.
If it is simply that only one person should hand the Actor a gun, and someone else hands it to the Actor, the failure point is how was someone else able to hand the Actor the weapon?
An Actor should be acting, they should not be responsible for who hands them something, or should not be expected to be knowledgeable about a weapon, IMHO the process failed.
I bet if I was walking on set and trying to walk up to Bladwin, I would have been stopped... So obviously they do have some control on who has access to him...
People who's careers involve them carrying live guns, typically have extensive training on that specific gun. They get annual recertification, and have to demonstrate proficiency with that gun. If you are going to expect an Actor to do this with each weapon they touch, then and only then should they be responsible for verifying the weapon.
I'm not sure anyone is suggesting the actor be the sole point of validation, only that the actor be an additional point of validation since that is the final point in the chain of custody before the trigger is pulled.
All participants in a process are responsible for their role in the process. If the process is that the designated armorer hands the firearm to an actor and someone else tries to do so, then that actor should refuse it since his/her role in the process is to accept a firearm only from the designated armorer. If the process around firearms is so loosey goosey that there's not a clear control that ensure firearms are inert before being placed in an actors hands, then the actor shouldn't participate in that process.
To go back to a prior post in the thread. Let's say you're an actor. Scene calls for playing Russian Roulette. Someone other than the designated armorer brings you the revolver and doesn't show you that the weapon is inert, they just say so and you didn't see them check it themselves.
Would you accept the weapon and carry out the scene? I'd have questions. Wouldn't you?
BTW - you have an incorrect notion of the complexity involved in checking whether a firearm is loaded. It is typically very simple. It can be taught easily. A particular production will be using a certain set of firearms/replicas, universal knowledge is not needed and having the armorer walk the actors through the procedure would be easy to add to a safety briefing for the day.
In Baldwin's situation he was both an actor an a producer on a set where live firearms and live ammunition reportedly existed. He accepted a firearm from someone other than the armorer. Specifically a firearm reportedly used for recreational shooting earlier. A woman died because the trigger on the firearm in his hand got pulled while it was pointed in her direction. Yet in your eyes he is 100% completely absolved of any portion of any responsibility for her death. I doubt her window or son would agree.
Last edited: