Actor Alec Baldwin is a free man. He probably shouldn't be, but the prosecutors allegedly did everything wrong, thus giving the judge little choice but to dismiss all charges against him.
An innocent woman is dead and the guy who pulled the trigger is walking free.
Of course, Hollywood will give him a pass. Considering how they gave convicted child rapist Roman Polanski a pass for decades, how could they do anything else?
But one voice in Hollywood isn't giving Baldwin a total pass.
Quentin Tarantino explained Alec Baldwin was responsible "to some degree" for his gun on the set of "Rust."
...
"You're the perfect one to ask. Who has been on more sets than you?" [ "Club Random" host Bill] Maher asked Tarantino.
"It's a situation, I think I'm being fair enough to say, that the armorer — the guy who handles the gun — is 90% responsible for everything that happens when it comes to that gun, but... the actor's 10% responsible," Tarantino said. "It's a gun. You are a partner in the responsibility, to some degree."
"So what do you do to test it?" Maher questioned.
"They show it to you," Tarantino explained. "If there are steps to go through, you go through them. And it's done with due diligence, and you know it's f---ing for real all right."
"What should he have done?" Maher asked. "Should he have looked into the barrel?" The podcast host noted: "You can't shoot it because then you're like using it."
Tarantino explained the steps many industry experts claimed should have been taken in the moments before Baldwin was handed the gun on the "Rust" set. The steps include showing the barrel of the gun is clear and showing the actor the blanks inside the gun.
Now, where I'll disagree with Tarantino is that there's at least some evidence that the armorer wasn't allowed to do her job.
Of course, she's been convicted and is in prison right now, so apparently the judge was unmoved. One has to wonder if the same prosecutorial misconduct took place in that case as well. If so, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed might be able to get her conviction vacated. Since it's the same DA's office, it's at least plausible. I'm sure her attorneys are looking into that.
Anyway, back to Tarantino's comments, and on that he's right that at least some of the burden is on the actor. Even if typical film set protocol didn't demand it, if you're the person with the gun in their hands, you darn well better take steps to make sure that it won't kill the person you're going to point it at. Ideally, you'd use camera angles and stuff to avoid actually pointing it at people, but even then, you don't want to find out someone somewhere screwed up.
The irony here is that Baldwin is anti-gun. That means he knows they're dangerous, and yet witnesses testified that he was playing with the gun on the set, showing absolutely no respect for the potentially lethal device on his hip.
We now know why he's anti-gun. He's completely irresponsible and he figures everyone else is, too.
Tarantino is one person in Hollywood, though, who faces absolutely no chance of repercussions for saying that Baldwin screwed the pooch to some degree or another. As a legend in his own right, he's got plenty of power of his own, and since the director tends to be the one who picks the actors versus the other way around, I don't think he's likely to have any real problems going forward. Maybe if he wants to cast Baldwin in something, it might be an issue, but if Baldwin declines, there are plenty of other actors who haven't killed anyone who will take the role.
The real shame of Hollywood--well, one shame of about a million--is that so few will acknowledge what we all already know about Baldwin and his responsibility for someone's death.
