Quentin Tarantino was a guest on Bill Maher’s Club Random podcast over the weekend. I could only watch the first few moments, because I have a certain amount of self-respect work. But what I saw was Quentin already seated and drinking coffee/tea out of a cup. Only it turned out… it was a PIPE. Like he’s Sherlock Holmes! Cracked me up. Anyway, apparently Quentin’s big a** pipe is not what people are talking about after this interview. Instead we’re talking about Bill asking Quentin to comment on Alec Baldwin’s culpability in the killing of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. The film’s armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is currently serving an 18-month sentence, while Baldwin’s case was dismissed last month because the prosecution withheld evidence. Quentin, who’s featured many-a-gun in his movies, laid out what he believes to be a reasonable division of responsibility for handling a gun on set: 90% with the armorer, 10% with the actor. And he elaborated:
Quentin Tarantino is weighing in on the Rust set shooting that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, following the dismissal of Alec Baldwin’s involuntary-manslaughter trial.
In an interview with Bill Maher for the most recent episode of the latter’s Club Random podcast, the 61-year-old director, who is no stranger to firearms on his film sets, was asked about the incident and subsequent trial dismissal.
“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.”
Added the Pulp Fiction filmmaker during the interview, released Sunday, Aug, 25, “If there’s steps to go through, you go through them, and it’s done with due diligence. And you know it’s f—in’ for real.”
An attorney for Baldwin, 66, did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment, while a rep for the actor had no comment.
Baldwin was indicted by a New Mexico grand jury in January after the gun he was holding during an October 2021 rehearsal on the set of his Western movie discharged, killing 42-year-old Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza.
On the third day of Baldwin’s trial in July, the actor’s lawyers claimed prosecutors had withheld evidence and asked the judge in the case, Mary Marlowe Sommer, to dismiss the charge. Sommer agreed to the defense’s request, and issued a stinging rebuke of the prosecutors in the case.
Full disclosure: Quentin Tarantino’s films are not my cup of tea (or in my case, iced coffee). Yet I can still fully appreciate that Quentin has talent, style, and an avid command of film history. But different people have different tastes, and that’s ok. Because Quentin is a prominent filmmaker, I must say this comment from him gave me pause: “If there’s steps to go through, you go through them, and it’s done with due diligence.” What do you mean, “if,” Quentin? There are always steps to go through and protocols to follow when handling prop weapons and/or stunt work. When the safety measures are not strictly adhered to, no matter how boring or repetitive they may be, that’s when tragic accidents happen. Like a person on set losing her life, or suffering from chronic pain even 15 years later. The measures are there to protect people. Something for Quentin to think about, maybe the next time he’s smoking a pipe.
In the meantime, I feel it’s my civic duty to continue to remind the public of how much Bill Maher looks like Sylvester the Cat.
Photos credit: Olivier Sanchez / Avalon, Getty and via YouTube
My completely uninformed take on this “if” is that the actors —or anyone else involved in handling weapons — need to be clearly informed about exactly what those steps are. I’m assuming that the armorer is the expert in charge of the weapons and responsible for educating anyone who might handle them in the proper procedures for doing so. Once this educational process has been done, the actors or others handling the weapons share responsibility for them being handled safely. IF this is not done, then, IMO, any responsibility would be 100% on the armorer — the person responsible for both handling weapons safely AND for instructing others how to do so.
I still don’t get why actual weapons capable of injuring or killing someone would be used at all. It’s just a movie. Why would the tiniest elements of “realism” or whatever, that most viewers would never notice, be worth the risks to someone’s life?
This is America, we’re talking about. We can’t give up guns that kill people, after 20+ years of children being killed in schools. No way can greedy movie producers give up ‘real guns’ in movies to make adults safer.
Well, once upon a time, in the Wild Wild West, Ronald Reagan, of all people, actually went all in for gun control — when the members of the Black Panther Party exercised their rights to openly carry guns. So maybe there are “ins” that haven’t yet been fully explored.
I’m still horribly shocked that the Sandy Hook tragedy seems to have had less of an impact in changing laws crafted by the gun lobbyists than I expected. I do still have some hope that the efforts on the part of many physicians — including the Surgeon General— and grassroots organizations to frame gun violence as a public health issue rather than one of “rights” will ultimately have a meaningful impact.
I just wanted to say that I agree…why on earth are they using real weapons when they could use a replica and nobody would notice. I also came here to say that I despise Quentin Taratino…he literally makes my skin crawl. He is vile.
There is a specific procedure for gun handling on sets, that if it had been followed, Ms. Hutchins would still be alive today. I don’t know if those involved were lax because it was a rehearsal and not the actual filming, but the armorer and the producers, including Baldwin, are all culpable as I see it.
Alec Baldwin wasn’t just an actor though. He was a producer on the film. His standard for responsibility for the film is not the same as an actor, it is more. Period.
Exactly this. As a PRODUCER and the most famous/powerful/wealthy person on site, he has some moral responsibility for the hiring of an inexperienced armorer and then continuing to retain her services and proceed with filming, even after multiple employees felt so unsafe they walked off the set less than 24 hours beforehand. He could have stopped it, but he didn’t. I’d say that gives him at least 30% of the blame there.
Then there’s his own personal experience with handling firearms. He’s not new. We’ve watched him do it for decades before this incident. There are only 5 rules of gun safety. There’s no chance that he doesn’t know them. If he had broken 4 of the rules and only followed ONE of them, she’d still be alive*. So I’d hang another 40% of the moral responsibility around his neck. He knew better. She was criminally irresponsible, but ultimately he’s the one who pulled the trigger.
*The whole point is that the rules overlap, so that even if you’re a dumbass and cause a negligent discharge, you won’t kill someone.
The first rule of handling a gun is you assume it’s loaded until *you* confirm it’s not, this means don’t point it at anyone until you check the gun yourself. From that perspective Quentin is correct about Baldwin’s share of the responsibility.
True. Still, I think that someone would be responsible for ensuring that you’ve officially heard that first rule at least once. I’m not arguing against the rule, of course. I am arguing for an “assume nothing” approach when it comes to culpability — so, a different perspective.
Sorry if my comment wasn’t clear. I’m suggesting that it’s the responsibility of the armorer to assume total ignorance on everyone’s part. I have no idea if that’s the accepted standard though. So, in my view, it would be on the armorer to not just check the weapons, but to educate anyone involved in handling them on whatever the proper procedures might be. (Again, I have no idea what the accepted standards are, or whether they were followed in this case.)
I know next to nothing about filmmaking nor props but, why would there even be a real gun on a movie set in the first place? Like, what’s the reason for that?
I’m def no expert, so take this with a grain of salt. I think you can put blanks in a real gun and when it gets shot, it looks like it really got shot…and that might be a cheaper effect than adding it in post production via CGI. Also, in the 80s horror flick, Poltergeist, there is a scene with skeletons popping up in a swimming pool. They were real… not props. Sourcing real ones was cheaper than paying for props that looked realistic. I wonder if the same may go for guns??
Honestly at this point, I don’t care if they use pink plastic water guns for every movie ever made going forward. Between Brandon Lee and now this situation, real guns just shouldn’t BE on movie sets. Clearly it is too risky.
💯 agree!
Not a fan of bill mahr. And while I love QT movies he is weird. I think it’s too late for the US getting rid of guns. They are saturated all over. Sometimes I think if everyone had a gun maybe it would be less violence because everyone knows everyone has one. I hate guns. Never touched one they make me nervous. Which will be a problem if I’m trying to survive a zombie apocalypse I imagine.