Quote:
Originally Posted by MMARSH
Funny I would say she was supposed to be the most powerful person involved when it came to anything related to weapons on set and with an experienced armor this would've never happened
|
You are absolutely right, Michael. The armorer is supposed to have absolute authority over all things gun related on set. At least that is my understanding, with the disclaimer that I have never been on a movie set.
It is also my understanding that with a more experienced, and therefor forceful and assertive armorer, this would not be allowed to happen. Such an armorer would have shut them down. Again, having never been on a movie set, that is merely information I have gleaned from those who have.
Where I do have some experience, and some industry contacts, is in the field of firearms. Not Hollywood, but firearms. I've actually met her dad, Thell. Not that that means anything. Anyway, my admittedly distant contacts in the industry are in agreement on one thing - they would not have taken this job.
Why? Because... Alec Baldwin. He has a "reputation". No experienced armorer, with a good name in that industry, was willing to risk it by working under the conditions they expected to see on his set. Nor, apparently, was Baldwin willing to accept one who would "talk back". The result was an unholy matrimony between an inexperienced armorer seeking to expand her resume' and a producer/director/actor more than willing to run roughshod over her. One who both demanded access to the guns and handled them when she was not on set.
A "stronger", more "authoritative" armorer would have allowed neither. The armorer should have been, as you point out, the ultimate authority. "The most powerful person involved." But she was not. Baldwin was. By his own design.