Sorry, lagging behind - been a bit busy.
So, to Hell with the victims? It was too complicated a task to protect them? I'm not buying that.
Absolutely nobody in this thread has suggested that, so why are you pretending they have? Everybody (even you) is saying that the armourer is responsible - the only disagreement until you said that was that some (well, you) think the actor should also be held responsible.
Hawkmumbler said, "I sincerely say this from the heart as someone who has spent a lot of time on film sets dude, you have no bloody idea how complicated they are and why your notion of shared responsibility just does not gel with them."
This, I believe, moves the discussion into a more utilitarian realm, a more cost/benefit analysis type thing. Hawkie is saying, as I interpret his words, that film sets are complicated places and that adding yet another complication to an already complicated environment wouldn't be efficient. Or something like that. Whilst I think it's wise to take utility into account, I would not prefer to use it as a primary indicator. I find it inherantly distasteful and dangerous to let mathematics and spreadsheets decide the value of a human life. (And note here also that it's Hawkie's post that moves us away from the question of the actor's personal and shared responsibilities by focusing on their utility.) This attitude has "to Hell with the victims" baked into it - they're just a couple of variables amongst a whole lot of other variables on the spreadsheet. Personal or shared personal responsibilities have no place on that spreadsheet.
The thing is, I know that film sets are complicated. True, I don't know the exact nature of that complexity through first-hand experience but so what? Making a film is self-evidently complex, as the 45 minutes' worth of credits on the tail end of every modern blockbuster amply demonstrate. And those are just the names, the bare bones of the complexity supporting all the interpersonal and interdepartmental virtual and real life interactions required to put the film together. Complexity. I get it. But so what? Running a country is complicated. Organizing a supply chain is complicated. Running a shop is complicated. Filling a can with baked beans is complicated. Everything's complicated. (We had an issue with our electrical hook-ups one day last week that had us scratching our heads for an hour.) Something being complicated is a thin excuse as a bar to realising self responsibility, because complicated doesn't mean unchangeable.
Using the case under discussion as a template, and with the obvious benefits of hindsight, here is a possible way around Hawkie's objection that complexity is a barrier to self responsibility and shared responsibilities (if I've understood his objection properly, that is). In this fictional scenario I place myself in the role of the actor hired to pull the trigger and ask myself, "what would be the best way for me to handle this?" I start with my core belief - "Harm Nobody." There are riders and exceptions and fuzzy bits, like the coma of a comet, but its nucleus is solid. From the first time I see the script I know that it requires me to fire a gun at somebody. I know that guns are dangerous and that I'll be the one pulling the trigger. So if I truly believe that I should harm nobody, then that must mean by accident as well as on purpose. It is my responsibility, then, to do all I can to minimise the chance of any mishap. If I were to further learn something like the gun I'm going to be using will be a real one loaded with blanks for my shooting scene but will be used elsewhere in the film firing live rounds so shots can be taken of bullets slapping into doors, walls, dirt, and a side of ham, then that's going to heighten my awareness. I'd bring it all up with the armourer as soon as possible, maybe by 'phone or at rehearsal. It would be a fairly simple proposal - the armourer teaches me about the gun and how to tell the difference between live rounds and blanks (from what I gather it's generally pretty straightforward in that live rounds have big lumps of pointy lead at one end and blanks don't). I'd organise to double check the load with the armourer (and the actor who's going to be shot at might be interested to see, as well, and maybe the director, and undoubtedly a gaggle of lawyers...) on the day of shooting the shooting. It would take, like, a minute or two tops and could easily be done when the actor would otherwise be waiting around for everything to get set up. This check would be part of my set up, a little extra complexity in an ocean of complexity that just might, in that one in millions chance, catch a mistake at the last minute. Because it will be my finger on the trigger, so I want to be as sure as I can be that nobody's going to get hurt. The only danger then is from some cunning murder plot involving live rounds altered to look like blanks, I suppose - so nothing's infallible.
But all of that is beside the point, as I said. Hawkie opened the door to discussing bars to implementation, which I walked through. For three admittedly terse sentences. Because I thought this argument was drifting off point I dismissed it with three sentences because I didn't want to wade through all that stuff I've just had to wade through anyway.
So yes, you're absolutely right - nobody said to Hell with the victims. I said it, as a terse interpretation of Hawkie's utilitarian point. I then tersely refuted the idea that complexity is a bar to self responsibility.
Next up is Jim with his customary ad hom. What is he calling me this time? A troll? Oh no, this time I'm a contrarian. That must mean that my views on self responsibility are invalid. Because Jim thinks that if one can grind down the arguer, one can grind down the argument, that belittling the arguer belittles the argument. It's his entire schtick. My entire schtick is freedom, as Jim well knows. It's about taking more personal responsibility and seeing experts and authorities as guides rather than dictators. In this case is an opportunity for me to suggest how more libertarian philosophies might prove to be not quite the frothing mania Jim believes them to be but actually quite sensible. Given that I believe most of my posts on similar topics derive from the same philosophy, it would only have been contrarian of me to accept the armourer as solely responsible view. But no, Jim says I'm just a contrarian (an accusation I can only accept by denying and deny by accepting), so all my views must simply be arbitrary negatives and therefore invalid. Hrrgh.
The space gun idea sounds real good about now because next comes Gordon. Seriously? You're going to crack jokes based on
that subject? Seriously, Dude, eww. Just, eww.
And as that seems to be the nadir, this seems like a good place to get off. Maybe there's a wine cellar down here...
