Filmmaking / Directing : Improving Set Safety by Eve Zelenve

Having worked on many Netflix shows, I fail to see how these two points are connected. I would not describe any Netflix production as rushed; more commonly bloated and top-heavy with far to many self-important junior-skilled producers. It is true though that Netflix itself is essentially an amateur producer (almost by definition, given their history and management), and they tend to hire independent production companies who may or may not the expert at what they're doing. Apart from that, someone has to have the most accidents, right?

Well, "someone has to" feels a bit like nothing can be done about it. This leaves us pretty powerless.

Agree with you about the bureaucracy and about the cause: "they tend to hire independent production companies". According to the friends of the deceased, these companies work under stressed conditions.

Sorry Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg, it took me some time to retrieve it, but this LA Times article explains the situation even better:

“It’s getting worse and worse, faster and more dangerous,” said Kim Trujillo, a costumer who has recently worked on Netflix’s “Messiah” and USA’s “The Biggest Loser.” “It’s not brain surgery, but that’s the level of pressure that we’re put under.”

Eve Zelenve Despite the press screaming, the Rust incident seems to pretty clearly be a case of the AD and the armorer - who were both qualified and whom the producers must therefore rely upon - just not following the simplest safety protocols, which have always been followed religiously on every single set I, at least, have worked on in 30+ years. New Mexico is a new place for production with a growing labor problem and the rhetoric should be viewed against that context. Of course, legal counsel for relatives and the injured are going to cry negligence - because the film set is a work place and if they don't get around a lot of regulations they are stuck with WCB - like every other employee in the country. Like everyone else, they assume producers have deep pockets and they want some of that.

That's not to say that accidents don't happen, and negligence doesn't happen, or that people who are injured in such events shouldn't be compensated. But film sets can be deceptive places and every person on set bears some responsibility for safety. Often I have seen crew doing something they know darn well is unsafe but trying it on anyway because they are too lazy to get the AD to look it over, or simply too careless to worry about it. Injuries that happen because of those incidents are the legal responsibility of the production - but certainly not the moral responsibility.

What can be done - well the Producers Guild of America could have taken some kind of stance literally decades ago, but hasn't and likely won't. The IIPG, of which I am part, has already published a "best practices" manual which include general safety guidelines as well as prohibited practices for producers. We are preparing to address more specific practices and procedures in the near future. But the issue is both far overblown in the media, and even more emergent than people understand. The exponential growth of independent production has not led to an exponential growth in accidents, while large budget sets, where one would expect more safety, seem to have more than usual. I doubt it's part of rushing - the pace major films shoot at today is far slower than in the past. IMO, its a result of major studios pushing inexperienced people into places where they have some power to pressure people on set, but not responsibility for their actions.

But, along with all things in production independent producers need to have more familiarity and sensitivity to safety issues, and that's on the agenda of the IIPG.

"A set culture of mindless rushing."

For me this tends to be due to a break down in communication and a lack of understanding about how much time and money each elements will cost.

It is a tough cookie to crack but ultimately my rule of thumb is always add 10% more time to ask the dumb questions whilst in preproduction.

Yes, Robert, you are responsibly deciding to allocate more time. This is a good way to tackle the leadership issue that James Gunn also mentioned. Here is the full quote:

“The discussion around on-set firearms is valuable. But my fear is it’s now obscuring discussing the many ways dozens have died or been grievously injured on movie sets because of irresponsibility, ignoring safety protocols, improper leadership & a set culture of mindless rushing.”

Thank you, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg, for your detailed answer.

Now I understand why you are opposing the use of the term "rush", but I think we are agreeing on the underlying truth.

For instance, the official conclusions on the "Rust" shooting indicate that the armorer was not given enough time to do her work properly. But the IMDb profile of the line producer (who allowed only 8 paid days at the armorer’s rate) confirms what you wrote about "pushing inexperienced people into places where they have some power to pressure people."

Lack of experience is also what the OSHA data show.

Eve Zelenve The Guild is reviewing that report now. Suffice to say that the conclusions, while certainly and legally finding the Production responsible, as they are and must be since they are an employer, they amount to saying that the Amorer should have been replaced. They go so far as to note "Hannah informed Gabrielle that “It would slow

production down terribly if we had to check them back in between scenes...”

The armorer was [trained and held by all including herself] a professional. I don't have the luxury of not knowing what is in an armorer's standard agreement, especially a union one - it includes the authority and obligation to slow down production if in her professional judgement things are unsafe. As the conclusions state, Production failed to take action when safety issues were raised, which likely should have included the replacing of the armorer and AD, in whose control the safety protocols were.

Let's hope that all producers feel the same as you, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg, about replacing the armorer. But one can't help wondering if she was hired precisely because she wouldn't exercise her duty to slow down production—contrary to the experienced armorer who refused the job.

Eve Zelenve Well Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is the daughter of a highly respected industry armorer with a very long and fantastic record. It was reasonable to expect that she was well trained in procedures, ethics and when to exercise her contractual authority. I am going to presume that she was hired precisely because she should know what she was doing and how to do it.

Not surprised. A lot of production studios will cut budgets to save money. Some of them are sleazy enough to cut safety to get a profit.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg Yes, her father enjoys a good reputation. But employers are supposed to evaluate the track record of the individual they are actually hiring, Otherwise, the same nepotism could be the reason why they did not replace her.

William Schumpert Well, "sleazy" is probably too judgmental, but you're pretty close to what the experienced armorer said:

"'Rust' was too much of a slapdash production, one with an overriding focus on saving money instead of a concern for people’s safety."

To distinguish the good guys from the careless ones, we have limited options: dig up data about the companies, or rely on the experience of veteran crew members.