@gano , I am glad you got back to me on both of these:
I do not have a strong feeling whether he was innocent or not. I think putting a loaded gun in someone’s mouth is risky enough to warrant a conviction. It’s kind of like Baldwin and rust, you cannot play with a loaded gun, and call it an accident if t goes off.
well, if the movie is accurate, Spector’s defense contended that Lana Clarkson put Spector’s .38 in her mouth, which alarmed him to the extent that he yelled out at her, which startled her to the extent that she jerked her pistol hand out and the front sight caught on her upper front teeth but her trigger finger kept going back, hence, the handgun discharged. That is how the film portrayed his legal defense anyway. The defense as depicted by the film also brought into question the lack of blood spatter on Phil Spector, who, if he had actually stuck the pistol in Ms. Clarkson’s mouth, would have been in very close proximity.
But with all that typed: it was only a film maker’s representation, and I believe in the opening sequence it stated something to the effect that it was not intended to be an accurate representation. Or something to that effect. And I will also allude to that interview I mentioned earlier (I wish I could remember who it was with) and the person being interviewed saying that Spector’s behavior with firearms was, to say the least, bizarre and unsafe, and tragedy was just a matter of time. So I don’t know. As I typed a few times in this thread, I loved the movie and what Pacino did with his role. And didn’t Rebecca Pidgeon to a beautiful cover of Spanish Harlem?
I was going to get back to you about Rust as well, particularly after you typed that you had just watched Phil Spector. I remember you made a reference to Alec Baldwin and Rust several posts ago, and I have an opinion on that subject as well (surprise). I actually like guns and am quite familiar with them. I suppose I am what one might refer to as "a well armed liberal." (It’s not a political thing with me--when I was growing up in Montana, all my friends had firearms and so did I, and I still have an appreciation for them and still enjoy going to the range. I don’t hunt anymore, and I never will again, and now I wish I never had, but that’s another subject and I am not going to get into it any time soon.)
So as far as Rust: Alec Baldwin was an actor on a movie set and someone handed him a loaded revolver. I don’t know this for sure, but I don’t think Baldwin had much familiarity at all with guns (of any kind) and I think he probably just saw them as nothing more than authentic looking toys that are used as props to make movies with. And I would think that this probably holds true for a lot of actors that make movies where firearms are an integral part of the script. And a negligent discharge occurred that resulted in a lethal and tragic accident. I do not know how live ammunition would have got on a movie set where the script probably involved actors without firearm training pointing operational firearms at each other, but (and I am stating this objectively and NOT to defend Baldwin) that is where I think the real culpability lies. And I do not know that this completely absolves Baldwin or not in my mind. I don’t know if firearms familiarization and safety training for all actors who handle guns in a given movie is a production requirement or not--I am thinking it is not, but I guess maybe it should be. When I was in my early teens I had to take a hunter’s safety class, and one of the first rules was something to the effect of treating every gun as if it was loaded and not to point a gun at anything that you did not want to "destroy" (I believe "destroy" is the updated language that is now used), and these are good rules, but if they adhered to them on movie sets, it would certainly effect the quality of movies, and imo, not for the better. Maybe they should only be allowed to use firearms that have been disabled, as in no firing pin or the chamber modified/blocked in some manner that would prevent a round from being chambered, although that would also prevent them from firing blanks at each other. And, even if they went that route, if live rounds could make it on a set, who is to say an operational firearm couldn’t make it as well, even though prohibited?