john landis-controversial (1 Viewer)

[chris winters]

so whoever ultimately takes the fall, can we at least agree that there must be fault found somewhere? The fact that no one was taken to task was more then a bit unjust.

 

[chris winters]

also, even though the producers hire most of the personal, the director chooses how shots are staged, when and where they are shot, etc...and it was Landis who designed most of what made the helicopter shoot so dangerious. The hiring may not have been suspect, but Landis designed what ultimately became a tradegy.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Completely disagree. The director can have free reign with has imagination when composing the shot in his head. Its the responsibility of everyone else to bring that vision to reality. If the shots he wanted weren't physically possible or safe then it should be the special effects technicians, pilots, etc who should tell him its just not feasible to do. How is Landis qualified to know how close a helicopter should be able to come to a fireball?

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Just came across a recent interview with John Landis on The Onion.

Here's the official Onion interview.

Here's some great material that didn't make the final cut, courtesy of the author's LiveJournal.

 

[chris winters]

is landis qualified to know that two young children probably shouldnt be chest deep in water, after midnight, paid under the table, surrounded by blazing fireballs, in the middle of a rainstorm, rushing towards a very real helicopter, and surrounded by squibs going off mimicking machine gun fire?
Regardless of who realizes his ideas directly, he is still present, directing the action, and the goto guy on his film sets. He could have halted the precedings at any time, but he chose not too, and instead upped the ante. Im not saying hes solely responceble, or maybe even the most responcable in the matter , just dont claim hes completely innocent, and a naive victum of bad luck and circumstance.

 

[Pete-D]

The paid under the table stuff is shady, and yes the director should check, but really the responsibility falls on the stunt coordinators to let the director know when something is not safe to do.

Directors instinctively will push, push, and push until they either get what they want or are told what they want is impossible.

The thing is that's WHY there are stunt coordinators on set, to not only coodinate the action but to let the director know when something is too dangerous. It's also the responsibility of the producer and assistant director to make sure everything is safe.

Now if its shown that Landis was told someone could die and still went ahead anyway with the shot, then that's a different story.

Regardless, its a sad situation.

 

[Phil L]

There are extreme limitations on the hours child actors can work. Sometimes the kid's parents are paid out of discretionary funds buy the line producer, director, 1st AD, or whomever. Happens all the time. It isn't uncommon or shady.

I haven't looked at the article or into how the accident happened but I would think it falls under the category of industrial accident. Stunt people get killed occasionally. People get killed working construction or in factories. These things happen but this got a ton of publicity because an actor was killed and Spielberg was associated with the production.

 

[chris winters]

the 2 children killed were not actors, and definately not stuntmen. I would also like to assume that little children are not killed on movie sets, "occasionally". A professional stunperson dieing while performing a stunt is not the same as 2 little kids dieing while filming extra work on a movie set. A set onwhich they werent even legally supose to be, to began with. I would agree that it is similar to some kind of industrial accident. I would also agree that the celebrity names involved gave it more publicity then it normally would have had.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

If you don't know about the accident's specifics, perhaps you shouldn't comment on why it got such publicity. It got a lot of attention because THREE performers died in a grossly illegal circumstance in which staff ignored the appropriate safety precautions.

Read the articles about what happened and then tell me if you still feel so blase about it, like it's the same as an "industrial accident"...

 

[Phil L]

I skimmed the first few pages. Sounds like an accident to me.

If anyone was responsibe it was the FD guy who didn't take his concerns straight to the director. I've never seen a stunt shot with the first team where the director's primary concern WASN'T safety.

 

[chris winters]

there is no question is was an accident, in that it was no one's intention to cut off 3 actors heads, 2 of them children, as their parents look on. No one is questioning that. The question is wether responcable, and more appropriately legal behavior, or the lack there of, contributed to the accident happening. As to the practice of paying actors under the table to circumvent laws in place to protect certain performers, in this case children, that does seem to be shady. If somthing is common practice, is does not mean it is not "shady". Shady in this case refers to fudgeing the rules a bit, or acting in a slightly underhanded maner, to allow somthing to take place that normally the rules wouldnt allow for,i.e. hiring children for a dangerious night shoot. That seems to be the very definiton of shady to me.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Of course it was an accident - no one ever claimed that Landis hopped into the helicopter and intentionally flew it lower until it chopped off heads.

You compared it to a simple "industrial accident", however, and that's nuts. This was a bad situation exacerbated by a lot of people who flouted rules and eventually saw people die because of it.

I cannot fathom how you see this in such a blase manner. People - including two kids who shouldn't have been there - died because of many illegal and poor decisions and you shrug it off like no big deal...

 

[Patrick McCart]

While Landis' films vary in quality, he's made enough bona-fide essential films to be called a great director.

Animal House, The Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London, and Coming to America are all excellent, with the first 3 being important films.

Like a lot of films, it'll take some time for the films to really be appreciated for being great. For example, The Blues Brothers will probably end up on an AFI 100-esque list... it's an important AND great film.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Industrial accidents can be just as bad and every bit as much someone's fault. Think of an industrial accident that killed kids who were illegally employed and you'll have something pretty close.

 

[Mark Oates]

The original article this thread is based on is a nice hatchet job concocted by a writer with an agenda to set the reader against the people she believes to be in the wrong. There is nothing remotely within the article that could be described as evidence - at least evidence in the sense of that which was shown to the jury during the trial. The jury acquitted Landis, who as the director the buck stops with. The writer may wish to blame the ineptitude of the prosecutor for getting a verdict she does not agree with. Certainly the prosecutor would prefer mob rule to the rule of law, but if one believes in the rule of law, in the justice system, one has to accept the decision of the jury. And if you do that, you have to take the accusations of that article (which incidentally is potentially libellous) with a pinch of salt.

 

[Jim Dalton]

If you listen to the extra features or directors commentary on various discs, a lot of people talk about really pushing the limits just so they could get "the shot" and now, in retrospect, they realize just how dangerous it really was.

The car-chase scene in The French Connection easily comes to mind. Luckily everything went well and it all worked out and we got to see one of the greatest chase scenes in movie history.

With Landis, it fell apart and he got caught.
He pushed things too far and as a result 3 people died.
He also weaseled out and started pointing the finger at others.

Thankfully, computer special effects have evolved to the point that these incredible stunts can now be achieved without putting people in those kinds of situations ever again.

I hope.

 

[WillG]

An unfortunate and near impossible situation to be sure. I agree that it was right that Landis was put on trial. If charges were to be brought up, Landis would have to be named. He, as the director is responsible for everything that happens on that set except for where the money comes from. Sometimes things such as this happen in life and no charges are brought up because it is ruled as clearly accidental. In this case there seems to have been a real legitamate question in the chain of events and the question of criminal negligence. Clearly there were laws broken and children working who should never have been there in the first place. It does not matter how much the labor laws have been broken and how much people have looked the other way in the past, this time things went wrong and it is right that at the very least people involved should have to answer some questions.

Of course I do not believe that the incident was anything more that a tragic accident, intention wise. But sometimes in these situations people do create an environment that is conducive to something like this happening and if that is the case, that person does have to assume some degree of resposibility. If you own a gun and keep it reasonable locked away and somehow you kid manages to find the combination even though you went to great lenghts to keep it hidden and the kid shoots someone, it is a tragic accident but you took reasonable precautions that were circumvented nonetheless, should you be prosecuted, no. If you just left the gun loaded, under your pillow and the kid shoots someone, you have maintained a dangerous environment and you must assume responsibility. This essentually is the question that was trying to be figured.

In all fairness, I tend to lean toward agreement with the aquittals. From the story, and the testimony, there was no one that you could pin absolute blame on beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems like, as the article pointed out the "SODDI" (Some Other Dude Did It) and the "BEE" (Blame everyone else) defenses worked because the trial could not produce anyone who was clealy to blame. Everyone was responsible because there were many opportunities where someone could have spoken up about the safety conditions, but also no one at the same time because who does that make responsible?

 

[TheLongshot]

Unfortunatly, not as interesting as the real thing.

Course, stuntmen know the risks that they take, which is why everything is carefully planned out in careful detail. Deaths still happen in their profession. It doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

The situation with The Twilight Zone is a different kind of thing than this, tho.

Jason

 

[chris winters]

"The original article this thread is based on is a nice hatchet job concocted by a writer with an agenda to set the reader against the people she believes to be in the wrong. There is nothing remotely within the article that could be described as evidence - at least evidence in the sense of that which was shown to the jury during the trial. The jury acquitted Landis, who as the director the buck stops with. The writer may wish to blame the ineptitude of the prosecutor for getting a verdict she does not agree with. Certainly the prosecutor would prefer mob rule to the rule of law, but if one believes in the rule of law, in the justice system, one has to accept the decision of the jury. And if you do that, you have to take the accusations of that article (which incidentally is potentially libellous) with a pinch of salt. "


you can believe in the legal system while still being skeptical or critical of the results that system somtimes produces. History is full of percieved injustices that were handled by our legal system, from early bigoted race trials, to manditory lifetime sentences for small time crooks becuase of 3 strikes rules, to O.J. simpson, and more reciently the Friedman case from the documentory, "capturing the friedmans". Juries are not fullproof and are subject to bias, ignorance, celebrity, or downright incompetence like anyone else. To not question the Landis case beause we assume the trial was sound, and the jury more knowlegable then us the readers is foolish. We have to question any possible injustice, or immoral behaivor we percieve around us, or read about.

 

[JeremySt]

HBO showed the tragic TWILIGHT ZONE accident on their show SHOCK VIDEO... I had always heard about it, but I was quite stunned to see that they would actually show it on tv.