Yes, yes, I know this is so last week but I've been away Chick Flickering (not a sexual practice in case you just read my last post).
Anyway, I felt I had to add my two penneth to this saga, not least to reassure Helen Lisette that she did not endure last week's reports - and the comments stirred at work from events - in vain.
What really convinced me I wanted to write something though was Mark Lawson's piece in the Guardian on Saturday. Now don't get me wrong: Crowe can be brutish, blunt and antagonistic. He can be petulant. Is that because he is a movie-star? Is it because he thinks little of 'ordinary people'?
Actually, I don't think so.
My problem with Lawson's piece, and indeed much of the commentary on the violent reaction of Crowe, is that it is predicated on believing that (1) normal people do not behave like this, and (2) that film/tv stars/ public personalities behave like this because they are film/tv stars / public personalities.
I am more inclined to think that Crowe is just plain old short-tempered. I have a short-temper, and in a similar situation I think I would have probably lost my rag and thrown something as well (Cloud has perfected the art of 'duck the hitting' and 'prevent flailing arms and access to implements'). And yes, I would also have been arrested.
But to elide the issue of fame with violence... it just seems too much of a leap. I can well imagine that in an effort to get decent service, there is always a temptation to resort to the "DYKWIA?"* routine; but in our own small ways, don't we all do that? Frustration with inadequate services, being fobbed off: it doesn't help you feel inclined to rational behaviour.
On behalf of all short-tempered people therefore, can I just say: Russ, you're a bit of an ass, but you're not the first to do such a thing, and sadly you won't be the last - famous or not famous.
* Do You Know Who I Am?