You know what? Fuck this guy. There's a big difference between not suffering fools gladly (and God knows there are plenty of foolish entertainment reporters) and taking offence at any questions about possible flaws in his process, reasoning or abilities, something Rusty seems to do with increasing frequency.
I've interviewed my share of big-name actors and I pride myself on doing my research prior to sitting down and speaking with them. And while what I do isn't brain surgery by any stretch of the imagination (I fully realise I'm part of the PR machine more than anything else), I'm not there to give their ego a massage. If I'm curious about an aspect of a performance, I'll query them on it as intelligently as possible.
Now, I'm not familiar with Mark Lawson (he may well be a twat!), but for Crowe to take issue with what appeared to be a legit question or impression of their work by getting surly and bailing on the interview early strikes me as straight-up bullshit. Rusty takes his work seriously? That's great. You know what? So do a lot of entertainment journos.
McWeeny's
recent interview with Crowe shows you can get good stuff out of the actor when you walk the line of preparing intelligent questions and keeping on his good side.
But
this very interesting piece is a vivid illustration of the capriciousness of Crowe and the fragility of his ego. (I'm not really a fan of Jack Marx but this piece backs up a lot of anecdotal evidence from reporters I know who state that Rusty was a bit of a knob as far back as ROMPER STOMPER.)