Jet Blue..Denies "hero's" request for reinstatement! "No Angel", according to passengers!

Whee!

When a flight attendant in the employ of Jet Blue made a snap decision to quit his job mid-shift this past week, he wasn't aware of the potentially negative and positive ramifications involved.

The slightly eccentric Stephen Slater sputtered over a loudspeaker in the cabin of the plane that he was "walking" after twenty-eight years on the job after allegedly being mistreated by fussy passengers.

He grabbed a couple of brewskies out of the cooler, and then, proceeded to launch the emergency exit slide to facilitate a quick escape.

Although the moment was a liberating one (doesn't every low-paid worker toiling at a position they hate fantasize about telling their boss to take the "job" and shove it?) a short white later the flight attendant received a rude awakening when he was tracked down by law enforcement and summarily arrested for two felony counts (endangerment to passengers - for one - as well as a couple of other trumped-up charges).

After all, tossing in the apron at a local take-out joint, is a much lesser offense.

Meanwhile, on another front, there was a startling development.

At the speed of lightning, internet users were suddenly all-a-twitter over Slater's impromptu rebellion.

Indeed, to many, he was a modern-day hero!

One fan of the feature film - "Nework" - joked that the plump steward managed to articulate the rage of the dreary working classes in one fell swoop.

Within days, the paparazzi was swarming to epic proportions and in hot-'n-heavy pursuit - after the man-of-the-hour - with the specifc aim of nabbing footage of what would eventually become one of the phenomenon news dramas of the year.

In addition, tabloid magazine shows brimmed with scintillating up-to-the-minute updates on the prey they were tracking, pundits argued about the plight of the common "Joe" in this country today, and even psychologists ventured forth to spout off about the merits of taking a stand in the work-place in order to free one's self from an unhealthy scenario capable of chipping away at the individual's feeling of self-worth.

Meanwhile, in about two-seconds flat, over 100,000 facebook members logged in to the popular social hub and voiced their support.

Slater captured the imagination (and hearts) of total strangers around the planet on the heels of his  ballsy decision to say adios to a job that showered him with alot of glowing praise over the years.

His nick-name?

Mr. Jet Blue!

But, dark were forces were about to swirl into his life, because of basic human nature.

For example, in his moment of glory, passsengers on the flight appeared out of the wood-work to chip away at the newly-crowned Prince of pop culture.

To some, Slater didn't deserve the accolades!

"He was grumpy throughout the flight," alleged one incredulous ticket-holder.

"What about the passengers," lamented another agitated guest, who was angered by the fact there appeared to be so little sympathy for the passengers, who allegedly suffered from the brunt of Slater's  so-called abusive conduct throughout the flight.

What was so heroic about being a quitter, afer all - in a high-security work environment - where a selfish act of said nature might put the well-being of individuals in jeopardy?

In response to the hotly-debated topic, critics successfully rustled up a handful of valid arguments, that simultaneously resonated and struck up a chord.

For starters - a flight attendant's job is a specialized one - which includes the operation of emergency equipment, training tips on how to usher passengers to safety in the throes of a mishap mid-flight during take-off and landing, you name it.

In fact, in a highly-specialized work arena like the one that flight attendants toil in - common sense dictates that an airline employee (though pissed off on occasion) - would be wiser (better off) to bite their quivering lips and hold on 'til the end of their shift before shouting:

"I'm outta here!"

There is the question of work history, for instance.

Quitting a job with proper notice is rarely viewed as a negative by a potential employer, for instance.

But, a bizarre break-down (of sorts) - like Slater's - is  guaranteed to trigger a negative resume entry sure to haunt Jet Blue's "escape artist" for years to come.

After all, it is doubtful they'll hire him back at this juncture, in spite of the fact he revealed a few days ago,  that the melt-down and impromptu beer bust have not deterred thoughts of returning to the work force at Jet Blue (with all forgiven).

All things considered, Slater's  bid for re-hire, will probably be rejcted.

Using an an emergency slide for personal use - alone and in-and-of-itself - dictates that will be the end scenario for Slater without doubt.

Walking off the job on the tarmac, without notice, was an even more serious offense - which also guarantees - there won't be a revolving door for Slater at the airline known for its generosity in respect to discount airfares.

I know from whence I speak, after all.

Years ago - I was going through a period of uncertainty in my life - which was unhappily brought on by the unexpected ups-and-downs (mostly financial) of my struggling career in the fine arts.

So, at the urging of a couple of friends working flights @ CP Air (originally based in Canada, but now a defunct business entity) I applied to traipse down the aisles to serve coffee, snacks, and such (at Air Canada's biggest competitor).
During my training period - which lasted about 8 weeks - I was taught all the emergency procedures, the appropriate behaviour to adhere to while on board and on duty and in flight - in addition to serving techniques - and tips on how todeal with unruly passengers, and-so-forth-and-so on.

And, of course, I was taught how to open the infamous emergency slide which Slater launched to effect his escape with two brewskies intact on his improptu trek home.

Indeed, I have actually slid down that trippy escape contraption, which rates right up there with a whoopie cushion.

In fact, one fly guy I was room-mates with yeas ago, ended up using the eye-catching exit tool on one occasion after a plane was downed, and ended up on the front page of the local newspaper where he was touted as a virtual life-saver

In training classes, I vividly recall him worrying that if an emergency arose, he'd end up fainting.

Not!

After he managed to open the shoot (with a bit of sloppy trepidation) he began to assist the passengers to safer ground with little aplomb.

Ironically, a photographer at the crash site, also captured a publicity still showing hapless harried Greg coming through with flying colors.

As to me?

Well, in a few months, I settled into the job like a duck to water.

Although my "probationary" flights were limited to domestic runs - Toronto, Ottawa & Montreal - I found the job a most agreeable one.

Passengers tended to run the female flight attendants ragged for water and magazines, while dudes like moi, were usually called upon to politely answer questions about the speed of the aircraft, what model were we flying in, etc.

That was a snap for me because CP AIR - at one point - had a fleet of aircraft that consisted of DC-10s, 747s, 737s, and - my favorite little airplane known as - the 727 (which featured a novel exit door inside the tail of the plane).

So, of course, I was familiar with every little do-dad, hidden compartment, toilet paper storage unit, and-so-forth and so-on.

However, one day - it spite of the smooth sailing I savored from the get-go - I jumped out of bed at approxitely 5 a.m. in the morning and snatched up a pair of white socks by mistake and slipped them on without thinking.

Later, I was sitting at the airport terminal on "call" - when a CP Air Supervisor strode by - caught sight of the offending white socks - and began to grill me over the uniform glitch (and failure to comply with binding rules and regulations).

In fact, the "white socks" incident became a cause celebre with management.

Such a gross infraction underscored to the suits "upstairs" that I was not airline material.

And so, they started on an aggressive campaign to presssure me to pack it in.

Unlike Slater, I played it cool - and hung in there - until my benefits kicked-in.

On that satisfing day - when I turned in my uniform, name badge, and signed out - I gave 'em the finger  as I strolled out the employment office with benefits, name and reputation intact, and positive work history to boot.

Stephen, you would have been wise to have done the same!

Footnote

In the wake of an effort to build a defense fund for Stephen Slater, fans of the New York resident locked heads to conjure up (imagine) ideas for humorous T-shirts.

One drummed up by Roger Ebert is a hoot.

T-Shirt front image::  "I may be under arrest..."

T-Shirt back image:    "But, got two free beers out of it..."

Also, on e-Bay, luggage tags underscore how many folks view Slater.

"Steve Slater: An American hero.'

In respect to the adventurous imaginative escape from Jet Blue, yes!

As to the abandonment of his post which left passengers open to potential danger, no!

You be the Judge.

Meanwhile, I expect that Stephen Slater will be invited to Obama's next beer summit, sans a nomination for a Citizen's Award, in view of the doom and gloom currently hovering over the rogue flight attendant today.

Ah, that hit the spot!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Creation...dozing off in Movie Theatre embarrassing! Darwin theory intrigues...

Evolution vs. Divinity

Over the past ten days, the weather has been particularly disagreeable, for this time of year in San Francisco.

On a handful of occasions, I woke up shivering in the middle of the night due to the frosty night air (a post on poorly maintained hotels is on the horizon), and was drenched to the bone because of torrential rains which swept in off the bay without much warning (the only thing I hate more than sudden bursts of rain is a five dollar umbrella snatched up last-minute which I usually lose two hours later or nearly get poked in the eye with when a strong gust of air blows it inside out).

Yes, I also fell victim to a bout of chills, too.

For this reason, my doctor prescribed an antibiotic, vicodin, and a potent cough syrup to quell the storm raging inside of me.

There has been a fall-out in other respects as well.

Because I am not one to rely on drugs as a cure-all for  this 'n that - I have little resistance to their persuasive powers, and hence, end up dozing off into a deep slumber now and then.

At night in my cozy bed - during the fJay Leno show - that's A-okay.

Comes with the territory!

But, when I am at the movies?

Last night was one of those unfortunate occasions when I was weaker than my foe.

Shortly after I handed an usher my ticket for "Creation" - the new release on Charles Darwin - I glided into my plush theatre seat enthused about the celluloid possibilities.

Dashed hopes and good intentions!

Just after the credits rolled to a close, and the first lush scene sprang to life in all its glory on the silver screen, I slipped away into dreamland.

I was out cold until the main character( Darwin) uttered his last words in the final scene.

At that juncture, I was wide awake, and found myself following every last crumb offered up (which consisted of a long crawl of credits and a score that was heaven to the ears).

As I reflected on the humor of it all, I suddenly recoiled in horror, a tad.

What if I snored?

OMG!

How embarrassing.

Of course, because I've never heard myself sleep, I don't know whether I do or don't.

If so, I pray fellow film buffs will be more forgiving than moi.

When I was quite a bit younger - and lovers threw themselves at my feet (oh yeah!) - I actually ended a great relationship with someone I adored.

Why, pray tell?

Their snoring was horrific; so much so,that  I couldn't fall back to sleep when they woke me up in the middle of the night time and time again.

I distinctly recall that Ann Landers once noted to one of her readers - who agonized over a snoring issue - that the problem occurred due to the position they were inclined to sleep in.

"Just give your boyfriend a shove. Once they adjust in bed,  the snoring will stop."

I tried that - but the wild animal sounds not only continued - but got louder and more violent in nature.

Nuff said.

For a moment, just before I shuffled on out, I considered hatching a plot to sneak back into the Theatre for the next screening (sans ticket, of course).

Just dash into the restroom, hang out in the cubicle 'til everyone is seated ,and sneak in later after the first preview has started up.

But I scratched that scandalous notion; after all, I've gotten so famous that people recognize me on sight (especially those pimply-faced ushers who tend to be sharp as a tack).

Before you can say "gossip monger" the word would be out about me uptown, downtown, and - naturally - on the Internet.

For a sec, I pondered whether I should pull a Roger Ebert, though.

If you recall, a few months ago he fessed that he reviewed a film he never even cast a hairy-eye on.

Subsequnently, a controversy hit the old fan.

Gosh, what a dilemma!

Guess I'll just have to catch "Creation" once again (on DVD?).

In the interim, I may as well finish this review in a novel way.

When I was studying English literature, my professor was  insistent that including a quote (or the opinions of others in an essazy)) would carry a lot of weight (and add a professional touch).

Why not test the theory?

David Germian (AP film critic) asserted that "Creation" was about Evolution vs. Divinity.

"A pretty small film considering its huge themes," he mused.

Another critic pointed out that Creation has caused a bit of a controversy in respect to Christian values.

Movieguide.org, - a Web site that reviews films from a Christian perspective - bashed the feature film as “a one-sided bit of propaganda."

Benjamin Radford at Discovery News went a step farther and tried to fathom the alleged controversy.

"Never before has the threat of Darwin’s ideas to creationism been so clearly depicted in a mainstream movie. While other films have downplayed or glossed over the friction between "On the Origin of Species" and the Bible, Creation tackles it head-on," he asserted in his report on the film and its impact since it went into widespread release.

It's crystal clear to me that it was obviously the painkillers (gobbled down for medicinal purposes) - and not the film - that put me to sleep.

Even though I believe wholeheartedly in intelligent design (created by the inviisible hand of God) I intend to give it another shot.

Amen!

http://www.julianayrs.com/

Patrick Goldstein...Los Angeles Times writer pens pap! Wasted column inches...

Well, Patrick Goldstein is at it again.

Once again, he's penning ignorant musings for the morning daily, to satisfy his overblown sense of self-importance.

Just a few days ago, everyone was savoring a big chuckle over a silly piece he threw together on the Roger Ebert scandal.

If you recall, Roger Ebert confessed on his blog, that a nifty review on the feature - Tru Loved - was crafted without disclosing the fact the rotund little critic only screened about eight minutes of celluloid.

In response, Mr. Goldstein jumped into the fray (to rustle up some much-needed publicity for himself, no doubt. Poor baby!) and wildly predicted that Ebert's shame-faced admission would spark trouble for all critics around the country.

As I quipped at the time, baloney!

When I opened the newspaper and turned to the Calendar section and started to peruse his latest article this morning, I literally laughed out loud!

After noting that he attended a screening of a comedy this past week (Role Models), the ingenuous hack proceeded to ponder why the Academy didn't award more Oscars to that popular genre.

Duh!

In fact - he noted in the overly-long shallow piece - that after the screening he found himself "wondering" why the Oscars didn't recognize good work in comedy the way they do drama, animation, cinematography, editing (oh boy, he left no stone unturned on this one) - etc. etc. and so forth and so on!

The man is a piece of work, isn't he?

For starters, the subject he was whining about has been thoroughly covered - ad nauseam - for about two decades by a handful of top entertainment writers in the industry.

More galling, perhaps, is Goldstein's deceitful bold-faced effort to conjure up the impression that his take on the issue is a fresh insight!

Mr. Goldstein, do you honestly think everyone in the biz has lived in a vacuum for the past twenty years?

Or, just maybe, you thought we were born yesterday?

At this juncture, I think it's obvious why the Los Angeles Times is losing credibility (and suffering circulation losses) in recent months.

Who wants to read the tired old news that Mr. Goldstein is offering up under the pretense that it is his own original thought-provoking material?


Years ago, Frank Sinatra caught a lot of flack from the media for referring to journalists as a bunch of hookers.

In Mr. Goldstein's case, the label is right on the money.


If I was the managing editor at the daily, I would give Goldstein's butt a swift kick into the "Want ads" department.

His writing would be better-suited for drafting copy for used cars.

After all, his propensity for selling pre-owned properties, makes him well-suited for the task.

Roger Ebert...tawdry scandal! Ten lashes with wet noodle...

This past week, Roger Ebert posted a notice on his blog admitting that he did the unthinkable.

Allegedly he wrote a review of a film (Tru Loved) in spite of the fact he only took a peak at about eight minutes of the celluloid footage.

Yes, Ebert's attention span is short! (among other things)


The confession was enough to inspire a feature-length tirade by a staffer by the name of Patrick Goldstein at the Los Angeles Times, who asserted that Ebert's "blunder" would surely spell trouble for film critics.

Baloney!

For starters, Mr. Goldstein is a lousy critic.



On the occasion or two when I chose to struggle through one of his (um) critiques - it was obvious to my artistic sensibilities in about two seconds flat - that his pap not only underscored his lack of writing ability but his ignorance about film, too.


His chock-a-block phrases - and stilted way of expressing himself - signaled he was out to exalt himself (and his name and reputation) at the expense of whoever stood in the way.

For instance, in support of his ludicrous whining, he took a swipe at one of the reviewers in his own daily to elevate his status.

Here's what he had to say about fellow peer Kenneth Turnan.

"After reading Kenny Turnan's dismissal of "Quantum of Solace", one wonders whether Mr. Turan was dozing off during the film's breathtaking action sequences or simply walked out of the screening room after eight minutes, in emulation of Roger Ebert's rude dismissal of a movie earlier this year."

Goldstein is a back stabber, for sure!

True - it was wrong of Ebert to give the impression he caught the whole movie - simply from an ethical standpoint.

Also, patently unfair, when you consider that - bottom line - he didn't give the filmmakers two shakes in the final analysis.

Sometimes a film is a sleeper, starts slow, for instance.

On the other hand, if Mr. Ebert found it to be an impossible "yawn", he should have disclosed that in his review.

"Saw eight minutes of it. Hated it."

Occasionally, reviewers do face dilemmas.

But, a creative mind can fathom a way out of it.

For instance - this past week I caught sight of a couple of reviews on the new Madonna film - "Filth and Wisdom".

One critic hailed it as "naughty and nice".

I thought that Madonna deserved an advance write-up in view of the fact it was her first time out as a director, but since I hadn't screened the film, I could hardly plug it on that basis.

So, I put on my thinking cap!

I quoted a couple of the reviewers - pointed out how promotional blurbs were touting the sexy romp - and made mention of the fact I would attend a screening in the near future.

I remained honest and Madonna got a plug.

Earlier this year - due to a scheduling conflict - I was unable to attend the feature - "Memorial Day" - at a festival in the desert.

Since patrons walked out of the screening outraged - I thought the festival offering should be given some coverage - if only to warn audiences.

So, I interviewed an actress in the movie - in addition to - a handful of theatregoers who attended the premiere.

Hence, I was able to craft an article about the controversy.

In that instance - because of the way I broached the sticky problem - there was no dishonesty whatsoever.

But, getting back to Ebert.

For the most part, I find him to be a competent reliable critic.

On occasion, if he is passionate about a particular actor - or a project - he may be unduly influenced and go overboard.

Just maybe, the rotund little fella will end up with a stick up his butt, too.

In that instance, his opinion can not be trusted.

Funny that!

A few months ago I caught "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" at one of the local film houses.

Mr. Ebert was given a writing credit on that project.

What a disaster!

I could forgive Ebert for penning such a convoluted piece of trash - which didn't make any sense on any artistic level - in view of the fact the script was written about thirty years ago when he was starting out in a fledgling career.

Go figure - when the film screened at the min-fest - Ebert took the nod as a "sign" from the movie "Gods" (I surmise) that "Beyond" was on its way to cult status.

In fact, on the eve of the screening, he had the audacity to whiz off a telegram to the Festival Director in charge of the proceedings (to be read to the audience that night) in which he lamented that "Beyond" never received its due originally.

Maybe now, he added with gusto, the film would start screening at midnight screenings alongside classics like the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Well, I laughed!

It was bad enough that Ebert penned such an awful piece of trash - but worse still - to learn that he hasn't wised up to the fact "Beyond" was (and is) a stinker of high order.

What do they say?

Those who can't do, critique?

As to Mr. Goldstein, he should go write copy for brochures or flyers for garage sales.

After all, his contribution to the realm of cinema, is zip!

Shane Black...deconstructs at screening of Boy Scout & Kiss Kiss!

A homeless man looked up at the marquee of the New Beverly Cinema - noticed the caption emblazoned in bold letters across the front - and quizzically pondered, "What is the Wright stuff?"

For local film buffs, it was not a difficult question to answer.

The "Wright Stuff" was a festival of films which screened at the Art Film house - not necessarily the "right" stuff - but the stuff that director Edgar Wright "likes".

In fact - it occurred to me during the run of films - that Wright may be well-suited for a career in Public Relations.

For example, on one evening in particular - with writer/director Shane Black in tow - the mercurial little showman managed to enthuse a captive audience over a couple of films - "Last Boy Scout" and "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" - which did not fare so well at the box office or muster up much critical acclaim.

As the old lyric goes Edgar, "You could sell an Eskimo snow".

Just before the lights went down and "Last Boy Scout" lit up the screen, Edgar raved about a film he argued "deconstructed" the genre. In addition, he had a shopping list of highlights in the Bruce Willis big-budgeter which he alleged set the film apart.

Well, fortunately, I opted to focus on the "event" rather than review the film.

Although there were a succession of rapid-fire hilarious quips and one of the best henchmen demises on screen - the scene with the puppet was imaginative too - the opening credits were ho hum. And, the explosion at the end was not funny or riveting, either.

In sum, "Boy Scout" was not ahead of any curve by any stretch of the imagination, Edgar!

Roger Ebert said in his review,

"As for my thumb, I'll use it and my forefinger to hold my nose."

Wright gusheth a bit too much; but, the packed house didn't appear to mind.

But - it's important to note - this is the crowd that roared and went gaga over the previews for films like "Action Jackson" and those starring B-list actors Segal and Chuck Norris when the clips splashed wildly across the screen!

Yeah, when Wright astutely noted "Boy Scout" was super-pumped with testosterone- boosting action, this enthusiastic crowd was ripe for the kinky sensations to wash all over 'em.

In fact, when Wright laughingly tittered - "I'm feeling a little bit homosexual because of it" - the feeling was mutual for many in the theatre, I'm sure.

Yeah, the guy is an astute pulse-taker.

Although Wright argued that Shane Black's aim in "Boy Scout" was to deconstruct the genre - when called up during the intermission - Shane Black disagreed.

Actually, Black hinted that concessions were made to - as he demurely put it - "get a**es in the seats" at the directive of the studio big-wigs.

Black was "pleasantly surprised" by the turn-out for the screening - but wondered aloud if the packed house was due to the "silliness of the retro moment" - or inspired by a sincere interest in "Boy Scout".

Some were taken aback when he confided that - in his opinion - the movie didn't work as a whole. Actually, the screenwriter harshly criticized the Willis vehicle.

Was he testing the waters?

Was the sting of a bad review still gnawing at him?

"Too choreographed," he shrugged. But, he admitted he liked the first half hour.

In addition, he was a little reluctant to reveal how much of the original scripted material ended up on screen, which scenes were rewritten, or how much of the plotline was overhauled to suit the suits.

The writer acknowledged he was frustrated over the fact there appeared to be a demand for smash-ups, football stadium theatrics, and odd-ball stunts.

Ultimately, he lamented that it was off-putting to have to adhere to the trend of the day.

When the subject turned to detective writers, Black confessed he was a great fan of Mickey Spillane and Dashiell Hammett.

Yes, he's fond of the old gumshoes.

In fact, he often draws on their rich history to lend background and weight to his own projects - in a bold-faced creative effort to make them resonate more fully - he conceded.

When he alleged that an homage to a "Private Dick" was a phenomenon peculiar to the American Cinema, Edgar Wright quipped,

"And, Sherlock Holmes?"

Black was quick on the uptake, "He did cocaine by the way."

At this juncture, the repartee between the two became quite engaging. Yes, Black and Wright were transformed before our eyes into a genuine stand-up comedy team.

The conversation drifted, funnily enough, to movie ratings. Both directors concurred that an appropriate rating appeared to depend on how many times the word **ck was actually used on screen. And, in what specific context.

"If you said - 'The car is **cked' - it's a PG-13," Wright joked.

"And, if you said - 'I want to **ck the car' - then, it would land an R rating," Wright added without batting a pretty eye.

The audience went wild.

Then, Black piped up that films featuring "cigarette smoking" tended to get a tougher rating, too.

At this juncture, it was noted that Black's original script for the action-thriller starring Mel Gibson (Lethal Weapon) - sold for the highest sum at that time.

In spite of the fact it was a first offering from a whiz kid - all of 22 - yet.

Memories of Dick Donner, who directed the project, were amusing to listen to.

Black kidded that the crew were forced to blindfold the director whenever they went anywhere because every time something caught Donner's keen eye, he hankered to squeeze the compelling images into the movie somewhere. The object of his affection might be a festive Indian wedding, a subtle metaphor, or whatever hit up his fancy!

When a film buff in the audience asked how Black worked - he asserted that knowing how a film would fade to credits - was not the be all or end all at all.

"It's important to know where you're going, though," he quickly added.

Maybe that's what's wrong with "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang".

There wasn't enough preparation or thought put into the ending; hence, the close of the odd-ball detective story stinks.

Speaking of "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", according to Black, everyone in town turned the script down. Eventually, Joel Silver courageously backed it.

Black claims the reason distribution was poor, and the reason it basically got shelved, was because one exec at the studio originally passed on the project.

"He sought to bury it," Black accused.

The argument sounded ludicrous to me.

The fact is - while arty and somewhat original with a lot of flair - "Kiss Kiss" was not a solid or well-produced feature. In my estimation, that's why it bombed.

Black went on to further note that he was "okay" with the fact the intriguing feature was not "given a chance".

He boasted that he would rather have people stride up to him and say,

"You got a raw deal because that was a great film."

Better that, he concluded, than to have to take potshots from people for having produced a hit.

Frankly, that sounded like a lot of twisted logic to me. At this point, I was not so sure that Shane Black was entirely honest.

For example, at times during the Q & A, Black walked a fine line. He was inclined to tease a little - hold back a lot - then offer up just enough background info to titillate.

In the end scenario, he left a lot of questions unanswered.

Curiously - when one fellow in the audience asked about his prior writing relationship with Decker - he was hesitant to respond, at first.

After all, it has just been revealed that Decker - his former writing partner - had been accused of being "cool" towards Shane Black in Q & A sessions at other events elsewhere when his name was brought up.

However, in what amounted to a diplomatic moment, he applauded the writer's talent.

And, went so far as to state, "I'd work with him again."

Then, he uttered almost under his breath, "But..."

Yeah, there's always a but.

From his standpoint, he and Decker were both Alpha males, bent on getting their own way. In gay terminology - both were "tops" - neither versatile enough to go "bottom" to make the partnership of "strange bedfellows" work.

In "Kiss Kiss" - Black chose to feature a couple of off-beat characters he affectionately referred to as the - "fu** up" (played by Robert Downey, Jr.) and "the fag" - a role inhabited by temperamental actor, Val Kilmer

At that time, no one wanted to hire Kilmer or Downey, for obvious reasons.

He theorized the reason both were so cooperative on this project was due to the fact that "both had to shape up and fly right" or suffer the consequences of losing further footing in their respective careers. Because both needed the project, they were humble, according to Black.

Then, he made a curious comment - something to the effect that "the scenario" would obviously change - when "both were back on top".

But, he corrected himself.

"Well, Downey will always remain humbled."

Inferring, of course, that Kilmer will no doubt be up to his old tricks once his fortunes change. If they ever do!

The audience roared!

He noted for the record there were no on-set troubles with either actor; in fact, he alleged there were more problems with actor Bruce Willis on "Boy Scout".

"Bruce wore a hairpiece in the movie, by the way," he casually pointed out for some inexplicable reason out-of-the-blue.

After noting that he turns 46 next week, Mr. Black confessed to recent Botox injections.

"My face is swollen and feels like a hose injected water into it."

Ah, perhaps that explains his tendency to stare at the floor during the interview. Was he a little self-conscious, perhaps?

Maybe he was embarrassed a little by the fact that he was garnering so much attention for a couple of forgettable films that didn't deserve the attention?

In a body of work, they're important, though.

It will be interesting to see where the man has positioned himself in coming years.

Life Achievement Award? "King" of the Hill?

Maybe.

The remarkable filmic style on display in "Kiss Kiss" is difficult to ignore - especially in view of the fact - it signals a potential for greatness pregnant with possiblities.

We'll see.