Peter Rott Exchange of E-Mails
Anna-Maria and I (Craig aka Mr. Cornell) had an interesting e-mail exchange
with Peter Rott regarding his umbrage at our "positive" review of Battlefield
Earth. As you may know, our usual policy in an AfterGlow is to provide a
forum for our visitors to develop thoughts about movies. This includes
turning a rant into a more thoughtful criticism of our perspective and the films
we review. However, Peter Rott was so provocative in his use of language and
concise in his opinion that we thought we would give you the exchange which
includes his inflammatory initial e-mail. His final opinion is contained at the
bottom of this page.
On May 22, Peter Rott E-Mailed us:
Sirs and Madams: I heartily recommend that you avoid hiring severely retarded
people as film reviewers. Battlefield Earth is the crappiest movie I've
seen in years, and I've seen a goodly number. Anyone who thinks there was even
an inkling of something interesting (aside from the stuff blatantly ripped-off
from other movies) in this dreck needs a one-way ticket to the Betty Ford
Clinic.
Sincerely yours, Peter A. Rott
We Replied:
Peter: Thank you for writing us. We appreciate people with passion about
movies, even when that passion erupts into insults and the slings and arrows of
outrage. We laughed out loud through the whole movie. Perhaps we were laughing
at it, which was not what the film creator's intended. In any event, we agree
that the movie can't be taken seriously. We disagree however that the
interesting parts are those that are taken from other films. We think the
interesting aspects were in the ridiculous stereotypes of villains and heroes
mouthing impossibly ridiculous lines and achieving the impossible. It was
jingoism (meaning excessive patriotism) about the potential of the human species
to learn and overcome obstacles.
Incidentally, you mixed your metaphors a bit. The Betty Ford Clinic is for
celebrity and rich drug and alcohol addicts, not retarded people. We at
CinemaSense.Com(tm) fit neither bill, though we are amazed how often people
resort to personal insults when they are angry or disagree with a review. If you
want to develop your criticism into something more complete and thoughtful, we
will consider it for publication as an AfterGlow. We don't publish name calling,
but we are always interested in opinions that differ from ours. That is how we
learn and appreciate the rich diversity in the meaning and impact of movies. All
the best, Craig. (Incidentally, I usually handle the angry e-mails because
Anna-Maria has much less patience with them and their writers.)
Peter then Responded Again
Mr. Cornell: I smell a trick! I was much more comfortable (and pleased) when
my slings and arrows were parried by a bare bodkin surgically-inserted between
the ribs. However, as a well-callused curmudgeon, it won't bother me
terrifically if I am to be ambushed...so ambush away! Do what you will with my
e-mail(s)! Adieu, my sweet words! Don't forget that Daddy loves you! With
Kindest Regards, Peter A. Rott. p.s. you're trying to turn me into a regular
visitor, aren't you?
(Perhaps that is in the subtext. We do want even those who disagree with our
reviews to read them and respond. We welcome all visitors who love films. This
is Craig inserting just a bit here.))
Peter Rott's AfterGlow
Thank you for your deliciously sarcastic response; I especially enjoyed the
little "slings and arrows" flourish (please note my comment on the
derivative, below). I must applaud you on your perceptive analysis of my
critique, noticing that my commentary was neither "complete" nor
"thoughtful". However, you apparently overlooked the fact that the
film was worthy of nothing approaching thoughtfulness, since all involved in its
production hadn't bothered themselves.
Let me temper my initial vituperation in this way: there is little funny in
the boring, the stupid, and the derivative. And these three words perfectly
summarize Mr. Travolta's current travesty. If a single person wastes a penny of
disposable income because, due to your review, he believes the experience might
be entertaining, it is my opinion that your organization should be liable for
financial damages and emotional suffering. I do apologize for suggesting that
the author of your review should take a little time off to detox; what I should
have said is that federal marshals ought to escort said reviewer to the nearest
farm, where he could put together a little piece on the side-splitting jingoism
of growing wheat. Your humble servant, Peter A. Rott
