Quarterly Cinema Scan - Volume VIII

On April 1 I posted my Quarterly Cinema Scan ("Quarterly Cinema Scan - Volume VII") for the first three months of 2012, and wrote about the genesis of such an undertaking.  There is no need to reinvent the proverbial wheel here, other than to state that the QCSs are capsule summaries of flicks I have seen on the TV screen.

Here is what I've seen in the comfort of The Quentin Estates during the second quarter of 2012:

1. The Caine Mutiny (1954 drama; Humphrey Bogart is the eccentric Navy captain of a World War II mine sweeper, but is his mental instability endangering the safety of his ship and crew?) B+  

2. The Cincinnati Kid (1965 drama; Steve McQueen is the ace card shark of the younger generation in New Orleans, but veteran Edward G. Robinson comes into town looking for a game) A-

3. Dog Day Afternoon (1975 drama; Al Pacino and John Cazele hold up a small bank in Brooklyn, and keep the employees as hostages while Pacino negotiates with the NYC police and the FBI) B

4. Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939 drama; Robert Donat is the beloved Mr. Chips, who spent sixty-three years as a molder of young boys at a prep school in England) B- 

5. In The Heat Of The Night (1967 drama; Sidney Poitier is a black Pennsylvania homicide detective who, against his better judgment, helps white Mississippi sheriff Rod Steiger solve a murder in a racially divided town) A

6. The Last Picture Show (1971 drama; Timothy Bottoms is a high school senior in a small Texas town (Anarene) where everyone's life intertwines with fellow townsfolk, and there are no secrets) A

7. Last Summer (1969 drama; Teenagers Barbara Hershey, Richard Thomas and Bruce Davison hang out on Fire Island and pretend to strike a friendship with an introverted girl) B+

8. Mr. Deeds Goes To Town (1936 drama; Gary Cooper is a hick who inherits $20 million, and hooks up with Jean Arthur who he doesn't realize is a scandal-seeking reporter) B-

9. Mrs. Miniver (1942 drama; Greer Garson is a mother in a small town in England at the very beginning of World War II, and she worries for the safety of her college age son who enlists in the Royal Air Force) B+

10. Peyton Place (1957 drama; Lana Turner is a single mom raising high school senior daughter Diane Varsi in a small New England town, where everyone knows and meddles in everyone's affairs) C+

11. 7 Brides For 7 Brothers (1954 musical; Howard Keel, the oldest of seven brothers who live on a ranch in the mountains, goes into town to talk Jane Powell into marriage, and his younger siblings think they should follow suit) B-

12. The Third Man (1949 drama; Joseph Cotton arrives in post-war Vienna, only to learn that the friend who invited him has died under mysterious circumstances and was a key player in alleged racketeering) B+

13. Summertime (1955 drama; Katharine Hepburn travels by herself to Venice, gets bummed when she sees couples strolling through the romantic city, then meets the dashing store owner Rossano Brazzi) B-

14. You Can't Take It With You (1938 comedy; Lionel Barrymore is the patriarch of a multigeneration, extremely eccentric family, and his granddaughter, Jean Arthur, becomes engaged to Jimmy Stewart, the son of ruthless banking baron Edward Arnold) B+ 

Movie Review: "Rock Of Ages"

"Rock Of Ages": B+.  I thought "Rock Of Ages" was going to be a semi-serious movie with a classic rock soundtrack, but it wasn't until Julianne Hough and her fellow Greyhound Bus passengers started singing Night Ranger's "Sister Christian" as they rolled down an Oklahoma highway that I realized this was a musical.  I had to do a quick attitude adjustment, which requires being willing to have dialogue sung for no apparent reason, and once I got into the spirit of things, I found the movie to be good entertainment.  It's hard to go wrong when you've got Julianne and classic rock as the main focal points of the film.

Julianne plays Sherrie, an Okie whose grandmother advised her that if she ever wanted to make her mark she'd have to leave her home state.  Sherrie has at least two things going for her: drop dead gorgeous looks and a voice that can hit all the right notes.  The story, at its core, is a boy-meets-girl affair, so of course Sherrie meets handsome Drew (Diego Boneta) within thirty-three seconds after she has stepped off the bus in LA.  She bats her big eyelashes at Drew, telling him she's down to her last few bucks.  Naturally he gets her a job at The Bourbon Room, the place where he works as a barback.  The Bourbon Room is a huge bar that features live rock music.  It is owned by Dennis (Alec Baldwin), whose right hand man is Lonny (Russell Brand).  With Baldwin and Brand in the cast, you just know that there'll be plenty of laughs.  For example, at some point those two guys end up singing REO Speedwagon's "Can't Fight This Feeling" to each other.  Is this a bromance, a drunken bender, something more or something less? 

Things get complicated when Lonny books rock god Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) to play The Bourbon.  Stacee has been known to be a no-show at several of his gigs, and it's all his manager, Paul (Paul Giamotti), can do to keep him halfway sober and get him to care enough to show up.  Dennis needs a big gate from Stacee's concert to keep The Bourbon financially afloat.  The first sign of trouble is when Dennis and Lonny have to scramble at the last minute to find a warm-up band for the big show.  Good thing Drew, the barback, is ready with his electric guitar and bandmates to fill in.

This is a movie that does not take itself seriously.  The set-up for the first encounter of Sherrie and Drew is so bogus it's laughable.  As in any film romance, the boy is at some point going to lose the girl, but in "Rock Of Ages" the misunderstanding which causes the breakup is equally bogus.  There is also a pretty blonde reporter (Malin Akerman) from Rolling Stone Magazine who shows up at The Bourbon to interview Stacee.  She's wearing oversize glasses, and you know it's just a matter of time before she falls for Stacee, letting down her hair and shedding her glasses (and articles of clothing) in the process.  Additional comic scenes are provided by Catherine Zeta-Jones playing the mayor's wife.  She is outraged by the decadence in evidence at The Bourbon Room, and goes on the offensive to shut it down.  (Notice how this endeavor reminds us of Julianne Hough's other major film, "Footloose"?)  My favorite scene in the movie takes place in a small church, where Zeta-Jones leads a group of women in a spirited rendition of "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" while the church organist provides musical accompaniment.  I did not want that scene to end.  If you're not convinced that all these things are ludicrous, consider this:  A key component of the plot is that one of the biggest classic rock anthems of all time, "Don't Stop Believin'," was penned by Drew!

The soundtrack for this movie is hard to beat.  There are large doses from the classic rock era, including songs made famous by Foreigner, Pat Benatar, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard and Journey, to name a few.  The actors appear to be singing themselves, or else they are doing a very credible job of lip synching.  I exited the theater with a worn out ankle.  My foot had been tapping for two solid hours. 

The Two Question Rule

If you check back on my introductory post from December 6 ("Following David Brinkley's Lead"), you'll notice that nowhere in the list of subjects that I planned to cover in The Quentin Chronicle was "advice on the opposite sex." Even though I have been married for thirty-six years and raised two daughters, I am virtually unqualified because I make no pretense about being able to understand women. (My son can vouch for me, because even though I have not been shy about giving him advice, it has rarely, if ever, been about those of the female persuasion.) My feeling is that, if you ever meet a male who makes a contrary claim, take what he says with a grain of salt! Nevertheless, a couple of months ago I read a piece in an advice column - - it might have been Amy Dickinson's column "Ask Amy," and although I don't know for sure I am going to go with that assumption - - that was so downright excellent that I wished I had written it myself. The piece was not actually directly relevant to love life advice; instead it was about manners. However, after reading the column I was reminded about the one piece of advice on the subject of romance that I would have been willing to offer had I ever been asked. I have yet to be asked, but that's what blogs are for. You can answer questions that have never been asked of you!

In the particular "Ask Amy" column to which I refer, her readers contributed advice which they, themselves, had been given in their youth, and which they now imparted to their own children. A woman wrote to share a bit of instruction which her mother had told her and her siblings. The instruction was as follows: If you are conversing with a person who says something that reminds you of one of your own experiences (whether similar or dissimilar), you should first make every effort to ask three questions about what that person had to say. For example, if Lucy says to Ethel that she has just returned from a trip to South Dakota, Ethel should not reply, "I have never been to South Dakota, but I have been to North Dakota," nor should Ethel say, "I was there in 2006 and just loved it." Instead, Ethel should ask, "Did you see Mount Rushmore?" or "How long were you there?" In other words, let the person who instigates the telling of the personal story have her moment in the sun before you highjack the conversation with recollections of your own experience.

To be honest, I think three questions might be a little much, but please, no less than one, and preferably two! I am going to call it the "Two Question Rule." Once you have paid your acquaintance that little courtesy, then you can regale her with your own tale. Of course, it's easier said than done to execute that little courtesy, and it's also tough to restrain yourself if the conversation includes a third person who is not a follower of "Ask Amy" and decides to launch into her own story. It is behavior like that which probably led to the saying, "It's not always about you!"

My personal experience with conversation high jackers probably peaked when our kids were in school. What parent does not want to talk about his own kid? Mr. Jones: "My little Georgie hit two home runs in his T-ball game last night." Mr. Smith: "That's just great! My little Annie scored three goals in her soccer game!" No doubt I was guilty myself of failing to observe the Two Question Rule, but hopefully not more than a handful of times. I guess my excuse is that I had not yet read the Ask Amy column. Kudos to Amy's reader who shared her mother's wisdom. I wish I had that in my (too often used) bag of fatherly tips when my kids were little. It was more worthwhile than a lot of my other pearls of wisdom. But two of my kids follow this blog, so better late than never!

Now, you may now be asking, "What does the Two Question Rule have to do with anyone's love life?" Okay, what follows here is the tie-in, as tenuous as it might be.

From what I have read and observed over the years, a lot of younger people on the dating scene wonder if the person they are seeing is The One. I would advise such a person to pay attention to follow-up questions (or lack thereof) asked of them by their significant other, especially after the lapse of a day or more. The situations which are ripe for follow-ups involve mentioning some event which will occur (or remain in place) the next day, or at least in the very near future. A guy tells a girl that he's going to be studying hard that night for a test the next day, or that he's interviewing for a job tomorrow, or that his out-of-town cousin is coming for a visit. If, the next time they talk, the girl never asks about the test, or the interview or the visit, she is not The One. A girl tells a guy that she's almost done with a great book she's been reading, or that she is writing a speech, or that her mother is sick. If, the next time they talk, the guy never asks about the book, or the speech or the mom, he is not The One. If a person is interested in you, she will ask that follow-up question.

A person's failure to ask the follow-up doesn't make her a bad person. Maybe she is forgetful. Maybe there are so many other guys in the picture that she can't keep straight who told her what. Or, unfortunately, maybe it's just a case of poor etiquette. Obviously my little strategy will not reveal to you who is The One. Entire books could be written, and have been written, about that difficult query. But my strategy will be useful in determining who is not The One. If you see a pattern developing where your significant other consistently fails, time and again, to ask you that longed-for (or at least, anticipated) follow-up, it may be time to recognize that as a red flag. Let's face it, there are plenty of narcissists out there. Why waste your time with one?

How can you be a better conversationalist? How can you be a better mate? One imperative sentence provides the answer to both: Ask follow-up questions. It will show that you've been listening. It will show that you are interested, or at least that you have good manners.

Movie Review: "Snow White And The Huntsman"

"Snow White And The Huntsman": B+.  I would imagine that the retelling of "Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs" as a fairy tail featuring epic battles, gorgeous cinematography, special effects and a beauty desired by two guys with Hollywood looks is a challenge which would be nearly impossible to tackle, but as President Dub once famously said, "Mission accomplished!" Nice going, Director Rupert Sanders! "Snow White And The Huntsman" is a very worthy offshoot, a retelling of the familiar story but with twenty-first century technology.

Charlize Theron is the conniving and vain Ravenna with a master plan to become the all-powerful queen of the land. She is an accomplished schemer whose good looks belie the fact that she's also a cold blooded killer. The slain king's daughter, little fair-haired Snow White, is imprisoned by the queen in solitary confinement in the castle's grim north tower. Snow White's playmate, Prince William (Sam Claflin), looks on in futility as he barely escapes capture himself, instead being ridden away on horseback by his father as he pledges that someday he'll return to save the princess. Many years go by, and after Snow White has grown into a beautiful brunette, played by Kristen Stewart, she pulls off an exciting escape not unlike the one seen in the movie "The Fugitive." Thus ends the first third of the movie.

As luck would have it, as she is fleeing Snow White comes across an abandoned white stallion, which she rides bareback through the heather toward the Dark Forest, barely ahead of a mounted posse led by Finn (Sam Spruell), the queen's creepy blonde brother. The Dark Forest is too treacherous to ride horses, so Snow White continues on foot, with the bad guys still in hot pursuit. Just as Snow White was lucky to find the white stallion, Finn and his men stumble upon the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth), whom they enlist to track and capture Snow White. The girl is no match for the Huntsman, who calls the Dark Forest his home and easily captures the exhausted Snow White as she cowers under a huge tree. But, the Huntsman smells a rat (or maybe Snow White's Chanel Number 5) and decides that, rather than handing her over to Finn and his dastardly gang, he will aid her escape and bring her to safety. This middle third of the movie is my favorite part. The haunting Dark Forest and its contrast with enchanted bright magical land of the seven (or eight, if you're paying attention) dwarfs are both brilliantly captured by the film makers. It is here that the Huntsman and the dwarfs realize that the pretty young girl they've been protecting is, in fact, the royal princess.

The final third of the movie leads up to the battle royale between the forces of all that is good and wholesome versus the wicked queen's loyalists. I will leave it for you to guess which side prevails. Then there is the final scene, for which the script writers could easily have chosen a cliched ending. To their credit, they did not.

There are a few places here and there which deserve criticism. I will mention just two. The supernatural powers of the queen are a little too over the top for me. (Yes, I realize this is a fairy tale.) Apparently she has the ability to remotely control almost everything that lives and breathes, such as Finn who seems to have more lives than a cat. The other nit has to do with William. He pretends to befriend Finn and rides with Finn's army, but when the army attacks innocent people William conveniently disappears. (Or, did William target innocent people too, but offscreen?) Maybe we are supposed to believe that Finn is as dumb as a post and doesn't see this for himself.

It has been a few days since I saw the movie, yet certain things have stuck with me. For example, the "mirror mirror on the wall" from which Ravenna seeks confirmation that she "is the fairest of them all" is spectacular. The gray castle on the shores of a huge body of water is awesome. The aptly named Dark Forest is the perfect setting for the initial stages of the relationship between the two title characters. And the colorful grove beyond the Dark Forest, with its talking flowers and woodland creatures, goes perfectly with this fairy tale. I absolutely loved the dwarfs; couldn't get enough of them! There is even an angry troll which, of course, is unable to speak but whose thoughts and emotions are clearly visible through the artistic and creative skill of this movie's special effects team.

Regardless of whether you have an HD television, this is not a movie to place into your Netflix que. Rather, you should cough up the price of a ticket to see it in a first run movie theater. That way you'll be in position to enjoy fully all this movie has to offer.

Drinking With Dick And Bert

Last year about this time, the Twins were well on their way toward having a historically bad season. Whenever the team would show an infrequent spark of life by winning a game or two, the TV homers, Dick Bremer and Bert Blyleven, would gush, "If we can just get to .500 we can catch the division leaders." Then later, at some point in July, the Twins managed to get within seven games of the coveted .500 and I started to drink the Kool-aid. There was still time to catch the Tigers. I kept going to games (I had season tickets) and spending way too many hours watching our boys kick the ball around, make idiotic mental errors in the field and on the base paths, and take clueless at bats (e.g., taking wild swings at pitches far out of the strike zone immediately following a four-pitch walk to the previous batter). The Twins ended up losing ninety-nine games that season.

Now we are a third of the way through the new current season. As of today, the Twins have the worst record in the American League, and the third worst record overall among the thirty MLB teams. Again, Dick and Bert are promising better things, if only we can get to .500. It ain't gonna happen. We failed to sweep a weekend home series against the pathetic Cubs, getting pummeled 8 to 2 this past Sunday, and just lost a three game home series to the Phillies, a team that is in last place in the National League East and is missing three of their very best players who are on the Disabled List. The Twins appear to be headed to another ninety-plus loss season.

I like baseball too much - - it is my favorite sport - - to quit watching it cold turkey, but I have decided that the agony of watching our home boys' incompetence will be easier if I imbibe my favorite beverage as I'm doing so. My beverage of choice is, of course, beer.

I have seen MLB games in twenty-four different stadiums. (I would have written "stadia" but did not want to appear to be snotty!) It is my observation that the fans of the Milwaukee Brewers are the best partiers of any home crowd I've visited. If you have ever seen a Miller Park tailgate throng, you won't quickly forget it. A whole bunch of the fans from Sudsville will be in Minneapolis this weekend to watch their Brew Crew take on the Twins. So, in honor of the Brewers (my favorite National League team) and their fans, and also in recognition of Fathers' Day this Sunday, I have created a little drinking game to play while watching the Twins on the idiot lantern. I call the game "Drinking With Dick And Bert." For the rest of this post I'll simply refer to it as "The Game." Some revisions to The Game would obviously have to be made for anyone attending a game in person. My other disclaimer is that this is my first crack at putting together a drinking game (although I have been a participant in my share of them), so consider this a work in progress. Suggested improvements are welcome.

For starters, the participants in The Game must choose a Manager to make sure the rules are followed. The Game is divided into nine Innings, each with a different category which remains in play throughout the duration of the matching inning in the Twins game. The Manager decides the order of the Innings of The Game to be played. For example, she may pick the Gardy Inning to be in effect during the first inning of the Twins game, and the Bert Inning to be in effect during the second inning of the Twins game, etc. The Manager shall announce her selection before the start of each inning of the Twins game. If it is a particularly thirsty crowd, the Manager may decide to play several Innings of The Game simultaneously, keeping them in effect for a duration longer than just one inning of the Twins game. I don't know if it would be possible to keep all nine Innings of The Game in effect for the entire duration of the Twins game. That might be asking for trouble.

Each Inning of The Game has three things to watch for in the Twins game. As any one of those three things occurs, the players in The Game may (i) take a sip, (ii) take a swallow, or (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug. Sips are usually associated with something that is pretty likely to happen in the Twins game that inning, swallows are associated with something less likely to happen, and hearty slugs are associated with a rarer event.

Just in case the Twins game does not provide the action that enables players of The Game to quench their thirst, we also have Social Drinks every so often, as called for by the Manager. When the Manager declares that it's time for a Social Drink, everyone should stand for a group toast and a hearty slug. To keep things symmetrical, there are nine occasions for Social Drinks, as you will see below.

Without further ado, here are the nine Innings of The Game:

The Dick Bremer Inning: (i) take a sip if Dick says a ball is hit deep even though the outfielder catches it well in front of the warning track; (ii) take a swallow if Dick says the ball was hit in the gap even though the outfielder had to take only two steps to his right or left to catch it; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if Dick calls into question a managerial or coaching decision.

The Steve Liddle Inning: (i) take a sip if Liddle holds a base runner at third with less than two out; (ii) take a swallow if Liddle holds a runner at third with two out; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if a runner blows through Liddle's stop sign and heads for home.

The Ben Revere Inning: (i) take a sip if Revere lays down a sac bunt; (ii) take a swallow if Revere bunts for a base hit; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if Revere does a somersault either on the base path or in the outfield.

The Joe Mauer Inning: (i) take a sip if Mauer punches the ball to the left side for a hit; (ii) take a swallow if Mauer pulls the ball to the right side for an extra base hit; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if Mauer (or whoever is catching for the Twins) goes to the mound and pats the pitcher on the back.

The Gardy Inning: (i) take a sip if the camera shows Gardy right after the Twins commit an error or the pitcher issues a walk; (ii) take a swallow if Gardy disgustedly walks to the mound and removes the pitcher without making eye contact or giving him a pat on the butt; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if Gardy gets tossed by an umpire.

The Bert Blyleven Inning: (i) take a sip if Bert says "little cutter" or "SHE-caugo"; (ii) take a swallow if Bert or Dick mentions that Bert is in the Hall Of Fame; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if Bert refers to his California high school math.

The Baserunners Inning: (i) take a sip if a Twins baserunner steals a base; (ii) take a swallow if a Twins baseruner breaks up a double play; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if a Twins baserunner advances a base on an outfield fly.

The Fielders Inning: (i) take a sip if a Twin catches a ball in foul territory more than ninety feet from the plate; (ii) take a swallow if the Twins turn a double play; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if a Twin makes a diving or shoe-string catch.

The Post-Game Inning: (i) take a sip if Roy Smalley looks straight at the camera with a goofy smile (as if he's being goosed) while Anthony LaPanta is speaking; (ii) take a swallow if Robbie Incmikoski, in a post-game interview, begins a question with, "How are you able..." or "What is it like..."; (iii) enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug if Ron Coomer uses the phrase "to me" more than twice.

As noted above, we also have Social Drinks periodically throughout The Game, just in case the beer is getting flat or warm from sitting in our vessels too long. (An aside: I'd like to raise a toast to my Broken Arrow friend, Gary Larson, who introduced me to the concept of interspersing Social Drinks within the confines of a drinking game.) If the Manager feels that a Social Drink is in order, she may propose one to the group, at which point everyone enjoys a group toast and takes a hearty slug. However, in an effort to keep things reasonably under control, the Manager may call for a Social Drink only upon the occurrence of any one of the following events during the Twins telecast.

* A Fox Sports North Girl does a spot for (what else?) Fox Sports North.
* Jamie Carroll, Brian Dozier or Lexi Casilla does a head-first slide.
* Sal Butera or Darin Mastroianni gets a base hit.
* Denard Span has an at-bat lasting longer than six pitches.
* The Twins starting pitcher begins the seventh inning.
* The Twins infielders execute a run-down by using less than four throws.
* An opposing base runner gets caught stealing.
* The Twins turn a double-play.
* The Twins score a run.

As an extra added attraction, we have The Plouffie Toast. Any time Trevor Plouffe gets a hit or makes a play in the field, everyone shall immediately rise to their feet and salute him by crying out "da Plouffer!" as they enjoy a group toast and take a hearty slug. The Plouffie Toast does not require a wink or a nod from the Manager. It should be spontaneous.

Finally, it goes without saying that the final out of a Twins victory is most worthy of a group toast and a hearty slug.

Have a Red Letter Day and a Stroh's Lite Night!

Roger The Dodger

In my June 2 post about the John Edwards trial ("Three Defendants Will Walk"), I predicted that both Roger Clemens and George Zimmerman would be found not guilty of the charges they face in their high profile cases, and promised to write briefly about them. The Clemens case went to the jury yesterday afternoon, so I'm trying to get this out before they come back with a verdict. The Zimmerman trial, for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, probably won't start until next year.

Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers in the history of baseball, has been charged with lying under oath to the US Congress in 2008 when he testified that he did not use steroids or permit himself to be injected with human growth hormone ("HGH") in violation of civil laws and baseball rules. After conducting 235 interviews with 179 different people, the US attorneys have found themselves in the unenviable position of having to rely on just one key witness, Brian McNamee, to prove their perjury and obstruction of justice allegations. McNamee was the strength and conditioning coach for the Boston Red Sox, Clemens' team at the time of most of the alleged events. McNamee claims that not only did he inject Clemens, at Clemens' request, with HGH, but that he has saved the vials and needles over the last six years. Clemens' DNA is on those items.

One of the long-standing strategies of litigation attorneys is that they want to make their own witnesses appear to be not just truthful but likable as well. The first follows from the second, as it's much easier to believe a likable person. This is particularly true in jury cases, which the Clemens case happens to be. In that regard, McNamee presents a double-barrelled challenge for the prosecution. Even one of the prosecutors, Gilberto Guerrero, admitted to the jury in his closing argument that McNamee was an unsavory character - - all the more likely, Guerrero said, to be the type of guy to supply drugs to the pitcher. If I were the prosecutor, I would not want to pin my hopes of wining the case on the testimony of a low life like McNamee.

Coincidentally, Clemens has been called a low life himself, and more than once. Several years ago, when the charges first surfaced and McNamee was talking to reporters, Clemens "outed" his wife Debbie by telling the scribes that any steroid and HGH McNamee administered were given by McNamee via injection to Debbie (not Roger) to "help her get ready" for a Sports Illustrated swimwear photo shoot. That was information the Rocket Man need not have shared. Clemens was also the protagonist in a famous bat throwing incident in Game 1 of the 2000 World Series when, while pitching for the Yankees, he threw a chunk of a shattered bat in the direction of the Mets Hall of Fame catcher Mike Piazza as Piazza was running to first. Incidentally, Piazza's career batting average against Clemens at the time of the incident was a whopping .578! Coincidence? Clemens, whose fast ball reached 100 miles per hour, also was known as a bean baller, something that did not ingratiate himself with either his opponents or his teammates.  Well-publicized rumors of a ten year affair with B-list country singer Mindy McCready hasn't helped the Rocket's rep either.  From what I have read, Roger The Dodger is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That is not his fault. But acting like a dipstick is.

McNamee is not the only witness problem the prosecution had to work around. Andy Petitte, a Yankee teammate and one of Clemens' best friends, gave testimony during a congressional hearing that Clemens admitted to Petitte that he used HGH. But during the present trial Clemens' defense counsel, the superb Rusty Hardin, got Petitte to recant his former testimony, saying that "maybe he misunderstood" what his buddy had told him.

In my post about the Edwards case I wrote that there were common threads running between the Edwards and Clemens cases. Both involve (arguably) despicable defendants who are represented by excellent trial lawyers. In both cases, the star witness for the prosecution is a contemptible former friend of the defendant - - Andrew Young in the Edwards case, and Brian McNamee in the Clemens case. Edwards' daughter Cate faithfully stood by her unfaithful father throughout the trial. Debbie Clemens, along with the couple's four sons, did the same for Rocket, even though he "threw her under the bus." How much of that is window dressing for the eyes of the jurors? Both defendants, if found guilty, would likely be handed prison sentences which would put them away for the remainder of their lives. (Clemens faces thirty years if convicted on all counts.) Jurors are human, so this is likely to weigh on their minds during deliberation.

As in any criminal trial, the burden of proof which the prosecution must meet is "beyond a reasonable doubt" (contrasted with the standard of proof in a civil trial of merely "a preponderance of the evidence"). In both the Edwards and Clemens trials, their defense counsel chose not to call either man to take the stand to testify on his own behalf. Although this could play negatively with the jury ("Why didn't he testify?"), the strategy is the proper non-move if (If!) the defense team is confident that the prosecution did not meet that extremely difficult and lofty burden of proof. Andy Petitte was a weak witness. Brian McNamee came across as a rat. Roger Clemens was a World Series champion and will probably be in the Hall of Fame some day. This is America. Game over. I predict Clemens walks.

Movie Review: "Salmon Fishing In The Yemen"

"Salmon Fishing In The Yemen": B.  There is nothing quite like watching a movie about the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula to get your mind off the eighty-eight degree temperature inside your un-airconditioned house. So Momma Cuandito and I drove over to the Hopkins Theater to catch (no pun intended) "Salmon Fishing In The Yemen," a movie that's been around town for what seems like forever. At $2.50 per senior rate ticket, it's a great deal.

The story begins with short introductory scenes so we can meet the main players. Cute, long-legged Harriet (Emily Blount) works for a London financial outfit whose client, billionaire Sheik Muhammed, wants to bring salmon fishing to Yemen, a sparsely populated hot box on the Gulf of Aden with nary a droplet of inland water in sight. To the sheik, money is no object. Harriet meets handsome hunk Robert on a blind date, and before you can say "one night stand" they get horizontal, if you know what I mean. Dr. Alfred "Fred" Jones (Ewan McGregor, who looks like a young Bob Costas) is a fish and aquatics expert with the British government fisheries department that Harriet's company desires to use in order to pull off the sheik's seemingly impossible request. Fred is married to a cold fish (again, no pun intended), but he is a rather simple man with simple tastes, and actually does not seem like all that bad a fit for his wife. The always excellent Kristin Scott Thomas plays Patricia Maxwell, who is the crackerjack press secretary for the British Prime Minister. Her job is always to put her boss in a good light, so she needs to be a spin doctor when things go wrong. Indeed, things do go wrong when very bad news about the British army suffering heavy casualties in Afghanistan hits the airways. Maxwell informs her staff that they need a feel-good story about British relationships with the middle east to offset the bad news, and somehow they get ahold of the e-mail correspondence between Harriet and Fred regarding the salmon project.

The best part of the movie occurs shortly after those introductory sequences when Fred first meets Harriet. He is forced by his boss, who is being pressured by Maxwell, to humor Harriet's firm or at least to go through the motions of pretending to be interested. Against his will Fred goes to Harriet's office, but wastes no time launching into a humorous tirade about why the sheik's request is not only ludicrous, but physically and scientifically impossible. Harriet is up to the task of defending the merits of the project. The repartee between Fred and Harriet is very entertaining. As you might guess, the project does not terminate when Fred leaves Harriet's office. After all, this is a full length motion picture.

There are a lot of side stories going on to keep things moving for the viewer. The sheik and Fred hit it off, finding a common bond in their love of fly fishing. Harriet and Fred's admiration for the sheik form the impetus toward working together on the project, and their professional relationship is complicated with concerns about their own respective significant others. Harriet and Fred are together alone, several thousand miles away from home. Scott Thomas, as Maxwell, provides a fair amount of humor, always with an eye toward improving the public's opinion of the Prime Minister. I have seen her in several movies, and this is my favorite role for her. She is a top drawer actress, and here she is on top of her game.

As is true with many romantic comedies (if, indeed, that is the right genre label for this film), the first half is much better than the second. Things kind of fall apart about three-quarters of the way through the film. The most egregious examples include a couple of scenes involving Robert. There is a calamity occurring which I can't imagine ever happening, even if I could imaging fishing in the desert. Also, I was quite disappointed with the cop-out ending. This movie could have been much more, but settles for being pleasingly satisfactory. For an entrance fee of just $2.50, maybe that is all one should expect.

The Art Of The Double Play

Momma Cuandito sometimes refers to me as "The Linear Guy." She even gave me a pair of boxers with that moniker stitched on the pant leg. I wear them proudly. Somehow, "linear" seems a little less derogatory than "anal." To be honest, I don't mind being called linear. It's mostly about the process. I admit that I'm not particularly creative or able to think outside of the box. Maybe my left brain works overtime, while my right brain is a slacker. I believe I've always been that way. For example, when I played ball as a youngster The Marquis was my coach for several years, and he always put me at third base. At the time I attributed that assignment to my having very quick reflexes, honed by hours of playing ping pong, a sport which demands that ability. Looking back, however, it could be that the reason for having me at the hot corner was that a third baseman only has two assignments. If the ball is hit to you, scoop it up and throw accurately. If the ball is not hit to you, go directly to the bag and be ready for a play at that base. Even a linear guy can keep that straight.

Despite my experience as a third sacker, it is the shortstop position that holds the key for me and which I find the most fascinating. Quite often you can tell what a manager is thinking just by looking at where his shortstop is playing. Everyone knows that championship teams are built with a strong defense up the middle. Corner infielders and corner outfielders can be forgiven for sub-par glove work if they can hit. Not so for the two middle infielders, the catcher and the center fielder. Their bread and butter is defense.

More balls are hit to the shortstop than to any other player. There is almost no margin for error at short; bobble the ball and the batter is safe. The throws from the hole are longer than those which the other infielders must attempt. There is more ground to cover on foul balls. Bang-bang base stealing attempts. Taking charge on infield pop-ups. And, what separates the wheat from the chaff - - turning the double play.

The guy who played short next to me for four years was Wayne Ziegler, a human vacuum cleaner. Ziggy was 20% bigger than me, yet 40% quicker. Our second baseman was Steve "Woody" Wooddruff, a little lead-off type guy who, like Ziggy, took it as a personal insult if a ball squirted through our infield. If only we had a first baseman who could've caught our throws! Just kidding.

All of this is a prelude to the main focus of this post, double plays. Double plays are frequently dubbed "a pitcher's best friend," because nothing gets a hurler out of a jam more quickly than a good ol' DP. Other than triples and (of course) home runs, DPs may just well be the most exciting plays during a game. Yet, I feel they are underappreciated by too many fans. DPs are all about positioning, timing, chemistry, footwork, and (Dare I say it?) courage. If you think I'm exaggerating by writing "courage," I suggest you google "Tsuyoshi Nishioka injury."

By my count, almost all the DPs you're likely to witness during a game fall into one of six categories.

1. The Strike 'em Out/Throw em' Out DP. A lot of teams like to send a runner (i.e., attempt a steal of second base) on a 3-2 count with less than two out. (Of course, with two out, a man on first will be running anyway on a 3-2 count.) Why? Because if the 3-2 pitch is a ball, the runner reaches second base without a throw. If the batter strikes out, the catcher still has to make a throw to second in time to get the runner. That is asking a lot of a catcher, since the batter is likely swinging. Whichever middle infielder takes the throw usually does so in front of the bag, so that the bag does not get in the way, and tries to swipe tag the base stealer. As I wrote above, it is a bang-bang play.

2. The Around the Horn DP. Scored as a "5-4-3" double play, this simply means that the ball is hit to the third baseman who starts the double play by throwing to the second baseman, who then relays the ball to first. The ball is in the air a little longer than a DP which starts with the first baseman (# 5 below) or a middle infielder (# 6), so unless the batter is a catcher or is otherwise built like Prince Fielder, there is usually a photo finish at first. A long-legged first baseman who can stretch comes in handy here.

3. The Outfield Assist DP. Sometimes a runner will tag on an outfield fly, and try to advance a base after the catch. If he's thrown out, it's scored as a DP. The most common scenario for this type of DP is a runner at second tagging on a ball hit in the air to right field, followed by the right fielder nailing the dude at third. When it's executed by the home team, the crowd goes wild. When you think about how long a throw from right field to third base is, and the accuracy required, it boggles the mind. Almost every team puts its outfielder with the strongest arm in right field. But of the fourteen teams in the American League, there are only a handful which have right fielders who are blessed with a cannon for an arm. The cream of the crop are considered to be Jose Bautista of the Blue Jays, Jeff Francoeur of the Royals, Nick Markakis of the Orioles, and Torii Hunter of the Angels. Ichiro Suzuki of the Mariners, Josh Reddick of the A's and Nelson Cruz of the Rangers would closely follow on the next tier. Baserunners and third base coaches respect those guys' throwing prowess, so unless a fly ball is hit very deep to one of them, only a team's speediest runners will tag at second and go.

4. The Line-out DP. As the name suggests, this DP occurs when a runner is doubled off a bag following a line drive out. The base runners are most vulnerable to this kind of DP if a steal attempt or a hit-and-run is in the works. That is a risk managers take when they employ either of those offensive strategies. By the way, if a runner passes second base and has to retreat to first to avoid getting doubled off, he must re-touch second on his way back.

5. The 3-6-3 DP. First base is the position which most baseball observers call the easiest of the nine to play, and I won't pick an argument with those who think so. But a properly executed 3-6-3 double play requires some athleticism by the first baseman. On this type of DP, the first baseman fields a ground ball and has to make a quick throw to the shortstop covering second. In order to avoid hitting the runner in the back with this throw, the first baseman will usually have to take a step forward, toward the plate, before making the toss. If the first baseman is right handed, this requires a little do-si-do twirling of the body as he's getting ready to throw the ball. (That is one of two reasons most first basemen are left handed. The other is being quicker on a swipe tag on a pickoff move by the pitcher.) Finally, after making the tough throw, the first baseman has to hustle back to the bag in time to receive the return throw from the shortstop. Sometimes that necessitates trying to "find the bag" with his big toe while keeping his eye on the incoming throw from the shortstop. If the first baseman can't get back to the bag in time, the pitcher is supposed to be there to take the throw. In that case, the DP is scored "3-6-1."

6. The Middlemen DP. This is the most common DP of all, when the ball is hit to a middle infielder who either (i) steps on second base himself and throws to first, or (ii) more likely, throws the ball to his counterpart for the force at second, and then said counterpart throws to first. There are several things to watch for during the Middlemen DP.  The ball should arrive at second base at the very moment that the middleman taking the throw arrives at the bag; timing is paramount.  I love watching an agile second baseman, playing a left-handed batter to pull, gobble up a hard grounder off the infield skin and make a long on-target throw to his shortstop to beat the hustling baserunner at second.  My favorite element of the Middlemen DP is the shortstop crow hop. Whenever a middle infielder takes a throw at second from his counterpart, he is supposed to touch the bag with his "outside" foot, meaning the right foot for a shortstop, or the left foot for a second baseman. In the latter case, this enables the second baseman to step away from the bag to avoid the sliding incoming runner and simultaneously plant his right foot before throwing the ball to first. When it's the shortstop who is taking the throw, he does so with his right foot on the bag and his left foot extended forward, then does a crow hop with his right foot before stepping into his throw. By "crow hop" I mean that he is bringing his right foot to a spot behind his left foot instead of ahead of it. Ironically, Brian Dozier, the Twins' rookie shortstop, has had his troubles in the field with routine ground balls, yet is one of the best I've seen at turning the double play. He is a master crow hopper!

The Twins, with a record of 21 & 34, have the worst record in the American League. The main culprit has been an abysmal starting rotation, with an earned run average approaching a horrid 7.00. The hitting has been off and on, and the bullpen has been above average, but the bright spot so far this season has been the defense. The Twins have turned 76 double plays this year to lead the American League, easily ahead of the Blue Jays' second highest total of 63. When the Twins have frustrated you to the point where you feel like the game is not worth watching, remember that a well-executed double play is a thing of beauty, and the Twins are pretty good in that department.

Three Defendants Will Walk

There are three high profile cases which have been in the national news during the past several weeks. The first to reach a conclusion was the federal case against former US senator and presidential aspirant John Edwards. Three days ago, Edwards was acquitted of one of the six counts brought against him for corruption, and due to a deadlocked jury, a mistrial was declared with respect to the other five counts. The other two cases to which I'm referring are the federal perjury case against former Boston Red Sox pitcher, Roger Clemens, and the widely watched second degree murder case against George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida.

You are going to have to trust me on this, when I state that I knew two weeks ago that Edwards was going to get his big win. Unfortunately, I was unable to document my bold prediction here on The Quentin Chronicle due to commitments involving my expiring two year term as the President (aka Glorified Bookkeeper) of the Broken Arrow Condominium Association in Hayward, Wisconsin. Before I run out of time (or excuses) regarding the Clemens and Zimmerman trials, I am going on record here and now by predicting that neither of those defendants will be found guilty of the felonies with which they are charged.

The Edwards case was not all that tough to predict, starting with the fact that the prosecution's theory of the case was poorly conceived. In order to prevail, the prosecution would have to convince a twelve person jury that they all had the ability, not to mention the legal right, to read Edwards' mind and then come to the conclusion that he orchestrated an outlandish coverup of contributions in an aggregate amount approaching $1 million. The prosecution must have believed that the jurors would not be able to get past the sordid scumminess of Edwards' personal life and would therefore reject Edwards' position that the controversial donations made in 2007 and 2008 were not meant for his campaign, but instead were used in an effort to hide his affair and resultant love child from his terminally ill wife. Ironically, it was that very scumminess that made Edwards' story more believable. In other words, the worse his personal situation was four or five years ago, the more money he needed to achieve his goal of hiding things from his wife.

The prosecution's star witness, former Edwards' aide Andrew Young, was absolutely skewered by the Edwards defense team. This did not go unnoticed by the jury. Once the jury learned that (i) Young wrote a tell-all book about his days working for Edwards (and thereby calling into question the character of Young), and (ii) most of the allegedly illegal contributions ended up in Young's - - not Edwards' - - bank account, the prosecution probably realized too late that they had placed their bet on the wrong horse. Young came off the witness stand looking almost (almost!) as much of a low life as the defendant.

John Edwards made his millions as a trial lawyer before he became a politician. You can be confident that the legal team he put together was the best money can buy. When the defense rested its case two weeks ago without even calling a single witness, there were some sharp legal beagles who made that collective decision, including Edwards himself. Even with Edwards' devoted daughter Cate available to be called to testify on behalf of her father, defense counsel did not need her as they correctly calculated that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges. That is when I knew that the fat lady had sung.

While it is true that the prosecution could still re-try Edwards on the five counts which ended in mistrial, that is very unlikely to happen, and as coincidence would have it, there are at least five reasons why. First, the campaign finance laws have changed, thanks to the US Supreme Court's recent ruling allowing PACs to make unlimited campaign contributions. Thus, the charges against Edwards for receiving illegal campaign contributions would be brought under obsolete statutory law. This would make it easier for defense counsel if a new trial took place. Under today's current law, a PAC could make the same amount of contributions that Edwards received from individuals in 2007 and 2008, and there would be no cry of foul play. Second, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution in almost every motion brought before and during trial (including motions to allow salacious evidence which many judges would not have permitted on the grounds of irrelevancy), and still they did not get a single favorable verdict out of six counts. If there were a new trial, there would be a different judge and the prosecution might lose some of those same motions. Third, trials are expensive, and as noted above, many legal observers thought that the Feds should never have brought the recently concluded case to trial in the first place. Would a re-trial be good use of taxpayers' money? Fourth, the prosecution would still have to rely on Andrew Young, who has already proven to be a poor witness. And fifth, a post-trial poll of the twelve jurors found that no more than four of them were willing to find Edwards guilty on any single count. That data is likely predictive of how a future, albeit different, jury would rule.

In the near future I plan to post (more briefly) about the Clemens and Zimmerman cases. There are a few common threads linking them to the Edwards case, and it is my opinion that the respective prosecutors have a difficult row to hoe. As the Edwards case showed us, there is a difference between being a creep and being a felon.