Movie Review: "Lincoln"

"Lincoln": C+.  As I was viewing Steven Spielberg's latest epic, Lincoln, in the comfort of my stadium-style seat at the West End theater, I couldn't decide which adjective better described the film, "ponderous" or "tedious." I have settled on labeling it "ponderous tedium." Yes, I know this movie has been hailed as a masterpiece and as an unparalleled accomplishment, but I am not drinking that kool-aid. Sometimes when people go to a comedy club they want to laugh at every joke, maybe as a way of justifying the price they paid for the admission ticket, or perhaps because they fear by not laughing with the crowd they will be deemed unhip. Is that a valid explanation for the almost unanimous praise heaped upon Lincoln? Is it uncool not to like Spielberg's latest offering? I am willing to chance it.

Lincoln focuses on the last four months of President Abraham Lincoln's life. During that time he faced two enormous challenges, viz., bringing an end to the Civil War, and overseeing the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the US House of Representatives. The Thirteenth Amendment, which permanently abolished slavery, went beyond the two year old Emancipation Proclamation, which was deemed a temporary "war powers" edict with limited application. Although he wanted desperately to accomplish both missions, the timing of those two events as they related to each other was problematic. The President and his advisors presumed that the Confederacy would not surrender unless it was assured that its member states would be readmitted to the United States without thenceforth being treated as inferior political entities. In other words, the leaders of the Confereracy would demand that their citizens have representation in Washington under the same rules and regulations as their northern counterparts. If surrender and readmission happened prior to passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, the obvious danger was that the amendment might never be passed by the House due to the southerners' objections. On the other hand, if the Union delayed the final siege required to end the war, that meant more bloodshed for both sides, as hundreds of soldiers were dying every day on the battlefields. Lincoln faced a lose-lose situation. In fact, even if it turned out that the Thirteenth Amendment was already passed by Congress before the end of the war, the amendment could be still rescinded once the former confederate states were able to vote.

The movie fails to show us why Lincoln is considered among the best presidents in history. Instead, it concentrates on Lincoln the politician and deal maker. He needs bipartisan support to get the amendment passed, and this means keeping his fellow Republicans in the fold and convincing roughly a half dozen Democrats to buck their party. Lincoln is portrayed as a master of political strategy. There is constant head counting to determine how many more votes are required in the House. Lincoln would dispatch his representatives to use hard sell tactics, if necessary, to convince politicians on the fence, and even those who'd already announced their opposition to the amendment, to vote "Aye." Lincoln and his henchmen were not above playing dirty pool, promising jobs to some men who could be bribed, and even going so far as to change official election results. Spielberg takes us along every step of the way. There is meeting after meeting in smoke filled rooms, followed by debates on the House floor. Almost every meeting and debate has a character or two delivering a grandiose speech with much pomp and gesticulation. This might make for engaging theater, but that form of storytelling does not lend itself well to cinema. Two, or at the most three, of those scenes would have sufficed for me, but this film is comprised of a series of them. When you deliver the same message time after time, the effectiveness of any one of them becomes diluted, especially for a movie viewer who is subjected to the repetitiveness over the course of a hundred and forty minutes.

There is an old saying that you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Lincoln illustrates that axiom. All the major players are middle age white guys wearing vested suits. Are they Republicans? Democrats? (Members of the two parties do not sit on opposite sides of the proverbial aisle for easy identification.) Reporters? Cabinet members? Lower ranking gophers? For example, W.N. Bilbo, the character played by James Spader, randomly shows his face from time to time with his ever-present cigar. He speaks a line here and there but does not really add anything to the plot development. Even as I write this, I'm not sure who Bilbo is supposed to be or why he is in the film. (I'm guessing a hack reporter.) Maybe Spielberg is a big Boston Legal fan and wanted to give Spader some work. One thing I found puzzling is that even though there are dozens of politicians and government workers in the cast of characters, Vice President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln to the presidency following his assassination, was left out of the story. I guess he was attending the funeral of a foreign dignitary, a task often relegated to the VP even today.

No explanation is given why some representatives from the Union States are opposed to the amendment - - we already know why the slave-owning southerners are against it - - yet when the roll is called in the House many of them vote "Nay." Another flaw is the dreaded non-sequitur which rears its ugly head at key moments. For example, when there is a question on the House floor as to whether the President's representatives are currently meeting with a Confederate delegation in Richmond, Virginia, there is a motion to postpone the vote on the amendment. Maybe I was dreaming, but I swear that motion passed. Yet, a few minutes later the crucial vote proceeds. A congressman from Kentucky tells everyone that he is going to vote against the amendment, but for reasons unexplained he changes his mind when the roll is called. After Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, secretly meets with President Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward and is informed that his demands are not going to be met, the southern army surrenders anyway. Why show the meeting if the logical expected result from it does not materialize? Two plus two does not always equal four here. 

For all its faults, the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis is special. I can't remember anyone else nailing Honest Abe so well. This is the first movie Day-Lewis has made in three years, and the first one anyone has actually heard of since 2007. According to the Hollywood press, he originally turned down the beseeching Spielberg, but Leonardo DiCaprio persuaded him to change his mind. Had he not, I would be forced to grade Lincoln a C.

Movie Review: "Silver Linings Playbook"

"Silver Linings Playbook": B+.  There is an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for." When Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) is done serving his plea-bargained eight month tour in a Baltimore mental institution, all he can think about is getting back together with his estranged wife Nikki, who has a restraining order against him. The reason Pat is in trouble stems from his violent attack on Nikki's lover, an older teaching colleague of Pat's. Bradley Cooper is at his best playing a role which requires him to be flirting with disaster and ready to burst upon the slightest provocation. He is a man wired tighter than a drum, living on the edge. Yet, he has his "normal" moments, such as reconnecting with his parents (Robert Di Nero and Jacki Weaver) and long-time friend Ronnie who welcomes him back home to Philadelphia.

In most movies I've seen about a mentally disturbed person trying to regain his footing in society, there is a rock solid character with her feet on the ground who coaches the disturbed person back to normalcy, or at least to the point where a comeback is possible. The unique aspect of Silver Linings Playbook ("SLP") is that the character who is in the best position to make the most inroads with Pat is Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), and she has problems of her own. Tiffany, a new widow, is the younger sister of Ronnie's wife, Veronica, who in turn is a good friend of Nikki. Pat meets Tiffany when the two of them are separately invited to Ronnie and Veronica's house for dinner. Things don't go particularly well between Pat and Tiffany, and the evening ends when Pat declines Tiffany's invitation to get under the sheets. However, they keep running into each other, particularly while jogging in the neighborhood, and before long they realize that each is uniquely qualified to do a huge favor for the other. Tiffany can aid Pat in delivering his letters to Nikki, a violation of the restraining order, and Pat can partner up with Tiffany for a ballroom dance contest she deeply desires to enter. Yes, that latter subplot is pretty far-fetched, but because this turns out to be a comedy - - a fact I did not pick up on right away - - we are willing to go with it.

Speaking of comedy, Robert DiNero as Pat's dad is a natural. He is an obsessed fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, and his main source of income is functioning as a bookie. We learn that he is banned from attending Eagles games because, even though he is sixty-five years old, he has gotten into too many fights in the stands. Therefore, he has to settle for dressing in an Eagles jersey to watch the games at home on TV. He has a huge video tape library of Eagles games. He is not sure how to deal with his mentally insecure son, but his main concern is that his son's new relationship with Tiffany, such as it is, is spoiling the "juju" for his beloved Eagles.

We are not too sure Pat shouldn't be back in the psychiatric ward. He goes nuts whenever he hears My Cherie Amour by Stevie Wonder, because it was his and Nikki's wedding song. (Wouldn't you know that song is playing in the waiting room of his shrink's office during his first visit back from the institution?) He wakes up his parents in the middle of the night when he can't find his wedding video. In an effort to impress Nikki, he undertakes a mission to read every book which Nikki has in her teaching syllabus, then literally throws one of those books, Hemingway's A Farewell To Arms,through his bedroom window pane when it upsets him. Whenever he gets rowdy, such as at an Eagles pre-game tailgate party or during a loud argument with his parents, a cop shows up threatening to "take him back to Baltimore."

Tiffany does not coddle Pat. She goes toe to toe with him during every one of their frequent verbal spats. This is a much different Jennifer Lawrence than her Katniss Everdeen character from The Hunger Games. She is a foul-mouthed, street wise and hardened woman who doesn't back down from confrontations. In fact, she instigates some of them herself. Only twenty-two years of age, Lawrence could some day have a resume as accomplished as Meryl Streep. She is that good an actress. By the way, for the sake of comparison, Bradley Cooper is thirty-seven. The age difference between the two leads in SLP does not seem that apparent, a credit to both actors.

There are a lot of good scenes in SLP, but the sum of the parts exceeds the whole. Editing a few extraneous moments and re-writing the last several minutes would have resulted in a tighter script and a better product. Still, when you lay your money down it's for the purpose of being entertained. In that regard, there is no quibble. I will be very interested to find out early next year what award nominations this film generates.

Butter

In my introductory post of December 6, 2011 (Following David Brinkley's Lead) I indirectly posed the question if it was possible for one to plagiarize himself. In the context of this blog, I was referring to the possibility of republishing certain posts I have made on the website ND Nation or e-mails I've written to family and friends. To date, I have not yet availed myself of that convenience, but in light of the fact that tomorrow is Thanksgiving, the one day of the year when the subject of food is brought to the fore, the time has come for self-plagiarization and for me to pull an old one out of the desk drawer.

Assuming that we all hope to display at least some modicum of etiquette at the biggest dinner of the year, I am passing on to you, my faithful blog readers, an e-mail that I sent to my three kids on March 29, 2004. That was exactly thirteen days before Easter Sunday, another big annual food fest. I called my memo The Martha Stewart Memo # 2: Butter. In those days, whenever I wrote about etiquette, I called it a Martha Stewart Memo in honor of the perfectionist ex-con celebrity herself. (2004 was the year of her incarceration for securities fraud.) In all honesty, I'm not sure how many Martha Stewart Memos I wrote, and I can't remember what Memo # 1 addressed. If I ever find it and deem it worthy, I will post it here.

What follows, then, is my e-mail from eight-plus years ago, with only a few very minor revisions. Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

***

It always amazes me how many people do not know how to use butter. As the Martha surrogate, and to save you from embarrassing yourselves, I am providing to you the following guidelines:

1. Never reach for the butter, unless you are the closest person at the table to the butter. Ask the closest person to pass it.

2. If someone else has asked that the butter be passed to her, but the butter has to get by you first, ask the requesting person if she minds if you help yourself first before passing it on to the requester. Don't shortstop it without permission. This rule generally applies to each thing (not just butter) which is passed at the table.

3. Check around your place at the table to see if your hostess has provided you with a butter knife. If yes, use it.

4. If there is room at your place at the table, put the butter serving plate down on the table before you slice into the butter. Unless you are an axe murderer (or you are auditioning for the Anthony Perkins role in a remake of Psycho), do not hold the butter serving plate with one hand while you slice with the other hand.

5. You only get one slice of butter, so make it a good one. It is better to err on the side of taking a little too much than it is to take more than one slice. Pity the person who has to use the butter after you've mangled the stick like Paul Bunyan going after a tree.

6. Slice straight down on the butter stick. Only a hillbilly would skim the knife over the top of the butter stick. If you insist on doing so and you are my relative, please do me the favor of forbearing until you legally change your last name.

7. Put your one slice of butter on the individual butter plate (see # 8). Do not apply it directly from the butter serving plate to your bread, or whatever else it is that you are buttering. (As used in this memo, "bread" refers to rolls, buns, croissants and muffins too.)

8. Check around your place at the table to see if the hostess has provided you with an individual butter plate. If yes, use it. If not, use your dinner plate. Do not put the bread on the table.

9. Before you apply the butter to your bread, break the bread in half with your freshly washed hands. Do not use a knife to break the bread. Do not apply the butter to unbroken bread. Exception: If the bread being passed around consists of a loaf, and a knife is supplied with the loaf, you may use the knife to cut yourself a slice.

10. When you are buttering your bread, the bread should be resting on your individual butter plate. You should not be holding the bread in the air. You are not a priest, and this is not the consecration.

11. Put enough butter on your bread to be able to taste the butter, but remember: Buttering a slice of bread is not like painting a wall. You don't have to cover every square millimeter of surface area.

12. If you have an individual butter plate (see # 8), return the butter knife to that plate, not to your dinner plate.

13. After you take each bite of bread, put the uneaten remainder back on your individual butter plate. Don't hold onto the bread as if you were worried someone might steal it. Caveat: If you are seated next to a certain relative who has been know to accuse others of stealing (and therefore may be tempted to steal your bread as a reprisal), you would be well advised to keep an eye out for your uneaten remainder.

14. Keep in mind that no matter what the butter apologists try to tell you, generally speaking butter is not all that good for your body, even if it is the renowned Hope Butter. (Bread probably isn't either.) Many dieticians suggest that you try getting used to eating bread (and other types of food) without butter. Try it that way for several meals, and if you can get used to it you will be so much better off. Enjoying bread and other food without butter is an acquired taste (like coffee or vegetables). Give it a shot and then, if you must, try using a fraction of the butter you were using before.

15. This last rule is the most important of them all, and accordingly I have named it after my father, The Marquis. The Donald J. Periolat Rule: When you are passing a stick of butter to someone, try not to jam the end of the butter stick into the recipient's extended thumb. It may be funny, but it's still uncouth and very bad form.

Movie Review: "Searching For Sugar Man"

"Searching For Sugar Man": A-.  This documentary filmed by Swedish director Malik Bendjelloul tells the story of an American singer-songwriter named Sixto Rodriguez, who in the very early 1970's released two well-received albums and then figuratively fell off the face of the earth. In the seventies, before the days of MTV, file sharing, Pandora and satellite radio, music artists needed more than singing or instrumental talent in order to make a career in the business. They needed a label to distribute and, more importantly, promote their records. They also needed radio play, an agent with connections, perhaps a financially underwritten concert tour, free publicity, and of course a healthy dose of luck. Rodriguez had none of these things going for him. Sadly, his label, Sussex Records, dropped him after the second album, at which point he continued to make his way in the world doing hard manual labor. Although he kept playing his guitar, he let go of his dream.

There is a saying that life can be cruel, and the application of that adage is quickly unveiled in this movie. Unbeknownst to Rodriguez, his songs became extremely popular in the country of South Africa at a time when the anti-Apartheid movement was shifting into a higher gear. It is estimated that over a half million copies of his records were sold - - some of them as bootlegs - - in that country alone. More than two decades later, Cape Town record store owner Stephen Segerman took it upon himself to investigate who this invisible star was. After a little digging he discovered that there were reports of Rodriguez' death, resulting from a self-inflicted shot to the head during a concert in the States. Yet, Segerman is unable to obtain tangible proof or even any concrete evidence that such a tragedy actually occurred.

The thought came to Segerman that he should follow the money. If a half-million records were sold, who was on the receiving end of all that dough? In one of the most interesting segments of the movie, Segerman interviews Clarence Avant, former head of the now-defunct Sussex label. Avant claims ignorance, but his squirming in the hot seat in front of the camera reminded me of Mike Wallace grilling people on 60 Minutes.

Like any good detective, Segerman stays on the trail. Finding out what happened to Rodriguez becomes his obsession, to the point where Segerman is referred to by his friends as "Sugar Man," the title of one of Rodriguez' best songs. He seeks out people in the music business, relatives of Rodriguez, and his former co-workers from long ago. How could such a talented artist with such a huge following - - albeit thousands of miles away - - disappear almost without a trace?  How could someone with such international star power not be aware of it?

Forty-five minutes into the movie, a major revelation is disclosed to the audience. I could probably spill the beans, since at that point the film is barely at the half-way mark. But on the chance that doing so would constitute an unwelcomed spoiler, I will hold my cards close to the vest and resist the temptation. Suffice it to say that this is one of the three best movies I have seen this year.

As for the music, I love the soundtrack and urge you to add it to your library. The songs are all originals, taken from Rodriguez' two albums. His lyrics might remind you of Dylan, only this man can actually sing. Jose Feliciano's vocals comes to mind, but with a better variety of tempo and production. By the way, if you do acquire the soundtrack on CD, do not read the liner notes until you've seen the movie. The notes writer wasn't as judicious as I in divulging potential spoilers.

Movie Review: "Flight"

"Flight": B+.  We are introduced to Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) by watching him guzzling room temperature beer and snorting coke in his hotel room within minutes of being awakened by an early morning phone call from his ex-wife.  They are arguing over their teenage son, with whom Whip has had little contact since the divorce.  The timing is particularly bad for Whip, as his much younger girl friend Katerina (Nadine Velazquez) is putting on her clothes, not bothering to seek the privacy of the bathroom.  We think to ourselves, "This guy is a swinger who walks on the wild side."  That first impression is quickly adjusted when, moments later, Whip exits his room and swaggers down the hall.  He is wearing the uniform of an airplane pilot, and he's got a flight to catch at the Orlando airport.  He is Captain Whip Whitaker.  When he boards the flight on the way to the cockpit he is greeted by a sharply dressed flight attendant, none other than Katerina.

We know from the coming attractions and TV promos that this short Orlando to Atlanta flight is doomed, and that were it not for the skill and courage of Captain Whit, all of those aboard the flight would perish.  Knowing this ahead of time does not in any way diminish for us the nail-biting tension and thrill of watching what transpires on board.  Director Robert Zemeckis makes us feel like we are on board too.  We also realize, if we are capable of thinking about anything else in the heat of the moment, that the star of this movie is Washington.  Zemeckis is not going to bump him off in the first twenty minutes of the story.  However, the ensuing crash is not without fatalities.  The NTSB is going to investigate, and that spells trouble for Whit, who wakes up in a hospital wearing bandages over his face and IV hook-ups to his arm.  He finds out later that his blood has been drawn and tested while he lay unconscious in the hospital.

While the plane is in mid-air, but before the crash, the camera switches briefly to the poor side of Atlanta, where another druggie, Nicole (Kelly Reilly), desperately needs money to pay her rent and to satisfy her narcotic craving.  She'll take her money any way she can get it, but draws the line when a porn producer offers her a gig.  When she ODs after injecting herself, she ends up in the same hospital as Whit.  They meet each other in a stairwell, where they have gone to momentarily escape detection while they have a cigarette or two.

Back to Whit's situation.  He soon realizes that not only is his flying career in jeopardy, but he faces criminal prosecution, with life jail term possibilities, for flying the plane while under the influence of alcohol and drugs.  The pilots' union has a representative (Bruce Greenwood) to help him, and a lawyer (Don Cheadle) to find legal loopholes to make things as tough as possible for the NTSB investigation.  Their strategy is to blame the airplane manufacturer for the crash.  "The plane quit working in mid-air."  The union rep and the lawyer are needed, but a third aid is the only one Whip totally trusts, Harling Mays (John Goodman), who is a combination wing man, drug supplier, body guard and hippie mystic.  Once again - - and this is about the third or fourth time I've written this in 2012 - - Goodman steals every scene he's in.

What the union rep and the lawyer don't know initially is that Whip is an alcoholic.  What happens when they, or the NTSB, find out?  Will Whip lose his wings?  Will he do hard time?  Can he stay sober long enough to get through the NTSB investigation?  Can Nicole help him, or are her own problems insurmountable?

Most movies featuring an alcoholic as the protagonist have a fine line to tread.  The alcohol abuse needs to rear its ugly head enough times for the viewer to appreciate the sadness and severity of the problem.  Yet, once that realization is instilled in the collective awareness of the audience, the point does not need to be further hammered home.  We almost get to that point in Flight, and indeed, maybe Zemeckis is guilty of crossing it.  Nevertheless, I found enough other aspects of the movie laudable so that, in my view, the movie succeeds.  Foremost among them is the stellar acting performance by Denzel Washington.  As a pilot, a playboy, a liar or a lush, Washington becomes his character. The supporting cast delivers too.  Reilly's role calls for her to be pretty enough to be tempting, but sometimes gaunt and disheveled when she is high.  Cheadle nails it as the union attorney. He is not afraid to tackle the NTSB, and gives advise to his client, Whip, which is practical and legally sound.  He has to be careful not to violate the lawyer's Professional Code of Ethics, providing Whip an aggressive defense without literally telling Whip to lie. There is one scene where the attorney witnesses an illegal operation (payment to a drug dealer), but manages to keep his involvement indirect.

Flight raises serious questions involving morality and ethics.  The question that keeps coming up, and which Whip himself asks, is this: If anyone else had been in the pilot's chair for that fateful flight, would there be any survivors?  If the answer is "unlikely," does that excuse him from driving drunk?  You will have to see this movie to find out how the obvious answer is determined.  Don't count on seeing it as part of the on-board entertainment on your next Delta flight.

Mountain State Is Key To Uphill Climb

The national media tells us there are nine battleground states for tomorrow's presidential election.  They are New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida along the east coast; Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa in the Midwest; and Colorado and Nevada in the mountains.  According to the New York Times, North Carolina and Nevada are not all that close, with The Tar Heel State leaning toward Governor Romney, and The Silver State picking President Obama.  The other forty-one states and the District of Columbia apparently are already spoken for.  I wonder if that is how the campaign directors view it.  Why did the Democrats send Bill Clinton to St. Cloud two days before the election?  Why did the Twin Cities get a visit from Paul Ryan?  Could it be that The Gopher State is still in play?  I am also hearing from my crack research team of three (me, myself and I) that Pennsylvania, which has not voted Republican since 1988, is not a gimme for the Prez.

One of the interesting things about the lay of the land is that five of those so-called battleground states, plus Pennsylvania, are in the Eastern Time Zone.  Their polling places will close mid-evening Minnesota Time, meaning that we might have a pretty good idea before the Ten O'Clock Snooze (as WCCO news legend Dave Moore used to say) whether there will be a changing of the guard in the White House.  One election historical nugget we have heard over and over is that no Republican has ever been elected President without taking Ohio.  In fact, assuming the forty-one "non-battleground" states (including Minnesota and Pennsylvania) go as predicted, if President Obama wins both Florida and Ohio that will put him over the requisite 270 Electoral Votes.

Can Romney win without Ohio?  For the sake of discussion, let's say Obama wins in Ohio but Romney triumphs in Florida.  With the seven remaining battleground states still up for grabs, there are 128 possible combinations, and Obama wins under a whopping 116 of them.  Is it unreasonable to think that North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire, all of which voted blue in 2008, might turn red this time?  Since the Reagan Landslide in 1984 there have been six presidential elections.  North Carolina and Virginia voted Republican in every one of them except the last one (2008).  New Hampshire has only gone red two out of those six elections (1988 and 2000), but the Republicans are crossing their fingers that the voters in the Granite State will support the candidate who has a residence there, viz., Mitt Romney.

If (again, for the sake of discussion) we give North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire to Romney, where does that leave us?  First, to be fair, let's give Nevada to the Democrats, as the Times is predicting.  (After all, any populace which would re-elect Harry Reid to the Senate in 2010 for a third term is probably not going to abandon his ship.)  Now we are down to three battleground states (Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado), with 8 corresponding possibilities.  Here they are:

1. WI-R; IA-R; CO-R. Romney wins.
2. WI-R; IA-R; CO-D. Obama wins.
3. WI-R; IA-D; CO-R. Romney wins.
4. WI-R; IA-D; CO-D. Obama wins.
5. WI-D; IA-R; CO-R. Obama wins.
6. WI-D; IA-R; CO-D. Obama wins.
7. WI-D; IA-D; CO-R. Obama wins.
8. WI-D; IA-D; CO-D. Obama wins.

If you are supporting the President, you have to feel pretty good about your chances.  He wins under six of the eight scenarios.

Romney needs Wisconsin (see # 5 above), the state that voted to keep their current Republican governor, Scott Walker, in office after a hotly contested recall effort.  Although Paul Ryan is their native son, Wisconsin has voted Democrat in all of the six presidential elections since the Reagan Landslide.  Romney also needs Colorado (see # 2 above), a state that has proven to be unpredictable and independent-minded in recent years.  In 2008, Wisconsin and Colorado gave Obama 56% and 54% of their votes, respectively.  Most of the campaign pre-election talk has been about Ohio and Florida, but Wisconsin and Colorado will be the center of attention if the early results from the Eastern Time Zone hot spots are not dispositive of the issue.

You may be well advised to keep your favorite pizza delivery business on speed dial. It could be a two dinner night. Let's hope there are no hanging chads.