If you’ve seen any of the advanced footage for “Star Wars: The Acolyte,” you’ve witnessed part of the confrontation between a Jedi knight, Carrie-Anne Moss’ Master Indara, and a would-be assassin, Amandla Stenberg’s Mae Aniseya.

Upon starting the series — which gets underway with two episodes dropping at 9 p.m. June 4 on Disney+ — you almost immediately will be pulled into this martial arts-heavy fight, during which Moss shows she still has plenty of chops from her time portraying fierce heroine Trinity in “The Matrix” saga and “The Hate U Give” star Stenberg more than holds her own.

Carrie-Anne Moss’ Jedi Master Indara holds her lightsaber in a scene from “Star Wars: The Acolyte.” (Christian Black/Disney+/Lucasfilm Ltd./TNS)

Mae encourages her to attack, but Indara resists, sticking with defensive moves.

It is a thrilling, well-choreographed start to the show’s eight-episode debut season, the first half of which was made available for review.

Related Articles

Call it ‘McStreamy’: After 20 seasons, ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ is a hit on Netflix and Hulu

What to watch: ‘Violent Nature’ more than lives up to its name

‘Couples Therapy’ review: The least cynical reality show on TV. This time there’s a throuple.

What to stream: Embark on guided tour of world cinema with Mubi

What to stream: Catch up with Zendaya’s big 2-movie start for 2024

Disappointingly, the series never quite recaptures that level of excitement in those first four chapters. On the other hand, the Leslye Headland-created show does a solid job of keeping its intrigue alive, as it is, at its core, a mystery.

Considering that “Star Wars” releases take place in various spots on a vast timeline, some background for “The Acolyte” is in order.

The series is set 100 years, give or take, before the events of 1999’s “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace,” which launched the “Skywalker Saga.”

“The Acolyte” occurs late in “The High Republic” era. In this time of initially great prosperity — which has been fleshed out in recent years in media such as young adult novels and comic books, with an overall storyline still being penned — the Force-wielding Jedi Knights are many and, in essence, they are guardians of the galaxy.

In this first slice of High Republic live action, Mae is out to kill four of them, including Sol (“Squid Game” star Lee Jung-jae), who is tapped to lead the investigation into her by Master Vernestra Rwoh (Rebecca Henderson), a fan-favorite High Republic character.

In “Star Wars: The Acolyte,” Vernestra Rwoh, portrayed by Rebecca Henderson, and Sol, portrayed by Lee Jung-jae, are Jedi masters, In the High Republic era, Jedi often wear more brightly colored robes than the Force wielders who will follow them a century later. (Courtesy of Lucasfilm)

Why is the Mae — who wields the Force but not a lightsaber, the traditional weapon of a Jedi — out for vengeance? That will be revealed by the third installment, an episode set 16 years earlier that introduces us to a coven of Force-sensitive witches on the planet Brendock who are led by Mother Aniseya (Jodie Turner-Smith).

A more closely held secret is the identity of the dark-side Force user who has trained her, a masked figure we meet — briefly — at the end of the first episode. Even Mae may not know. Is he a Sith Lord? The Sith haven’t been seen in ages, but we know they will return at some point before the events of the Prequel Trilogy. (Of course, you can find theories as to whom this menage may be online.)

“The Acolyte” introduces myriad other characters, including Jecki (Dafne Keen), Sol’s rigid Padawan, aka apprentice; Yord (Charlie Barnett’), another Jedi Knight taking part in the investigation; Jedi Wookie Kelnacca (Joonas Suotamo, no stranger to being one of the big, hairy creatures after having portrayed Chewbacca for much of the Sequel Trilogy and in 2018’s “Solo: A Star Wars Story”); and Qimir (Manny Jacinto of “The Good Place”), an apothecary owner and associate of Mae.

As with many a “Star Wars” show or film, “The Acolyte” isn’t exactly a showcase for topnotch acting, but Stenberg and Lee are reasonably compelling as the show’s central figures.

Amandla Stenberg’s Mae faces an uncertain future in “Star Wars: The Acolyte.” (Courtesy of Lucasfilm)

And although he doesn’t appear in the first half of the season, it’s possible we’ll see a younger version of Jedi Master Yoda, whose species, as we know, enjoys lengthy lifespans. That would be nice.

“Nice” is a rather appropriate word for what we’ve seen so far of “The Acolyte.” The enthusiasm for “Star Wars” from showrunner Headland, best known for co-creating the largely enjoyable and often trippy series “Russian Doll,” translates to the screen, especially in the first episode, which she both wrote and directed. However, like other “Star Wars” efforts — most notably the previous live-action series, “Ahsoka” — it frequently stagnates thanks to too many instances of characters talking without anything all that interesting to say.

We do not want to be too quick to judge it, however. In 2022, we found the first four episodes of “Andor” to be a slog, only to conclude after seeing all 12 first-season installments that it was the best “Star Wars” project of the Disney era to date.

It’s tough to envision “The Acolyte” reaching that level of quality, but at the end of the fourth episode — by which time just about every key moment from the trailers have played out — we certainly are left wanting to see what comes next.

That’s a good place to be.

‘Star Wars: The Acolyte’

What: Eight-episode debut season of live-action series set in High Republic era.

Where: Disney+.

When: First two episodes debut at 9 p.m. June 4; subsequent episodes debut Tuesday evenings.

Rated: TV-14.

Stars (of four): 2.5.

Among fully grown and otherwise confident adults, few things of similar triviality trigger as much vulnerability and self-doubt as a sommelier approaching your table at dinner.

Whether wine is something you consider nightly or just on special occasions, sommeliers and retail wine sellers should be the first line of defense for anyone making decisions about wine. After all, wine professionals exist to help consumers decode wine menus and bottle labels. The better ones have spent years studying wine just to suss out the perfect pinot noir or pairings for esoteric foods.

So why is it that we freeze up when a sommelier arrives with the wine menu and a smattering of cheerful questions? How often do you shirk past your friendly retailer even though yes, you very much do need help?

Wine is so laden with social pitfalls, explains Torrence O’Haire, the corporate beverage director at Gage Hospitality Group, which includes restaurants like The Gage and Acanto near Millenium Park. “There’s this pervasive fear that if you order the wrong bottle or drink the wrong thing, you’ll look like a fool in front of everyone,” he said. “Guests often choose not to speak to a sommelier because they’re afraid the sommelier will make them feel stupid, or shame them for not spending enough money.”

But wine professionals, on their part, are fully aware of how uncomfortable a subject wine can be. Most would be thrilled to take on the burden of your anxiety. If only you could just talk to them.

Make friends with your sommelier

Rule number one, O’Haire suggested, is to find a wine person you enjoy talking to. Granted, not every café or liquor shop is equipped with an educated wine team, but if you’re curious about wines, patronize restaurants and bottle shops where wine professionals are keen to build a relationship with you. “If they don’t make you feel comfortable enough to engage, you need to go to a different place,” O’Haire said.

Be upfront about your budget

Be clear with your sommelier or wine retailer about the parameters you want to stick to. Most importantly, how much you want to spend on wine. Price point is hands down the most efficient way for a sommelier or retailer to home in on what to offer.

There’s no denying the awkwardness of stating a dollar figure in front of a date, your judgmental aunt or a business counterpart. But whether you choose to point at a price or announce it aloud, “consumers should feel entirely nonchalant about stating their budget to their sommelier,” O’Haire said. “A wine professional’s job is to make you feel excited and supported regardless of whether you’re spending $40 or $400.”

Break down the communication barrier

If you walk away wondering whether you’re even speaking the same language anytime you attempt to engage with a sommelier or other wine professional, it’s not unusual. The language of wine is fraught with jargon and the gap between how consumers and wine professionals talk about wine is wide.

The problem goes both ways. “Wine professionals are so engrossed in the language of wine, we tend to use terms or refer to regions or grapes that most people have never heard of,” said George Day-Toles a sommelier and the beverage and education manager for Verve Wine, the Lincoln Park wine shop. “At home, my husband sometimes reminds me, ‘alright, now explain this wine to me like I’m a four-year-old,’” he says.

George Day-Toles, right, beverage and education manager at Verve Wine, flips a bottle of white wine upside down for customer Liam Marchant to see on May 18, 2024, in Chicago. (John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune)

“As a community though, and especially here in Chicago, we’re really trying to pull back the curtain to make wine more approachable and for our guests to feel more comfortable,” Day-Toles said. “It’s our goal to create relationships where guests know we’re hearing what they say rather than just pushing products on them.”

Consumers also inadvertently muddle the lines by misusing many foundational wine terms. Whether a wine is dry or sweet is a perennial misunderstanding among wine drinkers. By definition, a dry wine is a wine with no perceivable sweetness because little to no residual sugar remains after fermentation. Conversely, a sweet wine tastes sweet because it does contain residual sugar.

Complications arise when wine drinkers use the words “dry” to describe sensory perceptions beyond sugar content – the lack of overt fruitiness, or the astringency of tannins, those bitter compounds found in grapes or wood that give wine texture and a puckery feeling.

Similarly, many consumers mistakenly associate fruitiness in wine — juicy, mouthwatering flavors like cherry, mango or grapefruit — with sweetness even when there’s no sugar present. Indeed, the vast majority of wines that we might associate with big, fruity flavors — wines like sauvignon blanc or pinot noir, for example — are fully dry.

“When a consumer asks for a sweet wine, I always have to ask, ‘when you say sweet, do you actually mean sugary, like a wine that has residual sugar, or are you looking something that’s just fruity and juicy?’” Day-Toles said.

George Day-Toles, right, beverage and education manager at Verve Wine, discusses a white wine’s characteristics with customer Liam Marchant on May 18, 2024, in Chicago. (John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune)

Smooth is another term that’s often more misleading than helpful simply because it’s so subjective. On the one hand, it might refer to the general texture of a wine, something that’s lower in acidity or softer in tannins, but it’s also a word that consumers use to describe everything from the presence of residual sugar to a lack of bubbles or effervescence. At its worst, smooth signals an innocuousness verging on limp.

“It’s fine if that’s what they really want,” O’Haire said, but there are a lot of unhelpful wine terms that remind him of a line from the movie, “The Princess Bride.” “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means,” he quotes.

This communications gap is why sommeliers like O’Haire often opt to wipe the slate clean of wine terminology altogether when interacting with guests, peppering them instead with questions about anything from their current mood to their favorite movie just to establish rapport and openness instead. “Sometimes, the most useful information a consumer is much more basic,” he said. “If a guest tells me, ‘at home we drink a lot of pinot grigio, I love Chablis but I don’t want to spend that much money tonight and I’m having fish for dinner,’ I can quickly triangulate from there,” O’Haire said.

After all, the best wine professionals are more than just wine experts. Sometimes a translator, detective and psychologist too, they’re your most underutilized advocate in getting the greatest rewards from your wine purchases.

Anna Lee Iijima is a freelance writer.

A jury has convicted an 81-year-old Arizona woman in a 1985 western Wisconsin slaying that authorities say was fueled by a love triangle.

Mary Josephine Bailey was found guilty of first-degree intentional murder Thursday in Polk County Circuit Court for the killing of 45-year-old Yvonne Carol Menke, who was shot three times outside her St. Croix Falls apartment before work on Dec. 12, 1985. The trial ran eight days in Balsam Lake, and jurors deliberated for just over two hours.

Yvonne Menke (Courtesy of Polk County Sheriff’s Office)

The conviction carries a life sentence. Bailey is scheduled to be sentenced July 2. Her attorney did not immediately return a call for comment Tuesday.

The Polk County sheriff’s office announced the murder charge against Bailey, of Apache Junction, Ariz., on Nov. 14, saying investigators worked the cold case over two years.

Bailey was considered a suspect in the early days of the investigation, as several people told law enforcement that Jack Owen, Menke and Bailey, whose last name then was Lunsmann, had been “involved in somewhat of a ‘love triangle,’” the criminal complaint says.

Boot prints in snow

Menke was shot three times in her head and neck in a stairwell of her apartment complex just before 6:30 a.m.

An investigator wrote in the complaint that it was his belief that the “up close and personal attack” appeared to show “personal knowledge and a strong emotional reaction” toward Menke.

Investigators found a boot print in snow near Menke’s body, with the word “Arctic” visible in the area where the front of the heel would be, and the same boot prints about a block away.

In an interview a day after the murder, Owen said he was dating Bailey, who worked at a bank in Luck, Wis., and that their relationship mostly had to do with their mutual interest in horses and horse shows. He said his last interaction with her was about a month prior at a party.

A woman who knew Owen from horse competitions told law enforcement that he was always close to Menke even though he was seeing Bailey at the same time.

Mary Josephine Bailey (Courtesy of the Maricopa County Jail)

Bailey told investigators in 1985 that she knew who Menke was but never spoke with her in person.

Bailey’s boots, a pair of size 5 Arctic Cat snowmobile boots, were submitted to the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory for comparison to the boot prints found at the murder scene. The lab concluded her boots were consistent with the sulfur casts taken by officers at the scene in terms of tread pattern, size and wear pattern, the complaint says.

In 2009, investigators submitted evidence for further testing, including Bailey’s boots, two jackets and a hat. No blood was detected on any of the items.

Latest investigation

Polk County investigators worked the case again in late 2021 and into the winter of 2022, re-interviewing witnesses and others who had knowledge of Owen, Bailey and Menke.

Owen died in October 2021, while living in Montana with his wife.

Investigators spoke with Bailey’s friend in December 2022. She said something had been “bothering her for years and she wanted to disclose it,” the complaint says. About a year after the killing, a man Bailey had dated told her that Bailey had him burn some clothes for her.

When investigators questioned the man about whether Bailey burned clothes at his house or asked him to burn clothing for her, he said he did not recall.

Bailey had since moved to Arizona. Investigators spoke with her in September 2022 and in follow-up interviews. When asked if she ever went to the man’s house to burn clothing, she replied, “No I never burned any. … I was out there. Not that I remember,” the complaint says. She said she did not remember asking him to burn clothes, then added, “Unless it was old rags or something like that.”

Bailey could not explain why the boot prints were consistent with her boots.

An investigator told Bailey that he believed the Polk County district attorney was going to charge her with the murder.

“Mary Jo did not respond and continued to sit at the table without any emotional or verbal response,” the complaint says.

Related Articles

St. Paul murder charge: Man shot into car, killing driver, as his girlfriend was in passenger seat

How Trump’s deny-everything strategy could hurt him at sentencing

St. Paul man arrested in homicide of 21-year-old

A Mazda, a gift bag of $120,000 and a dismissed juror

Fraud trial juror reports getting bag of $120,000 and promise of more if she’ll acquit

 

Gopal Ratnam | CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers pushing ahead with some of the first bills governing artificial intelligence are confronting old problems as they deal with a new technology.

At a recent Senate committee makeup of legislation that would prohibit the distribution of deceptive AI in campaigns for federal office and require disclosure when AI is used, some Republicans espoused support for the measures’ ideals while voting against them, citing the potential limits on free speech.

“We have to balance the potential for innovation with the potential for deceptive or fraudulent use,” Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said at the markup. “On top of that, we can’t lose sight of the important protections our Constitution provides for free speech in this country. These two bills do not strike that careful balance.”

Political battles are only likely to get more intense over AI as campaigns increasingly rely on it to fine-tune messages and find target audiences — and others use it spread disinformation.

The technology is here to stay, proponents say, because AI greatly increases efficiency.

“Campaigns can positively benefit from AI-derived messaging,” said Mark Jablonowski, who is president of DSPolitical, a digital advertising company that works with Democratic candidates and for progressive causes, and chief technology officer at its parent, Optimal. “Our clients are using AI successfully to create messaging tracks.”

But consultants, lawmakers, and government officials say the same tools that boost efficiency in campaigns will spread disinformation or impersonate candidates, causing confusion among voters and likely eroding confidence in the electoral process.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., echoed those concerns at the Rules markup.

“If deepfakes are everywhere and no one believes the results of the elections, woe is our democracy,” he said. “This is so damn serious.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the committee’s chairwoman, said AI tools have “the potential to turbocharge the spread of disinformation and deceive voters.”

The panel advanced a measure that would prohibit deceptive AI in campaigns for federal office and one that would require disclaimers when AI is used, both on 9-2 votes with GOP lawmakers casting the opposing votes.

Klobuchar said she would be open to changes to address concerns raised by Republicans.

A third measure requiring the Election Assistance Commission to develop guidelines on the uses and risks of AI advanced on a 11-0 vote.

Campaign backend boost

Campaign workers may enter a few prompts into generative AI tools that then spit out 50 or 60 unique messaging tracks, with workers choosing the top three or four “that really hit the mark,” Jablonowski said in an email. “There are many efficiency gains helping campaigns do more with less and create a more meaningful message, which is very important in politics.”

Consultants and digital advertising firms now have access to more than two dozen AI-based tools that assist with various aspects of political campaigns, ranging from those that generate designs, ads and video content to those that produce emails, op-eds and media monitoring platforms, according to Higher Ground Labs, a venture fund that invests in tech platforms to help progressive candidates and causes.

“AI-generated content is becoming most prevalent in political communications, particularly in content generation across images, video, audio, and text,” Higher Ground Labs said in a May 23 report. “Human oversight remains critical to ensure quality, accuracy and ethical use,” the report said.

The report cited one study that found that using AI tools to generate fundraising emails “grew dollars raised per work hour by 350% to 440%.” The tools helped save time without losing quality even when employed by less experienced staffers, the report said.

AI tools also are helping campaigns with audience targeting. In 2023, Boise, Idaho, Mayor Lauren McLean built a target audience group using an AI tool that proved to be more capable in identifying supporters and “outperformed standard partisanship models,” according to the Higher Ground report.

But even the consultants who rely on these new technologies are aware of the downsides.

“I won’t sugarcoat it. As someone who has been in this space for two decades, this is the sort of Venn diagram I focus on,” Jablonowski said, referring to the intersection of AI tools and those who might misuse them. “I think we’re going to see a lot of good coming from AI this year, and we’re going to see significant potential challenges from bad actors. This keeps me up at night.”

Beyond legislation, the Federal Communications Commission is looking into new rules that would require disclosures on messages generated using AI tools.

“As artificial intelligence tools become more accessible, the Commission wants to make sure consumers are fully informed when the technology is used,” FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a May 22 statement. “Today, I’ve shared with my colleagues a proposal that makes clear consumers have a right to know when AI tools are being used in the political ads they see.”

The FCC said the proposed rules are not intended to prohibit content generated by AI but are intended to disclose use of the technology.

States also are racing to pass laws that would require campaigns and candidates to disclose use of AI tools in their messages.

Alabama became the latest state to enact a law to criminalize the use of AI in election campaigning. The measure, passed last month, makes it a misdemeanor for a first-time offense and a felony for subsequent violations for distributing AI-generated deepfakes falsely showing a person speaking or doing something they did not.

Florida legislation signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April likewise would impose prison terms for running AI-generated ads without disclosure.

Several other states have enacted laws requiring disclosure of of AI in generating messages and ads and imposing civil penalties for failing to do so.

Still evolving

Deepfake messages are not theoretical. Last week, the FCC issued a proposed $6 million fine to Steve Kramer, a political consultant, for organizing a fake robocall in New Hampshire, which authorities say was received by 20,000 or more voters, in which the artificial-intelligence-doctored voice of President Joe Biden asked them to skip the state’s primary in January. Kramer admitted he was behind the call in an interview with CBS News.

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella charged Kramer with voter suppression, a felony, and misdemeanor charges for impersonation of a candidate. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said Kramer is set to be arraigned in early June.

Jablonowski argued that some bad actors may break the rules regardless of whether laws require disclosure because the payoff might be worth any potential consequences.

“It is particularly concerning that people who use generative AI maliciously are not going to be following the rules no matter what industry and regulators say,” Jablonowski said. “Requiring folks to label content as being created by generative AI only works if people follow those rules with fidelity.”

One way to stem the spread of fake messages is for social media platforms to curb them, Jablonowski said. Meta Platforms Inc., for example, requires disclosure for ads using AI. And the company has said it will label AI-generated images on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.

Nick Clegg, president of global affairs at Meta, told MIT Technology Review at a May 22 conference that the company has yet to see large-scale use of AI-generated deepfakes on its platforms.

“The interesting thing so far — I stress, so far — is not how much but how little AI-generated content [there is],” Clegg said at the conference.

Tools to detect AI-generated material are not perfect and still evolving, and watermarks or digital signatures indicating AI-generated content can be tampered with, he said.

In addition to AI-generated deepfakes, social media platforms are still grappling with old-fashioned misinformation on their platforms, Jablonowski said, creating likely confusion and distrust among voters. Despite laws and actions by platforms, people bent on using AI to create confusion “are going to do whatever they think they can get away with,” said Jerry McNerney, a senior policy adviser at the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

McNerney is a former member of Congress who was co-chair of the Congressional Artificial Intelligence Caucus.

“Trying to keep ahead of [such bad actors] with specific prohibitions is going to be a losing battle,” McNerney said in an interview, arguing that federal agencies and industry groups may have to come up with standards that are enforceable. “You need something more systemic.”

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.