Saturday, June 06, 2009
Two films
People Will Talk
This film was made in 1951, directed and written by the great Joe Mankiewicz and based on a play by Curt Goetz, which I imagine was quite different. Seen now, it's a curious movie - very old fashioned in some respects, very contemporary in others. Perhaps that's not surprising for a work of some quality - it will look ahead and yet be firmly of its own time.
The plot concerns a doctor, played by Cary Grant, who believes that people are healed - if they can be healed - more by the involved, sincere caring of a physician than by pills and procedures. This is the modern aspect of the film. I am sympathetic with this approach to medicine, but it is curious that in the film the main beneficiary of Grant's imaginative approach is a woman who clearly is dying and whom he helps prepare for death. Of course, he also helps a young woman, played by Jeanne Crain, but this is not so believable.
That is the second prong of the plot: the young woman is pregnant, by a man with whom evidently she had only a very brief relationship before he went off to war and (I think) didn't return. She is so distraught at the prospect of being an unwed mother that she tries to kill herself. This is the part of the movie that is painfully dated. Worse, even in the context of the period, it doesn't seem credible. Matters are not helped by the fact that Crain is, in my view, a painfully weak actress.
Of course, and you knew this was coming, she falls in love with Cary Grant. (Grant's character, by the way, is Dr. Praetorius. Presumably this was the character's name in the original play, but it was a strange choice for Mankiewicz to keep it. Dr. Pretorius was also a character in Bride of Frankenstein.) Who wouldn't? Has there ever been a male movie star more appealing than Cary Grant? Or one who looked better in a suit? But I don't mean to trivialize him, not at all. I have always thought he was an excellent film actor, and he's fine here.
The sub-plot involves the machinations of a jealous academic doctor, played by the odious Hume Cronyn - who was better at playing a small man? - who tries to have Praetorius removed from his position at the university for being a "quack". I suspect that this aspect of the plot played a larger role in the original play. Certainly, the climactic scene in which Grant is tried at a hearing before the faculty is very stagy. Of course, Cronyn's plot blows up in his face - and just in time for Grant to conduct the university amateur orchestra and chorus in Brahms's "Academic Festival Overture", the theme of which has been annoyingly used throughout the movie.
I don't wish to leave without mentioning what I thought was an incredible performance by Finlay Currie as Shunderson (again, a German name that seems weird in this setting), a mysterious man who appears to be Dr. Praetorius's manservant. In fact, there is a wonderful story behind Shunderson's devotion to Praetorius, which is revealed during the "trial". Suffice it to say that Currie gives his character a beautiful dignity, and his performance is both amusing and moving.
All in all, this is not Mankiewicz's best work - which, at least as a writer, was already behind him - but it's still an entertaining and interesting movie.
Wendy and Lucy
This movie came out last year. It won the Toronto Film Critics Association Award both for Best Picture and Best Performance, Female, by Michelle Williams. I also read a very favourable review in the New York Review of Books by Jonathan Raban, although Raban was more interested in the short story by Jonathan Raymond on which it's based.
I must say that I thought this was a very good movie, but hardly as good as all that. It's very much a minimalist film - in fact it's about as minimalist as you can get. It shows Wendy, a young woman competently played by Williams, who's on the road to Alaska - from Muncie, Indiana - to find employment in the canneries. At the time the movie begin - and ends, only 80 minutes later - she's in Portland, Oregon. Now let's stop right there. Do they really pay that well to process fish in Alaska that it makes sense to drive all the way there from Indiana? I am prepared to accept that unemployment might be high in Muncie and in Portland - but was there nothing available in between? We're told nothing about Wendy's abilities or education or experience, and presumably all three are limited, but it still didn't make sense to me.
Not that it really matters. The movie is an episode, like a short story, and carries no overt message. It's just about this young woman who's unemployed, and how tough that is. There's nothing exaggerated or melodramatic about it. She gets arrested for shoplifting some dog food; her car breaks down; she gets accosted (but not assaulted) by an emotionally disturbed man while she sleeps in the woods because she has nowhere else to sleep. She meets a security guard who treats her kindly. Most importantly, she loses her dog, Lucy; she finds her again; but ultimately she has to leave her because she doesn't have enough money to look after her. At the end of the movie, she hops a freight car, just like a hobo from a Depression-era movie.
It's sad. Not tragic, just sad. When she's detained by the smug, young, Christian store clerk for shoplifting, he says, "If you can't afford dog food, you shouldn't have a dog." When she tells the security guard the difficulty (is it really an impossibility?) of getting a job without a fixed address, he says, "You can't get an address without an address. You can't get a job without a job. It's all fixed." Maybe they're both right.
As I said, this movie does not have an overt message, and I don't think it even has an implied one. It is what it is, as they say. It's a story, told honestly and persuasively. There's nothing wrong with that.
This film was made in 1951, directed and written by the great Joe Mankiewicz and based on a play by Curt Goetz, which I imagine was quite different. Seen now, it's a curious movie - very old fashioned in some respects, very contemporary in others. Perhaps that's not surprising for a work of some quality - it will look ahead and yet be firmly of its own time.
The plot concerns a doctor, played by Cary Grant, who believes that people are healed - if they can be healed - more by the involved, sincere caring of a physician than by pills and procedures. This is the modern aspect of the film. I am sympathetic with this approach to medicine, but it is curious that in the film the main beneficiary of Grant's imaginative approach is a woman who clearly is dying and whom he helps prepare for death. Of course, he also helps a young woman, played by Jeanne Crain, but this is not so believable.
That is the second prong of the plot: the young woman is pregnant, by a man with whom evidently she had only a very brief relationship before he went off to war and (I think) didn't return. She is so distraught at the prospect of being an unwed mother that she tries to kill herself. This is the part of the movie that is painfully dated. Worse, even in the context of the period, it doesn't seem credible. Matters are not helped by the fact that Crain is, in my view, a painfully weak actress.
Of course, and you knew this was coming, she falls in love with Cary Grant. (Grant's character, by the way, is Dr. Praetorius. Presumably this was the character's name in the original play, but it was a strange choice for Mankiewicz to keep it. Dr. Pretorius was also a character in Bride of Frankenstein.) Who wouldn't? Has there ever been a male movie star more appealing than Cary Grant? Or one who looked better in a suit? But I don't mean to trivialize him, not at all. I have always thought he was an excellent film actor, and he's fine here.
The sub-plot involves the machinations of a jealous academic doctor, played by the odious Hume Cronyn - who was better at playing a small man? - who tries to have Praetorius removed from his position at the university for being a "quack". I suspect that this aspect of the plot played a larger role in the original play. Certainly, the climactic scene in which Grant is tried at a hearing before the faculty is very stagy. Of course, Cronyn's plot blows up in his face - and just in time for Grant to conduct the university amateur orchestra and chorus in Brahms's "Academic Festival Overture", the theme of which has been annoyingly used throughout the movie.
I don't wish to leave without mentioning what I thought was an incredible performance by Finlay Currie as Shunderson (again, a German name that seems weird in this setting), a mysterious man who appears to be Dr. Praetorius's manservant. In fact, there is a wonderful story behind Shunderson's devotion to Praetorius, which is revealed during the "trial". Suffice it to say that Currie gives his character a beautiful dignity, and his performance is both amusing and moving.
All in all, this is not Mankiewicz's best work - which, at least as a writer, was already behind him - but it's still an entertaining and interesting movie.
Wendy and Lucy
This movie came out last year. It won the Toronto Film Critics Association Award both for Best Picture and Best Performance, Female, by Michelle Williams. I also read a very favourable review in the New York Review of Books by Jonathan Raban, although Raban was more interested in the short story by Jonathan Raymond on which it's based.
I must say that I thought this was a very good movie, but hardly as good as all that. It's very much a minimalist film - in fact it's about as minimalist as you can get. It shows Wendy, a young woman competently played by Williams, who's on the road to Alaska - from Muncie, Indiana - to find employment in the canneries. At the time the movie begin - and ends, only 80 minutes later - she's in Portland, Oregon. Now let's stop right there. Do they really pay that well to process fish in Alaska that it makes sense to drive all the way there from Indiana? I am prepared to accept that unemployment might be high in Muncie and in Portland - but was there nothing available in between? We're told nothing about Wendy's abilities or education or experience, and presumably all three are limited, but it still didn't make sense to me.
Not that it really matters. The movie is an episode, like a short story, and carries no overt message. It's just about this young woman who's unemployed, and how tough that is. There's nothing exaggerated or melodramatic about it. She gets arrested for shoplifting some dog food; her car breaks down; she gets accosted (but not assaulted) by an emotionally disturbed man while she sleeps in the woods because she has nowhere else to sleep. She meets a security guard who treats her kindly. Most importantly, she loses her dog, Lucy; she finds her again; but ultimately she has to leave her because she doesn't have enough money to look after her. At the end of the movie, she hops a freight car, just like a hobo from a Depression-era movie.
It's sad. Not tragic, just sad. When she's detained by the smug, young, Christian store clerk for shoplifting, he says, "If you can't afford dog food, you shouldn't have a dog." When she tells the security guard the difficulty (is it really an impossibility?) of getting a job without a fixed address, he says, "You can't get an address without an address. You can't get a job without a job. It's all fixed." Maybe they're both right.
As I said, this movie does not have an overt message, and I don't think it even has an implied one. It is what it is, as they say. It's a story, told honestly and persuasively. There's nothing wrong with that.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Conference finals wrap-up and Cup prediction
One up, one down, but a bonus point for the Detroit series. So cumulatively I'm 9/14, 12 points.
Pittsburgh 4 Carolina 3. I certainly didn't see this coming. The Canes ran out of gas. I'll give Boston credit and say that they wore them down. As it turned out, Ward did not outplay Fleury; and the Carolina depth was nowhere in evidence. And clearly I underrated the Penguins, or at least their momentum and determination.
Detroit 4 Chicago 1. Got this one on the money. Detroit was just way too much.
And now, the Cup. Of course, as everyone has pointed out, it's a rematch of last year's final - the first rematch since Edmonton beat the Islanders. I remember that series. At least, I remember this much: I thought the Isles would win, and I was wrong. (I picked the Oilers in the first meeting, and I was wrong that time too.) And I remember the defending champions looking very old and very slow. So will this year be a replay of that changing of the guard? I don't think so, and here's why.
First, Pittsburgh in 2009 is not the Oilers of 1984. Yes, they have Malkin and Crosby, and they're both playing terrific hockey right now. But while Sid may be another Messier in terms of leadership, and better than him as a playmaker, Malkin is not quite Gretzky. The third centre on that Oilers team was Ken Linseman. Eat my dust, Jordan Staal. And who is Pittsburgh's Kurri? Its Glenn Anderson? Obviously, there is no one close. On defence, Sergei Gonchar is pretty good, but he's not in the same league as Paul Coffey. Defensively, Edmonton's remaining corps of Kevin Lowe, Charlie Huddy, Lee Fogolin, and Randy Gregg was way better than Pittsburgh's group. In goal, Fleury is not better than Grant Fuhr.
Second, the 2009 Red Wings are better than the 1984 Islanders. Not a lot better, I think, but deeper. The Islanders had Trottier, Bossy, Gillies, Brent Sutter, and Greg Gilbert all playing well offensively. John Tonelli was still in his prime, but had a poor play-offs. Other forwards were slowing down (e.g., Butch Goring, Bob Nystrom) or not there yet (e.g., Pat LaFontaine). The Red Wings have Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa, Franzen, Cleary, Filppula, Helm, Hudler, and Samuelsson. That's nine, and the rest of the cast aren't slouches either. On defence, Nicklas Lidstrom is the equal of the great Denis Potvin. The rest of the defence crew, however, is far superior in my view to what the Islanders had. (And, more importantly, what the Pens have.) Chris Osgood is in many ways similar to Billy Smith - a tough, money goalie.
Okay, Pittsburgh is more ready this year than they were last year. They come in with a lot of momentum. They're young and they're fast. Except for the first factor, all of these things also applied to the Hawks, and the Red Wings crushed them. (Okay, assuming Fleury doesn't get hurt, they're not going to hand Detroit easy goals.) The schedule favours Pittsburgh, and so does the injury situation, although Lidstrom and Ericsson are expected to play in game 1 and I expect Datsyuk will return for game 2 or at worst game 3. Still, the Wings are just too deep, too skilled, too disciplined, too well coached, and too damn good.
Detroit 4 Pittsburgh 3.
Pittsburgh 4 Carolina 3. I certainly didn't see this coming. The Canes ran out of gas. I'll give Boston credit and say that they wore them down. As it turned out, Ward did not outplay Fleury; and the Carolina depth was nowhere in evidence. And clearly I underrated the Penguins, or at least their momentum and determination.
Detroit 4 Chicago 1. Got this one on the money. Detroit was just way too much.
And now, the Cup. Of course, as everyone has pointed out, it's a rematch of last year's final - the first rematch since Edmonton beat the Islanders. I remember that series. At least, I remember this much: I thought the Isles would win, and I was wrong. (I picked the Oilers in the first meeting, and I was wrong that time too.) And I remember the defending champions looking very old and very slow. So will this year be a replay of that changing of the guard? I don't think so, and here's why.
First, Pittsburgh in 2009 is not the Oilers of 1984. Yes, they have Malkin and Crosby, and they're both playing terrific hockey right now. But while Sid may be another Messier in terms of leadership, and better than him as a playmaker, Malkin is not quite Gretzky. The third centre on that Oilers team was Ken Linseman. Eat my dust, Jordan Staal. And who is Pittsburgh's Kurri? Its Glenn Anderson? Obviously, there is no one close. On defence, Sergei Gonchar is pretty good, but he's not in the same league as Paul Coffey. Defensively, Edmonton's remaining corps of Kevin Lowe, Charlie Huddy, Lee Fogolin, and Randy Gregg was way better than Pittsburgh's group. In goal, Fleury is not better than Grant Fuhr.
Second, the 2009 Red Wings are better than the 1984 Islanders. Not a lot better, I think, but deeper. The Islanders had Trottier, Bossy, Gillies, Brent Sutter, and Greg Gilbert all playing well offensively. John Tonelli was still in his prime, but had a poor play-offs. Other forwards were slowing down (e.g., Butch Goring, Bob Nystrom) or not there yet (e.g., Pat LaFontaine). The Red Wings have Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa, Franzen, Cleary, Filppula, Helm, Hudler, and Samuelsson. That's nine, and the rest of the cast aren't slouches either. On defence, Nicklas Lidstrom is the equal of the great Denis Potvin. The rest of the defence crew, however, is far superior in my view to what the Islanders had. (And, more importantly, what the Pens have.) Chris Osgood is in many ways similar to Billy Smith - a tough, money goalie.
Okay, Pittsburgh is more ready this year than they were last year. They come in with a lot of momentum. They're young and they're fast. Except for the first factor, all of these things also applied to the Hawks, and the Red Wings crushed them. (Okay, assuming Fleury doesn't get hurt, they're not going to hand Detroit easy goals.) The schedule favours Pittsburgh, and so does the injury situation, although Lidstrom and Ericsson are expected to play in game 1 and I expect Datsyuk will return for game 2 or at worst game 3. Still, the Wings are just too deep, too skilled, too disciplined, too well coached, and too damn good.
Detroit 4 Pittsburgh 3.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Street food
After a very long wait with plenty of attendant hoopla, the new A La Cart street foods are available. Yonge and St. Clair got the jerk chicken, and I tried it today.
Very disappointing. It's a chicken breast, presumably marinated or at least dusted in a jerk dressing, charcoal broiled, wrapped in a pita with some shredded lettuce and mango strips. Sounds good, eh? But the chicken was dry, the lettuce crappy, and the mango a bit underripe. Worst, the jerk was missing any pepper. It had some flavour, but it was so bland. They've got to spice it up and add some sauce or dressing. And it was five bucks!
So street dog is still king, at least at this corner. An Italian sausage is only $3.50, is more filling, and - given the fat content - much moister. Plus you can get a drink, which the jerk cart doesn't offer.
One more point. As I was about to pay, the lady doing the transactions - I don't know who she is, the operators are a Jamaican man and woman - asked me to go around the "front" because I was with Archie. Hey, lady, you're on the sidewalk! What's Archie supposed to do, walk on the street? He's already walked past your cart about six times since you opened. Also, your front is where your back should be. That is, you're selling to pedestrians, you should be facing the pedestrian traffic, not the street. In fact, they face the street (I assume) because they want to attract cars going by, which they do. And parking enforcement, who is already cleaning up from this operation. When I was coming back from Sobey's, the lady was talking to an inspector from the City. I wonder if he mentioned that.
As we got home, I saw Angry Drunk Guy having a beer in the sports bar patio. I almost didn't recognize him at first: he looked sane. It struck me that he must come here around lunch time and drink all day until he's completely pissed.
It's Mr. T's birthday. He's 57. Another guy who ought to be older than me but isn't.
Very disappointing. It's a chicken breast, presumably marinated or at least dusted in a jerk dressing, charcoal broiled, wrapped in a pita with some shredded lettuce and mango strips. Sounds good, eh? But the chicken was dry, the lettuce crappy, and the mango a bit underripe. Worst, the jerk was missing any pepper. It had some flavour, but it was so bland. They've got to spice it up and add some sauce or dressing. And it was five bucks!
So street dog is still king, at least at this corner. An Italian sausage is only $3.50, is more filling, and - given the fat content - much moister. Plus you can get a drink, which the jerk cart doesn't offer.
One more point. As I was about to pay, the lady doing the transactions - I don't know who she is, the operators are a Jamaican man and woman - asked me to go around the "front" because I was with Archie. Hey, lady, you're on the sidewalk! What's Archie supposed to do, walk on the street? He's already walked past your cart about six times since you opened. Also, your front is where your back should be. That is, you're selling to pedestrians, you should be facing the pedestrian traffic, not the street. In fact, they face the street (I assume) because they want to attract cars going by, which they do. And parking enforcement, who is already cleaning up from this operation. When I was coming back from Sobey's, the lady was talking to an inspector from the City. I wonder if he mentioned that.
As we got home, I saw Angry Drunk Guy having a beer in the sports bar patio. I almost didn't recognize him at first: he looked sane. It struck me that he must come here around lunch time and drink all day until he's completely pissed.
It's Mr. T's birthday. He's 57. Another guy who ought to be older than me but isn't.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Second round wrap-up and conference final predictions
A decent performance: 2 points, plus 1 bonus point, for total of 3. Cumulative score: 8/12, 10 points.
Carolina 4 Boston 3. This was, aside from being a great disappointment, a surprise. The reason, I think, was the collapse of the Bruins power play. Claude Julien is a fine coach and did an excellent job all season with the Bruins, but I can't help thinking that he should have been able to find a way to adjust to whatever it was - collapsing in front of the net, it seemed to me - that allowed Carolina to shut down the Boston power play. I must also admit that I did not realize how solid the Hurricanes are.
Pittsburgh 4 Washington 3. I had this one fairly well handicapped. The problem was certainly not Ovechkin -he played Crosby to a draw - but the secondary players. Malkin played very well for the last five games of the series, while Semin and Green never produced. And of course in the 7th game, Varlamov cracked like a teacup. Again, I think there was a coaching mismatch here. But Scotty Bowman couldn't have taught the Caps to play defence when they haven't really done it all year.
Detroit 4 Anaheim 3. I had this one.
Chicago 4 Vancouver 2. Luongo Shmuongo.
And now, the next round.
Carolina 4 Pittsburgh 3. Pittsburgh has home-ice advantage, but that doesn't seem to matter. I think Carolina is a better team: they beat New Jersey and Boston to get here, Pittsburgh beat Philadelphia and Washington. Fleury can be very good, but Ward is better. He's the best goalie left in the play-offs by quite a margin. Pittsburgh has Crosby and Malkin, and Carolina has not had to face two top offensive players at the same time yet. But they don't panic, and they're much deeper than Pittsburgh.
Detroit 4 Chicago 1. Sorry, Hawks fans, but the party's over. Yes, Chicago has a lot of talent, they're hot, and they're confident. But they haven't faced anything close to the juggernaut that is the Red Wings, who can beat you any way you want to play it. If Chicago steals a game in Detroit they might make it interesting, but I think they'll lose both of the first two and the bubble will have burst - especially if one or both of those games isn't close.
Carolina 4 Boston 3. This was, aside from being a great disappointment, a surprise. The reason, I think, was the collapse of the Bruins power play. Claude Julien is a fine coach and did an excellent job all season with the Bruins, but I can't help thinking that he should have been able to find a way to adjust to whatever it was - collapsing in front of the net, it seemed to me - that allowed Carolina to shut down the Boston power play. I must also admit that I did not realize how solid the Hurricanes are.
Pittsburgh 4 Washington 3. I had this one fairly well handicapped. The problem was certainly not Ovechkin -he played Crosby to a draw - but the secondary players. Malkin played very well for the last five games of the series, while Semin and Green never produced. And of course in the 7th game, Varlamov cracked like a teacup. Again, I think there was a coaching mismatch here. But Scotty Bowman couldn't have taught the Caps to play defence when they haven't really done it all year.
Detroit 4 Anaheim 3. I had this one.
Chicago 4 Vancouver 2. Luongo Shmuongo.
And now, the next round.
Carolina 4 Pittsburgh 3. Pittsburgh has home-ice advantage, but that doesn't seem to matter. I think Carolina is a better team: they beat New Jersey and Boston to get here, Pittsburgh beat Philadelphia and Washington. Fleury can be very good, but Ward is better. He's the best goalie left in the play-offs by quite a margin. Pittsburgh has Crosby and Malkin, and Carolina has not had to face two top offensive players at the same time yet. But they don't panic, and they're much deeper than Pittsburgh.
Detroit 4 Chicago 1. Sorry, Hawks fans, but the party's over. Yes, Chicago has a lot of talent, they're hot, and they're confident. But they haven't faced anything close to the juggernaut that is the Red Wings, who can beat you any way you want to play it. If Chicago steals a game in Detroit they might make it interesting, but I think they'll lose both of the first two and the bubble will have burst - especially if one or both of those games isn't close.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
First round wrap-up and second round predictions
A very creditable performance, I think: 6-2 with a bonus point for 7 points total.
Boston 4 Montreal 0. I gave Montreal a game, based largely on the history of the play-off rivalry between these two clubs. But when the disparity in talent is so great, history doesn't even count that much. Montreal's showing was really quite pitiful. And Carey Price never threatened to steal a game, let alone the series.
Washington 4 New York 3. If Boudreau had played Varlamov in game 1, my prediction of 4-2 might have been right on. As it was, New York managed to cough up the series. Lundqvist wasn't quite good enough to salvage the Rangers, who really were anemic on offence. As predicted, talent counts.
Carolina 4 New Jersey 3. Another great comeback win gives me my bonus point. Just like I said, Ward outplayed Brodeur, particularly in the decisive game, in which Brodeur gave up two goals, including the stunning winner, low to the stick side. As the colour commentator on TSN (Ray Ferraro?) said, with the rules now in effect in the NHL, it's harder to sit on a lead in the 3rd period, as New Jersey used to do when they were winning Cups, and as they tried to do in game 7.
Pittsburgh 4 Philadelphia 2. Completing my sweep of the Eastern Conference. As predicted, the Penguins' edge in goal proved decisive - although the Flyers had other deficits too.
Anaheim 4 San Jose 2. I was wrong, but I'm not that surprised. I recognized the Sharks were capable of choking, and they did. What I did not foresee was how well Jonas Hiller would play. And how could I? I never even heard of the guy.
Detroit 4 Columbus 0. The Wings started quickly, and didn't let up. Mason was not as great as I thought he might be. The play-offs are not the regular season. Without a hot goalie, this was men versus boys.
Vancouver 4 St. Louis 0. This was a surpise. I really thought St. Louis would show more than they did, and Vancouver less. And Luongo is pretty damn good.
Chicago 4 Calgary 2. Another surprise, although a pleasant one, since I don't like the Flames. Mind you, I did recognize that Chicago could win; I just didn't think they would do it this decisively. They have a lot of offensive talent. But Kiprasoff did not play very well, neither did Iginla, and Calgary got banged up.
So ... now for my second round predictions. These are more difficult. There are two mismatches in terms of regular season points - Boston (116) over Carolina (97) and Detroit (112) over Anaheim (91), but that is misleading because of the strong second-half play of the latter teams and their solid performances in the first round. The other two mismatches appear pretty even. But, choices must be made, so here are mine.
Boston 4 Carolina 2. This is a good match-up for the Bruins. They won all four games against the Hurricanes this year. Yes, Carolina did beat New Jersey in dramatic fashion, and Cam Ward is playing very well; but the Bruins have a lot more offence than the Devils, and if they get the lead they won't sit on it. Their power play is also much, much better than Carolina's.
Washington 4 Pittsburgh 3. This one could go either way, and probably depends on which team's superstar plays better. In head-to-head match-ups, Ovechkin has usually outplayed Crosby. On the other hand, Ovechkin is capable of trying to do too much, to the detriment of his team. I think Fleury is a better goaltender than Varlamov, who hasn't really been tested all that much so far. The Penguins didn't get a lot of support for Crosby and Malkin against Philly; and even at the best of times, I would say the Capitals are deeper. They also have home-ice advantage, and the way their fans are going crazy at present, that might count for quite a bit.
Detroit 4 Anaheim 3. Anaheim is playing well now, obviously; and if they upset San Jose, they ought to be able to upset the Wings. But I don't think they will. If they keep taking penalties in their usual fashion, the Detroit power play will torch them. Jonas Hiller was great in the first round, but will he play as well once he starts getting beat? I have my doubts. Holmstren and Franzen will be crashing the net.
Chicago 4 Vancouver 3. This is the hardest one to call, in my opinion. Chicago is better than I realized, and they have a lot of confidence now. Vancouver has home-ice advantage, but Chicago proved it can win on the road. If the series gets very physical, I think they have the edge. Vancouver definitely has the edge in goal, but if Khabibulin plays as well in this series as he did in the first, that should be good enough.
Boston 4 Montreal 0. I gave Montreal a game, based largely on the history of the play-off rivalry between these two clubs. But when the disparity in talent is so great, history doesn't even count that much. Montreal's showing was really quite pitiful. And Carey Price never threatened to steal a game, let alone the series.
Washington 4 New York 3. If Boudreau had played Varlamov in game 1, my prediction of 4-2 might have been right on. As it was, New York managed to cough up the series. Lundqvist wasn't quite good enough to salvage the Rangers, who really were anemic on offence. As predicted, talent counts.
Carolina 4 New Jersey 3. Another great comeback win gives me my bonus point. Just like I said, Ward outplayed Brodeur, particularly in the decisive game, in which Brodeur gave up two goals, including the stunning winner, low to the stick side. As the colour commentator on TSN (Ray Ferraro?) said, with the rules now in effect in the NHL, it's harder to sit on a lead in the 3rd period, as New Jersey used to do when they were winning Cups, and as they tried to do in game 7.
Pittsburgh 4 Philadelphia 2. Completing my sweep of the Eastern Conference. As predicted, the Penguins' edge in goal proved decisive - although the Flyers had other deficits too.
Anaheim 4 San Jose 2. I was wrong, but I'm not that surprised. I recognized the Sharks were capable of choking, and they did. What I did not foresee was how well Jonas Hiller would play. And how could I? I never even heard of the guy.
Detroit 4 Columbus 0. The Wings started quickly, and didn't let up. Mason was not as great as I thought he might be. The play-offs are not the regular season. Without a hot goalie, this was men versus boys.
Vancouver 4 St. Louis 0. This was a surpise. I really thought St. Louis would show more than they did, and Vancouver less. And Luongo is pretty damn good.
Chicago 4 Calgary 2. Another surprise, although a pleasant one, since I don't like the Flames. Mind you, I did recognize that Chicago could win; I just didn't think they would do it this decisively. They have a lot of offensive talent. But Kiprasoff did not play very well, neither did Iginla, and Calgary got banged up.
So ... now for my second round predictions. These are more difficult. There are two mismatches in terms of regular season points - Boston (116) over Carolina (97) and Detroit (112) over Anaheim (91), but that is misleading because of the strong second-half play of the latter teams and their solid performances in the first round. The other two mismatches appear pretty even. But, choices must be made, so here are mine.
Boston 4 Carolina 2. This is a good match-up for the Bruins. They won all four games against the Hurricanes this year. Yes, Carolina did beat New Jersey in dramatic fashion, and Cam Ward is playing very well; but the Bruins have a lot more offence than the Devils, and if they get the lead they won't sit on it. Their power play is also much, much better than Carolina's.
Washington 4 Pittsburgh 3. This one could go either way, and probably depends on which team's superstar plays better. In head-to-head match-ups, Ovechkin has usually outplayed Crosby. On the other hand, Ovechkin is capable of trying to do too much, to the detriment of his team. I think Fleury is a better goaltender than Varlamov, who hasn't really been tested all that much so far. The Penguins didn't get a lot of support for Crosby and Malkin against Philly; and even at the best of times, I would say the Capitals are deeper. They also have home-ice advantage, and the way their fans are going crazy at present, that might count for quite a bit.
Detroit 4 Anaheim 3. Anaheim is playing well now, obviously; and if they upset San Jose, they ought to be able to upset the Wings. But I don't think they will. If they keep taking penalties in their usual fashion, the Detroit power play will torch them. Jonas Hiller was great in the first round, but will he play as well once he starts getting beat? I have my doubts. Holmstren and Franzen will be crashing the net.
Chicago 4 Vancouver 3. This is the hardest one to call, in my opinion. Chicago is better than I realized, and they have a lot of confidence now. Vancouver has home-ice advantage, but Chicago proved it can win on the road. If the series gets very physical, I think they have the edge. Vancouver definitely has the edge in goal, but if Khabibulin plays as well in this series as he did in the first, that should be good enough.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Stanley Cup play-off first round predictions
I haven't done this for awhile. J and I used to do it together, and I usually won. It's harder now, since I pay much less attention to hockey - and J has virtually no interest now - but what have I got to lose? I don't have anything to win either, but I suppose if I prognosticate well, it will give me some satisfaction. Why blog it? Well, there must be a record, mustn't there? As it happens, I picked Angel Cabrera to win the Masters - not before the event, but after the second round - but didn't tell anyone. This time, I have proof, baby.
So, herewith my fearless picks - with some comments.
1. Boston 4 Montreal 1. This is the Charlie Brown series. That is to say, the fucking Canadiens almost always (24-7) find a way to break my heart. Not this year, though. Boston is just way better, and Carey Price won't stand on his head this year, which is what it would take. Boston has owned Montreal during the season. I don't even give Montreal more than a game.
2. Washington 4 New York 2. Again, the Capitals are just way better than the Rangers, and handled them during the season. Here the underdog does have a goalie who can stand on his head. That's what it will take, because the Rangers just don't have enough scoring, especially on the power play.
3. Carolina 4 New Jersey 3. I'm going with the underdog here. Brodeur is not the goalie he once was. He can still play outstandingly in any given game, but he's much less consistent than he used to be, which was his hallmark. Yes, the Devils have great play-off experience, but the Hurricanes won the Cup more recently. Cam Ward won the Conn Smythe that year, and I would rather have him in net right now than Brodeur. Carolina was as hot as any team in the stretch.
4. Pittsburgh 4 Philadelphia 3. Once again, the Flyers will flounder because they don't have top goaltending.
5. San Jose 4 Anaheim 2. The Ducks did finish strong, but the Sharks were strong all year long. San Jose is capable of choking, but I don't think it will happen in the first round.
6. Detroit 4 Columbus 2. Detroit is also capable of losing in the first round, as they have done plenty of times in the past, particularly when facing a hot goalie. And no one is hotter than Steve Mason. I think he'll steal a couple of games, but I don't see the Wings letting him steal four, even if they start slowly.
7. Vancouver 4 St. Louis 3. This should be very close. Both teams were very strong in the second half of the season. The Blues haven't been in the play-offs for quite awhile, and I think their inexperience will show. Vancouver has the edge in goal.
8. Calgary 4 Chicago 3. I'm going with the underdog here, but there were only 6 points separating the teams during the regular season. Chicago is a better team and won all four games against the Flames this year, but like St. Louis this is their first year in the play-offs in some time and I think that will tell. If Khabibulin outplays Kiprusoff, however, this series could easily go the other way.
So, herewith my fearless picks - with some comments.
1. Boston 4 Montreal 1. This is the Charlie Brown series. That is to say, the fucking Canadiens almost always (24-7) find a way to break my heart. Not this year, though. Boston is just way better, and Carey Price won't stand on his head this year, which is what it would take. Boston has owned Montreal during the season. I don't even give Montreal more than a game.
2. Washington 4 New York 2. Again, the Capitals are just way better than the Rangers, and handled them during the season. Here the underdog does have a goalie who can stand on his head. That's what it will take, because the Rangers just don't have enough scoring, especially on the power play.
3. Carolina 4 New Jersey 3. I'm going with the underdog here. Brodeur is not the goalie he once was. He can still play outstandingly in any given game, but he's much less consistent than he used to be, which was his hallmark. Yes, the Devils have great play-off experience, but the Hurricanes won the Cup more recently. Cam Ward won the Conn Smythe that year, and I would rather have him in net right now than Brodeur. Carolina was as hot as any team in the stretch.
4. Pittsburgh 4 Philadelphia 3. Once again, the Flyers will flounder because they don't have top goaltending.
5. San Jose 4 Anaheim 2. The Ducks did finish strong, but the Sharks were strong all year long. San Jose is capable of choking, but I don't think it will happen in the first round.
6. Detroit 4 Columbus 2. Detroit is also capable of losing in the first round, as they have done plenty of times in the past, particularly when facing a hot goalie. And no one is hotter than Steve Mason. I think he'll steal a couple of games, but I don't see the Wings letting him steal four, even if they start slowly.
7. Vancouver 4 St. Louis 3. This should be very close. Both teams were very strong in the second half of the season. The Blues haven't been in the play-offs for quite awhile, and I think their inexperience will show. Vancouver has the edge in goal.
8. Calgary 4 Chicago 3. I'm going with the underdog here, but there were only 6 points separating the teams during the regular season. Chicago is a better team and won all four games against the Flames this year, but like St. Louis this is their first year in the play-offs in some time and I think that will tell. If Khabibulin outplays Kiprusoff, however, this series could easily go the other way.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Cirque du Bombast
I watched a bit of this last night. I've only seen them once live. That was a long time ago, here in Toronto, and I loved it. But it does seem to me there's a lot of padding in the show now. Half the time I was watching was taken up by the performers bowing and posturing and running on and off stage, goosing the audience to applaud. Subtract the bombastic music, the melodramatic lighting effects, and the glitzy costumes, and there's not really all that much going on.
I suppose the creator deserves credit from a business point of view for getting more buck for the bang - he does have some piddly spousal support obligations, after all - but it strikes me as aesthetically bad.
I suppose the creator deserves credit from a business point of view for getting more buck for the bang - he does have some piddly spousal support obligations, after all - but it strikes me as aesthetically bad.
