Shakespearean Geekery Du Jour - Elizabethan Mack Daddies

There are precious few accounts of Shakespeare that date from his lifetime, as opposed to memorial anecdotes from descendants of relatives, colleagues, townspeople, etc. I love this one, a contemporary joke about a romantic rivaly between Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, from the diary of Inner Temple law student John Manningham on 16 March 1601: (spelling updated)

"Upon a time when Burbage played Richard III, there was a citizen grown so far in liking with him, that before she went from the play she appointed him to come that night unto her by the name of Richard the Third. Shakespeare overhearing their conclusion went before, was entertained and at his game ere Burbage came. Then message being brought that Richard the Third was at the door, Shakespeare caused return to be made that William the Conqueror was before Richard the Third. Shakespeare's name William. (Mr Tonse)"

What can we conclusively prove from this? Not much, but it does suggest a lot of things. I hypothesize this joke was told to Manningham by "Mr Tonse," presumably a fellow student, hence the citation at the end. It's consequently unknown from whence Mr Tonse heard it, or if he invented it. If he did invent it, good on him. If not, it was a joke that was going around, so it suggests that Shakespeare and Burbage had sufficient celebrity status to merit being the subject of such jokes. There's little to suggest that this is an account of an actual event, no more so than a joke about any celebrity or politician pecadillos in Dave Letterman's opening monologue. But it could suggest that Shakes and Burby had a reputation for being Elizabethan mack daddies.

I also get a kick out of how Manningham feels compelled to explain the joke at the end, suggesting to me that although he appreciated a good joke, he wasn't all that good at delivery. Skimming through the diary (hooray for YahooBooks), it seems that all the clever or funny bits are cited from colleagues.

Even if it doesn't tell us anything definitive about Shakespeare or Burbage, it's still a funny joke.

Trust The Play: TheatreGuru Speaks

Thank you for climbing to the top of this high, craggy mountain to come and see me in my lonely cave, my child. Sit and rest yourself. Have a Snickers bar.

Now, what seems to be the trouble?

I see.

I understand. The theatre is struggling these days. It has been for quite a long time. Once theatre was the sole means of telling a story through acting. Then came cinema, radio, television, VCR/DVD/Tivo, the internet, etc. So if we are to commit to the theatre, we have to discover what it offers that these other media do not.

Quite right. Live performance. Direct connection and interaction with the audience. Every night a slightly different experience.

Nonetheless, we must not overlook the primary obligation of making theatre: to tell the story. The playwright wrote a story, and it's your job to deliver that story to the audience through good acting and efficient staging. Any additional distractive elements should be avoided.

These distractions can come in many different forms. Maybe you feel the need to inject a political statement onto the play. Some vaguely-defined directorial or design concept. A re-interpretation. In the recent past, I've seen Oscar Wilde done with all the men played by women and vice versa. The Scottish Play done entirely in the nude. One of my favorite plays, Overmeyer's On The Verge, done by a local Major Regional Theatre on a catwalk spanning a chasm (why?). And Chekhov's Cherry Orchard done... well, actually, I don't know what the fuck that one was all about... and I was in it.

What it boils down to is one thing, my child... you might want to write this down: trust the play.

Trust that the play itself, as written, contains all the elements required to be interesting: a good plot, interesting characters, conflicts, humor, tragedy, whatever. You chose to do it - unless you owe the playwright a favor - so the play must therefore have some redeemable qualities and you are aware of them. So trust them.

Bend your choices around the play, not the play around your choices.

That doesn't mean play it safe. Risk big, but risk in the service of the script.

Thank you. Take a Snickers for the road.

Doctor Who Geekery Report - Matt Smith's First Season

Spoiler Alert.

I've finished watching the newest season of Dr Who, with Matt Smith as the Doctor.

I like Matt a lot, much more than I thought I would when he was announced. I confess to a bit of age prejudice, given that he's only 27. But he succeeds in capturing the essence of the Doctor. He's alien, he's funny, he's dark, he's hyperintelligent, he's awkward... he evokes the classic era of Doctor Who, where characterization trumped - by necessity - special effects. He has the rumpled integrity of Patrick Troughton and the boyish charm of Peter Davison.

He does lack, however, the gravitas of Tom Baker, as well as the sexy charisma of his predecessor David Tennant, and I suspect that over the long term this may prove detrimental to the show. Tennant was responsible for expanding the show's appeal globally. It grew, over three years, into a show that was must-see viewing, rivalling Lost, Battlestar Galactica, and even it's own spinoff Torchwood. I don't know if the new fans that the show gained with Tennant will stick around.

The companion is a plus. Amy Pond is likable, self-sufficient, spunky, tortured, and really pretty. I'm largely immune to that last quality, but she also scores points for a Scots Burr that, unlike Tennant, she doesn't mask for the role. And I adore Rory and their relationship.

I also love River Song. Her character is the greatest non-Companion addition to the series since the Brigadier and the Master, and she's skirting the dividing line of actually being more interesting than the Doctor.

So what's missing?

Why aren't I as emotionally invested in this season as I've been with the other New Series seasons? Why am I more excited about receiving The Time Monster, Underworld, and The Chase (arguably the worst stories in the Classic Series' canon) on DVD in the mail this week?

The stories are decent. The writing is solid (which I figured would be a given, with Moffat producing). So why am I missing Russell T Davies and his occasionally questionable contributions to the program? Thankfully there are no farting aliens, no Jackie Tyler, no pigs in space uniforms, no Absorbaloffs, no smarmy Captain Jack, no dredging up Rose Tyler yet again, no instant daughter, no human/Dalek hybrids, no Mini-Me Doctor...

...but then again, for every one of those forehead slapping moments, there was the iconic moment or the brilliant idea: the Doctor meeting a Dalek for the first time since the Time War, "Are You My Mummy?", Rose and her father, Sarah Jane and K9 returning, Daleks vs Cybermen, the Asteroid containing Satan's lair, the Doctor losing Rose, the Chameleon Arch turning the Doctor human, the entire episode of Blink, the return of the Master, the chill of Dr Moon: "your reality is a lie, and your nightmares are real"... I could go on.

If there's a fault in the Matt Smith/Steven Moffat era thus far, is that it's too safe. They're not going big. The crack in time is a very solid unifying concept, but I kept waiting for that big choice. That over-the-top, fandom-splitting, attention-getting moment that attracts the interest of the non-fan. Though hardly boring, I can't think of a Major Iconic Moment this season. We got another old enemy returning, but so far removed in design and characterization that I wondered why they bothered. They brought back a Cyberman, but by making it say "You Will Be Assimilated", it's not even pretending to be anything else than Budget Borg. They tried to go for the big Emotive Moment with the Van Gogh episode, but not only did I feel manipulated, but I kept wondering why they broke the Cardinal Rule of time travel by bringing him forward to the present day and making him aware of his legacy? Why was I shocked but not shattered when Rory died?

They almost hit it a few times. The big reveal of the nature of The Beast Below. The unexpected humor in "Vampires" and "Lodger". The Valeyard-evoking Dream Lord. There are no clunkers this season (although Victory of the Daleks and Hungry Earth/Cold Blood come close), but no home runs.

To take that baseball metaphor further: with RTD we got a lot of strikeouts, but a lot of home runs and bottom-of-the-ninth walk-offs. With Moffat, we got a steady streak of singles and pitchers duels. Singles win games too, but lack the drama and celebratory catharsis of homers. What baseball game would you rather watch?

I'm not overly worried, but I want more. You've got nine months, guys. Get moving.

A Tale of Two Fringe Shows

Dear readers: I've been lax lately in my postings. I blame Twitter and Facebook. Why post a blog when a tweet or status update will suffice, says my ever-dwindling attention span. I note that I have as many draft postings as I do live posts. I'm great at starting, and need to work on getting to the end.

I just closed my second production of the Capital Fringe Festival, Steven Dietz's The Nina Variations. I was hoping to repeat (and thereby build upon) the success of last year's Bad Hamlet, which was an award-winning sleeper hit that sold out its last two performances and was an arguable profile-raiser both for me and my producing banner, the Adequate Players.

Well, Nina didn't quite capture the same lightning in a bottle.

It was a very solid and successful production from an artistic standpoint (Melissa and Kevin, you were marvellous, and Bob, you rock), but otherwise? We played to less than 40% capacity, and after Fringe Pass discounts and press and producer comps, even with a smaller cast (2 vs 6), a director working for free, no stage manager or designers, no set or costume expenses, minimal prop purchases, etc., this is one Fringe producer who is taking a bath. My percentage of ticket revenue might just cover my two actors' and one techie's stipends. No luck in recouping the participation fee, insurance fee, script royalties, or publicity expenses. Oh well.

It occurred to me just how fortunate I was with Bad Hamlet; above and beyond the quality of the show and the people working on it, we caught a favorable confluence of circumstances that set the stage for a success above and beyond my most optimistic expectations. (As a producer, it's fine enough to have a great show, but better still to have a great show that gets great press, sells out and wins awards.)

To say that Nina didn't catch that same confluence is not to declare it a failure, nor to point the finger of blame at anyone. Both shows were great. We got lucky last year. We weren't as lucky this year.

Let's compare:

Venue:
The Bedroom (Nina), versus the Bodega (Hamlet). Both are 'found spaces'. The Bodega was larger, the Bedroom was slightly cooler (better AC). Neither venue had bathrooms, neither was ADA compliant, both had significant sound bleed between neighboring venues.
Result: a wash... to get the sweat smell off.

Timeslot:
Bad Hamlet - Twelve days passed between our opening and closing shows. We opened with back-to-back shows Saturday night and Sunday afternoon, were off until the following Friday, then another Sunday afternoon show, and a Wednesday evening close. Between show 2 and 3, we had a full workweek for our good reviews to come out and generate buzz, and then a good solid 5 days afterwards on which to capitalize. And we did; show 3 was nearly full and the final two shows were sellouts.

Nina Variations - Our five performances were compressed over an eight-day period, opening on a late Friday (11:30pm) and closing the late Saturday (11:15). Our most favorable reviews came out the day before our closing show, leaving hardly any time to capitalize. I recognize in saying this that other Fringe productions had as brief a run as mine, and did just as well if not better. I present the two cases merely as comparison.
Winner: Bad Hamlet coasts the final length

Pre-Show Publicity:
Bad Hamlet: Apart from one blog interview from a colleague, none.

Nina Variations: Seeing the level of other shows' pre-Fringe media blitzes last year taught me the value of generating early buzz. I sent two rounds of press releases, had postcards ready before Source Fest, and Bob took a fabulous promo pic (see above) that appeared in the Post and its daily digest, The Express.
Winner: Nina, by a flock of (dead stuffed) seagulls.

Reviews:
Bad Hamlet: Although I did little to actually encourage them to do so, practically all the local media covering Fringe came, and came early. As a result their reviews, almost all of them positive, all came in a big mid-week cluster a week or so before the end of our run. Our ticket sales for our latter three shows exploded. And either through luck or by design, practically all the reviews contained perfect quote nuggets that I could capitalize upon for future marketing. "A Fringe Must-See"... "Fascinating and wonderful to watch"... etc.

Nina Variations: Only one critic at opening, so until the day of our penultimate performance the only review was DCTC's decidedly mixed assessment; not exactly a buzz-generator. The Post followed Wednesday with warmer but similar sentiments. DCist apparently skipped over us this year, and we got exactly the review I expected on Allartsreview4u; no link is warranted or merited. For what it was worth, Rich Massabny of Arlington Weekly News came on Tuesday and gave us a brief but glowing online review (skip to the end) that came Friday. The City Paper's Fringe & Purge "Hip Shot" that came late Friday was by its own admission a cop-out. Having run out of time to write a thorough review, this picture served as the critical evaluation in lieu of a deeper study that I hope will follow, either posted publicly or shared privately.
Oh, and our quote nuggets? Read on.

"An interesting approach, but only a partial success." - DCTC
"The novelty started to wear off..." - WaPo
"When are people going to realize that Chekhov's plays are already perfect
and don't require any deconstruction or re-imagining?" - Express (that was
supposed to be a joke, right?)
"It appears that I may not be able to produce an actual Hip Shot before its
final performance" - Fringe & Purge (City Paper)

Winner: Do I even need to tell you?

Play Selection
I have to swallow my pride and accept that perhaps the Nina Variations just wasn't as effective of an audience draw as Bad Hamlet. Deconstructed Shakespeare is evidently more buzzworthy than deconstructed Chekhov. Even though Nina is a published script with a solid pedigree and a small core of fervent admirers, and Dietz is a solid and nationally respected playwright, it didn't gain the "must-see" patina from either the critics or general public. Maybe under a different set of circumstances it could have taken off, but ultimately there's nobody to blame except perhaps myself.
Maybe next year I'll sell out and do a play that adds zombies to a work of great literature (Don't laugh, I already wrote it).
Winner: Bad Hamlet.

But ultimately I can either obsess until I'm blue in the face about what didn't happen this year or be grateful for what did. What we did get was a tight band of friends, loved ones, colleagues and general public who came and greatly enjoyed The Nina Variations. It's still one my favorite plays, and being so easy and relatively inexpensive to produce, I can do it again whenever and wherever I want. So I'm not sorry. At all.

Some thoughts on overtime in the NHL

The NHL standings are based on a point system. Originally, 2 points were awarded for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 points for a loss. There had been no regular season overtime since before WW2.

Ties were considerably frowned upon as anticlimactic. Beginning in 1983, the NHL instituted a 5-minute sudden-death overtime period to cut down the number of tied games. The point system remained unchanged, 2 pts for wins, 1 for ties.

Beginning in 1999, however, 1 point was also awarded for teams losing in overtime. This rule saw the end of symmetrical standings. Before then, every game had two points up for grabs. Either the winning team would get both points, or in a tie each team would get one. Now, when a team wins in overtime, there are three points awarded: 2 for the winner and 1 for the loser. So a game can be worth a total of two points if it ends in regulation, but 3 points if it ends in overtime.

This also leads to a disproportionate number of teams finishing nominally over .500. Twenty-three of thirty teams finished with more wins than losses, chiefly because the win column includes both regulation and overtime wins, when the loss column only counts regulation losses.

Ties were eliminated altogether with the introduction of the shootout in 2005. If the overtime expires with no score, a 3-round shootout would decide the outcome, with 2 points going to the winner and 1 to the loser. Still unsymmetrical.

A way to preserve the symmetry would be the format used in the qualifying rounds of the 2010 Olympic ice hockey tournament. Three points for a regulation win, 2 for an overtime or shootout win, and 1 for an OT/shootout loss. Some pundits have proposed instituting this format, but there's no sign that the league is seriously considering the change.

I was curious to see how this season would have played out under the various formats listed above. Would there be a difference in playoff seeding and/or qualification?

Format 1 - Current Format: 2 pts for wins (RW, OW & SW), 1 pt for post-regulation loss (SL & OL)
Format 2 - 1983-1995: 2 pts for wins (RW & OW), 1 pt for post-overtime tie (SW & SL)
Format 3 - Pre-1983: 2 pts for win (RW), 1 pt for post-regulation tie (OW, SW, SL & OL)
Format 4 - 2010 Olympics: 3 pts for RW, 2 pts for OW & SW, 1 pt for SL & OL

RW = Regulation Win, OW = Overtime Win, SW = Shootout Win, SL = Shootout Loss, OL = Overtime Loss, RL = Regulation Loss

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Team	RW	OW	SW	SL	OL	RL	Pts	Seed	Pts	Seed	Pts	Seed	Pts	Seed
Washington	43	6	5	6	7	15	121	1E	109	1E	110	1E	164	1E
New Jersey	40	2	6	5	2	27	103	2E	95	2E	95	2E	143	2E
Buffalo	35	6	4	6	4	27	100	3E	92	3E	90	3E	135	3E
Pittsburgh	32	6	8	2	5	28	99	4E	86	5E	85	4E	131	4E
Ottawa	34	5	5	5	1	32	94	5E	88	4E	84	5E	128	5E
Boston	25	4	10	9	4	30	91	6E	77	8E	77	9E	116	8E
Philadelphia	35	2	4	3	3	35	88	7E	81	6E	82	7E	123	6E
Montreal	25	7	7	5	5	33	88	8E	76	9E	74	10E	113	9E
NY Rangers	34	1	3	4	7	33	87	9E	77	7E	83	6E	121	7E
Atlanta	29	2	4	6	7	34	83	10E	72	10E	77	8E	112	10E
Carolina	26	5	4	5	5	37	80	11E	71	11E	71	11E	106	11E
Tampa Bay	25	5	4	7	5	36	80	12E	71	12E	71	12E	105	12E
NY Islanders	20	6	8	6	4	37	78	13E	66	14E	64	15E	98	14E
Florida	24	2	6	10	3	37	77	14E	68	13E	69	13E	101	13E
Toronto	21	5	4	4	10	38	74	15E	60	15E	65	14E	95	15E

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Team	RW	OW	SW	SL	OL	RL	Pts	Seed	Pts	Seed	Pts	Seed	Pts	Seed
San Jose	43	1	7	6	5	20	113	1W	101	1W	105	1W	156	1W
Chicago	37	6	9	6	2	22	112	2W	101	2W	97	2W	149	2W
Vancouver	41	4	4	4	1	28	103	3W	98	3W	95	3W	144	3W
Phoenix	31	5	14	6	1	25	107	4W	92	4W	88	5W	138	4W
Detroit	33	5	6	9	5	24	102	5W	91	5W	91	4W	135	5W
Los Angeles	32	4	10	8	1	27	101	6W	90	7W	87	6W	133	7W
Nashville	33	6	8	4	2	29	100	7W	90	6W	86	8W	133	6W
Colorado	34	2	7	5	4	30	95	8W	84	9W	86	7W	129	8W
St Louis	30	3	7	5	5	32	90	9W	78	11W	80	11W	120	11W
Calgary	35	2	3	7	3	32	90	10W	84	8W	85	9W	125	9W
Anaheim	31	3	5	8	3	32	89	11W	81	10W	81	10W	120	10W
Dallas	28	2	7	10	4	31	88	12W	77	13W	79	12W	116	12W
Minnesota	28	5	5	7	1	36	84	13W	78	12W	74	13W	112	13W
Columbus	27	3	2	10	5	35	79	14W	72	14W	74	14W	106	14W
Edmonton	18	1	8	6	2	47	62	15W	52	15W	53	15W	80	15W

There are some interesting things to note in this breakdown. The Rangers make the playoffs (and Montreal misses) in every alternate scenario. Atlanta replaces Boston as the 6th seed in the pre-'83 setup, and in the other two alternates, the Bruins face the Caps in the first round. Over in the West, apart from a few neighbors trading places, there are few changes except Calgary qualifying in place of Colorado in the '83-'04 setup.

So is one setup better than another? I am drawn to setups where there's symmetry, and as long as there's gonna be a differentiation between overtime and regulation losses, there ought to be differentiation between overtime and regulation wins. Hence I like the Olympic format, though I don't think they'll be changing any time soon.

If I Were Comissioner of the NHL...

Is the NHL broken?

We have franchises in cities like Nashville, Tampa, Miami, Phoenix, Raleigh and Atlanta, which on paper are large markets but don't have a broad fan base. The Phoenix Coyotes are bankrupt, and even though they defied all expectations this year by setting a franchise record in wins, they still play in an almost completely empty, albeit beautiful, arena in the middle of the desert. The current economy arguably cannot sustain thirty teams all operating as if they were large-market operations.

We have small market cities with hockey-rabid fans but no NHL teams, like Winnipeg, Quebec and Hamilton; the former two had an NHL franchise into the 1990's but couldn't keep them due to the economic impossibility of competing with larger market teams.

We have a major professional league with no major television contract. A few games a year are shown on NBC (The Winter Classic, late-season games, and some playoffs), but unless you have Versus or subscribe to a pay-TV service, you can't watch out-of-market NHL games. (The post author lives in Washington DC but grew up in Northern New England... go Bruins)

I do not believe that every large market in the US can or should have an NHL franchise. Note that there are minor-league teams in larger markets like Houston (5,800 fans per game), Cleveland (6,500), Milwaukee (6,000) and San Antonio (5,250), former NHL cities like Winnipeg (8,100) and Hartford (4,200), and in cities that already have NHL teams, like Chicago (8,000) and Toronto (4,000). They appear to be doing just fine, because the scale of the franchise fits the fan demand and market share. (FYI, the AHL team with the highest attendance? The defending Calder Cup champion Hershey Bears at 9,500 fans/game)

Some may argue that the problem is the NHL, and not the sport of hockey itself. This is a valid argument up to a point. Compared with the wide open, fast-paced winter Olympics that millions watched as the US and Canada battled it out in epic fashion, the NHL itself has arguably stagnated into defensive-minded neutral zone traps. Who wants to see 1-0 or 2-1 games, when only a generation ago we had Wayne Gretzky, Phil Esposito, and Bobby Orr.

But the sport of hockey itself has built-in limitations. Gary Bettman has been attempting to nationally market a game with regional appeal. The other three major American sports, baseball, football and basketball, are much easier to market nationally. Just hang a backboard over the garage and you can play basketball. Get a glove, a bat, and a ball, and play catch in an open field. Grab a football and pass in the backyard. You can do all three virtually any time of the year. Hockey? You need a rink, or you need a frozen pond - good luck finding either in ready supply below the Mason-Dixon line. It's a lot cheaper for communities to build athletic fields and basketball courts than an indoor hockey rink. So can one really be surprised that Raleigh and Tampa aren't hockey-crazy, even when both won a Stanley Cup within the last decade?

I do believe that a city that wants a professional hockey franchise should have one, provided that it's sustainable. But it's folly to expect that an expansion franchise can be created in, say, Kansas City and compete with the elite NHL franchises. Kansas City briefly had a team in the early 70's (the Scouts) but couldn't win a game, fill the stands, or turn a profit; they re-located twice and now are thriving as the New Jersey Devils. There's no middle ground between the NHL and AHL for struggling large-market teams and over-acheiving small-market teams.

I propose that the NHL and AHL merge and re-organize into a multi-tier promotion/relegation confederation, similar to English Soccer. The teams with the largest markets and largest fan bases can thrive playing each other, as would the mid-level markets, and smaller markets. Teams in smaller markets that grow in success and support can be promoted to higher tiers, underperforming large-market teams would be relegated. In theory, it would evolve into a synthesis of market size, fan support, player talent, and the depth of the ownerships group's finances.

The teams that qualified for the playoffs in the previous season would become the NHL Champions Conference. The teams that did not qualify would become the NHL Challengers Conference. Dividing the conferences geographically into East and West Divisions, next season's divisional alignment would look like this:

Champions Conference		Challengers Conference
East Division	West Division	East Division	West Division
Boston Bruins	Chicago Blackhawks	Atlanta Thrashers	Anaheim Ducks
Buffalo Sabres	Colorado Avalanche	Carolina Hurricanes	Calgary Flames
Montreal Canadiens	Detroit Red Wings	Florida Panthers	Columbus Blue Jackets
New Jersey Devils	Los Angeles Kings	New York Islanders	Dallas Stars
Ottawa Senators	Nashville Predators	New York Rangers	Edmonton Oilers
Philadelphia Flyers	Phoenix Coyotes	Tampa Bay Lightning	Minnesota Wild
Pittsburgh Penguins	San Jose Sharks	Toronto Maple Leafs	St Louis Blues
Washington Capitals	Vancouver Canucks

This is essentially a larger-scale version of what the NHL was in 1967 when it doubled from six to twelve teams. The weaker expansion teams were in one division, and the original six were in the other. Where they went wrong was seeding the playoffs so that the finals placed an expansion team against seasoned and established teams, which led to the St Louis Blues getting swept in the finals three years in a row. Yawwwn.

REGULAR SEASON

The teams would play an 80-game schedule. The Champions League would play the 7 teams in its own division 4 times, the 8 teams in other division 3 times, and the 14 teams in the Challengers conference twice. The Challengers would play a similar 4/3/2 slate, plus 3 extra intra-conference games to total 80.

The regular season games would be played exactly as they are now, i.e. 5 minute sudden death then a shootout, except that there would be 3 points available: 3 for a regulation win, 2 points for overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, and no points for a regulation loss.

STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS

I would overhaul the Stanley Cup Playoffs in the following manner, largely dispensing with geography:

Qualification: The top six teams in each Champions Conference division and two top teams in each Challengers Conference division would qualify for the postseason. The qualifying teams would play in the Champions Conference the following season, the non-qualifying teams in the Challengers Conference, creating a built-in relegation/promotion system.

Seeding: Four pools would be created of four teams each; Pool 1 would consist of the two 1st and 2nd place Champions Conference teams, Pool 2 would consist of the two 3rd and 4th place teams, Pool 3 the two 5th and 6th place teams, and Pool 4 the four teams from the Challengers conference. One team would be drawn from each pool to create Groups A-D, adjusted so there are no more than two teams from the same division in each group.

Round One (Round Robin): Each team plays four games (2h/2a) against the teams in its playoff Group (12 possible games in all), with 5-min overtimes, shootouts, and 3/2/1/0 point systems as in the regular season. The team in each group with the most points moves to the semifinals. As the round progresses, matches between teams who are both mathematically eliminated from finishing in first place are cancelled.

Round Two (Semifinals): Opponents are determined at random, with home ice to the team with the better head-to-head record. Best-of-seven series with unlimited sudden-death overtime until a goal is scored. The winners then play in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Round Three (Finals): Best-of-seven, home ice to the team with the better head-to-head record.

WHITHER THE AHL?

The AHL could conceivably be divided into upper and lower tiers. Based on this year's playoff qualifiers, it could look like this:

AHL Champions Conference
East: Albany, Bridgeport, Hershey, Lowell, Manchester, Portland (Maine), Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Worcester
West: Abbotsford (Vancouver area), Chicago, Hamilton, Manitoba (Winnipeg), Milwaukee, Rochester, Rockford (Chicago suburbs), Texas (Austin area)

AHL Challengers Conference
East: Adirondack (Glens Falls), Binghamton, Charlotte*, Hartford, Norfolk, Providence, Springfield, Syracuse
West: Grand Rapids, Houston, Lake Erie (Cleveland), Oklahoma City*, Peoria, San Antonio, Toronto
* - Expansion teams set to begin play in 2010-11 season

Either on a regular basis or via an official challenge or appeal, high-ranking teams in the Upper AHL tier can vie with the low-ranking Challengers Conference teams for promotion/relegation. Teams in former NHL markets like Cleveland, Hartford and Winnipeg can get back into the NHL. The Toronto Marlies could vie for the Stanley Cup alongside (or instead of) the Toronto Maple Leafs!

MISCELLANEA

Expansion teams would apply to the League, which would determine its viability in terms of market share, potential fan base, and the financial state of the ownership group, and place the team accordingly in either the AHL tiers or the Challengers Conference (no expansion team would be added directly to the Champions Conference). Viable teams could be created and survive in markets like Las Vegas, Kansas City (also a failed NHL franchise city), Portland (Oregon), or Seattle.

The higher the tier, the higher the salary cap.

ESPN would (hopefully) carry Champions Conference games. Versus can still have Challengers Conference.

Challengers Conference teams get first choice in the annual entry draft, followed by the Champions Conference. Undrafted players can sign with any team in the NHL/AHL. The AHL teams can still have player development "Farm team" relationships with NHL teams pending league approval.

Thoughts?

Not just Farrah and Bea Arthur

Here are eight film notables who died in 2009 that had just as much right to be listed among last Sunday's Oscar Memorial as did Farrah Fawcett and Bea Arthur, but were likewise omitted.

• Dan O'Bannon (screenwriter, Alien, Dark Star)
  
• Ed McMahon
  
• Gene Barry (War of the Worlds)
• Henry Gibson (Nashville, Blues Brothers, Wedding Crashers, Charlotte's Web, etc)
  
• Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner, Braveheart, Silver Streak)
  
• James Whitmore (Shawshank Redemption, Oscar nominee, Emmy winner) see comments
  
• Pat Hingle
  
• Harve Presnell (Fargo)

Cassette Continuity

Back in 'the day,' it was common for albums to be released on cassette with the tracks in a different order than the LP. I presume the main reason was for continuity; in the minds of the people in charge of these things, it was better for side A to be longer than side B, so listeners wouldn't have to fast-forward to the end before flipping over to side B.

Usually this would result in the first track of side B being moved to the end of side A, but occasionally song order would be altered. The most dramatic example was the 80's cassette release of the Beatles catalog, with the order completely scrambled. Purists were justifiably appalled.

In some cases, Side A and Side B are swapped. Two examples I can think of are Led Zeppelin I and Jethro Tull's This Was. Led Zep opens with "Your Time Is Gonna Come" instead of "Good Times Bad Times", and This Was opens with "Dharma For One" instead of "My Sunday Feeling".

I bring up these particular examples because the cassette releases were my first introduction to these albums, and I've grown to prefer them to the original running order. The albums make more sense to me with the sides reversed. To these ears, "Dazed And Confused" makes a more epic album closer than "How Many More Times." "Dharma For One" makes for a dynamic opening track with Clive Bunker's hyperactive drum solo, and the comparatively uptempo side B now precedes the contemplative side A. I even changed track numbers on iTunes so that they play in the cassette release order, thus:

Led Zeppelin I

1. Your Time Is Gonna Come
2. Black Mountain Side
3. Communication Breakdown
4. I Can't Quit You Babe
5. How Many More Times
6. Good Times Bad Times
7. Babe I'm Gonna Leave You
8. You Shook Me
9. Dazed And Confused

Jethro Tull - This Was

1. Dharma For One
2. It's Breaking Me Up
3. Cat's Squirrel
4. Song For Jeffrey
5. Round
6. My Sunday Feeling
7. Someday The Sun Won't Shine For You
8. Beggars' Farm
9. Move On Alone
10. Serenade to a Cuckoo

I'm sure there are more albums that have their running order uprooted for cassette release, but these stick out.

John's Time Capsule Playlist

Last time I was home I came across a wonderful relic of my undergrad years: On an early spring morning, I set up my battered boombox (remember those?) in the record storage room next to the studio, and recorded of one of my radio shows onto a pair of 90-minute TDK cassette tapes. I was a DJ on our college radio station, WMEB 91.9 FM, "Radio Free Orono." It was the spring semester of my Sophomore year, and I had what would never be described as the ideal timeslot: Saturday morning, 6-9am.

Despite having to wake up at an ungodly hour, the advantage of that timeslot was the knowledge that virtually nobody was listening (except for Paul, the zany Quebecois who had the 9am show), which freed me up enormously. Although I had to play my required selections from the rotation bin (3 from heavy rotation, 2 from medium, and one from light) plus various promos, PSA's and station ID's, I could play anything I wanted, and could crank up the studio volume as loud as I could. I brought a hotpot and Earl Gray tea, a milk crate full of records (plus dozens that I'd pulled from the racks into my own stash on a particular shelf), and had a blast. My format was free-form, a rather unwieldy clash of progressive, punk and oldies in addition to the rotation items.

I was one of those dorks with a dog-eared copy of the Rolling Stone Record Guide, so my radio days gave me the opportunity to explore bands and artists that were highly rated in the book but were never played on my Classic Rock radio station back home. This was long before iTunes made virtually any song instantly accessible. Thus it was here that I discovered The Move, The Nice, Phil Ochs, Moby Grape, The Jam, The Fugs, Family, My Bloody Valentine, and a whole lotta college rock I liked that never broke beyond a small cult following: Monsterland (the first time I played them I got a call from an ecstatic co-ed whose brother was in the band), The Loud Family, Lyda Husik, etc.

The tapes are a very cool relic of a bygone era. 1991 was the point just before Nirvana came around and made alternative and grunge explode. I can claim that this was pretty much the zenith of College Rock Radio, when Alternative was a truly under-the-radar genre instead of a marketing tool. This was when we were pissed at REM for going mainstream, when it seemed U2's best days were behind them, when the vast majority of the playlist was on vinyl 7", when the transmitter sent our feeble signal about 10 miles, before streaming internet, before podcasts, before Napster. Contrast with the show I did in grad school in the mid-00's, where I IM'ed with a listener in Reykjavik.

I'm gonna ask my friend Dave if he can digitize this show and stream it, so you can experience it all in its entirety: the scratches and skips, the low quality signal, the Velvet Underground fixation, and me as a fresh-faced 19-yr old, nasal unsupported voice, incoherent rambling and all.

If I recall correctly, my favorite Station ID, featuring Monty Pythonian Graham Chapman shortly before he died, was pulled and deleted some time before this show. I was quite upset; I loved it and played it regularly, and since it's not on the tape it's lost forever. It went something like this:

"Hello, this is Graham Chapman, and whenever I'm in Orono I listen to WMEB, 91.9-FM, Radio Free Orono. Well, sometimes when I'm in Orono. I certainly listened to it once... um, look, quite frankly I've never listened to it, but I'm told that it's awfully good, so do give it a listen if you've got a moment."

The Playlist: April 20, 1991
(FCC-mandated opening when going on the air to start the broadcast day)
The I Love You Song - Blackgirls ... (iTunes)
Flying the Flannel - fIREHOSE ... (iTunes)
I Guess I'm Falling In Love (instrumental version) - Velvet Underground
Senses Working Overtime - XTC
(Station ID - Fred Schneider of the B-52's)
Outside of a Small Circle of Friends - Phil Ochs ... (Lala)
(Promo - Jazz show)
(Me, announcing a Billy Bragg concert over at Bowdoin College, and bemoaning missing two recent opportunites to see Neil Young)
Like A Hurricane - Neil Young
(Station ID - Bruce Watson, guitarist of Big Country)
Decide - The Feelies
The Last Days of Pompei - Nova Mob (featuring Grant Hart of Hüsker Dü)
Drive That Fast - Kitchens of Distinction
Lament (live) - King Crimson
(Station ID - How To Disco)
(Me displaying my ignorance at not knowing who Grant Hart was at the time)
The Trouble With Classicists - Lou Reed & John Cale
Chase - Moe Tucker ... (iTunes)
(Station ID - Not Quite Barbershop)
Love in a Burning Universe - The Darkside ... (iTunes)
Vote Elvis - Popinjays ... (iTunes)
Big Ass On Fire - Happy Family ... (Lala)
Strawman - Lou Reed
(promo, metal show)
(me, pushing a production of Lysistrata that my classmates were in)
Fishy Swa Ska - Fishbone
Farewell to John Denver - Monty Python
My Wife and My Dead Wife - Robyn Hitchcock & the Egyptians
The Gift - Velvet Underground
The Bottom Line - Big Audio Dynamite
(promo, classical music show)
(me, reading hockey scores and mentioning the new REM album I picked up, Out Of Time)
Public Image - Public Image Ltd.
(Station ID - Michael Hedges)
Pictures of Matchstick Men - Camper Van Beethoven
Hey Grandma - The Move
(Station ID - 2001)
Writing Wrongs - The Monkees
(Station ID - Mojo Nixon)
Radio Free Europe - R.E.M.
I've Changed My Address - The Jam
Lonesome Bulldog - Butthole Surfers
Unknown artist - the tape ran out before it finished, I think I went on the air here to do a backsell but it must have happened before I flipped the tape over. Thus I have no idea who this is.
Rock N Roll (live) - Lou Reed
(PSA - Marsha Warfield on getting tested for HIV)
Revolution Come and Gone - Beat Happening
(Station ID - Michael Hedges... again)
Hammerhead - Laughing Academy
(Promo - Radio Mental Health)
(me, rambling)
Sunless Saturday - Fishbone
Starless - King Crimson
Würm (from "Starship Trooper") - Yes (My closing credits)
(Station ID - 2001, then a few extra songs until Paul arrived)
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds - William Shatner
Hey Mersh - Moe Tucker

Brief Thoughts on the Year in DC Theatre

RIP Journeyman Theatre Ensemble and Catalyst Theatre, well before their time. JTE got a Helen Hayes nom in '06, and Catalyst took Best Ensemble for "Arturo Ui." Several factors, particularly the economy, contributed to their demises. There are likely a few similar small companies that are on life support, many of which have also done solid work in the recent past. Some other companies are resorting to safer choices, known quantities, more musicals, and jobbed-in shows. With some exceptions, innovative productions are more likely to be seen at Cap Fringe.

A few fortunate companies have managed to distinguish themselves even in this climate, most notably Constellation Theatre and Forum Theatre, graduating to the mid-to-upper echelon of the theatre scene and establishing Mr Dove and Ms Stockman as the next generation's Shalwitz and Zimmerman. Kudos also to Landless Theatre, another small company that seems to be making strides in attracting the holy 35-and-under demographic. American Century put together some solid productions this year, particularly "Seascape" which was the best thing I've seen them do.

One hopes to see Washington Stage Guild, in limbo for nearly 2 years preparing for their new home and dealing with the passing of their founder and artistic director, back in action. Similarly, Washington Shakespeare Company is preparing to move to the new space in Rosslyn next fall, although it will require a sustained fundraising effort both to move there and to stay.

Lots of theatre companies are hunkering down in the wake of the economy, focusing on their core company members. Consequently a lot of actors that could count on steady work are suddenly finding themselves rather unemployed, filling their days understudying, doing readings, producing Fringe shows, and seeing other peoples' shows. Or just me.

Best shows I saw this year: Arcadia (Folger), Crazyface (Constellation), Seascape (American Century). I'd probably include a couple Forum shows if I was actually able to see them =)

What I don't particularly like is how the Post and CityPaper, in their theatrical year-in-review articles, listed a "Worst Of" list along with their "Best Of". Really, what is gained by "Worst Of's?" Of course, I speak as a co-director of a play that was included in the Post's "Worst Of" list in '08. Considering what we went thru in getting the show together (as a last-minute replacement for another cancelled show), all the cobbling together, all the compromise, all the crap reviews, tiny audiences, sweltering conditions and the fortune we lost on it, the Worst Of listing was just another kick to the ribs, six months after the corpse had been buried. Maybe this is atypical of the other "Worst Of's", or maybe not. Still, enough already.