Circle Jerks live at the Commodore 2025: backstage with Bob, NOW WITH ADDED AARON CHAPMAN!!!

Keith Morris by Bob Hanham, not to be reused without permission

All photos not identified as Bob's are by me!

It was a night beset with technical difficulties. The opening fiasco during the Circle Jerks' set which saw major repairs to Joey Castillo's drum kit dragged on long enough that Zander started playing the Jeopardy theme on his bass. It was not the only technical difficulty of the night: the old-school laptop being used for merch refused to read every third card it was presented. Elements of fiasco!

We did not care, Bob and I. We got to hang out backstage (in one of multiple upstairs rooms) with Keith Morris, who was chattier and friendlier than either of us expected, mostly recommending movies to us off the Eternal Family streaming service. He's watched Shaolin vs. Evil Dead multiple times; Bob and I have not seen it once. I told him about giving tentacle porn to Lemmy Kilmister, who Keith had hung out with occasionally. He showed me trailers for some screwed-up seeming European SF the likes of which I have not encountered -- lowbrow but ambitious, occupying a space somewhere between Jodorowsky and Brides of Blood, between The Wizard of Oz and Parajanov. Or something: it's cinema I have not seen, beyond trailers, like the 1990 Latvian film Maija and Paija: what? Or try Ruslan and Ludmila. I have never heard of these films, but I'm very, very curious. 

Keith and I by Bob Hanham

Keith signed everything I brought and accepted some gifts. We talked about Bev Davies -- I showed him some of her photos (she's been in the hospital with pains in her side and shoulder) and clarified that when she shot him in 1981, she had followed D.O.A. down south. We joked about whether she slept in the van with them. 

"I don't know if she ever did that, but she did tell me about sleeping on their laundry once." 

We all laughed about what that might have been like. Later in the night I would buy her a Circle Jerks air freshener (she'd hoped for a lighter, but we didn't have one). One wonders who would want a car that smelled like Skank Man. 

Actually, Johnny Matter, who I'd helped with a comp, bought that for her, butting into the line and insisting he pay, so I let him. I tried to take a photo of him in the process but it didn't work. In fact the comps were actually provided by Aaron Chapman, whose show it was, and who decided behind the scenes that a half-empty Commodore was a not-so-fun Commodore (tickets had not flown) and took action to fill the venue up. He generously comped a ton of Vancouver's music glitterati into the show  -- so in fact, Johnny, don't thank me, thank Aaron!!! 

The merch area was also beset with technical difficulties, with every second bank card seeming not to go through. 

Once I'd secured my merch (and Bob and I chatted with Chappie a bit), Keith was amazingly friendly and approachable, if more interested in talking about cult movies than punk rock. I didn't take notes -- he didn't want to do an interview just then, so I left the recorder off and we just hung out. He clarified, when I got him to sing the "When the Shit Hits the Fan" 7", that Chuck is not on that at all; he is ONLY recorded in the actual movie. I'm not sure the article made that clear?

People kept popping in to press him to get the setlist done. He eventually cleared us out so he could focus. It was 31 songs long, apparently, and despite various pauses to repair the drum kit and such, they played every one of them. 

There is a chance of further Q&A stuff between Keith and I. I definitely want to ask him about "I, I and I" -- a song co-written by Chris D. and Tito Larriva. It delights me that it has been played every time I've seen them. 

Anyhow, eventually he cleared us out so he could get to work, but we were up there for a good half hour, chatting. GANG! was playing by that point, a band I know nothing about, who played hip-hop inflected punk while wearing menacing neon ski masks. I couldn't entirely figure them out. They seemed to have a very strange song about stalking Tony Hawk. I couldn't quite put it together, but I did snap a photo of Bob snapping a photo of them. Bob is having computer issues so many of his photos will remain unseen until they are resolved... though he did contribute a few that he took on his cell phone, which are what you see. There are better ones!

GANG! were quite unique, if not entirely my sorta thing. 

Later in the night, I saw someone in one of the green masks and asked, ha ha, if he was "gang affiliated," but he was just some audience member. He explained that they had thrown their masks out into the audience at the end of the set, so he picked one up and put it on. I'm not sure anyone actually got to see the band's faces. 

Despite GANG!s earnest efforts, the mask prize of the night went to this guy, right up front for the whole CJ's set, never once taking off his mask (I am told his name is Eric and that he comes to shows masked all the time). 

One nice thing: every copy of Keith's autobiography was apparently signed. The one I picked up certainly was. I asked Keith to sign it and he flipped it open and showed me -- "it's already signed!" 

He had told me about Greg Hetson and Chuck Biscuits falling out in the thing I did for the Straight, but he didn't tell all the details. Bob, who has actually read the book, said that Hetson kicked Biscuits in the balls! I've gotta read that part. 

Speaking of inside baseball, Mike has finally convinced me to give Biscuits a break. I still think he really was the party responsible for the hoax, but I think he was probably  just trying, half-assedly, to get Greene to go away. He didn't realize Greene would report it and that he'd inadvertently drawn MORE attention to himself, rather than closing the door. If Biscuits would rather people think him dead than talk about his time in showbiz, people should stop hounding him.

I don't usually let Mike win arguments, but looking at it from that perspective, he's right. Let's leave Chuck alone (we miss you, man!). 

Mellow Friesen was there and talked about reunited with her band the Bombshells for this year's Bowie Ball, which is going to be quite different for her: her projects for that -- often the highlight of the night -- with Mel's Rock Pile are entirely driven around the Bowie Ball; the band has no existence of identity beside that, so she is conceptually free to evoke Bowie how she will. This year will be more challenging, because the Bombshells are actually her band, and DO have a pre-existing sound (which I know nothing of, never saw them, but you can hear samples here). 

I confess to not paying close attention to the Adolescents. I like the blue album a lot, but I didn't know much of what they played... and then they covered the Subhumans' "Fuck You." I told Tony Reflex that I knew Gerry and would let him know that I would make sure he knew that the song got played. It was real good! It was the second to last song on their set, followed by the stellar track of the blue album, "Kids of the Black Hole." I perked up for that one -- they should have done it as their opening number, and then shmucks like me would have actually listened more attentively to everything they did!

Adolescents by Bob Hanham

Tony Reflex by Bob Hanham: I gave him an upgrade on his Sharpie and he posed with it.

I made a couple of runs on the merch table. I liked this guy's 1984 Circle Jerks shirt the best -- the style actually reminds me of vintage underground-comic era Corben, but I doubt that is the artist. The fella (apparently Chappie's friend Mike Wurm) said he got the shirt the first time he was the band, back in 1984!

I had only been backstage at the Commodore once before, to get stuff signed by the Dougless Doug and the Slugs, but it's still pretty new for me, and I have never watched a show from the wings. This time, I did. Bob, Mellow, Chris Crud, and later, Tony Reflex himself. It was real fun. I actually  had initially thought Keith was making fun of media whore mendacity when he offered me backstage access and so forth, but he was actually serious! 

I gave him some real good records, though. I am shocked he didn't have Incorrect Thoughts already!

Especially fun was trying to get some expressive audience shots. Bob probably has better ones! These are mine. 

It was a powerful set -- the first of their short tour -- with the only surprise (for me) being the inclusion of two Black Flag songs; "Nervous Breakdown," of course, but also "Revenge."  There was also plenty of political commentary between songs -- including a fun lyrical addition. In "Stars and Stripes," for example, instead of "you're all gonna die/ And you voted for that guy" it was something like, "even though YOU didn't vote for that guy," or something like that. Like, we're in the same toilet with the U.S., even though we have no control over what happens down there.

It ain't the first time we've been in that position, Keith! 

But I have nothing exciting to say. Nice to see a few people I know, like Ty Stranglehold, who crossed the pond to the show. Greg had not manifested when we were upstairs, backstage, but as he came off the stage, I hailed him and he came over and signed my three CJ's LPs (but I didn't dig out all my stuff -- I'd gotten Keith to sign my Repo Man soundtrack but I was standing in between Greg and his chilling, so I just got my three actual albums signed.

There was no encore, but everyone had a very fun night. Bob and I too! You'd never know that ticket sales had been pretty weak -- the agenda to fill the room sure worked, so again, if you got comped in, you know who to thank! (It ain't me). 

And I got a Group Sex shirt. I mean, do you figure people out of the punk loop will know that a shirt with both "Circle Jerks" and "Group Sex" on it is a reference to music, or will they just think I'm kinky?

Thanks again to Aaron Chapman for bein' such a mensch! 

Clearcut post-screening report

I doubt very  much I will be involved in another public screening of Clearcut, but I am happy to report that Sunday's screening was at least on par with the Cinematheque screening of last year: possibly better. For reasons unclear to me, the audience at the Cinematheque had been more contentious, challenging things like the decision made to shift the focus from issues of mercury poisoning, which is the problem that informs Arthur's anger in the novel, to logging, which was done for purely cinematic reasons (you can reap more drama, visually, from a falling tree that from polluted water). Maybe they have a point, but it's not actually an interesting question to me, since the film is the film and coulda-woulda-shouldas don't really matter very much; whereas the discussion on Sunday, especially, though brief, focused more on issues of the film's "spiritual" dimension and on more interesting questions like cultural appropriation. And regardless of the short conversation that got held, you got the feeling that people were simply more appreciative of the film, saw it for what it was, and were moved by the story. The audience chuckled along with Graham Greene's funnier lines, made sounds of horrified protest at the debarking, and seemed totally engaged by Shane Harvey's insights into the making and the meaning of the film (and by his Clearcut crew jacket!). 

There were also things Shane and I noticed that we hadn't caught before, though we've seen the film countless times. For example, in the second sweatlodge scene, we both (on separate nights) realized that at one point Greene empties a cigarette into the fire for smudging purposes. I'm no stranger to the sacred use of tobacco, in fact, but somehow we had both missed this detail previously.

Shane also pointed out director Ryszard Bugajski's cameo in the film. He plays a cop, surveying the conflict with the loggers, briefly dominating the screen. I had never twigged that it was him before. 

And Shane gave me a piece of costume from the film: a leather band that Greene wore around his left wrist, which I intuitively asked, before the Friday screening, to have put around my left wrist. I'm not sure I'm worthy but it was a moving gesture indeed.

But numbers were disappointing. I thought that maybe this time, with Orange Shirt Day fast approaching, Graham Greene's recent death, and any added buzz generated by my past Cinematheque screening and/ or Straight article, that the film would finally get the full house it so abundantly deserves. It was not to be. Some of the people who came were colleagues and friends of mine, so I'm very glad for that, but the numbers really were not that great: maybe 30 the first night, 50 the second? 

Whatever. The film is out there  now on blu-ray. Shane, Graham, and Ryszard all get to talk about it on the superb compliment of extras. You can even see it on Tubi. I feel like my work with this film is done.

Sure does hold up, though. I enjoyed it both nights -- especially Graham Greene's performance. Thanks to Shane Harvey and Tom Charity for making these screenings so worthwhile, even despite disappointing numbers. 

And that's all I have left to say about Clearcut. 

Keith Morris interview outtake: The Circle Jerks, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and the Chuck Biscuits Death Hoax

 Circle Jerks Vancouver 2022: Joey Castillo, drums; Keith Morris, vocals. 

\Photo: Bob Hanham, not to be reused without permission

Do you all remember the Chuck Biscuits Death Hoax of 2009? A hapless blogger -- I feel some fellowship for the man -- named James Greene Jr. believed, not without reason, that he was interacting with Chuck Biscuits. They interacted periodically over the course of six months, with everything seeming legit. Then Greene got a text from someone claiming to be Chuck Biscuits' wife, reporting from a different email account that Chuck had died of throat cancer. Greene, following the logic of Occam's Razor, reasoned that this was true, because who would lie about such a thing and why?

Chuck Biscuits was, at the time, and as far as anyone knows is still very much alive. At the time, his brother Bob Montgomery actually drove to Washington State to confirm that Chuck was still with us. After this fact emerged, Greene became a figure of some infamy for having started a widely-reported bit of misinformation. He still believes that the person he was interacting with was really Biscuits, though he cannot explain to anyone's satisfaction why Biscuits would do such a thing. You can read Greene himself on the story here (there was apparently a more conclusive follow up in Crawdaddy, but that is now offline; you should particularly check out Chuck's brother's email to Greene). People wanting an even deeper dive can explore this (now modified) original post of Greene's (complete with many comments). 

I am inclined to side with Greene about what happened, for a variety of reasons: I think he was duped, but (as Bob Montgomery would apparently agree) he did no wrong.  People I have talked about who are in the know in these matters seemed to agree that the hoaxer in question was not just someone with a grudge against Greene, but Biscuits himself, which kind of would explain why Biscuits has remained silent about the matter. But if the matter has ever been conclusively proven, I cannot say.  

One thing I can say for sure is that you will not read any of this story in the Straight interview I did with Keith Morris, singer of the Circle Jerks, for whom Biscuits very briefly drummed. My editor has different interpretations of what went down, which I will not presume to represent, but he didn't want to go into the story -- which is a shame, because there is cause in the tale to describe weird aspects of Biscuits' personality, and having (apparently) tried to fake your own death would certainly count. [In fact, after further discussion, we have omitted some of the other stuff on chuck, as well, in the name of just leaving the guy alone). I probably could have made my case for including this material if Keith Morris had actually had insider knowledge or opinions about the matter, but he didn't. 

He did tell a story that was cut as being too digressive. Quoting Keith Morris:  

I didn't read or hear of his fake death situation but I would love for someone to tell me about this scenario. Chuck was a member of the band just long enough to say he was in the band. He was also part of one of our rhythm sections that included Michael "Flea" Balzary of the RHCPs. They played with us the night we were on a bill with Spinal Tap, Slayer and the Blasters and when we started our set the crowd looked so terrified that they all moved back about six feet as if they thought we were going to jump off the stage and attack them! After we finished and we'd dried off while drinking beers in the dressing room I was cornered by X's John Doe and Jeffrey Lee Pierce from the Gun Club and was told they had never witnessed anything like that. Dave Alvin who played guitar in the Blasters seemed really pissed off and wanted to know how they were supposed to play after that? My response to Dave was that they're The Blasters and were going to get up and move the crowd as much as we did. Remember that Mr. Alvin and his older brother Phil were firmly rooted in Americana but played with the ferociousness of any speed metal or punker dunker bands.

 There was also a question I cut for brevity and focus, involving new Circle Jerks songs. The short version is: there aren't any... yet. Here's Keith: 

We've not added any new songs to our set list except a handful of tunes that people will be able to recognize and tap their toes and dance to and whistle or hum on their way home. The CJs have attempted to write a few new songs of varying quality but none being to my standards and what I mean by this is I have a book full of lyrics but I'm not moved or inspired by the songs the other guys have come up with. We haven't recorded a new album in 28 years and to adhere to a mentality of "We're the Circle Jerks and we can write whatever we want and our fans will love it" is incredibly weak and definitely not happening! We have to make a record that sounds vibrant and exciting as if our lives depend on it! There are way too many bands out there with records and touring so the competition is so much tougher and who needs another mediocre and tired recording? And besides when you go see The Rolling Stones you're not there to witness them play songs off of their newest album.

He also shared some samples of those lyrics with me "They're coming up from behind to tell me I'm benign" about my five colonoscopies. 'Mom's cosmetic surgery, Dad's neck deep in perjury, I'm so fucked up, That I can't think, Chop some rails, Let's have a drink!' about our fearless leader's cocaine- sniffing eldest offspring."

You gotta admit, rhyming "perjury" with "cosmetic surgery" is pretty fucking inspired. I'm sure looking forward to seeing the show tomorrow! People should realize that because of a long-standing feud with the Canadian government, sharing links to news sites like the Straight isn't doable, but you can share it using this website: https://r.pebmac.ca/

The link it generates is this: 

https://r.pebmac.ca/https://www.straight.com/music/circle-jerkss-keith-morris-on-group-sex-chuck-biscuits-and-bleeding-on-a-vancouver-stage 

And for the full story, complete with the above outtakes, you can share the link to this blogpost:

https://alienatedinvancouver.blogspot.com/2025/09/keith-morris-interivew-outtake-circle.html 

See you tomorrow at the Circle Jerks! Tickets still available! 

Welcome Back, Zander Schloss! (Plus Josh Nickel's generic beer can story, plus Andy Warhol soup can story, plus...)

Emilio Estevez and Zander Schloss in Repo Man

The last time the Circle Jerks were coming to town, I did a big interview with their bassist, Zander Schloss for Stereo Embers magazine. It happens tat there is some sort of software glitch happening on that site that was causing it to be attributed to my editor Dave Cantrell, who posted it for me; they're having some trouble with that, but make no mistake, this is my interview - part one, part two. 

Zander Schloss and others (including Courtney Love) on the set of Straight to Hell, by Alex Cox

I also set up a Neptoon Records in-store, that a few lucky people came to, where they heard this, a cover of the Clash's "Straight to Hell." You can see Zander onstage with Joe Strummer, doing this very song, here. The in-store was terrific -- and also involved Zander doing songs from his solo album, Song About Songs, and a few ones as yet unrecorded. He's extraordinarily talented and very funny and there are some great songs on that album and the next (and fun videos based on them). 

He even posed for a photo with me: 

But there ended up being one sour point to the evening. By the end of the night, Zander was burning out on autograph requests, having to be plied to sign Repo Man soundtracks and such -- things somewhat remote from his solo work, even though he is in that movie. People brought everything they had -- including me (the Repo Man soundtrack, a copy of the Wonderful reissue, my OG Straight to Hell poster, two Joe Strummer records...). He had to spend as much time signing as singing! And he drew a line that, in retrospect, seems kinda hilarious: he refused to sign Josh Nickel's generic beer can.

Of course, Zander didn't know Josh from Adam -- that among other things, Josh fronts an important hardcore band, runs a label and store, has affiliations with Neptoon, and so forth. Josh and I had chatted about his can beforehand, and while I wasn't taking notes, it was something along the lines of how he had wracked his brain trying to think of a cool, funny, but not-obvious item for Zander to sign, an in-joke kind of thing, and had actually (if I recall correctly) gone out of his way to get a generic beer can, like the ones you see in Repo Man, ordering it off eBay from the USA in time for the event (we don't have generic beer up here in Canada, that I know of!). Here is Josh BEFORE trying to get his beer can signed -- he's pretty happy with the clever gesture!

Now maybe it's just that I am not someone who gets bugged to sign things. From my point of view, I'd be flattered for people to want my signature on anything, pretty much (except perhaps a blank cheque). But once you are at a certain level of fame, I am sure it gets tedious! But for Zander to take umbrage, get huffy and REFUSE TO SIGN JOSH'S CAN -- it annoyed not just Josh, at the time, but me too -- if Zander had been around when Josh told me the story, I probably woulda marched back to Zander and practically ordered him to sign the guy's can! "Do you know who this man is? Sign his fucking beer can!" (I'm laughing at the utter absurdity of this, of course). I didn't actually hear the interaction that did take place, just what Josh reported to me later, but Josh said something like, "He wouldn't sign my can! He told me to fuck off! That guy takes himself wayyy too seriously!" 

This all seems pretty amusing to me now and I want to point out to Josh, in case he's not on that page yet, that a story is almost as good as a signature, in the long run. To prove the point, I have another signed can story for him -- it's not my own story, but I have no memory at all of who told it to me; it wasn't their story, either! But this person was in New York, and happened to see Andy Warhol somewhere, and thought it would be funny to get Andy Warhol to sign their soup can. Warhol chuckled and obliged. The person had the soup in their apartment, displayed somewhere, unopened, and had a friend staying overnight or something, and left them in the apartment... returning to discover that they had EATEN THE SOUP (and I presume they had thrown away the can). 

I would offer, here, that this story is more funny and engaging than a can of soup signed by Andy Warhol would ever be. In almost every sense, it is value-added; they can tell this story for the rest of their lives. The only thing they can't do with the story, unlike with the can, is re-sell it! (But no one is gonna buy a signed generic beer can with Zander Schloss' signature on it, so that's not really a factor here, anyhow).  

Anyhow, after the instore, Zander stopped replying to what few emails I sent (mostly I wrote to check if he was okay on my posting that "Straight to Hell" clip, which I ended up doing regardless when I didn't hear back). I kinda shrugged him off, then as I was sorting my records the other day, I came across this, one of a dozen things I pestered him to sign. Zander is on a half-dozen tracks on this album, anything from Earthquake Weather or the Latino Rockabilly War years. 

And suddenly I discovered I was over it. Zander's a great musician, a compelling actor, an interesting character, and an enjoyable raconteur. And he signed my record "To Allan with Love" (I don't have a heart symbol on my keyboard but there it is). I have hereby gotten over any irritation I may have felt, and advise Josh Nickel to do the same. I mean, the guy played with Joe Strummer AND he plays with the Circle Jerks AND he acts in Repo Man and Straight to Hell and.... He's one accomplished motherfucker, man! You gotta cut him a bit of slack!

Joe Strummer and Zander Scloss by Julian Yewdall 

There are no in-stores in town this time, but Zander will be in town with the Circle Jerks on Tuesday. I hope to do more about that gig, and if and when I do, I will post it here. Welcome back to Vancouver, Zander Schloss! You will be happy to know: I have nothing left for you to sign! 

Note: I believe Adolescents are opening for the Circle Jerks this time around. Tickets are still available! See you Tuesday. 

The Limits of A.I. as a Language-Learning Tool, re: Articles and Determiners

The school where I work (as an English tutor) is encouraging us to explore the use of A.I. in language learning. While on some level I am not actually an A.I. enthusiast and worry about the long term impacts of our becoming increasingly dependent on technology, I have to admit I can see the potential of the tech as a labor-saving device in a language learning context, just as much as I can see the dangers. And I fully agree that with students using the technology quite widely, we need to be familiar with it and build our skills when it comes to guiding them and cautioning them. 

So yesterday, I was building a workshop I'm going to conduct on articles and determiners (a, an, the, this, that, my, your, or the "zero article," seen in noun phrases like "I like pizza" and "I like cats"). I like my explanations "just so," so I had done the content of the workshop myself, but then I wanted to craft a review exercise, and rather than dully trying to think out a long list of fill-in-the-blanks questions (or find a readymade one that works -- both things tedious and commonplace activities for someone with a job in ESL), I asked the Microsoft AI, Copilot, to design an exercise for me. I initially thought this prompt would be sufficient.

Design a fill-in-the-blanks exercise with 30 questions, practicing A and THE for ESL students, using countable, uncountable, singular and plural nouns referring to a variety of common food items. Provide the answers separately, not as part of the question.

The AI did just this, but almost every question had more than one possible answer. One answer might be more LIKELY than others, of course, but that becomes a question of understanding the social context of the sentence that the author of the exercise is imagining, not the usage of articles and determiners; even if there's a best guess, that's not the same thing as a clear right answer. Of course, there's tons of examples of mediocre ESL materials DESIGNED BY ACTUAL HUMANS that make the same sort of mistake, but I was startled that it was so pervasive in this exercise, since I've had the same A.I. generate pretty good materials previously. 

I’m only going to give the top six sentences as an example, but they're typical -- every question had a similar problem. The notes after each question in the parenthesis are mine, to help you see what the problem is: 

1. I’d like ___ apple, please. (A, THE, or ZERO ARTICLE are all possible; the only determiner as to what the right answer will be is the social context. Am I just asking for fruit? "A" is fine. Am I being offered an apple or a banana? "THE" is what you want. Am I being offered apple juice or orange juice? "I'd like apple, please," is perfectly acceptable. The question is completely useless!).

2. She bought ___ loaf of bread from the bakery. (A or THE are both possible, depending on whether we’re talking about a specific loaf of bread or just asking what she bought).

3. We need ___ eggs for the recipe. (THE or ZERO ARTICLE are both possible, again, depending on whether I'm talking about a specific group of eggs or not). 

4. He drank ___ glass of orange juice. (A or THE are both possible)

5. I saw ___ banana on the table. (All three are possible, depending on whether I am telling what kind of thing I saw, if I am asking where the banana is, or if I am asking you about a fragment of banana smeared on the table surface. One of them, "A," is obviously more likely than the others -- this is maybe the most workable of the questions here; but none are wrong).

6. They ordered ___ pizza for dinner. (...but again, all three are possible, maybe with the ZERO ARTICLE being more likely, A being second most, and THE the least likely)

Okay, so the problem here is with my prompt. I did not specify that I wanted questions with only one right answers. So I explained the above problem to the A.I. -- you can actually "converse" with it, a bit, and asked the A.I. to reframe the questions with more contextual information so that only one correct answer was possible. It stroked my ego a bit and acknowledged the problem, writing:

Thanks for the clarification, Allan — you're absolutely right. To make the exercise pedagogically sound and ensure there's only one correct answer per item, each sentence needs clear context that guides the learner toward either "a" or "the" based on usage rules.

Here’s a revised 30-question fill-in-the-blanks exercise with contextual clues that make the correct article choice unambiguous.

Again, for concision, I'm omitting a bunch, but the top six revised questions, with more contextual information, were as follows. Take a minute and consider, before you proceed: having acknowledged the problem I pointed out, did the A.I. successfully resolve it? 

1. I ate ___ apple after lunch. It was delicious.
2. She bought ___ loaf of bread to make sandwiches.
3. We used ___ eggs that were in the fridge.
4. He poured ___ glass of milk and sat down.
5. I saw ___ banana on the counter and picked it up.
6. They ordered ___ pizza with mushrooms and olives.

Again, as you will see, in all of these cases, more than one answer is possible. I wrote the A.I. again, clarifying my prompt, maintaining the A.I.'s weirdly civil, friendly tone:  

Thanks for trying, but again, at least some of these questions allow for more than one possible answer. For example, number one could be referring to a specific apple: "What did you do with the apple?"/ "I ate the apple after lunch." Or it could be answering a question of "What did you eat after lunch," producing the answer, "I ate an apple." The added context does not actually change the fact that there is more than one possible answer, so the exercise is still pedagogically unsound. Can you try again to produce exercises where only one answer is possible? Include countable and uncountable nouns, singular and plural, all related to common food items. Avoid any possibility of multiple correct answers by embedding the article choice into a socially and grammatically unambiguous situation.

Copilot responded:

Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback, Allan. You're absolutely right that even with added context, many sentences still allow for multiple interpretations unless the context is explicitly constructed to eliminate ambiguity.

To meet your request, I’ve designed a new set of 30 fill-in-the-blank questions that:Use clear, specific context to ensure only one correct article: "a" or "the".

 The first six of these questions were:

1. Sarah picked up ___ apple from the basket and took a bite.
2. I forgot to buy ___ loaf of bread, so we can’t make sandwiches.
3. He cracked ___ eggs that were on the counter.
4. She poured ___ glass of juice and sat by the window.
5. We saw ___ banana lying in the middle of the road.
6. They ordered ___ pizza with extra cheese and mushrooms.

As you see, regardless of whether one answer is more contextually likely or not, AN and THE are both possible for one, A and THE are both possible for number two; and #6 could be A, THE, or ZERO ARTICLE again. Numbers 3 and 5 are in fact improved -- and might actually be useful for the sort of exercise I was trying for, with 3 being "THE" and 5 being "A," but we are really seeing the limits of the A.I.’s ability to “understand” what it is doing; 1, 2, and 4 and 6 all remain useless in pretty much the same way as the previous iterations of the exercise. 6 is especially egregious. 

So I wrote Copilot back again, and gave it positive feedback, in case that somehow helped:

You know, you’re getting better, but there is still more than one answer possible, which we can see if we imagine these as short answers to questions. For instance, for number 6, if the question was, “What did they order?” the answer would require no article (pizza as a non-count noun), or it could be “a pizza,” if we meant “one pizza.” It could also be “the” pizza, if the question were “Did they order the Hawaiian or the Greek pizza?”/ “No, they ordered the pizza with extra cheese and mushrooms.” So contextual knowledge is still necessary for the students to pick one correct answer. Maybe you could try again, writing short question and answer pairs, to make it absolutely clear that the blank (which appears only in the answer) can only be filled one way?

Copilot responded:

Absolutely — thank you for your patience and precision. You're right again: to make the exercise pedagogically sound, the question must constrain the context so that the answer has only one grammatically and pragmatically correct article.

Here is a revised exercise with 30 question–answer pairs, where the blank appears only in the answer, and the question provides enough context to make the correct choice between "a" and "the" unambiguous.

The pairs were: 

(1)
Q: What did you eat for breakfast?
A: I had ___ banana and a cup of tea.

(2) 

Q: Did you buy any fruit at the store?
A: Yes, I bought ___ apple to eat later.

(3)

Q: What did you do with the apple I gave you?
A: I ate ___ apple after lunch.

(4)

Q: What kind of bread did you get?
A: I bought ___ loaf of rye bread.

(5) 

Q: What happened to the loaf of bread I left on the counter?
A: I sliced ___ loaf and put it in the freezer.

(6)

Q: What did they order for dinner?
A: They ordered ___ pizza with mushrooms.

The A.I. is getting better with each revised prompt, but for #6, in particular, all three articles are valid and possible – “the” if they are choosing from a menu (as in, “I’ll have the pizza with mushrooms”), “a” to emphasize “one,” and ZERO ARTICLE to just identify what kind of thing was eaten. The ZERO ARTICLE is the best of them, but this does not make other answers wrong.

At this point, A.I. had ceased to be a labour-saving device; it was simply creating a new kind of labour. But I went through all 30 questions and found about 15 or so actually were natural enough and limited enough in the scope of possible answers that they could be used. For #6, I went with: 

Q: Did they choose the Hawaiian or the vegetarian pizza? 

A: Neither. They chose ___ pizza with mushrooms.

...Which actually is still imperfect (someone COULD conceivably say "a" or even use the zero article and not be wrong), but if we understand that questions and answers often involve a kind of mimicry of form, we'll also know "the" is a much better answer.  It's certainly a damn sight better than the original, "They ordered ___ pizza for dinner." At least there is some reason to pick one over the other! 

It was an interesting and revealing dance and shows both just how useful and how useless the technology can be here. My main concern is that students, attempting to help themselves with this technology, would not be able to see the problems that were readily apparent to me. But I know there are also teachers and tutors out there who might not catch the problem with the exercise as designed by A.I., who would just copy-and-paste the exercise into their materials and not even clue in that it wasn't workable. 

Interesting times ahead. 

Tribute to Graham Greene at the VIFF Centre: Clearcut comes back

Tom Charity, year-round programmer of the VIFF Centre, says that he typically does not like to do "in memoriam" screenings, "partly for practical and logistical reasons (I prefer not to cancel screenings and our schedule is usually set three or four weeks in advance)." However, he continues, "when Graham Greene passed on Sept 1, I did have a couple of slots available on the last weekend before the start of VIFF. (We are closed to the public for a couple of days immediately before the festival as we're using the theatre for testing and volunteer orientation, things like that)."

The timing was right for a few reasons besides. For one thing, he knows I'm always itching for an excuse to turn people onto the film Clearcut; he had facilitated the first Vancouver screening of the film after its initial release, where we projected from the best element available at the time (the German DVD I mention in the article), and after a previous screening at the Cinematheque was cancelled due to COVID, was the person I pestered to bring the film back (in fact the Cinematheque re-booked it but there were definitely discussions, especially when Severin announced the new scan). Charity knows that it's a powerful film, as we discuss in my current Georgia Straight article. And the new transfer from Severin looks stunning; the film makes great use of Canadian landscapes, and has images seldom seen on screen (like footage inside a sweatlodge; certain elements of the sweat were altered, Greene explains on a disc extra, to preserve the sacred elements of the ceremony, but I'm told that there was still a story about the film being cursed (which might help explain why it disappeared from view for three decades).

The nice thing, this time, was it was Tom who wrote me about the screening, not the other way around. 

There are other consdierations that make such a politically-charged film appropriate to screen. however. "As it happened," Charity tells me, the weekend the film has been programmed for "also falls right before Orange Shirt Day, aka the National Day for Truth & Reconciliation (Tues 30th), so it felt like we could raise a glass to Graham and wave our orange shirts, if you like" (if that's provocative to you, see here -- an article about Clearcut not by me! -- about white virtue signaling and token gestures; you figure the character of Arthur would have no truck with such things such as land acknowledgements, either. In fact the story behind Orange Shirt Day is pretty interesting, though, and I'll be wearing one myself on Friday -- though probably my Native North America shirt, the orangeness of which has nothing to do with the National Day for Truth & Reconciliation). 

Charity continues: "Greene was probably the most impactful and respected First Nations actor since Chief Dan George. I first encountered him as a film critic in London in a small role in PowWow Highway in the late 1980s, and of course he followed that up very quickly with his Oscar nominated role in Dances with Wolves, Thunderheart, and this movie Clearcut, which I didn't see until much later. The thing about Graham Greene on screen, you never doubted him for a second, he was always so real, he could ground the whole film."

While angry and political, the thing that's remarkable about Clearcut is that it works as a thriller, too. It the commentary conversation with Ryszard Bugajski, I ask questions comparing elements to films like the Scorsese Cape Fear remake, the Canadian outdoor ordeal adventure Rituals, and even The Hitcher. We also talk about the dying moose (actually a moose roadkill being manipulated like a puppet), the snake scene (no heads are bitten off! the snake was fine!), and Bugajski's own history with cinema, which, after he left Poland, includes making a fistful of episodes of the 1980s Twilight Zone series reboot and an NFB short (also discussed on the blu-ray extras).

The film plays twice, this Friday at 6:30 and Sunday at 4:15. Again, read my Straight feature here. Soundtrack composer Shane Harvey will be on hand to answer questions; he actually knew Greene. And I'll be there too, though at this point I feel like my job is done, in terms of bringing this film back from its undeserved obscurity: I've had a hand in four screenings of the film, written a dozen articles about, interviewed the filmmaker, done a whole bunch of work to flesh out the blu-ray extras, and have even used a scene from the film in an ESL classroom, talking about logging. I'll be coming both days, but I'm not doing any homework: I'm just there to watch the film... and I urge my readers to be there too...

Sparks Vancouver review: a night among friends with good taste

Turns out I enjoyed saying hello to a ton of people I knew tonight as much as, maybe even (dare I say) more than, I enjoyed seeing Sparks again! 

That's a John Prine Singing Mailman shirt ARGH!! has got on

In no particular order, at the Vogue tonight, I chatted with Bill Hemy of the Pointed Sticks, photographer Bev Davies, Art Bergmann, Michael Nathanson and John Lucas of the Starling Effect (and other bands), Brian Minato of the SLIP~ons, radio man Gerald Yoshida, cartoonist/ artist ARGH!!, writer/ film guy Curtis Woloschuk, and my editor (and fellow Montecristo writer) Fiona Morrow. I gather Tim Chan, Tony Lee, Eric Iversen, Patricia Kay, Sabine Clifford and maybe Mark Bignell were also in the house (not sure about the last but I saw him on Granville Street after, anyhow, but maybe he was coming from White Denim, though, or the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club? It was a busy night). I interacted with none of them directly, but everyone I did talk to was an accomplished and interesting person in their own right, and all of them were friendly and in good spirits. It would take a lot to compare to having such a cool range of friends!

So it's no fault of Sparks that the evening's epiphenomenon outshone the concert itself for me. With my run of concertgoing of late, I'm feeling pretty satiated and exhausted, and at any of the last few shows I've been to, have found myself thinking at some point about how I could be home in bed instead. 

And I mean, it's hard to beat having seen the band for the first time, back in 2022, when it was also their first time in Vancouver and my wife was by my side. discovering them more-or-less afresh along with me. I had just interviewed them with my best man David M. And Erika and I had just watched the documentary about them with M. a few weeks prior, and we'd been playing A Steady Drip, Drip, Drip around the house pretty constantly for weeks, at that point, and adoring it. 

So Sparks really didn't have a chance of besting that experience tonight. Sorry, Sparks! You were still great!

As we know, Russell is a non-stop performer, ageless and exuberant, dancing and clapping and staying constantly in motion. while Ron is ever the dour sly minimalist prankster, playing it absurdly straight for long stretches, then cracking a disarming smile, making each gesture count. 

Indeed Ron's dry dramatic reading of "Suburban Homeboy" was an evening high point; I actually don't recall if he did it that way last time. I was up in the balcony so I couldn't read his hat, but have learned via Tim Chan on FB that it read "Canada is not for sale" (!). I do recall him dancing more or less the same dance, however, to  "The Number One Song in Heaven." I think Russell was a bit chattier this time (which I always like), especially when they did the topical "Please Don't Fuck Up My World," absent from the 2022 setlist -- a very welcome inclusion, as were his own remarks about Canada and the US (add Sparks to the list of bands that are embarrassed by what is happening down south). But tonight there wasn't, I don't think, a single song off Angst in My Pants; there were only two songs off A Steady Drip Drip Drip; and there was quite a bit less of Li'l Beethoven, compared to last time -- those being my three favourite Sparks albums of all time. And the light wasn't as good (the room was weirdly hazy, even before the concert started), the sound wasn't as good (something Michael Nathanson also commented on)... everything conspired to leave me feeling that tonight was a slightly lesser evening than the one three years ago.

The lucky folks in the room were the ones who weren't even there in 2022. I bet they had a great time! 

In fact, besides "Please Don't Fuck Up My World," the only two additions tonight that stood out for me were "Do Things My Own Way" and "Running Up a Tab at the Hotel for the Fab" off the new album... They're the only songs, of the new ones they did, that I really grok. I do love "My Devotion," on MAD!, but they did not do it, nor another charmer from late in the album, "A Little Bit of Light Banter." Of the new songs I covered, I was less partial to "Lord Have Mercy" or "Jan Sport Backpack" or "Drowned in a Sea of Tears," though who knows, maybe they'll grow on me? 

I believe what we heard last night was identical to this setlist from earlier in the tour. I am not sure that the Vancouver setlist got transcribed... 

Of course, as Russell mentioned a couple of times during the night, this is a band with 28 albums to their credit, so you have to expect a few deep cuts. I am sure there were at least a few people utterly floored and delighted by the inclusion of "Whippings and Apologies," off their second album (which I have, but don't know so well). I don't think that I knew a single one of those deep cuts tonight. Someone who did would probably feel differently about the night--someone with, say, Music That You Can Dance To, or In Outer Space, or  Introducing Sparks, all of which were repped, none of which are in my collection. And someone who was a big fan of No. 1 in Heaven would be particularly pleased, since it got three songs last night, "Academy Award Performance," "Beat the Clock"--which I don't actually know, but was on the Minnesota setlist linked above, so I'm assuming it got done--and the title track, putting it roughly in the same standing as Li'l Beethoven was last time, as an older album unexpectedly heavily represented. 

To my ear, Li'l Beethoven is a much cooler album than No. 1 in Heaven...

...But that's all just ME I'm writing about, it really has no bearing on Sparks. I'm glad I saw them again, but I am also glad that my streak of non-stop concertgoing is slowing down a bit. This is the third show I've left early in the last couple of weeks, which is saying something; I decided to duck out before the encore, though I then dithered on Granville Street for a bit and ended up chatting with the other concertgoers (one of the aforesaid, taking a smoke break on the sidewalk) after the show was over, so I might as well have stayed! I didn't even lurk around to see if could get records signed. That would have been pretty darn cool, but I gather the Maels don't really do that sort of thing; the merch girl said "they don't even travel with us, they don't meet fans, they don't sign stuff; they leave right after the show is over." (I wonder if Gerald fared better?). In the end it felt like it would just be crass to ambush them in the alleyway or something. They were so happy just to have performed, you know? To then throw another obligation at their feet ("sign my records!") would just have felt wrong.

So I wandered home, there to unpack a backpack full of album covers, none written upon by the Maels. I bought one thing from the merch area, but it's a Christmas gift for someone, and will remain tucked away for a few months. My main Sparks purchase for myself happened at Beat Street earlier, where I picked up (fittingly enough) a nice new pressing of No. 1 in Heaven, paired with an album the Maels wrote and produced, but are not fronting-- a curious techno/ disco thing by a model-turned-singer named Noël. I like that phase of the band less, but I figured if I was going to get things signed, it should be represented. Then I left with nothing signed at all...!

So it goes!  

Buddies Vancouver was a blast! (photos, links to vids to come)

 In reverse order! Photos! Awesome night! Nick ruled but everything was delightful, and Brock did "Pink Turns to Blue!" More to come.