The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Tuesday, March 28, 2017 — 5
‘Seas’ is a fascinating look
into one family’s challenge
Ann Arbor Film Festival presents a tale of a family at sea
You’ve
probably
never
heard of the Griffith family,
despite the fact that they’re
among the most accomplished
American sailors in history.
The family undertook 20 ocean
voyages over two decades,
including
three
separate
circumnavigations.
They’ve
been
marooned
on
desert
islands,
navigated
through
miles and miles of treacherous
icebergs and nearly drowned
more times than they can
count. They live their lives
according
to
the
call
of
adventure, untethered by the
trappings of modern society.
“Following
Seas,”
a
documentary shown at the
Ann
Arbor
Film
Festival
made by Tyler J. Kelley and
Araby Williams, is the story
of the Griffiths, as told by
the matriarch, Nancy. Her
narrations
are
set
to
the
footage she took while at sea
over the years on 16-millimeter
film. The result is fascinating
— a film filled with stories of
adventure,
love,
heartbreak
and visceral panic.
They are truly a family of
explorers, in the oldest possible
sense of the word. Nancy’s
husband, Bob, had been a
successful veterinarian until
one day he decided he couldn’t
take it anymore, and so he took
his daughter (an act that Social
Services
had
described
as
“kidnapping”) and went off to
sea. He met Nancy in Honolulu
Harbor in 1960, and the two of
them got married and raised
their family at sea.
Nancy tells her stories in
a deadpan voice, which feels
somewhat
juxtaposed
with
her subjects: that time she was
stranded on a desert island
and lived self-sufficiently for
three months, or that time she
found out she was
pregnant
while
on
a
Russian
naval
base
in
Antarctica.
Her
matter-of-
factness is part
of
what
makes
her family’s story
so compelling —
she’s interesting
because of what
she did, not how
she spoke. They
traveled without
GPS, any way to communicate
with the world or money (most
of the time). It was just the
family, a 53-foot boat they built
themselves, a chronometer and
some maps.
According
to
a
post-
screening Q & A with the
filmmakers,
it
took
about
six years to finish the film.
Most of that time was spent
not gathering the footage —
Nancy supplied that herself
— but gaining the trust of the
Griffiths needed to put the
whole story together. They
experienced
some
horrible
losses in their travels, losses
that could be expected given
the danger that constantly
loomed
over
their
lives,
but awful nonetheless. The
filmmakers’ empathy for their
subjects is clear in the way
they edited the film, with
a deft sense of humor and a
precise eye for the detail that
makes the Griffith family’s
lives
transcend
from a collection
of anecdotes to a
complete story.
There’s a keen
sense of nostalgia
to
“Following
Seas.”
Whether
that be because of
the omnipresent
16mm
footage
or the fondness
with which those
interviewed
talk
about
the
old days, I don’t know, but it
lets the film hit the audience
gently. Not with a sudden rush
of forced sympathy, but with
a quiet yet focused empathy.
Kelley and Williams aren’t
here to force awe or judgment
on the Griffiths — they’re just
along for the ride. It’s a lovely,
warm film, one that deserves to
go beyond the festival circuit
to wide release. We could all
do with a little more adventure
in our lives.
ASIF BECHER
Daily Arts Writer
Problematic presentation
of pregnancy in the media
Where we go wrong at the intersections of social media and health
UNIVERSAL PICTURES
Alicia Vikander in “Ex Machina”
Can computers create?
The question of artificial intelligence originally raised by Turing
Can computers think?
Alan Turing, the closest thing
computer science nerds have to a
god, first posed this question in
1950.
Today, I ask: Can computers
create?
Before I dive into the second
question I want to talk about
the first one: Can computers
think?
Computer
scientist
Edsger W. Dijkstra countered
this
with
another
question:
Can a submarine swim? And
by extension, can an airplane
fly? All three examples involve
technology achieving a certain
naturally
defined
endgame.
Submarines swim, but not like
fish. Airplanes fly, but not like
birds.
Resultantly,
computers
think, but not like humans.
We see submarines and planes
as successful because they are
able to navigate the seas and skies.
To reach a similar bar of success,
a computer that thinks should
make decisions as rationally as
human do.
Computers can’t do this yet,
but the entire field of Artificial
Intelligence
has
emerged
in
pursuit of this goal. And in the
past decade it has exploded.
Given that in a mere half
century we have seen computers
evolve from cluttering entire
rooms to fitting into our pocket,
making a machine that thinks
seems like a realistic goal. Google
Director of Engineering Ray
Kurzweil, an incredibly accurate
technology forecaster, said at the
SXSW conference last month that
this moment could be upon us
come year 2029.
So if we wait a couple decades,
there’s a good chance we’ll be able
to definitively answer yes to the
first question. And although this
might seem menacing, I assure
you there’s nothing inherently
dangerous or scary about AI. Ex
Machina is fiction. At its core, AI
is a collection of algorithms and
agents like Siri and Alexa are just
a bunch of lines of code.
Now that we’ve theorized
about the first question, we turn
to the arguably more compelling
question: Can computers create?
It’s one thing for a machine to
drive itself across the country,
but can a machine record the
next 10/10 Pitchfork album? (Can
anyone for that matter? I won’t
launch into that debate right
now though.) Or can a machine
create the next Starry Night? For
a computer to be innovative, its
abilities must span far beyond
mere thought.
The world has already seen
some early attempts at creative
AI agents, especially in the music
field. Last week, a high school
student
debuted
a
machine-
learning library that uses Kanye
West lyrics to create its own
ad-libs. Last year, Flow Machines,
a project funded by the European
Research Council, released two
songs composed by a computer,
though the production, mixing
and lyrics are human-generated.
Despite
the
buzz
and
flashy headlines, the resulting
compositions
fall
far
short
of the goal of creativity. The
computer can rhyme, but the
rhythm structure and wordplay
is lacking. The Flow Machines
tracks, developed in the style of
The Beatles and Duke Ellington,
sound like they came from
their
respective
influencer’s
discography. There was nothing
new in the actual composition.
But just because these AI
agents don’t meet the standard,
doesn’t mean that none ever will.
To reason about the future of this
technology, we must consider
what creativity is.
Steve Jobs said, “Creativity is
just connecting things.” I think
he’s pretty spot on. No musician
exists
without
influences;
no
painter
creates
without
predecessors. Artists look at what
already exists — be it current
events, society or other art — and
rearrange select pieces in a way
that has not been done before.
As we learn more about the
neuroscience behind creativity,
we
will
eventually
pinpoint
what
makes
a
high-quality
creative connection and develop
technology that reflects this. It is
likely that someday machines will
be able to create like humans.
This doesn’t mean that artists
will be obsolete, though. As I
said before, there is something
inherently
different
about
creativity and thought. A self-
driving
car
is
successful
if
it drives, but an artificially
intelligent artist is not successful
if it merely creates something.
Artists are so much more than
their art; they impact society and
pop culture in ways that machines
cannot. Kanye West, Lady Gaga,
Frank Ocean — hell even Taylor
Swift — all have reputations and
societal impact that is infused
into their music. You can’t listen
to Kanye without thinking about
his latest Twitter rant, or Swift
without considering her latest
breakup.
Machines don’t have emotions
or
personality.
They
could
contribute
industry-changing
innovation,
but
the
entire
experience would fall short of a
human artist’s.
Regardless, computers have
the potential to compete with
humans creatively. We shouldn’t
see this as a threat though.
Some of the best art results
from competition. Considering
that for years now the arts have
struggled to be taken seriously
by
government
and
society,
a creative revamp might be
just what the industry needs.
Although we might have to wait
a while for it, creative AI could
eventually spark a new artistic
golden age.
JESSICA ZEISLOFT
Daily Arts Writer
MUSIC NOTEBOOK
If you type into Google the
phrase, “am I pregnant,” the first
autofill that comes up now is “am
I pregnant video.” The video
that this popular search refers is
actually titled, “how is prangent
formed.”
In case you haven’t seen or heard
of this video, a quick explanation:
Published on Youtube on October
20th, this video consists of several
screenshots of the question “am I
pregnant?” or variations of it from
Yahoo Answers. This video went
viral quickly after being published;
every time I checked Facebook for
a few weeks, people were sharing it
on each other’s walls, and I’m still
seeing it pop up occasionally. Now,
it has more than 8 million views.
The first time I watched it, it
was without sound and I thought
it was a poverty porn type of
video — something made to pull
on heartstrings. I thought that if
I turned up the volume, I would
hear that song they play during
the ASPCA ads, and there would
be a somber voiceover talking
about women who have no access
to healthcare or education or birth
control or something along those
lines.
After I watched it with volume,
I wished it had been that simple.
The guy doing the voiceover reads
every single question out loud in
a “funny” voice. The humour is
supposed to come from the fact
that he pronounces everything
phonetically, including people’s
spelling mistakes, and doesn’t
correct any grammar. He reads
one in a in a stereotypical Southern
accent (around the 47 second mark,
in case you’re curious), presumably
because of the use of the word ain’t:
“Girlfriend aint had period since she
got pregat?”
I get it, the narrator’s voice is
funny, sure, whatever. But these
questions aren’t funny
at all, especially when
you
consider
that
anyone who is turning
to Yahoo answers for
something as serious
as pregnancy must not
have very many other
options. Some of the
most
off-putting
or
concerning asks include:
“How can a nine year
old get prangnet,” “are
these systoms of being
pregarnt,” “Did most you women
FEEL pgrenant before find out?”
and “How long can u go being
prognant to get an abortian?”
I don’t know anything about
the women who typed these
questions into Yahoo answers. But
the sheer volume of them suggest
that there are women out there
who need answers, haven’t had
access to education about how
the reproductive system works,
feel alienated from their bodies,
maybe never went to high school,
can’t speak English well and/
or don’t have anywhere else to
turn to for answers. Of course, we
already knew that, but this is visual
evidence. I’m still unclear as to
how this is actually funny, when
you think about the implications.
I’m not trying to shame anyone
for liking a video where some guy
speaks in a funny voice, nor am I
a “feminist who can’t take a joke.”
Hearing a guy read these questions
out loud — a guy
who has presumably
never had to worry
about the possibility
or
implications
of
becoming pregnant —
was jarring enough.
But seeing so many
people on my social
media
feeds
who
I know care about
women’s
issues
(and
human
rights
in
general)
spread
this video as if it were devoid of
political implications was also
unsettling. And for people who
consider themselves vehemently
pro-life
and
believe
the
government should ban abortions,
it’s worth asking yourselves how
you can want to deny women that
option, and yet laugh at this video
which shows some women clearly
seeking alternatives and unable to
find them.
I feel like I’ve seen an increase
in
coded
messages
revolving
around pregnancy in the media
recently, or maybe I’m just paying
more attention. There was that
X-ray of a pregnant snake that went
viral after Hank Green tweeted it,
as people starting tagging Taylor
Swift and then making jokes about
sending it to their ex-girlfriends.
Then there was U.S. Rep. Steve
King (R - Iowa) ’s comment that
went viral, “We can’t restore our
civilization with somebody else’s
babies,” in reference to immigration
issues.
While
thinking
about
these happenings, I couldn’t help
but recall the memoir “Left to
Tell: Discovering God Amidst
the
Rwandan
Holocaust,”
by
Immaculée Ilibagiza. It’s a haunting
narrative about genocide, human
cruelty, sorrow, and unbelievably,
forgiveness. I was too young when
I read it, but there are a few lines
seared into my memory, including
a chant that people would use
as inspiration for killing anyone,
including pregnant women and
children, they came across: “A
baby snake is still a snake, let none
escape.”
I’m
not
making
a
direct
correlation between viral twitter
comments, memes or videos and
genocidal mindsets. But it’s worth
thinking about how, in the media,
what we sometimes mindlessly
consume affects our engagement
with the concept of pregnancy —
and why we find certain things
funny when they’re not attached to
a real name or face.
FILM REVIEW
“Following
Seas”
55th Annual Ann
Arbor Film Festival
March 25, 2017,
5:15 PM
Michigan Theater
GENDER & MEDIA COLUMN
SOPHIA
KAUFMAN
WILLIAMS AND KELLEY
Still from “Following Seas”