Glossy Time Capsules #18: Life - April, 1986

Glossy Time Capsules #18

Life

April, 1986

Price: $2.50

As I'm sure you're well aware by now, I enjoy looking through vintage magazines and making fun of the clothes, the hairstyles, the household products, and -- yes -- the hideous green bathroom carpets of yore.

But another thing I like to do is play a little game called Where Are These People Now? And thanks to the magical entity that IS the internet, I can quickly track down every last person who, 34 years ago, was gracing the pages of Life magazine, blissfully unaware that, in 2020, I'd be playing such a game.

And oh, how their lives have changed! From Princess Caroline to Joseph Kennedy II, from OJ Simpson to Helena "I Will Happily Chew All Your Scenery To Bits, And You Don't Even Have To Pay Me Extra" Bonham Carter, these folks have all gone through a lot in the past 34 years.

That's Life.

So we'll start with ads...

I'm pretty sure that kid on the left is Billy L. Sullivan, who was in a ton of commercials back then, including ads for McDonalds, Mrs. Butterworth, and Folger's.

And I'm not sure what this car ad was going for, here...

Todd: "Mark, I can't believe you showed up to our game in a dress shirt and tie!"

Mark: "Well, I can't believe YOU think short-shorts and knee socks are a good look!"

Todd: "I'm rocking the 80's, dude. Back me up here, Jeff. Doesn't Mark look ridiculous?"

Jeff: "Who cares? One of you parked their ugly car directly underneath our basketball hoop, and I find it HILARIOUS!"

Mark: "We lead critically sad lives."

Maybe it's me, but 1980's vans all seem to scream, "Give us a few years, and we'll totally be the getaway vehicle they're telling you about on the 11 o'clock news!"



THEY STILL MAKE THIS. AND IT IS DELICIOUS.





You'll notice this couple bought a second car, and the wife gets stuck with ALL the kids.



I love how the car is just running over the text. So badass.



What was with this fixation on Japan?



AUGH GIANT BABY RUN



Craig: "So, Tracie, is it true that your sister's going out with Justin?"

Roy: "I heard Justin's ex Amber used to date Trevor. What do you think of Trevor, Tracie?"

Tracie: "I think the forced smile on my face strongly suggests I would rather be literally anywhere else. Pass me another bottle."





I find it funny that no matter what decade it is, people want to both have amazing televisions... and find a way to hide them when necessary.





Montreal: apparently creepy AF.


And then we have the articles...

Sometimes these old magazines can be educational. For example, I'd never heard of the hijacking of TWA Flight 847.

This was one of the hostages, Peter Hill. After the ordeal, he let out years' worth of rage here, not only toward the perpetrators, but toward the other victims.

He chastised the other victims for such atrocities as doing what the terrorists told them to do, not being rude to the terrorists, and, oh yes, not showing extreme anger toward the terrorists.

I don't know, uh, maybe they were trying to stay alive???

See, I don't know how terrorists' minds work, but I have a feeling they're never going to be, like, "Gee, my hostages are being so disrespectful and rude to me! What's going on? Why don't they like me? Maybe I should let them go. Yes. That is what I'll do."

This guy died a few years after the ordeal.

Yikes. I just want to grab Sydney Simpson out of OJ's arms and hide her so that she doesn't have to experience the 90's.

Sigh.

What's Sydney Simpson up to now? 

And how about Jessica Namath?

Does anybody care? Well, if you do, click.

Ursula K. Le Guin got even more awesome, and then died.

Joe Kennedy II DID get elected, and the kid on the right, one of his sons, also named Joe, later got elected himself!

This article, about the need for at-work daycare centers and/or subsidized childcare for working parents, is right in line with the articles from the 80s that were trying to tell us about global warming. Was the topic important, even back then? Yes. Have we solved the problem? Nope!

Princess Caroline, seen here in the most 1986 outfit imaginable, has had a very strange life indeed. The guy she's snuggling with here died in an accident in 1990. And I just spent half an hour reading about the lines of succession in Monaco. Frankly, I think the whole system is messed up.

Speaking of royals...

But where's Queen Elizabeth II now? (Asked no one.) 

She's off being 93 somewhere in England, I suppose.

And speaking of Brits...

My preconceived notion that Helena Bonham Carter fell from the sky circa 1995 has been RUINED by this revelation that people knew who she was in 1986.

Well, I'd love to leave you with some pages of Neat Things You Should Buy, but alas, Life magazine fails in this regard! Instead, I'll leave you with a page of Neat Stuff You Could Win!

In this sweepstakes, sponsored by a cigarette company, you had to look at all the prizes and pick the one you wanted to possibly win before you sent in the form.

SO MANY CHOICES!

SO MANY UTTERLY RIDICULOUS CHOICES!

Like, how did you even decide? 

Jelly beans? Boomerangs? A ROBOT? 

But I think I know what I would've picked...

...that amazing 100-square-inch neon Todd sign! YESSSSSSS!

For more Glossy Time Capsules, click here!

Bricks Cascade, Year 9

Bricks Cascade, Year 9

Portland, Oregon

February 27-March 1, 2020

As I do every year, I'm going to talk about Bricks Cascade (Portland, OR's LEGO fan convention). However, if you want the full scope of my experience, you'll ALSO want to check out the two videos I've produced:

Video #1 (Some Photos, Lots Of Videos, And Me *At* The Con Itself)

Video #2 (4 Things That Made This Year's Con Special, My top 5 favorite MOCs, & around 100 MORE Photos!)

So there's those. But you know what I didn't talk about in those videos? My MOCs! Games I played! And trophies!

This year I brought several new creations the con....

Clutchmoor Elementary School

I spent a lot of time on this build because I wanted to make a structure that can be easily modified. So each of the classrooms is the same size, with the doors and windows in the same place on each. Meaning they can all be moved around. They just slide in and out... well, usually. That way if I ever want the school to have a cafeteria instead of a music room, I can (more easily) make that happen.

I bought some battery-powered lights to help illuminate the interiors.

  

For this version of the school, I attempted to make a 1960s-1970s-era school, complete with chalkboards, a climbing rope, desks with chairs attached, a film projector, and not a singular computer in sight.

The film projector was my most "innovative" element. (And yes, my standards are pretty low.) The projector had a battery-powered light. And across the room, on the "screen," was my old iPod Nano. And playing on THAT was a stop-motion LEGO film I made back in 2012. The effect worked pretty well, I thought. Unfortunately, the MOC was pretty far back on the table and I don't think many people actually got to see the "film."

* * * 

Also new this year: I built a bunker for a post-apocalyptic collab called "Dream Bunkers."

I dubbed mine "Gingerbunker"...

I had a lot of fun designing the details within, including chocolate-chip-cookie bunk beds and a cloud-and-candy floor.

I also brought some builds to the Old West collab...

...including this Schoolhouse, which is designed to look like a late-Victorian country schoolhouse.

I swear I'm not obsessed with schools. Really. I only have... uh... three?... LEGO schools!

I also went on two "LEGO Photography" excursions this winter, and got some fun shots. I chose my favorites and had them printed. I entered them in the Photography category.

^Ducks

^Bike on cement

^Naked bike ride

I've posted a few photos from these excursions on my Instagram (@MoMakesStuffUp), and plan to post more as time goes on. Be sure to follow me on there if you'd like to see more pics!

* * *

I also brought some other MOCs I've come to Bricks Cascade with before, including "Random Things From My Childhood." (The "doll house" was new, though. I covered it in this video.) I also contributed a build to the "Marina" collab by bringing a singular building that once had a home in the Steampunk theme.

* * *

I participated in two games at the con this year: "99 Pieces" and the Team Speed Build. (I also participated in Dirty Brickster, in which I came away with a small set, plus a cool older minifig I'd never seen before!)

For the Team Speed Build, I'd put together a team of folks who varied in building experience. In fact, one had never done a speed build before! Nevertheless, we persisted...

^We built this.

The games coordinator added an extra ounce of malice to the whole thing. He opened the boxes at some point before the game, took all the pieces out of all the bags, mixed them up, and put them all back in the box.

Niiiice.

This was the first year that Bricks Cascade did game sign-ups online. I was happy they did that, as I've found it difficult in the past to get into the Team Speed Build. Especially when the sign-up process has involved being the first in a line that begins to form during other events.

In fact, I don't think I'd done a Team Speed Build at this con since 2014, when a group of us assembled that giant tower from LOTR.

I do wish they'd follow BrickCan's suit and do two Team Speed Build events at Bricks Cascade, as this is typically the most sought-after event. I think this con is going to have to offer more games next year to meet the demands of 500+ attendees. 

Then there was 99 Pieces....

99 pieces (sometimes played as "101 Pieces") is a game in which you get a series of build prompts, and, using only the small assortment of LEGO elements you've brought, you are required to build something in just a few minutes. I've seen this played at many conventions, and it's always a little different. Sometimes you get a chance to talk about your build; other times, you just have to show it without explanation. Sometimes the person running the game picks each round's winner -- other times, other people's votes are considered. I won this game once at BrickCon, and was a runner-up at one time at BrickCan.

This time, I won! Barely. ;) Here were some of my builds...

I got a fun trophy made out of -- what else? -- 99 pieces!

I didn't get any other "official" trophies over the weekend, but I did receive two little appreciation tokens that made me happy. Someone from the Women's Brick Initiative left a memento next to my Random Things MOCs, and one of LEGO Masters, Jessica ("Ragzy"), left a signed wooden minifig next to my "Bare Essentials" photo (above.)

Speaking of the LEGO Masters, ten of the contestants were present at the con, and they were just so nice. I know... it's like, "Well, of course they were nice. They had to be." But really, they didn't. They weren't officially there on behalf of the TV show. They came as fans. But they also posed for numerous photos, signed autographs, and chatted with anyone who approached them. And they kept up the positive energy the entire weekend, it seemed. Great job, all.

^The LEGO Masters at a "Special Builders" panel.

I'm already thinking about things I want to build for next year. If you're interested in attending the con yourself, keep an eye on the website at BricksCascade.com. 

They're saying the theme for 2021 is "A Decade Of Bricking Around." Hmmm... March 2021 will be only 8.75 years since the first Bricks Cascade....

But who's counting?

* * *

 Previous Bricks Cascade blog posts:

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Some Thoughts On Little Women (2019)

I finally got to see the 2019 version of Little Women the other day, and I have a few things to say.

Roughly 800 years ago (which is to say, back in 2013) I sat down and read the novel Little Women, both volumes. I then wrote this post, in which I talked about the book as well as some of its many film adaptations.

Since 2013, the world has been granted three (3!) new versions of Little Women. 

The first, a 2017 TV-movie starring Maya Hawke as Jo, had all the makings of a masterpiece -- Angela Lansbury as Aunt March, Emily Watson as Marmee, Michael Gambon as Laurie's grandfather. Unfortunately, the acting from everyone else was so stilted and ridiculous that I couldn't even make it past episode one.

The second, a 2018 "modern retelling," featured Lea Thompson as Marmee. I never saw it, and the ratings don't look particularly promising, so I likely never will.

And finally, there's the 2019 version, which boasts the likes of Meryl Streep, Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Chris Cooper, and Laura Dern. It currently has a 95% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it received several Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Actress (Ronan), Supporting Actress (Florence Pugh as Amy), Music (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design. (As a quick note -- if nothing else, I hope it wins for screenplay and music. The music was beautiful. More on the adaptation in a moment.)

Okay, so spoiler alert, if you haven't seen this version and plan to do so, maybe wait and see it and then come back and read this afterward.

* * *

For the most part, I really enjoyed the 2019 version.

But I can't help wondering... how many people were able to actually follow it?

Because the whole thing begins with the four girls as adults -- Jo in New York, Amy in Paris, Meg with kids, and Beth loitering about.

Then it jumps back in time to when the four sisters are teenagers. Or, in other words, to where the novel begins.

Then it jumps to the future again.

And back. And forth. And back. And forth.

And it's never super obvious WHICH time period they're in whenever a jump is made. If you're incredibly familiar with the story, you can figure it out for the most part. But the clues are so subtle. I'm thinking about other movies that jump back & forth -- Forrest Gump makes the transitions with narration, and Now & Then's two time periods feature completely different actresses. Those are just two films that come to mind.)

Here, the clues are basically: The girls' hair. Pay attention to their hair. Of course, even then, it's not always clear. Does Jo's hair look short  because we're in the time period right after she lobbed it off, or does it just appear to be short because she's got it pulled back? Speaking of hair, would it have killed them to give Laurie a mustache when he got older? They gave Christian Bale one in the 1994 version once he got older and more worldly.

Okay, yes, in some cases you can tell it's the future or the past by paying close attention to the surroundings.  (Is someone in New York? Okay, it's the future.) Other times -- like during two separate visits to the seashore and two instances of Beth being gravely ill -- the two events happening in different time periods are presented as parallels, with quick cuts in between, and it's like... wait!? Stop!? When ARE we?

For a viewer who isn't familiar with the work, were they just left utterly confused?

Well, if you, like me, ARE familiar with the work, and you can get past the constant hopping through time, what you are left with is a version of Little Women that is unlike any that has come before it. (I am considering the films of 1933, 1949, and 1994, as well as the TV versions from 1970 and 1978.) And if I may say so, that's a GOOD thing. Whenever there's a "new" version of a classic work, it BETTER be different and interesting -- otherwise, what's the point?

When I first began to see trailers for this version, my immediate impression was that yes, it was going to be different -- and not particularly true to the book. But honestly, I didn't care. NONE of the films have been 100% true to the book. Several of the older versions had subplots involving Laurie and his Grandfather having a dysfunctional relationship, for example. Even the 1994 version chose to focus on Jo rather than focus on all the sisters in their later years, the way the book does. (This was fine, though, because A) Jo's plots are the best, and B) Nobody cares about your toddlers, Meg. No one!)

So, I have to say, after seeing the full film, I'm surprised how closely it DID stick to the book. If you were to rearrange all the scenes into chronological order, you'd get something very similar to the book.

Oh sure, there are a few differences. One, in this film, Friedrich is played as a little bit younger (mid-30s as opposed to the usual mid-to-late 40s), which I don't mind. Two, in this film, Jo opens a co-ed school, whereas in the book it was an all-boys school. (Again, I like this change.)

But then there was the whole thing about Jo's letter to Laurie towards the end. Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, Josephine March! That was -- I mean, it's not really fair to tease us like that! Make the audience think, Hmm, yeah, this is a NEW version of Little Women, where they might finally make things "right" and get those two crazy kids together! And then it's like, "Nope! Fooled you!" MEAN.

My biggest surprise was that they included several post-marriage scenes between Meg and John, which I don't recall seeing much of before in any of the films. (In the 1994 version, Meg gives birth and that's about it.) Well, no, my surprise was more with the fact that the scenes were tolerable -- good, even!

But perhaps the biggest difference between the book and this film (and the 1994 one, too, if we're being fair) is the overall message.

The book: Morality wins the day! Be good wives, and thou shalt prosper!

This movie's message: Feminism! Bucking traditional roles and going one's own way! You'll never reign in Jo March, oh no!

The 1994 version went in that direction, too, but the 2019 version pushes the message even further. And that's great. We're 150+ years removed from the novel. A movie about four girls growing into "good little wives," and basically dumbing down as they do so, would be insulting, even outrageous, to most Americans today. (Yeah, I'm sure you'd still find a few people who'd be into it, but I'm not sure those people even go to movie theaters in the first place.)

Anyway, first impressions:

*Chronological time-and-space jumping is a little confusing (at least upon a first viewing).

*Acting is great.

*Music is wonderful.

*Story is familiar, and yet presented in a way that's not stale.

*Someone PLEASE teach Eliza Scanlen how to actually look like she's playing a piano. (ETA: Okay, apparently she knows how to play. Hey, let's blame a sound editor instead!)

*I hope it wins an Oscar or two.