NEAR
WINS AND EVENTUAL VICTORIES
(Series 4 of 4)
By
Rolando Rafael
In the first three
articles that I have written about lessons in Miss Universe history, I have
pointed out that the highest scoring candidate during the preliminary,
semifinals and the final 6 does not necessarily become the title holder. The
final reckoning becomes the yardstick of choosing the winner. But what is the
basis in the final reckoning? Based on the 1992 to 1994 pageants, the sole
basis is the ability of the candidate to espouse the advocacy of the
organization and how the candidate was able to touch the core of these ideals
and how she communicated using her innate beauty to the judges. You can
practically feel who the judges are rooting for that very moment.
The scores that were
flashed onscreen showed how each of the candidates compared with each other and
it aided the audience how their candidates are faring well. It would also give
a hint to national directors why their candidates did not qualify or did not
make it. Sometimes, the fault is in what the candidates wore. Sometimes, a
one-piece or two-piece swimsuit would make the difference. It is in the eye of
the beholder that these things are taken into account. Every judge sitting
there has a different standard of beauty and thus a different standard of
judging although the organization that is handling the pageant may have
oriented them to what they are looking for a girl.
The ability to
communicate the candidates’ advocacy is another that should be taken into
account. I have been part of different pageant organizations and I noticed that
they initially do not follow a prototype of who should win in their pageant.
But when they hear the candidates and when they hear them talk about their advocacy they start fitting the candidate into their boxes. In bigger organizations,
the rehearsed is easily picked up from the natural ones; the trained from the
innate ones. But sometimes you cannot fault the trained candidates as they
offer a more stable personality than those of the instinctive candidates.
Take the case of
Colombia. They had a very revered Miss Universe history. They had their first
Miss Universe in 1958 in the person of Luz Marina Zuluaga from Caldas,
Colombia. They had 29 appearances to the semifinalists circle in the 54 years
that they had participated in the pageant. They had their own shares of Best in
National Costumes too. But the most frustrating probably is the years in review,
1992 to 1994. They had three successive first runners-up. And a title never
materialized. Fourteen years after, they managed again a first runner-up in the
person of Taliana Vargas. I can’t seem to understand why this phenomenon
occurred for Colombia. First, they have the wow factor. Second, their
candidates have the wit factor. Thirdly, they have the sexy factor. Probably it
is luck. Or what we call the confluence of factors. Or some believe that lucky
things happen to lucky people.
Now what about India? In
our review years, 1992-1994, we saw two Miss India candidates entering the
semifinals for the years 1992 and 1993. In 1992, their representative was
second runner-up. In 1993, their representative was in the Top 6. It was said
that the problem of these two candidates is the language barrier – their inability
to communicate or put into words what is in their minds and thoughts. But in
1994, Sushmita Sen erased that handicap. The year 1994 became the time that
almost all Miss India’s are considered the girls to beat because of their
ability to express themselves. Although in recent years, we find less and less
Miss India finalists until recently.
History can be so cruel
as it underscores the paucity of luck in one camp while the other camps lord it
over always. Some quarters may have found right formula and are continually
refining that formula until they have found the correct potion of success.
Others grapple with the fact that they have missed the train to success and are
always missing it. In this highly globalized world and with the internet serving
as a tool of social communication, even beauty pageants need to adjust to the
leaps and bounds of technology. National directors should take a cue from the
lessons learned in the past. To which I have to bring back myself in what Miss
Colombia 1994 Carolina Gomez has said and to paraphrase it: “We must learn from the past and learn from
people who have been there because they have the wisdom of experience that they
can share to the younger denizens who are also in the process of making history
for the future.”
.jpg)
