MISS UNIVERSE 1992-1994 – LESSONS IN HISTORY

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.”