It all comes down to — how did they look?

Press, 18 November 1981, Page 14

It all comes down to — how did they look?

F Review J

Douglas McKenzie

Everyone knows that the “Miss World” show is a lot of rubbish in which the peak of banality is the questions put to the contestants. Yet everyone watches it, at least as far as the line-up. Why? The answer is something to do with the definition of beauty, which, itself, can have no possible answer. Where shows like “Miss World” score is-that they are agreeable to both men and women, although for what must be wildly opposed reasons.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is that a “Mr World” is never held because it would be equally boring to men and women spectators. This must have great significance as to what sort of people both men and women are. There is no intention to look into these aspects any further. The comperes this year (One, Saturday) were apparently “well known British broadcasters,” Peter Marshall and Judith Chalmers — unknown locally, as it hap-' pened. They were quite up to the standard of performance of their many predecessors. The aim of the questions seems merely to be to bring the girls’ voices to the microphone. The points posed usually had an outstanding irrelevancy to any person’s life, contestant or other. Compere: How many earthquakes do you have in Colombia? Contestant: Los numeros y del aparecen tambien en la placa situada en la carroceria, detras del emplazam-

iento’de la rueda derecha en otros tipos y del podran verse del mamparo de soporte destras asiento trasero se puede plegar tai y como se indica, de los pasajeros de la etiqueta. Interpreter: Not many. or the compere gave them something deeply philosophical to allow original thought to burgeon. Compere: What is the most important thing you have learned from this contest? Contestant: Los sujetadores para ninos estan disenados soportar solamente impuestas cuando los estan correctamente adaptados en ningun caso deben utilizarse en lugar de los cinturones de seguridad . . . But the compere broke in "... thank you, Miss Uruguanto, I hope it is the same also.” He -never let her finish. She must have gone on too long. We failed to get the answer to this ground-breaking question. The utter simplicity of the answer of “Miss U.S.A.” showed that there was nothing at all the matter with this contest. The compere (It was Miss Chalmers): How do you feel • with all that wonderful reception you’re getting? “Miss U.S.A.”: It’s wonderful. There were, in fact, tremendous advances made in the judging presentation this year. No longer were the individual. contestants being marked to four decimal places on a huge, electronic board at each stage when they did something different. This was too much like the check-out numbers at a supermarket.

Apparently the judges finally did it off the top of their heads just like anybody eise. And why not? “Miss World” had come home again. The judging was not done on how intelligent the contestants were, or whether they were going to devote their lives to charity, or whether they were really nice to their mothers. It was judged on whether they looked good.