Masterminds in swimsuits

Press, 15 January 1986, Page 15

Masterminds in swimsuits

r

Ian Hutchison

“The Miss Asia Pacific Beautiful Quest 1985” screened last week-end. It was full of youth, hope, idealism and a great deal of good taste and sincerity, all of which was embodied by Miss Australia who said she really cherishes “friends and family and would like to go out into the world and make friends in order to help bring the world together.” It was not, some might think, a. beauty contest flogging bodies faster than you’d flog a racehorse down the Melbourne Cup straight. Heavens, no. It was about brains as well as beauty. In fact, beauty this year was second to intelligence. The fact that all the contestants managed to look as though they had done nothing else all year except manicure their magnificent bodies into perfect formulaic proportions was nothing more than mere coincidence, just a bit of genetic good luck, so to speak.

No, sir. They were there to be judged on brains alone. The fact that the 30odd master-minds were formally dressed in bathing costumes was obviously more to do with the humidity of Hong Kong’s climate than to show how well organised their factory processed bits and pieces were. When it got down to the final five, the intellectual competition really started to heat up. There they were, the big Einsteinian five: Misses Peru, Korea, Israel, Hong Kong and Guatemala. They were to be asked some very, very tough questions. The audience grew quiet as Richard Foong, a well known personality, posed the first question to Miss Peru: “If you were to choose a hero to represent the world, would you choose Superman or James Bond?” The other questions were just as probing, searching and intellectually mindnumbing. But it was Miss Israel, looking a lot like /“Dallas's” Sue Ellen, who clinched it with her answer

that Ronald Reagan was more successful than Sylvester Stallone. It had been obvious from the beginning of the contest that she was a brain to be reckoned with. She was a deep thinker who had life’s priorities right, She was the one who said she likes her parents and loves gardening. One was left in awe of her cognitive capabilities. Following fast and hot on the international heels of the dependably depressive, deep-probing “The World Tonight,” “Agony” offers a view of life which is, to say the least, cheerier. Although the programme revolves around agony aunt Jane Lucas, it is thankfully more about comedy than the powerfully passionate and painful world of other people’s peptic-ulcer problems.

For light-weight liberals of leftist leanings who choose to carry the world’s capitalist-caused ills on their broad but thick intellectual shoulders via a nightly dose of "T.W.T.,” “Agony” offers sound and practical advice on how to cope with them: forget

them, stick one’s head in the sand, or preferably a good expanse of light-hearted, often poignant comedy.

■ Without a doubt there is nothing dirgefully dour nor severely sour about “Agony.” It is, after all, a comedy show whose agony columnist heroine advises on other people’s problems, but has trouble solving her own.

It is bright, colourful and funny. The writing is of a consistently high standard, with some clever, quick and witty well-wrought oneliners making regular guest appearances.

It moves along at a labouring-the-point-too-much pace and has strong acting and strong characters, something upon which every good comedy show rests. They bring to a programme depth, quality and a sense of reality which highlights the comedy by making it seem more seamlessly, convincingly spontaneous and quick of mind — surprise, speed and counterpoint being the essence of humour.

For those with less than broad, thick shoulders, it is a programme worth looking into. On top of this it has a philosophical message to cast too: set one’s own house in order first. Certainly, this view of life releases one from dutifully watching “T.W.T.” every night.