journal  |  features  |  critical photo |  telecasts  |  beauty in all creatures
belleza crítica |  boutique |  i love cb |  links |  about this site |  message board




  • Please comment on the Miss Universe age requirement.
  • Why did you change the site's name to Critical Beauty?
  • What is the difference between Miss Universe and Miss World?
  • How can one contribute to your site? Does the contribution have to be in English?
  • Who is your all-time favorite Miss Universe?
  • "Live" versus "Recorded Earlier"
  • Why didn't Justine wear the crown during her final walk?
  • What do you think is the reason the Philippines is not doing well in Miss Universe?
  • How are the candidates judged in the evening gown competition?
  • Why was the isolation booth eliminated?
  • Why were the preliminary electronic scores not shown on this year's broadcast?






    Please comment on the Miss Universe age requirement.

          A reader wrote to me with this inquiry: "I was searching about the age requirement for participation in Miss Universe and I found the answer in Miss Universe's FAQ section. I now understand that the rule is a delegate must be 18 by February 1st of the year she competes in the national competition. In relation to this, may I pose some queries:

    1) Since when this rule became effective? The website says 1993. Does this mean it was imposed before the 1993 pageant or after the 1993 pageant?

    2) Is the rule absolute so that a girl who wins a national pageant but who has turned 18, let's say only on March 1 gets disqualified? Were there any precedents?

    2) If a girl is 17 when she wins the national finals but turns 18 before February 1, is she qualified for Miss Universe?"

    Maybe this entry from Wikipedia (on Dayanara Torres) could shed light in your queries:

    When she was 17, she was approached while walking by her hometown and was invited to represent Toa Alta in the annual Miss Puerto Rico Pageant. Even though she had little experience in modeling she won it and went to represent Puerto Rico in the Miss Universe Pageant. The pageant was celebrated in Mexico in May 21, 1993 and Torres ended up winning the crown. Torres' victory in the pageant caused some controversy because it was claimed she was still a minor. However, Torres had turned 18 several months before the contest.(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayanara_Torres)

          So I guess the rule became effective after the 1993 pageant to prevent another age-related controversy.

          Yes, the rule appears to be absolute. MUO requires all national directors to explain as clearly as possible all the regulations to their contestants, that's why the contestants are required to submit copies of their birth certificates when they apply to compete in their national finals. MUO is run by an American company, and thus all U.S. rules must apply regarding what constitutes "legal age" (meaning 18).


    Why did you change the site's name to Critical Beauty?

          I had a great time with Miss Universe Critic which ran for six years, but I felt that the name was too limited in its scope as it only focused on anything related to Miss Universe. As my interest in other pageants grew, I felt that I also had to pay some attention to them; they deserved my criticism as much as Miss Universe did. Thus, the name Critical Beauty was born.


    What is the difference between Miss Universe and Miss World?

          A fan from Basrah, Iraq would like to know the difference between these two major beauty contests.

          Perhaps it is best to let both beauty organizations to speak for themselves. To know the history behind Miss Universe, visit this     site. Also check out the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) in the "Corp. Info" tab.

          For an excellent write-up on the history of Miss World, visit this link from Beauty School.

          The similarities between the two pageants are many. Just to name a few: both started out primarily as beauty pageants that have now evolved into huge, profit-making companies. Each organization has its own charitable alliances and goals. The winners become important figures in their countries and earn the respect and admiration of their people. The representatives for either contest have to be elected via a national search (though Miss World has made a few exceptions with the U.S. delegate who is usually hand picked.) Both pageants have been held outside their place of origin (in Asia, Africa, North America and Europe) and attract millions of television viewers. And of course, both organizations elect beautiful women to promote their respective causes.

          However, certain differences need to be noted. Miss Universe is American-owned whereas Miss World is British-owned. Miss Universe has never been held in the United Kingdom (where Miss World was born), whereas Miss World has been held in Atlanta, Georgia in 1991. For many years, Miss Universe allowed the three geopolitical divisions of the United Kingdom to participate (England, Wales and Scotland), but no longer. Miss World, on the other hand, only accepted a "Miss United Kingdom", but this policy was changed in the late 1990s as to include England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and other British territories. Miss Universe is now the biggest branch of a megabeauty triumvirate that also includes Miss USA and Miss Teen USA - all three are owned by Donald Trump and NBC. Miss World remains an independent organization that also runs its male counterpart, Mr. World.

          If you can think of any more subtle similarities or differences, please let me know!


    How can one contribute to your site? Does the contribution have to be in English?

          I am always looking for new contributors to my sit e. I welcome any ideas, comments or suggestions to make my site more inviting and interesting. Contributions may be submitted in English, French and Spanish. Non-English submissions may be translated into English.

          At this moment, I am looking for competent multi-lingual volunteers who wish to do some translations for me. If you know of any beauty queens (past or present) or any personality in the pageant world that is worthy to be interviewed, please advise me so I may invite those individuals for an in-depth interview in future Critical Beauty editions.

          Finally, if you have snapshots or digital photos of beauty pageant events and would like to show them to the world, I'd be happy to screen and post them.


    Who is your all-time favorite Miss Universe?

          This is a very difficult question to answer, and frankly speaking, I don't think I will ever have a suitable answer mainly because the question seems to require an absolute response, and I don't believe in absolutes. And here's why:

          One's perception of beauty evolves through time. What one thinks as beautiful in another time, one thinks of it as not so beautiful in another time. To select an all-time favorite Miss Universe would require me to meet and to know each and every titleholder which is improbable. Likewise, I cannot say who the most beautiful Miss Universe is, because to say so would suggest that the pageant is already extinct and that no other woman will ever surpass the beauty of past titleholders. That is why I prefer to select the most beautiful woman for a particular year instead of all-time, because selecting the latter would indicate that beauty is absolute, which should not be.

          Finally, one's taste in beauty is hard to measure. Akiko Kojima's kind of beauty was recognized in 1959 and until mid-1970s, but after 1975, her type of beauty faded. Who are we to say that her type would not become popular again in the near future? Beauty, like fashion, is recyclable.


    "Live" versus "Recorded Earlier"

          A pageant fan e-mailed me with a burning question regarding a couple of Miss Universe videos he had received: 1986 and 1995. This fan had noticed that in the 1986 telecast - after several commercials - a big caption appeared that says, "Live from the Republic of Panama" followed immediately by a small caption that says, "Recorded Earlier" - which appears contradictory. Likewise during the 1995 telecast, the caption "This Program Was Recorded Earlier" and the caption "Live from Namibia in the Southwestern Africa" would appear once in a while.

          It is not always true that the Miss Universe telecast is shown live all over the world. Even with the advent of WebTV, the pageant has never been broacasted live via the Internet. When the pageant is held outside the U.S., it is shown "live" first and foremost for the East coast viewers in the U.S. (usually beginning at 9 in the evening), and then the rest of the world catches a delayed telecast. If I am in the U.S. and if I am watching a live telecast of the pageant, the network (let's say NBC) that is broadcasting the pageant might opt to put the caption "Live from Panama" (for example). In other words, whatever NBC puts on its original feed, no other network can tamper with the feed. If it involves a delayed telecast, let's say in Australia, the Australian T.V. network that is showing the telecast might repeatedly show the caption "Recorded Earlier" to advise viewers that the broadcast is not live, even though it would repeatedly show "Live from Panama."

          Sometimes, I watch talk shows that invite viewers to call in or to e-mail the network for any comments regarding the topic in question or a particular guest on the panel. These shows are sometimes replayed either later in the day or a few days later. The network that is replaying a show (that was originally broadcasted live) will obviously display a caption like perhaps "Please Do Not Call. This is a Repeat of an Earlier Broadcast" or something to this effect.


    Why didn't Justine wear the crown during her final walk?

          A very reliable source had sent me this information:

    Justine did not wear the crown because of logistics. The Mikimoto crown was on a table just waiting to be used, and Justine simply did not have time to come out for her farewell speech, take the crown off and crown Amelia. The crown is put on with bobby pins and would have required quite a production for her to take it off and put it on Amelia's head.

    The MUO will possibly have to make a replica so both crowns can be on stage at the same time. (The tiara is meant for small events).

    Justine did want to wear that crown.


          It is unfortunate that Justine did not have the chance to say her farewell speech wearing the Mikimoto crown. I think MUO - at least the production crew - did a terrible disservice to Justine by not giving her ample time to properly say goodbye and to showcase the crown on her head for the last time. The crown is supposed to be the symbol of royalty (in this case, a beauty queen). Anyone who is not familiar with Miss Universe and sees the pageant for the first time will surely wonder why the ongoing queen is not wearing a crown.

          Granted, the Mikimoto crown is worth at least a quarter of a million dollars and deserves to be protected from would-be thieves, but how often does the winner gets to wear it? Probably twice during her reign: once, when she is crowned as the winner, and then during her final walk. Meanwhile, she has to contend with a tiara which, frankly, I detest because tiaras - to me - should be reserved for brides and princesses and not queens! Now you know why many fans are still upset over the new crown, because with the old one, the predecessor at least got to keep hers!

          I can only hope Amelia will be allowed to say a farewell speech and wear the Big Crown during coronation night in Ecuador next year.


    What do you think is the reason the Philippines is not doing well in Miss Universe?

          The Philippines did very well in Miss Universe between 1969 (when the country won its first crown with Gloria Diaz) and until 1975 when Rosemarie Brosas placed fifth. Unlike other countries like the U.S. or Venezuela that have consistently maintained a superb performance, the Philippines - after 1975 - averages about two good performances per decade (1980, 1984, 1994, 1999), though it still has to prove its power in the first decade of the new millennium. I can think of two reasons the Philippines has not fared well recently. One, because the wrong girls are sent to the competition, and two, because the right girls have not been properly trained. Miriam Quiambao was lucky to place second, but besides her confidence, we need to remember that she was trained in Osmel Sousa's beauty camp and that she was already a big favorite since she arrived in Trinidad & Tobago.

          However, a Sousa training does not always produce excellent results. Zorayda Andam (Bb. Pilipinas 2001) was also trained by Sousa, but she did not even make the semifinals. The Philippines has many naturally beautiful women and pageants are very much entrenched in Philippine culture, but sometimes it is essential to break out of the traditional perception of Filipina beauty (demure and conservative) and embrace boldness and worldliness. For years, Miss Universe has shed her image of a beautiful woman smiling and traveling all over the world to cut ribbons and to meet celebrities; now, she is a worker in the real sense of the word with a mission to accomplish. And to accomplish your goals, you need to be assertive, eloquent, patient, diligent, energetic, dynamic, gregarious and disciplined - and at the same looking good and happy all the time.

          Perhaps most Philippine beauty queens do not feel comfortable with the judges as one would think. If this is the case, then they should not be sent to competitions at all. The Philippines has done rather well in minor international pageants in the last few years, but most of these pageants hardly require public speaking skills. I am sure that with proper training (I mean long, intensive and arduous one), with the right look and attitude and with luck, the Philippines will capture its third Miss Universe crown. Who knows? Maybe next year in Ecuador!


    How are the candidates judged in the evening gown competition?

          Almost every pageant has three categories: interview, swimsuit and evening gown. In the interview portion, the candidate is judged for her eloquence, delivery, substance and personality. In the swimsuit portion, the candidate is judged for her physical fitness and sexiness. In the evening gown portion, the candidate is judged for her elegance, poise and sense of style.

    In recent years, the evening gown competition of the Miss Universe and its sister pageants, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA, has been placing an emphasis on the candidate's runway or catwalk skills. Since some of the major sponsors include clothing designers, it is not enough that a beauty queen wears the designer's clothes; she must also know how to carry it in the way that the designer intended for the clothing to be worn. After all, a beauty queen is a walking billboard, and if she does not use her magic, she will not be able to sell the product.

          An observant pageant fan noticed that in this year's Miss Teen USA pageant, the candidates were not judged at all on their choice of gown, but rather on elegance, poise and runway skills. The argument is - since all the candidates had elegance, poise and runway skills, what exactly set them apart if their choice of gown was not even a criteria? Many national and state pageants include gown selection as a significant criteria, and that is why they present a Best in Evening Gown award. The same question can be asked with the interview and swimsuit portions: if all the candidates were equally articulate, coherent and sexy, then how do you pick the best? Well, we've all heard of the infamous X factor - that indescribable quality - you can call it spark - that a candidate possesses.

          Frankly, I think the X factor is non-existent; it's nothing but a figment of one's imagination. A candidate wins because she is simply lucky; she happens to be at the right place at the right time and with the most number of votes. Elegance, poise, charm, intelligence, and sexiness are abstractions that cannot be measured objectively. Who's to say that Miss Teen Tennessee was more elegant and stylish than Miss Teen Oregon? Perhaps among the eight judges, more simply preferred Miss Teen Oregon. Why? We don't know. But we do know that judging is purely subjective, and much of this subjectivity is influenced by our cultural, educational and social conditioning.


    Why was the isolation booth eliminated?

          The Miss Universe fans who cherish tradition will agree with me when I say that the isolation booth has been the most interesting prop ever used in the pageant since it was first introduced in the 1960s. The booth was abandoned in 1998 and replaced by a more "hip-hop" method that requires the finalists to put on a headphone (with music playing) as they await their turn to answer the final question.

          Unfortunately, there are more bad points that good ones with this headphone method. First, the headphone could really mess up your hairdo, and if it is not properly adjusted - could also cause discomfort to your ears, especially if you're wearing earrings. Second, in order for the finalist not to hear the question, an assistant (usually one of the male dancers) has to hold on to the headphone; if I were one of the finalists, I would feel awkward standing face to face in front of the assistant. Third, the whole scenario looks totally unsophisticated. And lastly, the headphone method - though it may perhaps help the finalists to relax a little - deprives them the opportunity to morally support each other for the last time - something that an isolation booth could offer.


    Why were the preliminary electronic scores not shown on this year's broadcast?

          The electronic voting was introduced to televiewers in 1978 when the pageant was held in Acapulco, Mexico. After twenty-four years, pageant officials decided to eliminate the electronic voting system in favor of traditional judging system.

          I am not exactly sure about the reason or reasons as to why pageant officials decided to eliminate the preliminary scores as well as the semifinalist scores. I remember having read somewhere in the Web (maybe on a message board) that using scores could have a deep psychological impact on the candidate, especially if the scores are low. I am sure that the scoring system has been protested many times before especially by feminist-leaning beauty queens who think that it is demeaning and degrading - with which I agree to a certain extent, especially if I were one of the participants! I don't think I'd be comfortable being assigned an average score of 8.9 in the interview segment when I know deep in my heart that I truly deserved a much higher score.

          Instead of the scoring system, pageant officials have opted to return to traditional method of judging which consists of the jury members meticulously interviewing and then carefully deliberating on which candidates should make the cut. Instead of computers, the judges now use notebooks and pencils. Personally, I prefer this system of judging for the simple reason that it encourages brainstorming and group interaction. It also gives the broadcast some sort of suspense or intrigue. The jury has been assigned by MUO to select its ideal new spokesperson who would represent a multi-million dollar company, and just like any other job seeker, the candidate needs to abide by the company's hiring procedure which may be subject to change anytime.

          Many of us who have been accustomed to the electronic scoring system bemoan its elimination, but we need to realize that its absence will not change the fact that judges will still have to vote, and what better way to do it than through an intelligent and educated deliberation rather than through pressing the keyboard pad of a computer - which requires neither effort nor intellect.

    • © Copyright 2006. Critical Beauty.