How else can I explain how members of the movie industry become regular fodder for fashion police (fashion critics) target practice while members of high society, the business community, and fellow journalists are forgiven anything and everything? I discreetly asked around, begging people from within the fashion magazine world to play Devil’s Advocate to my premise. And wouldn’t you know it–under the cloak of confidentiality, they unanimously admitted the double standard does exist!
Movie stars and starlets are easy targets; their public personas make them open season material. And truth be told, it doesn’t seem to matter much if you hurt their feelings as very few would make cover subjects for your magazine and you aren’t likely to run into them in your next event or party. The chances of you having to avert from meeting their steely gazes, or rustling up some half-baked apology, or retreating to avoid confrontation, are very slim. Being bitchy is fun, sure. But when you earmark your targets and fail to apply the same critical eye to those who are "friends," I’m sorry, but that says more about your ethical standards than it does your "coolness," wit and imagination.
These celluloid personalities are dressed up by designers (generally, the less established ones) and they are out to draw attention to themselves to create a commotion with their very entrance and so they will be sought out by the assembled paparazzi. Sure, you can say they’re public figures and as such, it comes with the territory, that they’re "fair game" for scrutiny.
Well, excuse me, but I can say the very same things about some people from the "other neck of the woods." They’re also out to be photographed and have come out with such regularity, to not consider them "public" is to deny the amount of lifestyle photos that have featured them. To call them "stylish" or "oozing with personality" is outright double talk. The photographs speak for themselves. You can call one set disasters and the other set "style mavericks or fashion icons," but believe me, most women or men wouldn’t be caught dead emulating either set of "fashion statements."
Don’t get me wrong, these individuals have every right to be outlandish, loud, or colorful. Just don’t apply one standard to the movie people and present a different one or stay mum when you’re face to face with these individuals. If you want to fashion police, go across the board. Give it a "Wouldn’t be Caught Dead in these Outfits" tagline and present individuals from a broad spectrum and not just showbiz people. I may not be Inno Sotto or Rajo Laurel, but I have seen my share of society people putting on the wrong frock, wearing something ill-fitting or committing some fashion crime.
And the funniest thing is, the times I’ve gone to fashion mag events, I sometimes catch the faces these writers put on when one of these colorful individuals walk by. Face to face, it’s all smiles and the handy compliment with matching gushing tones. But the moment the individual walks on, it’s arched eyebrows, the knowing snicker and/or the stifled laugh.
I was warned that saying this out loud would not endear me to people who may feel alluded to. But hey, what’s the worse that could happen? I get strangled by a thong panty or stabbed by the pointed toe of someone’s boot. Or maybe they’ll send some Turkish hitman who’ll exclaim, "Ef-Fendi, you have offended! Armani will guarantee your silence or else we Birkin your home and make sure you never Hermes anymore!" To which I will sneeze in his face, exclaiming, "Jimmy, Ah-Choo!"
Some months before the games, I had the chance to interview Eric Buhain. As head of the Philippine Sports Commission, he was decrying how difficult it was to create effective training programs for the Busan bound athletes. Sponsorship money was merely trickling in. It seemed most parties approached had a ready excuse on why funds could not be devoted to sports this year. Everyone wanted to contribute in kind or hold back for the time being. Somehow, through 36 million creative "ways and means," Eric got the athletes on track and a contingent made its way to Korea.
At first, all the general public seemed intent on following was the basketball players. Did most of us even know Mikee Cojuangco-Jaworski was competing? If Filipinos noticed her in Busan, maybe some even thought she was there shooting a commercial! If you weren’t playing basketball or boxing, that’s how off the radar you were. (And I know it’s so easy in hindsight to deny this, but hopefully, we’re frank enough to admit it.)
The Southeast Asian Games will be held in 2003 and naturally, a more bountiful medal harvest can be expected. Come on, less countries competing and no China, South Korea or Japan. Let’s do the right thing and give the PSC the support it badly needs, now! Knowing the mentality of some of us out there, the convenient logic will be that if we did well with relatively little support in Busan, the diminished competition of the SEA Games should mean even less financial requirements. As I write this, congressional investigations are ongoing, questioning how the money raised for the Asian Games was spent.
Sure, we can do that, but it’s also high time we really take the athletes and their training programs seriously. We are so ready to celebrate and take vicarious pleasure in their achievements; so why gripe about how these athletes take years to develop, that funds are necessary and long-term programs have to be institutionalized. For those who don’t believe sports and these athletes can be fulcrums for waves of nationalistic pride and unity, I give you Thai tennis phenom Paradorn Srichaphan or Korean lady golfers like Se Ri Pak. Paradorn ended the year ranked among the World’s Top 20. He’s defeated Andre Agassi and other name tennis players. When the 2002 season started with the Australian Open, most of the world didn’t even know he existed. Six, seven years ago, I’m sure there would have been Filipino tennis players who, in the age group Paradorn would have been competing in, could have given him a run for his money or even trounced him. What happened in the intervening years should be a lesson for us all.
By the time this piece sees print, I can only hope that things have become clearer, with directives and parameters already in place. If not, then we can condemn this Lifestyle Check to the heap of sound bytes and cosmetic "pogi points" trial balloons this administration has launched–and gloriously crashed.
It really was a sorry sight. Commissioner Buenaflor had obviously been instructed to drum up public awareness of this new initiative but someone had forgotten to give him anything substantial to work with. It was an endless repetition of what in principle the Check aimed to accomplish (creditable, sure!); but with nary a definite program of how this would be realized!
After stating that there was no precedent for this type of task, he even brought out the buzzwords "But we will be harnessing experts and scholars to assist us." And I was there sitting in amazement, wondering how there could be "experts and scholars" if he had just said nothing like this had ever been done before?
Oh, the webs we spin and mirrors we mount! This Lifestyle Check may be a good enough idea, so I truly hope it does end up as more than just that... an idea. Right now it looks like a de-clawed, emasculated, mute macaw; pretty to look at, but with nothing much beyond appearances.