Self-study
The following passage is adapted from a 2001 article by a film historian.
P1
██ ██████████ █████ ██ █████████████ ██ █ ████████ █ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███ █████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███
Question ·
Which works of art should be shown together?
Answer 1 ·
Group art according to artist
E.g. Rembrandt paintings
Answer 2 ·
Group art according to theme/period
E.g., Modernist art
Similarity ·
Both answers use common characteristics to group art togther
Analogy ·
Film retrospectives are like art exhibits
Similar works of film are grouped by a common feature and screened together
narrowing topic ·
Early nonfiction film retrospectives
P2
███ █ █████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███ █████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ █████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ███
Main point / author's criticism ·
Early films shouldn't be grouped by similarity
Premise: such films were never originally shown this way
Support criticism ·
Original format for screening films
Author gives more detail: instead of grouping similar films together, cinemas originally showed different films together in "mixed program"
P3
████ ████████ ███ █████████████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ████████████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ███
target of criticism ·
Film archives and retrospective festivals
Their priority is to showcase how films supposedly originally looked; author implies this shouldn't be sole priority
support criticism ·
Authenticity in how films were originally grouped is important
Screening films in mixed-program format adds context and improves viewing experience
clarify main point ·
Exhibition of early films shouldn't ignore the context in which they were originally viewed
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
6.
The author would be most ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
An exhibition of █████ ██ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████████ █ ███████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████████
Unsupported. What the author finds dull is an exhibition of works in a single genre (early nonfiction film). He doesn’t suggest that showing works by the same artist together is ever dull, or that doing so is ever likely to be less interesting than another approach.
b
When several works ██ ███ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ █████ ██████
Strongly supported as something the author would agree with. He argues that when early nonfiction films are exhibited one after the other without variety, the audience misses out on experiencing the interplay between different kinds of early films. This is a major concern for him. So he must believe that audiences are significantly affected by the interplay of different works of art.
c
Film archives and █████████████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
Anti-supported. Film archives and retrospective festivals are ignoring practices that have their roots in the vaudeville tradition.
d
Most early cinemagoers ███ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ███████
Unsupported. Early cinemagoers watched different genres of films together, but that doesn’t suggest they thought fiction and nonfiction were the same genre.
e
A work of ███ ████ ██ █████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ████████
Anti-supported. The author suggests that “collecting the similar,” while not authentic, can be helpful to historians and academics.