Misdirection. Although the author uses the word “allegedly,” which calls into question the sincerity of such early film lovers, this isn’t the purpose of this sentence. The author is trying to drive home the point he’s trying to make throughout P3: film presenters in the early 20th century followed a certain format, and film exhibits shouldn’t ignore that format (shouldn’t “forsake” those presenters’ “insights”). The author’s implying that film exhibits should follow the same format that early film presenters used.

The author is trying to drive home the point he’s trying to make throughout P3: film presenters in the early 20th century followed a certain format, and film exhibits shouldn’t ignore that format (shouldn’t “forsake” those presenters’ “insights”). The author’s implying that film exhibits should follow the same format that early film presenters used.

This is what the author does in P2: he explains what was done. The final sentence of the passage, meanwhile, is about what the author thinks should be done now.

The author never suggests that film lovers should find the earliest versions possible. His argument is that early nonfiction films should be exhibited alongside other kinds of early films. He’s not interested in how old the versions of those films happen to be.

The author doesn’t challenge this notion. He argues that in order to better understand and appreciate early film, those films should be exhibited a certain way.