Motion Pictures

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct74% picked this

   Films should be projected at precisely the speed at which they were designed

   Why this is right

   While the extreme language of "precisely the speed at which they were designed" is an initial turn-off, this author is a stickler for trying to faithfully represent the original vision of the filmmaker; that's the main point of the passage. The final sentence of the 3rd paragraph is our support: Some alterations, such as a subtle increase in the projection speed of a televised movie to obtain more commercial time are almost imperceptible but nonetheless detrimental to the integrity of a film. Since the author thinks that "subtle increases" are detrimental, he would insist that the film be projected at precisely the intended speed.

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
2. B

   Opposite3% picked this

   Filmmakers should accept the fact that criticisms are often directed against distributors rather

   The second to last sentence of the passage goes against this answer. It sounds like the author is concerned that criticisms will be directed against the filmmaker, not the distributor: Professional analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to filmmakers when - as is surprisingly often the case - they are based on a version that has already been seriously altered.

   3%
3. C

   Too Strong: inevitable22% picked this

   Film critics should acknowledge that mutilations of films during distribution and public

   This flies in the face of the author's main point. He is sending out a warning to the world that is saying, "It sucks that we tolerate all these mutilations of the filmmaker's actual intended artistic output". He does not want to just accept this with resignation; he wrote the passage in order to rail against it. So he wouldn't say, "we should just accept that these mutilations are inevitable." He'd be more likely to say "we should stop doing these mutilations" or maybe something like "film critics should appreciate that the work they're judging may have been subject to mutilations."

   22%
4. D

   Opposite, if anything1% picked this

   Film commentaries should not be concerned with audience reactions

   The first sentence of the passage is a complaint: most writings (commentaries) on film have traditionally not considered what a film's audiences actually see. This sentence isn't exactly about audience reactions to films, but it reflects the fact that the author thinks that film commentaries should be taking into account the audience's perception of the film. Even if this doesn't seem like counterevidence undermining this answer, we still wouldn't be able to find any support text that matches this answer. The author never chastises film commentaries for worrying about audience reactions to a film.

   1%
5. E

   Too Strong: only1% picked this

   Films should be viewed only in relatively large,

   The author never says anything about the size or lighting of viewing conditions. The author wants the actual film to be as close to the original as possible in terms of sound / aspect ratio / speed / title / visuals. But if a "director's cut" of a movie (i.e. a copy in which none of those things were changed) were to be shown in a small screening room at a library or some rich person's house, this author wouldn't have any strong objections. This is simply too restrictive an idea, especially given that the author never emphasized viewing conditions such as "dark room + pretty big theater".

   1%