by smiller Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:55 pm
Good question. And thanks for your patience. We're catching up with some questions that slipped by us recently.
Choice (A) is supported by lines 23-24, which mention a loss of image size and definition. Simply playing a film on a television screen instead of a movie screen affects the quality of the film, even without re-editing or commercials.
Choice (B) isn't supported by any information in the passage. The fourth paragraph mentions art critics and their evaluation of films, but nothing in that paragraph supports what is stated in choice (B).
Lines 4-9 mention a filmmaker's intent and how it might differ from the audiences experience, but these lines don't support the idea that "no reproduction" can capture the filmmaker's intent. Choice (C) is too extreme.
The passage focuses on problems that occur because films are rarely distributed in a completely uncompromised form. If ideal reproductions were distributed, that might solve the kinds of problems described in the passage. The passage doesn't really address "variable responses from viewers" that might occur even when they view an ideal reproduction.
The beginning of the first paragraph describes writings that analyze films' structural and aesthetic qualities. But the passage states that these writings don't consider what an audience actually sees. The passage then describes differences between the original film and the versions that viewers see. This doesn't imply that the original films themselves fail to meet the standards set in those writings. Lines 50-54 suggest that the original films might be of higher quality than the "faulty" versions that viewers see. So, choice (E) is just misrepresenting the statements made in the first paragraph.