Q13

[Yu440]

Hi Can you explain why the answer is C and not A please? I was actually down to these two choices but ultimately chose A. I thought if the reviewers generally praised the unrealistic elements then it refutes Bordwell's claim that the audience will accept it as realistic.

[ohthatpatrick]

The contextual setup for B's first two sentences was this question:

Since musical films tend to have sharp deviations from the stories, during which they do arsty, self-justifying music videos .... can they really be included in B's definition of classical style (which was "straightforward narrative ... the technical elements are all employed to tell a realistic story")

He said, "Yeah, musicals are still classical, even though the narrative takes a detour and the technical elements are used for fun, not narrative. Since, the viewer expects that sort of thing in a musical, based on their experience of live theater musicals, they treat that sort of interlude as "realistic" in the world of the musical."

We need an answer that goes against that.

(A) this doesn't go against anything. If anything, it seems to support the idea that people seeing/reviewing musical film are fine with the unrealism, although that really has nothing to do anyway with the question of whether it should qualify under the classical definition.

(B) this doesn't go against anything. Whether the audiences enjoyed/didn't enjoy is as irrelevant as whether critics praised / didn't praise. Whether or not you find something realistic / normal is not logically connected to whether or not you find it praiseworthy/enjoyable.

(C) YES, this goes against what he said. B's whole case is that these musical detours are "realistic" because the viewer expects that sort of fanciful detour in a musical world, based on having seen musicals in live theater. But if people have the same experience whether they've seen musicals or not, it undermines B's tale that the previous experience of seeing a musical affects how the viewer interprets the movie.

(D) attention spans? That doesn't relate to anything in the first two sentences

(E) This strengthens. We would have weakened with the opposite. If musical films were very different in style from the musical theater that B thinks has calibrated the audiences expectations, then it would weaken the idea that audiences seeing the musical film would think, "this seems normal .. this seems like what I've seen before in musicals".

[Yu440]

Hi Patrick! Thanks for your response!

So would you say that this question more resembles something for the LR sections?
Conclusion: Audience would accept the structure as realistic
Premise: Musicals evolved from popular live theater. The musical's conventions cue viewers to expect a different structure.

So we are just disputing the truth of his premise? Are we bringing the consideration that familiarity with musicals does NOT cue viewers to expect a different structure?

Why doesn't A have anything to do with whether the musicals should qualify under the classical definition? I thought A was more direct because if musicals indeed fit in the the classical style, then it should be realistic. Doesn't the fact that the reviewers praised the unrealistic elements of the films suggest that the films weren't fully realistic and thus weaken the stance of Bordwell?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, any RC question taking the form of "which of the following, if true, would most strengthen/weaken" is going to feel more like LR.

Most correct answers in RC about picking the answer most supported by the passage. But these STR / WEAK questions are giving us new ideas and asking us to judge their impact (just like assumption family questions).

In LR, though, we're almost always strengthening or weakening arguments, whereas in RC it's common to strengthen or weaken a "claim / hypothesis / prediction", which is not quite the same.

If you're asked to strengthen or weaken a claim, you just want an answer that makes you more likely to think that claim was true or false. You don't have to think about premises and conclusions unless the question stem says "argument".

(A) is irrelevant because everyone acknowledges that there are unrealistic PARTS of musicals. We're discussing whether it's fair to still put musicals in the classical style. Bordwell is saying, "sure there are unrealistic parts, but people expect that out of musicals, from having seen them in theaters ... thus it still feels 'realistic' in the world of the musical."

What critics praise or don't praise is as irrelevant as what audiences enjoy / don't enjoy.

None of that will change the fact that
- musicals have unrealistic parts
- that seems to make them not fit under Bordwell's definition of classical
- but Bordwell thinks that audience expectations of musicals allow him to say that the unrealistic parts are not detracting from the overall realism of the film