#7 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

The author uses language and tone indicators in the last paragraph that show his frustration with the level of emphasis placed on the content of these films while authenticity in exhibition of the films is largely overlooked. He seems to feel that the priorities are out of balance. If a film is not exhibited correctly, it may not matter how perfectly the content captures the intentions of the creator, because the audience will not experience it in the correct way.

Answer choice (A): While the author clearly feels some disdain for the effort put into these special restorations, this answer is far too strong and relies on information not provided in the passage. We only know that the author feels that more attention should be paid to the presentation of the film, and that there is too much relative emphasis on the content of the films. The final paragraph isn't a criticism of the artistic value of the restored films, but of the imbalance in paying attention to what matters.

Answer choice (B): There is no indication in the passage that restorations cannot fully achieve their intended goals, or that they are "pointless," an extreme claim.

Answer choice (C): This is a clever trap answer. The author does not ever suggest that restoration of films and the creation of "directors' cuts" does anything to undermine the authenticity of those films. The problem with authenticity is when those films are then exhibited (shown to an audience) in a way that does not reflect how the film was originally shown, recreating that experience for the audience. The film itself could flawlessly capture what the director intended to create, and be the most authentic version of the film ever to exist, and still the wrong type of exhibition would be inauthentic.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This captures the idea in the third paragraph that authenticity in presentation is at least as important as authenticity in content, and that emphasizing the latter at the expense of the former is a problem.

Answer choice (E): This would be somewhat of an opposite answer, as the author does not think a director's cut is necessarily the best way to experience a film if it is not exhibited in the right way. He has not expressed any complaints about, or any particular admiration for, these restorations, other than that they are being given too much attention (time and effort) at the expense of proper exhibition.

[annrachweila]

I chose C because of the sentence that came after directors' cuts: "YET as far as the exhibition side is concerned, authenticity is sometimes allowed to go out the window". To me that sounds like (C), where even though directors' cuts are produced in an attempt to increase authenticity, they're actually not doing the job. Answer Choice (D) talks about wasted time and effort which I didn't see in the passage, so I didn't choose it.

[Adam Tyson]

I've now drawn up an explanation in the top thread, so check it out and see if it helps answer your question. Answer C is incorrect because it focuses on the films themselves rather than on the manner of their exhibition. It's not that the films are less authentic, but that the manner of presentation may be.

[powerscoreQasker]

I'm struggling to understand why D is correct. I'm not sure that I understand the explanation posted here, either, so I'll try to talk through what's confusing me in case someone wants to set me straight.

I think I get that C is talking about the films themselves being inauthentic, whereas the passage only talks about how the "exhibition side" of directors' cuts may be inauthentic. However, I don't see how we can conclude that an inauthentic presentation would render the efforts to restore the production side "wasted." I interpret "wasted" to mean having producing no value; on the other hand, Merriam Webster defines it as "unprofitably used, made, or expended" - is that the definition we should use? Regardless, surely there would be some benefits to a painstaking recreation of the production, no? Is D relying upon a binary understanding of authenticity - that is, a film is either authentic or inauthentic, or is portrayed authentically or inauthentically? If it is, is it saying that an inauthentic presentation spoils the authenticity entirely?

I'm also trying to understand the focus on authenticity in the passage. D being correct seems to imply that authenticity is the entirety of value for the film , or a sine qua non, from the author's perspective. Is the support for that notion the fact that the directors' cuts were created to be authentic? Or is it something we should accept from the fact that authenticity is clearly a major concern of the author?

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This captures the idea in the third paragraph that authenticity in presentation is at least as important as authenticity in content, and that emphasizing the latter at the expense of the former is a problem.

I'm quite possibly missing something or applying too high a standard of evidence here, but neither of these ideas that you mention actually mean that the time and effort used to make the directors' cuts would be totally lost. If we use the Merriam Webster definition of wasted, though, I think I get what you're saying. In that case, D's text becomes "The time and effort expended in producing them is potentially used inefficiently if no attention is paid to other aspects of authenticity." This seems like a much more reasonable claim to make on the basis of what we know of the author's viewpoint.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

We can use the author's own words here, Qasker, to help us understand the meaning of "potentially wasted."

Our author tells us without authentic presentation, the films are missing both life and context, as well as a setting that allowed them to shine. That's a lot to be missing, and would support that the efforts were potentially wasted.

For example, imagine a situation where a dinosaur bone is carefully, meticulously restored, but then thrown in a box of bones without any context or meaning. The effort to restore it would be potentially wasted, because the bone would be lacking context to understand the bone's place in history or biology.

That's what the author is trying to say here. By making it technically restored, but not actually providing viewers the correct context or meaning, it's wasting that restorative effort.

Hope that helps!