Passage - General Questions

[Administrator]

Passage Discussion

VIEWSTAMP Analysis:

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[annrachweila]

The last paragraph of this passage is not really making sense to me. Would you mind posting a passage breakdown? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

A more complete breakdown will be coming soon, annrachweila, but I will give you my high level overview of the passage and see if that helps. This would be very close to the notes I took on scratch paper while doing this passage under timed conditions.

Para 1: Art is often exhibited based on similarity
Para 2: This is a bad idea for early nonfiction films because reasons
Para3: Exhibition by similarity is not authentic, we should do it the way they were meant to be shown

Adding a little flesh to those bones, the author tells us about a standard way of exhibiting artworks, including films, which is by grouping them together based on something they share in common - an artist, producer, style, period, etc. At the end of the first paragraph the author tells us that some early films are starting to get that sort of treatment.

In the second paragraph the author tells us that he's concerned that as far as early nonfiction films go, the standard way (similarity) is a problem, and he lists a few issues. He says that showing these films this way would not reflect how they were originally shown, would be very dull for the audience, and that these films were never meant to be the main attraction. Early film exhibition was always a mixture of types.

In the final paragraph, the author criticizes the excessive focus placed on restoration of films to match what the producers and directors wanted them to be, and laments the fact that we are ignoring the important role of film presenters, the people who decided how to show the films to audiences, resulting in experiences for viewers that are not authentic. Presenters knew what they were doing when mixing up fiction with nonfiction with news, etc. The last sentence tells us that ignoring the wisdom of those presenters "ill behooves us" (meaning it's a bad idea).

I hope that helps clarify for you the purpose and tone of the last paragraph! Like I said, a more complete analysis with viewpoints, tone, etc, will be coming soon, but in the meantime please feel free to ask your questions!