Passage 1
Film scholars agree that Hollywood portrayals of America
at war follow a cyclical pattern. During and immediately
after a conflict, important films trumpet glory and sacrifice.
Ten to fifteen years later, questioning and sometimes
pacifistic movies about the conflict dominate. In the late
1960’s, “the raging bulls” of Hollywood—the young
trendsetters rising to prominence—proclaimed this pattern
obsolete. However, the passage of time has demonstrated
this cultural pattern to be more resilient than it seemed in
those days of social change.
Throughout the majority of the last century, evidence of
the cyclical portrayal of war in film abounds. After America
declared war against Germany during World War I, the
still infant film industry glorified the fight against “the Hun.”
By the early 1930’s, major releases had changed their
tone; for example, All Quiet on the Western Front put
forth an anti-war message by displaying the horrors of
combat. After World War II began, the industry shifted
gears. Suddenly, important pictures again portrayed
glories and courage without the questioning or despair.
For example, Guadalcanal Diary, produced during the war,
showed “the ultimate sacrifice” as a noble and undoubted
good. Once again, though, by 1957, films such as The
Bridge on the River Kwai won awards for depicting the
moral confusion of war.
Those who later declared this pattern dead based their
conviction on their hearts rather than their minds. During
the Vietnam War, the only major film about that conflict
was The Green Berets, starring John Wayne and far closer
in tone to Guadalcanal Diary than to The Bridge on the
River Kwai. Similarly, years went by before more complex
visions of war, such as Apocalypse Now, and then Platoon,
emerged.
While today’s film industry is more diverse and its audience
more culturally fragmented, this cycle largely continues.
Jarhead, a layered depiction of the first gulf war, premiered
more than ten years after that conflict. Further evidence
of this pattern can be seen in the release of Apocalypse
Now Redux, which contained additional footage that the
producers originally thought would repel audiences. Thus,
the famous aphorism “The more things change, the more
they stay the same” certainly applies to this aspect of the
film industry.
1. According to the passage, Apocalypse Now Redux
differed from Apocalypse Now in which of the following
ways?
< The added footage made it less appealing to a more
culturally diverse audience.
< The added footage made its portrayal of war less
glorified and more ambiguous.
< The added footage made its portrayal of war less
harsh and more glorified.
< The added footage made it more similar in tone to
other war movies.
< The removed footage made its portrayal of war less
glorified and less appealing.

3. In the second paragraph, the author implies that “the
Hun” refers to which of the following?
< The Huns
< The Hungarians
< The Austro-Hungarians
< The Germans
< The Russians

5. What is the function of the last paragraph of the
passage?
< It shows that, despite changes in the industry and
audience, the pattern discussed still exists.
< It points out that the film industry never changes.
< It shows that changes in the film industry and its
audience have made the pattern previously discussed
obsolete.
< It discusses how Jarhead and Apocalypse Now Redux
are fundamentally different from all the war movies
that preceded them.
< It demonstrates that war movies have changed to
reflect the more culturally diverse audience.

1) B
2) C
3) D
4) A
5) A
6) D

OA and OE please....
_________________

KPV

could u please explain about this? i don't get it , thanks!