Proctored - Mock CAT 2
MBA Test Prep
SECTION – ISECTION – ISECTION – ISECTION – ISECTION – I
VERBAL ABILITYVERBAL ABILITYVERBAL ABILITYVERBAL ABILITYVERBAL ABILITY
DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONSDIRECTIONSDIRECTIONSDIRECTIONSforforforforforQQQQQuestions 1 to 13:uestions 1 to 13:uestions 1 to 13:uestions 1 to 13:uestions 1 to 13:
The four passages given below are followed by a set of questions.Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
PASSAGE – IPASSAGE – IPASSAGE – IPASSAGE – IPASSAGE – I
THE highly acclaimed film
provokes disturbing questions, but are mostly left unexplored, andthe film fails, we think, as a serious visual statement of important moral issues. Critics have lavished extravagantpraise on
declaring that the film is “a perfectly beautiful movie” (Judith Christ), “a labor of loveand art” (Liz Smith), “elegant, ironic, and poignant” (Jack Kroll), “penetrating and beautiful” (Norma McLainStoop), “the most extraordinary film so far this year” (Walter Spencer), “the most imaginative, most intelligent,and most original film of the year” (Vincent Canby).The names behind the screening certainly promise something special: the well-known French director, LouisMalle; the former Bergman photographer, Sven Nyvist; the talented actors and especially the twelve-year oldBrooke Shields. And the story, set in the red-light district of New Orleans, seems a natural for our sexuallyinsatiable age. There is ample historical and illustrative documentation for this unique social experiment, theonly legalized area of prostitution in America that flourished (if that is the word) from 1898 to 1917 nearlytwenty years. Much of the chronicle, in official papers, interviews, and pictures, is available in Al Rose’s“authentic” account (curiously unacknowledged in the film’s initial credits).The story has to do with the inhabitants and habitués of a gaudy “sporting house,” Nell, the madam (FrancesFaye), a dozen “girls,” a deaf senator, a tottering old man in full evening dress, various paying customers, a jazz piano player (Antonio Fargas), a photographer (Keith Carradine), a retinue of servants (mostly black),and several illegitimate children wandering around, including “Violet” (Brooke Shields), the daughter of ahardened professional (Susan Sarandon) who sometimes calls herself “Hattie” and at other times “Hildegarde”and who refers to her daughter as her “sister.” Everything tends to focus on Violet who grows up within thisunusual household with equanimity, composure, and eager expectation of the time when she, too, can becomea professional.Since sex is the subject, it may seem prudish these days to raise objections to the film. But we are not disturbedso much by the visual story, which incidentally is remarkably free of explicit scenes or language, as by thefailure of the film to deal realistically, subtly, or even incidentally with the very issues implied.
poses a dozen perplexing moral ambiguities but deals with them only superficially, if at all. What,for example, do we make of commercial sex, the (sexual) exploitation of women and children, pornography,bestiality, venereal disease, illegitimacy, voodoo magic spells, homosexuality, rape, racial (sexual) segregation,and political corruption that feeds on community vice of all kinds?We think these and related questions should be dealt with in a film that presumably undertakes to provoke theissues in the first place, and we find irresponsible and misleading those critics and reviewers who call thepicture “beautiful,” “poetic,” and “intelligent.” We can’t claim to know much about pornography, but itseems to us that in many ways it could be more honest than a film such as
Pornography may bevulgar and vile, but it doesn’t pretend to be artistic.