2014年公共英语五级-Entertainment考试试题及答案解析

  • 格式:doc
  • 大小:69.50 KB
  • 文档页数:17

公共英语五级-Entertainment考试试题及答案解析一、Reading Comprehension(共6小题,共6.0分)Read the following three texts.Answer the questions on each text by choosing A, B, C or D.第1题On Hollywood's International PopularitySome things never change, at least on the surface. One of these is Hollywood's dominance of the international audio-visual marketplace for all but the first ten years of the 20th century. Irrespective of time-frame Hollywood has been able to obtain a significant market share of between 40% and 90% of the national box office in Western markets, and an unrivalled international presence within television markets.The attempt by various parent groups, political movements, intellectual elites, non-USA governments and their production industries to wind that dominance back also does not seem to change. No matter the time frame or media, similar arguments are marshalled. Hollywood's "imperialising" presence demands action to ensure the survival of local traditions, the transmission of social values, or "elite" culture. The underlying utopian vision is of national cinemas and television industries producing for their own markets and exchanging programming between each other as equals. The strategies of import substitution developed by governments and production industries to achieve these goals are also similar. Quotas limiting Hollywood screen presence have been a feature of cinema markets since 1920 to the present and are now integral to television. The siphoning-off of profits from the screening of Hollywood programming to assist in the development of a local production capacity is attempted in cinema, television and DVD markets. Foreign governments have created subsidy schemes, tax concessions and grants to encourage the production of local programs in the cinema and television. Such measures may well have assisted domestic production but have not been effective import substitution strategies.Hollywood complains about these measures. Often it enlists the help of the USA government to pre-empt or to minimize their effectiveness. The Hollywood trade argues for "free trade" and "letting the market decide". Consciously or unconsciously Hollywood promotes its product as international product for international consumers. Its utopian vision is of a completely integrated international system with headquarters in Los Angeles.Both views encourage like ideas about the nature of Hollywood programming and the reasons for its international success. Hollywood product is assumed to build in its own transnational audience and is therefore a potent force in creating a global "village" and integrated world market. Such product is assumed to be capable of by-passing,"corrupting" or even "erasing" cultural differences, depending on the view taken. As Guback put it in 1969:Successful exportation ... implies getting other people to "like" the product, and this often leads to homogenisation, blurring the differences which are the sharp edges of distinct cultures. With film, this growing similarity ... is taking a leap onto an international plateau where local idioms are erased or played down in favour of broader ones. In the United States, television has already blurred sectional achievements and differences.Where these views differ is on the value each attaches to Hollywood and the existence of a local program production capacity. Local programming has the vice or virtue of being "endemic" in that it is not ostensibly made for global consumption. Hence it is seen as more parochial or more responsive to its society or culture. Thus Hollywood films seem to circulate because they are non-culture specific; whereas the "local" films of national cinemas circulate because they are "cultural specific".These are the persistent political and rhetorical tropes of the international marketplace for Hollywood programming. Put these tropes alongside Hollywood's consistent share of the global box office and television marketplace and both a stable international market and Hollywood industry are conjured up for the better part of the 20th century. Decades become interchangeable with only slight reversals encountered due to world wars and the advent of television. Hollywood product seems to circulate in spite of cultural differences. It appears capable of discounting differences over the longer term leading to greater global cultural homogenisation or "Americanisation".Such is the "imaginary" that protectionists require to legitimate action against Hollywood, that Hollywood uses to claim its intrinsic popularity stymied only by foreign decree, and that film critics typically need to participate in their own international communication corridors. In each case the Hollywood text is a shared global sense-making resource with shared interpretative and sense-making protocols. A neat division of labour ensues. Hollywood works at furthering these texts and readings through time and space; film critics disclose the shared text and shared interpretations; and national cinemas disturb and supplement these arrangements introducing difference in screen form and/or diversity in interpretation.These stories possess an element of truth but can also be turned inside out. Wildman and Siwek, for example, argue Hollywood programming circulates in different national markets because of cultural differences. In their view Hollywood must negotiate different local conditions, languages with their own communication corridors, racial differences and cultural preferences; and it must mobilise these to its advantage. Hollywood does not by-pass these differences, but works with them.。