Newspaper reviews of film adaptations of well-known books or plays frequently concentrate on the adaptation's fidelity. Granted, many people go to such films wanting to see a version of the original. However, reviewers do a poor job by taking this approach, since faithfulness to the original is irrelenvant to the film's own artistic merit.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A The central purpose of newspaper reviews of films is to enable readers to find out whether they would enjoy seeing the film.
B. Often the attempt to capitlize on a well-known novel's fame by making a film version backfires, since a long novel's narrative must to overly compressed to fit a film.
C. A film's artistic merit does not depend on the film's relationship to other works of art.
D. Newspaper reviws of films that are not adaptations of well-known books or plays tend to concentrate on issues relevant to the film's artistic merit.
E. Film producers expect adaptations of well-known originals to be more financially successful than other films.
Answer:A
我的理解是:報紙影評在評論改編著名書的電影時,經常著重在是否忠於原著,許多人看這類電影時希望看到原著,然而,因為忠於原著與電影本身的藝術是無相關的,所以影評是失職的。
看完實在是不太懂題目要反駁哪裡?是影評是失職那句嗎?