2020学年江苏省南京师大附中、天一中学、海门中学、淮阴中学联考高三（下）期初英语试卷（含解析）

into the future of cinema．

The Matrix． Magnolia． Being John Malkovich． Fight Club． The Blair Witch Project． The Sixth Sense． Office Space． Man on the Moon． The Talented Mr． Ripley． Boys Don't Cry． Three Kings． Toy Story 2． The Iron Giant． Eyes Wide Shut． Cruel Intentions． Election． American Pie． Notting Hill and Runaway Bride． 1999 might be the greatest year of modern cinema． I think so． If you aren't crazy about two﹣thirds of these films， do you even like movies？

What's certain， however， is that 1999 is the most vital year of modern cinema﹣ the moment that Hollywood featured the chosen ones who would become the heroes of the new millennium （千禧年）， from David Fincher to Spike Jonze to a young girl named Angelina Jolie， who introduced herself to the public by winning best supporting actress for playing a mental patient．

What explains 1999's extraordinary films？ DVD sales began in 1997 and flooded studios with extra cash， especially in those first years as home viewers built their collection． Studios invested their money in a generation of upstart （初出茅庐的） directors， predicting that audiences would buy a good film twice： once in the theater， and again for their shelf．

Suddenly， the geniuses who'd been discovered during the independent wave in Sundance Film Festival in the 1990s were entrusted （ 委托） with millions of dollars． It was a creative renaissance． Directors seized the chance to get weird． Paul Thomas Anderson scored ﹩37 million to shoot Magnolia． David O Russell shouldered ﹩47 million to satirize （讥讽） the Gulf war． Even Spike Jonze， a music video director with zero film credits to his name， secured ﹩13 million to transport audiences to a multiverse （多元宇宙）．

These up﹣and﹣coming directors became major 21st﹣century voices． Part of the reason Anderson， Russell and Jonze are still the kings is that today's directors haven't been given the same golden ticket． The talent exists； the cash doesn't． Ambitious mid﹣priced films went extinct when the DVD empire began to fall apart in 2008． Instead of betting on filmmakers with personal styles， studios put their chips on big screen superheroes． Stand out at this year's Sundance， and instead of being handed the freedom to dream， you'll be given the keys to a special permission﹣and a conference table of producers as supervisors． Or

第13页（共51页）

you'll stay small forever， struggling to be seen amid the crush of streaming media competing for the audience's attention．

Have a close look at the films of 1999 and we have a suspicion that we're stuck in The Matrix ourselves． The near past is repeating like an endless programme． But we're also feeling a deeper connection to 1999． The Year 2000 panic triggered filmmakers to think pessimistically about the future of human survival． And some of the directors feared that mankind had become too weak and materialistic to survive the millennium．

Therefore， in 1999 our heroes didn't win． They failed． They disappeared． They died． They blew up their world． But some film﹣makers still believe that the future is our world and we can change our tomorrow．

（1）Which of the following is TRUE according to Paragraphs 2 and 3？ A． A majority of the audience are crazy about the movies produced in 1999． B． The Sixth Sense and Toy Story 2 were among the great movies of 1999． C． Angelina Jolie was acknowledged as the best leading actress of the year． D． There appeared a bunch of big screen superheroes to save the world．

（2）The film studios invested in a generation of upstart directors partly because ． A． they predicted more money would be made by selling DVDs B． those directors cooperated better with young film stars C． people were attracted to theatres by superheroes D． directors seized the chance to persuade them to do so

（3）The underlined expression \ ． A． good films B． excellent characters C． fame and privilege D． money and chance

（4）The sentence \risk paid off． \should be placed at the beginning of Paragraph ． A． three B． four

第14页（共51页）

C． six D． seven

（5）The underlined part \1999 our heroes didn't win． They failed． They disappeared． They died．They blew up their world．\ ． A． those filmmakers were pessimistic about the future of human survival B． sad ending movies were well received by home viewers at that time C． tragedies have had a lasting influence on modern films since 1999 D． the following generation would have a deeper connection to 1999 （6）Which is the best title of this film review？ A． 1999﹣the Beginning of Modern Cinema B． Millennium﹣a Cinema Season of Panic

C． 21st Century﹣ a Pessimistic Future of Human Being D． 1999﹣the Greatest Year in Modern Cinema

第四部分： 任务型阅读 （共 10 小题； 每小题 1 分， 满分 10 分） 请阅读下面短文，并根据所读内容在文章后表格中的空格里填入一．个．最恰当的单词． 注意： 请将答案写在答题卡上相应题号的横线上．每个空格只填一个单词．

31．（10分）According to a biblical account found in The Book of Genesis， people once spoke the same language． Then， because those people banded together to build a tower in Babylon that glorified their own achievements， rather than those of their deity （神）， God punished them． He ensured that mankind spoke different languages so that they would never be able to work together to dishonor God again．

Was there once just a single language that all people could understand？ Linguists don't know； there's just not enough information about the origins of language， and there are only theories about how our early ancestors formed their first words and sentences． Did early people imitate sounds they heard in the environment？ Did they babble until certain sounds took on meaning？ We'll probably never know， though linguists still study baby brains to determine if language or grammar comes naturally in our heads．

One prominent theory about the development of the first languages relates to tools and resources． Teaching another person how to use tools requires a certain， agreed﹣upon vocabulary， as does the process of sharing and protecting resources like food and

第15页（共51页）

shelter． Small groups of people living in close quarters would therefore need to develop a way to understand each other， so they came up with a vocabulary and syntax that meant something to them． A group of people across the world， though， would probably need an entirely different vocabulary of words， so the languages would have developed differently in isolation． So these small groups of people， living in isolation from one another， agreed on names for their tools and food， and they came up with ways to describe how resources would be divided． But when another group migrated into the area， or came with different resources to trade， the groups had to find

a way to merge （融合） their different vocabularies and communicate． Over time， that's how languages

have developed， and as some groups conquered others， that's how some languages died out． Travel among groups who speak different languages has been difficult over history． In a global world， wouldn't there be a benefit to speak the same language？ Some groups have advocated that a universal language be adopted， but it would be difficult to find any group willing to give up their own language if only because so much culture and history becomes rooted in it over time． After all， the English would no sooner give up the language of Shakespeare than the Spanish would abandon the tongue of Cervantes． Attempts to create a universal second language have failed as well， but even if we could agree on a common language， it's unlikely it would resemble itself 100 years from now． After all， thanks to the Internet's influence， language has become a mix of emoticons and abbreviations like LOL． Languages simply evolve too rapidly to ever speak just one．

Why Don't All People Speak the Same Language？ A biblical account of why people spoke different languages ● God punished those who built a tower in honor of their own achievements by confusing their 第16页（共51页）