TO #2 UTBK Literasi dalam Bahasa Inggris

Text 1

Method acting — a controversial acting approach that has been highly discussed in Hollywood for decades. By definition, it’s an acting technique when an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a role or character for a project. But throughout the years, it has been a divisive topic with industry veterans on either side of the debate.

Director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg, dubbed the “father of method acting,” was always open about his approval of the technique. He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.

On the other hand, some actors have expressed aversion to the acting approach. Most recently, Succession star Brian Cox blasted the idea of totally immersing oneself in a performance to the point of obsession. But, no matter where one stands on the debate, actors are always testing out new techniques, even if it’s not going full method. Jennifer Lawrence, for example, has previously said she is quite apprehensive about method, but opened up about how her techniques as an actress have changed throughout her career after working with fellow stars such as Christian Bale, who has been known to embrace the intense acting method.

(Adapted from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com)

Text 2

Method acting and character acting are two approaches to developing a character. While they differ in technique and process, both require discipline and focus to achieve a successful performance.

Method acting, or “the Method,” originated with Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavsky and was further refined by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. According to the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, the Method “trains actors to use their physical, mental, and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors’ imagination.” By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance. This approach requires intense focus and preparation since the actor must be in tune with their emotions and use them to guide their character’s decisions and actions. Because of method acting’s source material—an actor’s physical, mental, and emotional self—this approach generally works well with dramatic, realistic characters.

Character actors specialize in creating unique characters and must “create a specific plan rather than work from themselves.” They often develop a persona with mannerisms, accents, and quirks that are specific to the character rather than the actor. This approach requires actors to dedicate time to study the role, learn about the character’s history and personality, and then build a foundation for how that character might act. Character actors often spend more time working offstage with makeup, costume, and other departments to develop their character’s physical persona and how they represent visually.

Method acting and character acting use different approaches to the craft, but the two techniques can be applied to virtually any character. While method acting is generally associated with lead roles and character acting is associated with supporting roles, there is no hard and fast rule that says they can’t be used interchangeably. Both acting styles require that actors study a character deeply and understand their motivations, backstory, and psychology. Actors using either approach might choose to stay in character for prolonged periods of time on and off the set to help them further develop and connect with the character. Both methods draw on the text for inspiration and insight into characters and their worlds.

(Adapted from https://www.backstage.com)

The word “those” in the sentence: “He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.” refers to ….

• connection

• characters

• humans

• method acting

• real-life experiences

Text 1

Method acting — a controversial acting approach that has been highly discussed in Hollywood for decades. By definition, it’s an acting technique when an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a role or character for a project. But throughout the years, it has been a divisive topic with industry veterans on either side of the debate.

Director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg, dubbed the “father of method acting,” was always open about his approval of the technique. He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.

On the other hand, some actors have expressed aversion to the acting approach. Most recently, Succession star Brian Cox blasted the idea of totally immersing oneself in a performance to the point of obsession. But, no matter where one stands on the debate, actors are always testing out new techniques, even if it’s not going full method. Jennifer Lawrence, for example, has previously said she is quite apprehensive about method, but opened up about how her techniques as an actress have changed throughout her career after working with fellow stars such as Christian Bale, who has been known to embrace the intense acting method.

(Adapted from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com)

Text 2

Method acting and character acting are two approaches to developing a character. While they differ in technique and process, both require discipline and focus to achieve a successful performance.

Method acting, or “the Method,” originated with Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavsky and was further refined by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. According to the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, the Method “trains actors to use their physical, mental, and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors’ imagination.” By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance. This approach requires intense focus and preparation since the actor must be in tune with their emotions and use them to guide their character’s decisions and actions. Because of method acting’s source material—an actor’s physical, mental, and emotional self—this approach generally works well with dramatic, realistic characters.

Character actors specialize in creating unique characters and must “create a specific plan rather than work from themselves.” They often develop a persona with mannerisms, accents, and quirks that are specific to the character rather than the actor. This approach requires actors to dedicate time to study the role, learn about the character’s history and personality, and then build a foundation for how that character might act. Character actors often spend more time working offstage with makeup, costume, and other departments to develop their character’s physical persona and how they represent visually.

Method acting and character acting use different approaches to the craft, but the two techniques can be applied to virtually any character. While method acting is generally associated with lead roles and character acting is associated with supporting roles, there is no hard and fast rule that says they can’t be used interchangeably. Both acting styles require that actors study a character deeply and understand their motivations, backstory, and psychology. Actors using either approach might choose to stay in character for prolonged periods of time on and off the set to help them further develop and connect with the character. Both methods draw on the text for inspiration and insight into characters and their worlds.

(Adapted from https://www.backstage.com)

What is the purpose of Text 1 mentioning Brian Cox in paragraph 3?

• To give an example of a successful actor.

• To justify method acting’s effectiveness.

• To give an example of actors who approve of method acting.

• To show that not all actors approve of method acting.

• To give an example of actors that use method acting.

Text 1

Method acting — a controversial acting approach that has been highly discussed in Hollywood for decades. By definition, it’s an acting technique when an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a role or character for a project. But throughout the years, it has been a divisive topic with industry veterans on either side of the debate.

Director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg, dubbed the “father of method acting,” was always open about his approval of the technique. He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.

On the other hand, some actors have expressed aversion to the acting approach. Most recently, Succession star Brian Cox blasted the idea of totally immersing oneself in a performance to the point of obsession. But, no matter where one stands on the debate, actors are always testing out new techniques, even if it’s not going full method. Jennifer Lawrence, for example, has previously said she is quite apprehensive about method, but opened up about how her techniques as an actress have changed throughout her career after working with fellow stars such as Christian Bale, who has been known to embrace the intense acting method.

(Adapted from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com)

Text 2

Method acting and character acting are two approaches to developing a character. While they differ in technique and process, both require discipline and focus to achieve a successful performance.

Method acting, or “the Method,” originated with Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavsky and was further refined by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. According to the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, the Method “trains actors to use their physical, mental, and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors’ imagination.” By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance. This approach requires intense focus and preparation since the actor must be in tune with their emotions and use them to guide their character’s decisions and actions. Because of method acting’s source material—an actor’s physical, mental, and emotional self—this approach generally works well with dramatic, realistic characters.

Character actors specialize in creating unique characters and must “create a specific plan rather than work from themselves.” They often develop a persona with mannerisms, accents, and quirks that are specific to the character rather than the actor. This approach requires actors to dedicate time to study the role, learn about the character’s history and personality, and then build a foundation for how that character might act. Character actors often spend more time working offstage with makeup, costume, and other departments to develop their character’s physical persona and how they represent visually.

Method acting and character acting use different approaches to the craft, but the two techniques can be applied to virtually any character. While method acting is generally associated with lead roles and character acting is associated with supporting roles, there is no hard and fast rule that says they can’t be used interchangeably. Both acting styles require that actors study a character deeply and understand their motivations, backstory, and psychology. Actors using either approach might choose to stay in character for prolonged periods of time on and off the set to help them further develop and connect with the character. Both methods draw on the text for inspiration and insight into characters and their worlds.

(Adapted from https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/method-acting-vs-character-acting-76096/)

What is the overall tone of Text 1?

• Informative.

• Encouraging.

• Critical.

• Approving.

• Indignant.

Text 1

Method acting — a controversial acting approach that has been highly discussed in Hollywood for decades. By definition, it’s an acting technique when an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a role or character for a project. But throughout the years, it has been a divisive topic with industry veterans on either side of the debate.

Director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg, dubbed the “father of method acting,” was always open about his approval of the technique. He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.

On the other hand, some actors have expressed aversion to the acting approach. Most recently, Succession star Brian Cox blasted the idea of totally immersing oneself in a performance to the point of obsession. But, no matter where one stands on the debate, actors are always testing out new techniques, even if it’s not going full method. Jennifer Lawrence, for example, has previously said she is quite apprehensive about method, but opened up about how her techniques as an actress have changed throughout her career after working with fellow stars such as Christian Bale, who has been known to embrace the intense acting method.

(Adapted from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com)

Text 2

Method acting and character acting are two approaches to developing a character. While they differ in technique and process, both require discipline and focus to achieve a successful performance.

Method acting, or “the Method,” originated with Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavsky and was further refined by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. According to the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, the Method “trains actors to use their physical, mental, and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors’ imagination.” By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance. This approach requires intense focus and preparation since the actor must be in tune with their emotions and use them to guide their character’s decisions and actions. Because of method acting’s source material—an actor’s physical, mental, and emotional self—this approach generally works well with dramatic, realistic characters.

Character actors specialize in creating unique characters and must “create a specific plan rather than work from themselves.” They often develop a persona with mannerisms, accents, and quirks that are specific to the character rather than the actor. This approach requires actors to dedicate time to study the role, learn about the character’s history and personality, and then build a foundation for how that character might act. Character actors often spend more time working offstage with makeup, costume, and other departments to develop their character’s physical persona and how they represent visually.

Method acting and character acting use different approaches to the craft, but the two techniques can be applied to virtually any character. While method acting is generally associated with lead roles and character acting is associated with supporting roles, there is no hard and fast rule that says they can’t be used interchangeably. Both acting styles require that actors study a character deeply and understand their motivations, backstory, and psychology. Actors using either approach might choose to stay in character for prolonged periods of time on and off the set to help them further develop and connect with the character. Both methods draw on the text for inspiration and insight into characters and their worlds.

(Adapted from https://www.backstage.com)

What happens when an actor focuses on their personal connection to a character according to Text 2?

• They become more focused and prepared.

• They are better at being dramatic characters.

• They develop a persona that is character-specific.

• They get to draw on real emotions and experiences.

• They slowly turn into a character in real life.

Text 1

Method acting — a controversial acting approach that has been highly discussed in Hollywood for decades. By definition, it’s an acting technique when an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a role or character for a project. But throughout the years, it has been a divisive topic with industry veterans on either side of the debate.

Director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg, dubbed the “father of method acting,” was always open about his approval of the technique. He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.

On the other hand, some actors have expressed aversion to the acting approach. Most recently, Succession star Brian Cox blasted the idea of totally immersing oneself in a performance to the point of obsession. But, no matter where one stands on the debate, actors are always testing out new techniques, even if it’s not going full method. Jennifer Lawrence, for example, has previously said she is quite apprehensive about method, but opened up about how her techniques as an actress have changed throughout her career after working with fellow stars such as Christian Bale, who has been known to embrace the intense acting method.

(Adapted from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com)

Text 2

Method acting and character acting are two approaches to developing a character. While they differ in technique and process, both require discipline and focus to achieve a successful performance.

Method acting, or “the Method,” originated with Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavsky and was further refined by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. According to the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, the Method “trains actors to use their physical, mental, and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors’ imagination.” By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance. This approach requires intense focus and preparation since the actor must be in tune with their emotions and use them to guide their character’s decisions and actions. Because of method acting’s source material—an actor’s physical, mental, and emotional self—this approach generally works well with dramatic, realistic characters.

Character actors specialize in creating unique characters and must “create a specific plan rather than work from themselves.” They often develop a persona with mannerisms, accents, and quirks that are specific to the character rather than the actor. This approach requires actors to dedicate time to study the role, learn about the character’s history and personality, and then build a foundation for how that character might act. Character actors often spend more time working offstage with makeup, costume, and other departments to develop their character’s physical persona and how they represent visually.

Method acting and character acting use different approaches to the craft, but the two techniques can be applied to virtually any character. While method acting is generally associated with lead roles and character acting is associated with supporting roles, there is no hard and fast rule that says they can’t be used interchangeably. Both acting styles require that actors study a character deeply and understand their motivations, backstory, and psychology. Actors using either approach might choose to stay in character for prolonged periods of time on and off the set to help them further develop and connect with the character. Both methods draw on the text for inspiration and insight into characters and their worlds.

(Adapted from https://www.backstage.com)

The following statements are TRUE of character actors, EXCEPT …

• they are required to come up with a specific plan.

• they adjust the mannerisms and quirks around the character.

• they have to put focus on their personal connection with a character.

• they have to learn about the character’s history and personality.

• they spend more time working on the physical persona of the character they’re playing.

Text 1

Method acting — a controversial acting approach that has been highly discussed in Hollywood for decades. By definition, it’s an acting technique when an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a role or character for a project. But throughout the years, it has been a divisive topic with industry veterans on either side of the debate.

Director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg, dubbed the “father of method acting,” was always open about his approval of the technique. He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.

On the other hand, some actors have expressed aversion to the acting approach. Most recently, Succession star Brian Cox blasted the idea of totally immersing oneself in a performance to the point of obsession. But, no matter where one stands on the debate, actors are always testing out new techniques, even if it’s not going full method. Jennifer Lawrence, for example, has previously said she is quite apprehensive about method, but opened up about how her techniques as an actress have changed throughout her career after working with fellow stars such as Christian Bale, who has been known to embrace the intense acting method.

(Adapted from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com)

Text 2

Method acting and character acting are two approaches to developing a character. While they differ in technique and process, both require discipline and focus to achieve a successful performance.

Method acting, or “the Method,” originated with Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavsky and was further refined by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. According to the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, the Method “trains actors to use their physical, mental, and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors’ imagination.” By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance. This approach requires intense focus and preparation since the actor must be in tune with their emotions and use them to guide their character’s decisions and actions. Because of method acting’s source material—an actor’s physical, mental, and emotional self—this approach generally works well with dramatic, realistic characters.

Character actors specialize in creating unique characters and must “create a specific plan rather than work from themselves.” They often develop a persona with mannerisms, accents, and quirks that are specific to the character rather than the actor. This approach requires actors to dedicate time to study the role, learn about the character’s history and personality, and then build a foundation for how that character might act. Character actors often spend more time working offstage with makeup, costume, and other departments to develop their character’s physical persona and how they represent visually.

Method acting and character acting use different approaches to the craft, but the two techniques can be applied to virtually any character. While method acting is generally associated with lead roles and character acting is associated with supporting roles, there is no hard and fast rule that says they can’t be used interchangeably. Both acting styles require that actors study a character deeply and understand their motivations, backstory, and psychology. Actors using either approach might choose to stay in character for prolonged periods of time on and off the set to help them further develop and connect with the character. Both methods draw on the text for inspiration and insight into characters and their worlds.

(Adapted from https://www.backstage.com)

The phrase “draw on” in the sentence: “By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance.” means ….

• utilize

• attract

• engage

• gather

• draw

Text 1

Method acting — a controversial acting approach that has been highly discussed in Hollywood for decades. By definition, it’s an acting technique when an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a role or character for a project. But throughout the years, it has been a divisive topic with industry veterans on either side of the debate.

Director, actor, and acting coach Lee Strasberg, dubbed the “father of method acting,” was always open about his approval of the technique. He often theorized that it was important for an actor to have a connection between their own real-life experiences as humans and those of their characters.

On the other hand, some actors have expressed aversion to the acting approach. Most recently, Succession star Brian Cox blasted the idea of totally immersing oneself in a performance to the point of obsession. But, no matter where one stands on the debate, actors are always testing out new techniques, even if it’s not going full method. Jennifer Lawrence, for example, has previously said she is quite apprehensive about method, but opened up about how her techniques as an actress have changed throughout her career after working with fellow stars such as Christian Bale, who has been known to embrace the intense acting method.

(Adapted from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com)

Text 2

Method acting and character acting are two approaches to developing a character. While they differ in technique and process, both require discipline and focus to achieve a successful performance.

Method acting, or “the Method,” originated with Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavsky and was further refined by Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner. According to the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, the Method “trains actors to use their physical, mental, and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors’ imagination.” By focusing on an actor’s personal connection to a character, this allows the actor to draw on real emotions and experiences to inform their performance. This approach requires intense focus and preparation since the actor must be in tune with their emotions and use them to guide their character’s decisions and actions. Because of method acting’s source material—an actor’s physical, mental, and emotional self—this approach generally works well with dramatic, realistic characters.

Character actors specialize in creating unique characters and must “create a specific plan rather than work from themselves.” They often develop a persona with mannerisms, accents, and quirks that are specific to the character rather than the actor. This approach requires actors to dedicate time to study the role, learn about the character’s history and personality, and then build a foundation for how that character might act. Character actors often spend more time working offstage with makeup, costume, and other departments to develop their character’s physical persona and how they represent visually.

Method acting and character acting use different approaches to the craft, but the two techniques can be applied to virtually any character. While method acting is generally associated with lead roles and character acting is associated with supporting roles, there is no hard and fast rule that says they can’t be used interchangeably. Both acting styles require that actors study a character deeply and understand their motivations, backstory, and psychology. Actors using either approach might choose to stay in character for prolonged periods of time on and off the set to help them further develop and connect with the character. Both methods draw on the text for inspiration and insight into characters and their worlds.

(Adapted from https://www.backstage.com)

What is the relationship between both texts?

• Both texts explain in great detail what method acting is.

• Both texts criticize a specific acting approach.

• Text 1 talks briefly about a specific acting approach, while Text 2 explains more elaborately how method acting works.

• Text 1 talks about a specific acting approach in a general sense, while Text 2 goes deeper into it and compares it to another acting approach.

• Text 1 discusses a particular acting approach, while Text 2 conveys further why said acting approach is superior to another acting approach.