How does an adaptation where the ghost and hamlet are played by the same actor differ from an adaptation where the ghost and hamlet are played by two separate actors? 1.by having the same actor play both parts, the existence of the ghost is proven and hamlet’s madness is confirmed. 2.by having the same actor play both parts, the need for vengeance is emphasized and hamlet’s lack of madness is confirmed. 3.by having the same actor play both parts, the two characters are separated and hamlet’s lack of madness is confirmed. 4.by having the same actor play both parts, the two characters become one and hamlet’s madness is confirmed.

The question refers to the actor Jonathan Pryce in 1980 adaptation of Hamlet where he played both the actor and his father's ghost. Th play shows how Hamlet is possessed by his father's ghost which drives his madness. Therefore, the correct answer is the last one.

i would like to compare these two interpretations of the crucible : 1) eric christ's interretation and wade bradford's interpretation. the main differences between there interretaions is that in the first one you can notice direct link to joseph mccarthy whereas the second one represents how the town is filled with hysteria.the second interpretation shows that author believes that the story   about puritan town in salem is based on actual events while the first example shows the sencible reference to sort of bias.

i think its c

independent