In Act III of the play, Mark Antony speaks at the funeral of his friend, Julius Caesar. How is the text presentation of this scene different from the film presentation? The text provides a detailed description of the setting, while the film focuses only on the characters.

The text provides both Antony's speech and his thoughts as he is speaking.
The film only includes his words.

In the text, Antony's actions as he speaks are unknown. In the film, they are clearly conveyed.

In the text, Antony is mournful and still, while in the film he is angry and animated.

Brutus and Cassius enter the Forum with a crowd of plebeians. Cassius exits to speak to another portion of the crowd. Brutus addresses the onstage crowd, assuring them that they may trust in his honor. He did not kill Caesar out of a lack of love for him, he says, but because his love for Rome outweighed his love of a single man. He insists that Caesar was great but ambitious: it was for this reason that he slew him. He feared that the Romans would live as slaves under Caesar’s leadership.

He asks if any disagree with him, and none do. He thus concludes that he has offended no one and asserts that now Caesar’s death has been accounted for, with both his virtues and faults in life given due attention. Antony then enters with Caesar’s body. Brutus explains to the crowd that Antony had no part in the conspiracy but that he will now be part of the new commonwealth. The plebeians cheer Brutus’s apparent kindness, declaring that Brutus should be Caesar. He quiets them and asks them to listen to Antony, who has obtained permission to give a funeral oration. Brutus exits.

Explanation:

it is a bit long but 100% right

I think the answer i B

Good luck!  and sorry if im wrong...

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.