5. i) The play's version of events deffers in many ways from what actually happened.

The writers decided to give change or invent details to make the play more interesting and they might be interpreting a deeper meaning into their own explanation. By the changes, the play might be more meaningful and fun. If it is for the play I totally think that it is acceptable for the writers to change some parts or add details. We never know what REALLY happened. And further more, play has a purpose of ENTERTAINMENT. For the purpose of entertainment, I think it is perfectly fine to fix some unless it becomes a controversial thing among the people. It has to be "based" on the real people and event. Delaying the time when Anne received the diary was I think because to show only the necessary part of the story. The part before they went to the hiding, wasn't necessary for the play and also the setting starts in the annex. In order to show that Anne treasured her diary very much and that she has received it, the receiving part has to be in the play. Also because of the setting of flashback. I think the writer needed the character to come out at the same time. Or else the play might be too long and there aren't enough explanation during the days without the Van Daan family. To show that Margot is mature, or she was separated in a way from the other children, it was better for Margot to be a little older. Margot is not the main character, so the age isn't very essential. Maybe setting the annex on the top was better to visualize the scenes and it makes it more interesting. The part where Mr. Van Daan steals the bread is added not to ruin his reputation but show how difficult to live inthe annex and how he was sick of it. That idea is shown but not exactly the idea that Mr. Van Daan is unjust. The play just needs to get the point across to the audience in a enjoyable way. I think because of these changes, the play was much more fun and focusing without the boring parts.