The similarity about a stage and a film interpretation of the above scene is VIEWERS WOULD HAVE TO INFER THE EMOTIONS AND MOTIVATIONS OF BEN AND REGINA.
They do not need to envision the physical description of Ben and Regina nor do they have to imagine the props being used as well as the movements being done because they can actually see the actors and the setting. They need to look beyond the physical appearances of the characters and determine the emotions of the characters by listening to the inflections of their voices as they speak as well as try to look to telling actions that is in direct contrast to the staged scenario.
Answer: support his wife and three children
The correct answer is He withholds the fact that the falling horseman is the father of the shooter.
Throughout the story, the author yields a slow-paced description of the scene settings as a means to visually guide the reader. Moreover, they throw in clues such as the watchman's hesitation to shoot the horseman, as if the glance of the latter over the direction of the watchman caused him to react in that manner. This act may initially confuse the reader, but it isn't until the story's end that the horseman's identity is revealed, and so the climax of the story is explained and the surprise factor kicks in the reader.
The rest of the options are not as impactful since:
The watchman's conversation with his father seems ordinary at first, given the father's reaction to his son's desire to join the regiment. The revelation of the horseman's identity explains many of the phrases of this conversation, such as the father addresing the son as a traitor, meaning that both of the would fight on separate sides of the war. This is more fulfilling to the reader, rather than surprising.
The horse didn't bolt off the cliff until the watchman fired, but if it did before the shot, it wouldn't have been impactful to the story at any rate - considering the main surprise at the end.
