How does the introduction of themes and ideas in the exploration of Making History(TM) help in the character development of Hugh O(TM)Neill and Harry Hoveden?

     The duplicity can be explained with reference to a Marxist account of the historical process. Karl Marx wrote that history follows a ‘dialectal’ process. In any given socio-political situation there will be conflict of two ‘opposed’ forces; the thesis and the antithesis. This process of continual conflict produces change and shapes historical events. You could perhaps state that O’Neill possesses a series of ‘bi-polar’. Despite the inevitable propulsion towards war, the private O’Neill with his complexities refuses to be swept away by the simplistic nature of these opposing forces which create a pivotal moment for the audience.    

     If you were to direct O’Neill’s characteristics through his internal conflicts you would have to think about his overall perception. He ought to have ostentatious body expressions to create a sense of humour as it illustrates the contrast between him and Harry, a composed and sharp secretary of O’Neill. Friel demythologizes and humanizes the popular image of O’Neill being “the patriot, the lecher and the schemer etc”.  

     Another theme used is the creation of status and power between the characters. If we look at O’Neill he appears a fairly authoritive because throughout the play his status and power varies, for example when he brings home his new bride, Mabel he has patriarchal powering bringing her to his dwelling as well as power over Sir Henry Bagenal, because of the marriage to Henry’s sister, however Henry balances that by threatening to bring a charge of abduction on O’Neill. This would obviously make O’Neill anxious and concerned over his wellbeing. Although throughout we see his identity change as his alcoholism makes him more fragile as he loses Mabel in childbirth, which dramatizes his collapse into a new identity of being needy and reliant on others like Lombard when in Rome.  

     So by looking at all this information, if I were to stage act one scene one a stage format of promenade theatre would be most appropriate as characters like O’Neill are more able bodied to move freely without worry of barriers and pacific points he cant move to, making the drama more active rather than alike to a still life painting. This would illustrate his freedom and how vibrant he is to start off, referring to his state of movement and interaction with the audience. This would also deal with the predicament with props as the audience can then become the ‘furniture’ to put it bluntly.

     Harry on the other hand, would be best sitting as he is the more ‘mature’ while Hugh is running around like a child in a sweet shop, probably going through a mid-life crisis as he wears jackets that are “too strident”. Harry should be monotone, he is the informer so when he states that the “Devlins’ and Quinn’s are at each others throats” an entire quantity of information to do with the external conflicts in Ireland tells us that Harry is the one who knows everything, and he may perhaps be the one that assists Hugh in his deeds.

     Stanislavski was a drama practitioner, who created ‘the system’ to encourage actors to create real portrayals of characters by looking at key factors of the character’s lives. Stanislavski would generally concentrate on the themes and concepts of the characters as they begin to develop. From this he would begin to ‘shape their identity’ through realism. By researching Konstatin Stanislavski the actors involved should be able to use various facial and body expressions their characters. They could also use a form of ‘emotive memory’, developed by Stanislavski to help actors become more emotional and a sense of hysteria. If Friel wanted to create a realistic scene he would probably used Stanislaski’s system so he could focus ‘in the box’ unlike the dramatic directions of brechtian theatre.