Michael

Throughout the play, Michael's character and identity remain stable and unchanging, showing the confidence that he has in his purpose. Michael is a motivated 22 year-old who seeks active participation in politics and in the protests (Friel 25). Elizabeth Hale Winkler, author of "Brian Friel's The Freedom of the City: Historical Actuality and Dramatic Imagination,"describes Michael as, “a representation of the moderate, respectable, non-violent wing of the early civil rights movement. He is a humorless, well-meaning self-improver” (21). He shows that he is working to create a better life for himself, considering he is from a lower class, through taking economics, business administration, and computer science classes four nights a week. Michael portrays that he wants to be active within the protests by telling Lily that he was in the front of the crowd, right next to the platform. Michael’s character can be seen as a way for Friel to portray the younger participants not only in the protests, but those looking to make a difference in their oppressed environment. Michael becomes close with Lily and yet is skeptical about Skinner; he even refers to Skinner as a potential revolutionist (Friel 36). Michael is active in the protests, but he is also careful. When Lily and Skinner joke around in the Mayor’s Parlor, Michael refuses to join in with them:

MICHAEL: But I happen to be serious about this campaign. . . I attended a peaceful meeting today because every man’s entitled to justice and fair play and that’s what I’m campaigning for. But this-this fooling around, this swaggering about as if you owned the place, this isn’t my idea of dignified, peaceful protest. (Friel 42)

The above dialogue demonstrates just how seriously Michael takes each protest while also demonstrating his dislike of Skinner. Winkler describes that Michael "sees Skinner as an unreliable character who needs watching and deeply resents both his disrespectful attitude and his provocative actions”(21). It upsets Michael that Skinner does not seem to be taking the protest seriously. Michael truly believes in what the protests could achieve. Despite taking the protests seriously, he seems to overlook the seriousness of the very situation he has now found himself in. While the audience understands the dire situation the characters are in, Michael remains unaware, even when Skinner brings up the potential danger they may be in. While Lily and Skinner are goofing around, Michael is the one trying to bring the attention back to the campaign for civil rights. On the other hand, Skinner seems to understand their current situation, the danger that the three are in while in the Mayor's Parlor, and the danger of which Michael is unaware:

MICHAEL: But if they want to arrest me for protesting peacefully--that’s alright--I’m prepared to be arrested.

SKINNER: They could do terrible things to you--break your arms, burn you with cigarettes, give you injections.

MICHAEL: Gandhi showed that violence done against peaceful protest helps your cause.

Unfortunately, the audience already understands that even though the three are innocent and have not reacted violently, Michael, Lily, and Skinner, will still all be killed. While Michael appears to be the most politically minded and active, his character seems to skim over the dangers of what he is fighting for. It is almost as if he does not fully understand the amount of power the British soldiers have in Ireland. In addition, Michael may not fully understand the violence the authorities could exert because his respect for authority and laws may cause him to overlook the fact that those figures could be corrupt. Michael Parker, author of "Forms of Redress: Structure and Characterization in Brian Friel's The Freedom of the City," asserts that because Michael placed himself in the front of the crowd, it shows that he has an attraction to authority (58). This may also influence Michael’s dislike of Skinner, who does not seem to obey any sort of authority.

Michael's Reflection on Death

While Michael may have disliked Skinner, as well as disapproved of the goofing around that Lily and Skinner took part in, he still acknowledged the bond the three formed. Michael shows this when he insists the three of them walk out of the building together (Russell 53). While Michael does acknowledge the bond the three had formed, and they walk out together, he still remains naive about their current situation until his last moment before death. He states:

We came out the front door as we had been ordered and stood on the top step with our hands above our heads. . . I knew they weren’t going to shoot. Shooting belonged to a totally different order of things. And then the Guildhall Square exploded and I knew a terrible mistake had been made. . . My mouth kept trying to form the word mistake--mistake--mistake. And that is how I died--in disbelieve, in astonishment, in shock. It was a foolish way for a man to die. (Friel 54-55)

Parker states that, “For this highly stylized scene, Michael throws off his rather smug, self-righteous persona; the exposure of his frustration and disbelief humanizes him” (64). In these last moments, Michael finally realizes the amount of power authorities have over him, and that these authorities are not always right or to be trusted. Michael’s optimism for the future and for the difference he could make in the world clouded his judgement of the situation at hand. Winkler believes Michael never fully understands the situation he is in, stating, "Not only does he misjudge the seriousness of the situation in which he finds himself, but even up to the very moment of his death he cannot comprehend the discrepancy between his peaceful idea and the reality of violence" (21). Even in his last moments, Michael still sees only the good in people and the good in his cause. His optimism blinds him from the danger he is in, unlike Skinner who seems to know the whole time that the three will die, and Lily who knows as soon as she walks out of the building they will be killed.

Perhaps Friel used Michael’s naivety as a way to portray an outsider’s perspective on the troubles in Northern Ireland. Other countries may have had an understanding that people were protesting and actively trying to make changes, but were not fully aware of the violence the people of Northern Ireland had to endure. Because they were not experiencing the colonization first hand, the idea of violence perhaps never crossed their minds. This would be another way in which Friel broadens the overall message of the play.

Works Cited:

Friel, Brian. The Freedom of the City: A Play in Two Acts. London: Samuel French, 1974. Print.

Parker, Michael. "Forms of Redress: Structure and Characterization in Brian Friel's The Freedom of the City." Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies 5.1 (1999): 47-70. Print.

Russell, Richard R. "The Liberating Fictional Truth of Community in Brian Friel's The Freedom of the City." South Atlantic Review 71.1 (2006): 42-73. Print.

Winkler, Elizabeth H. "Brian Friel's The Freedom of the City: Historical Actuality and Dramatic Imagination." The Canadian Journal of Irish Studies 7.1 (1981): 12-31. Print.