The Chinese Wall fundamentally challenges traditional notions of historical greatness, positioning itself as a "history play" that diverges significantly from the established norms of the genre. While conventional history plays, such as Aeschylus’s The Persians, Shakespeare’s Henry IV, or Bertolt Brecht’s Leben des Galilei, typically spotlight monumental events and larger-than-life figures, Max Frisch’s work takes an innovative approach by making "history per se" its central theme. These traditional plays, although varied in their perspectives and narratives, consistently portray significant historical moments and personalities as instrumental and influential, even when they reveal the flaws and frailties of these figures.

In stark contrast, The Chinese Wall invites its audience to reassess these entrenched ideas of "greatness." Frisch brings historical figures onto the stage not as titans of their time, but as characters marred by egotism and a lack of foresight, rendering them almost comical in their folly. Through this portrayal, he suggests a re-examination of the grand narratives that have long defined historical discourse. The play strips down the grandeur often associated with these figures, exposing the possibility that their celebrated actions were, instead, blunders or missteps.

Frisch’s approach not only satirizes the personalities but also deflates the perceived significance of the pivotal events they shaped. By doing so, The Chinese Wall engages in a broader commentary on how history is constructed and remembered, urging viewers and readers alike to question the true nature of historical impact and to discern the human elements of error and folly behind the facade of historical "greatness." In this manner, Frisch’s work becomes a vehicle for exploring the complexities of historical narrative and memory, challenging audiences to reflect on what it means to label a moment or a person as "great" within the annals of history.

The central theme of the play orbits around the pressing need to reassess and transform our entrenched views of history. This is articulated through the voice of the Contemporary Man, a character who embodies the playwright Max Frisch’s perspective. Frisch posits that the advent of the earth-shattering bomb has fundamentally altered the course of historical development, rendering conventional methods of shaping history not just outdated, but perilous for humanity’s continued existence. By portraying historical figures and their so-called "great deeds" as absurd and predominantly destructive, Frisch skillfully uses farce as a tool to compel audiences to reconsider and confront established historical narratives. In doing so, the play invites reflection on the necessity of evolving our understanding of history to align with contemporary realities and challenges.

Frisch’s work delves into the complexities of human nature and societal progress without resorting to mere moralizing. His narrative is layered, revealing a nuanced understanding of the challenges facing humanity. Although Frisch harbors empathy for the Contemporary Man and his ambitions, he remains skeptical about humanity's capacity to genuinely change its historical trajectory to avoid impending disasters. This skepticism is rooted in his recognition of the formidable power wielded by authoritarian regimes and the pervasive difficulty individuals face in sustaining resolve against such oppressive forces.

The play poignantly illustrates this struggle through the character of the Contemporary Man, whose failure to protect a vulnerable mute boy underlines his own faltering will when confronted with personal danger. This moment of inaction becomes emblematic of a broader human tendency to succumb to fear, highlighting the cyclical nature of history. Frisch suggests that if history is indeed a cycle, as mirrored by the play's symmetrical beginning and end, it is a cycle fraught with recurring brutality.