I liked 'An Inspector Calls' even though it isn't the type of play I would usually have enjoyed, because of there being only one scene and small number of characters.
An Inspector Calls
I liked 'An Inspector Calls' even though it isn't the type of play I would usually have enjoyed, because of there being only one scene and small number of characters. But it had a plot that impressed and perplexed me from start to finish with a nice twist at the end.
Set at Brumley in 1912 'An Inspector Calls' is about a wealthy family named the Birlings and one night that changes each and every one of them. A man claiming to be a police inspector investigating the suicide of a young, working class girl, arrives at the stately home of Mr Arthur Birling. He has probing questions for each of the five people dining within the house and more than one person is exposed for affecting this girl's life and driving her to suicide.
In this play Priestley not only aims to entertain but as with almost all of his other plays and novels has hidden meanings and messages, such as the proud arrogance and irresponsibility of upper class, older generation bureaucrats and their conservative views of the period, their blindness to change and their selfish, spoiled attitudes. This becomes apparently clear as Priestley almost dons the part of the inspector in challenging the family one by one, as Priestley's and the inspector's views appear almost alike (Priestley being a great fighter for the rights of the working class person). This is stated quite clearly in the inspectors closing paragraph:
"But remember this. One Eva Smith has gone- but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives..."
I also enjoyed the screenplay. I feel it was quite successful and a fair interpretation of the original play. It also changed my views of some of the characters. I felt more sympathetic for the young Eric Birling as the screenplay gave you a clearer picture of his side of the story and played on his vulnerability and sweet innocence. Also the inspector came across as more scheming and not half as democratic as in the play. I didn't particularly take to this, as one of the reasons I liked the character of the inspector is because of his political and authoritative persona. The screenplay also gave the play a more si-fi/paranormal genre with the inspector disappearing into thin air at the end and his slightly more obvious ability to predict the future.
I did particularly enjoy the flashbacks to each family members first meeting with Eva throughout the screenplay. These little sections enhanced the way I viewed each character's relationship with Eva Smith. In Mrs Birling's case I felt much sorrier for Eva and, if that's possible, even more contempt for Mrs Birling herself. She appears a much more wicked person than in the play as you can actually witness the other committee members' reactions towards Eva and Mrs Birling. One negative thing the flashbacks created was that they stopped the plot being entirely in chronological order, something which is heavily stressed in the play.
In the screenplay the producers curiously change the inspectors name from Goole to Poole. Reasons for this could be if they have him disappear into thin air at the end, calling him Goole might make it a bit more predictable that he is in fact something almost paranormal, as another spelling and meaning for Goole is: Ghoul- a spirit or phantom. This would make the adaptation boring and corny for the TV audience. But besides rhyming Poole and Goole have another relationship they are both fishing ports. The significance of this maybe that a certain method of boat ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In the screenplay the producers curiously change the inspectors name from Goole to Poole. Reasons for this could be if they have him disappear into thin air at the end, calling him Goole might make it a bit more predictable that he is in fact something almost paranormal, as another spelling and meaning for Goole is: Ghoul- a spirit or phantom. This would make the adaptation boring and corny for the TV audience. But besides rhyming Poole and Goole have another relationship they are both fishing ports. The significance of this maybe that a certain method of boat fishing is to trawl, dragging a large net through the water hoping to catch as many fish as possible. Could the inspector be 'trawling for the truth'? Trying to catch as many truth fish as possible!
The Birling family is very high class even by the standards of 30 years after the play was set- when it was first performed to the public. An audience of 1945 would have felt dislike towards the Birlings as soon as the curtain went up at the start of act one. The simple reason for this being, the second world war was nearing an end and people had been without simple luxuries such as cigars, whisky, fine clothes and furniture etc for over half a decade, things that this family had and were enjoying after a large and extravagant meal. Also all the men of the family were present. Between, 1912 and 1945 there had been two world wars, one of which being the bloodiest war in history. Each family in Britain would almost undoubtedly have lost a loved one, maybe more, by 1945.This may have made the audience a trifle upset. Mr Birling even has the nerve to cast aside the subject of war in Europe as if it were idle chitchat:
"... you'll hear some people say that war's inevitable. And I say to that - fiddlesticks!... nobody wants war," says Birling. By now the audience are already feeling loathing and hatred towards this man, but he goes on:
"I'm telling you now - let's say, in 1940 - you maybe giving a little party like this... by that time you'll be living in a world that'll have forgotten all these silly little war scares..." he says again to Gerald, Shiela and Eric. If I was a spectator to this, by now I think I'd be booing, hissing and rolling around on the stands in fits of unbelieving laughter at the sheer blind foresight of this man and his family. Priestley served in World War 1, he had seen the terror of war and even survived the Somme. He must have hated men like Birling which could be why the play ended so unfortunatly for him, maybe he was in the play out of shear spite from Preistley's point.
He talks also of the Titanic. He rants for almost half a page about its speed, luxury, size, weight (repeated twice) and unsinkability (also repeated):
"... forty six thousand eight hundred tons- forty six thousand eight hundred tons- New York in five days- and every luxury- and unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable."
In many respects Birling is like the Titanic. Powerful, the forefront of his class, the epitome of Edwardian society, unsinkable. But, of course, as he discovers, he is none of these things, just simply believes he is and discovers his faults and lack of resources at the end of the play. I think though, there will be few tears shed when Birling finally sinks beneath an ocean of reality and consequence.
The character of Mr Arthur Birling is vital to the entire play. He- in my opinion- is the villain who is to be made an example of, first by the victim or martyr (Eva Smith) and secondly, receive his comeuppance from the hero (Inspector Goole). I think though, the social and political reason Priestly put him in the play, and indeed made him the way he is, was to show the people that conservatism didn't work and people like Birling didn't give a damn about the working class nation, charity and community, just used power and positions designed, supposedly, for the benefit of the common man to advance in society.
Take Birlings wife as an example. She abuses her power, first to gain the chair on the 'Brumley Women's Charity Organization' and then, because of her prejudice views towards Eva Smith for the use of her name and nature of her case, sees to it the charity is refused. If his wife is like this what is to say her husband - a man who shares her views on politics and life - isn't equally as abusive. Another example of abusing power comes from John Stienbecks novel 'Of Mice and Men'; the character of Curly is much like Birling. Curly abuses his power as the boss's son to bully the men on the ranch and get any girl he desires.
Corruption is like ripples on water; they start off small but grow until they are stopped only by an unmovable obstacle. I think that the inspector is Birlings unmovable obstacle, blocking and turning his corruption back on itself.
It's a shock to think this man could ever have entered the House of Lords, which was an ambition he was very close to achieving before Eva's death. He is a very indecisive but intransigent man. Towards the end of the play he constantly changes his mind on the subject of the inspectors origin and what is to be done, he goes along with the first idea aroused and doesn't think things through. The man is shallow. Would you want such a person having command over your laws and governing?
There is a strong feeling of irony throughout this play. The first is Birling. His confidence in his ideals and beloved indestructible new technology would keep him in power and how these items resulted in his downfall. His ideals and principals started the entire mess when he refused Eva Smith a pay rise and his technology (in this case a phone) was his final undoing when he answers a call from the police at the very end of the play wanting him and his family for questioning. Birling also says to Eric:
"You've got a lot to learn" when it seems to be quite the contrary. He is the one with a lot to learn about the consequences of his actions and to treat people the same no matter what class they may come from. Eric has learnt a great deal as has his sister Sheila. He has learnt that drink does not solve his problems as he does not join in with his father and Gerald in reaching for a drink at the end. He has matured. He says to his mother after she's dropped him in it:
"I don't blame you." He is accepting he is wrong acknowledging his responsibility.
All the time the two adults have been lecturing their children telling them they should be ashamed and are spoiled, when it should be them, the parents who need reprimanding and should be ashamed. As for being spoiled, who is it that has spoiled them in the first place?
But perhaps the best example of irony is what Mrs Birling says to the inspector just before she tells him of her encounter with Eva, though its not what she says but the stage direction which accompanies the line which creates the irony:
"(With dignity) We've done a great deal of work in helping deserving cases." She says this just before she reveals a very undignified thing she did in rejecting help (with little cause) to a deserving case and the carrier of her grandchild. If she had known this she would most certainly have given help.
This is the first real taste of revenge the audience experiences, as Mrs Birling slowly but surely digs a bigger and bigger hole for her son to fall into and the beauty of it is that you know all along. So, in fact, does Sheila, but upon warning her mother and father is ignored by the two adults, too blinded by pride and arrogance to see what is staring them in the face. Their relationship with Eric is clearly poor. His mother and father even oblivious to his drinking problem and lack of money. If they had known this then they would have seen that the boy they wished an example to be made of was in fact their own son. Their behaviour could be a direct result of their bad parenting skills and neglect.
In this part of the play Priestley also breaks the chronological order he has kept throughout. So far the inspector has dealt with each member of the family in the order they met Eva This is not so with Eric and Mrs Birling. The reason? To add tension and allow the audience that all-important moment of revenge when Sybil Birling realizes her mistake.
Other stage directions are reflective of the family as a whole, such as the furniture which is described as "solid furniture of the period. The general effect is substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy and homelike." Much like the family relationship, comfortable but without love, there is no love holding the family together. There is no bond between them; they lack what any real family should have respect, care and understanding towards one another. Also the lighting, which is at the start rosy , this being another reflection of the family, especially Mr Birling. The phrase 'rose tinted glasses' immediately comes to mind: seeing the world with naivety and ignorance, as does Birling and his family. But when the inspector arrives the light turns bright and hard like interrogation light. Another important stage direction is at the end of act 2 when they are all awaiting the return of Eric. He repeatedly looks at his watch as if expecting Eric to be in at a certain time and then raises his hand moments before the door opens and Eric enters. When this happened the room fell silent demonstrating their amazement in the inspector's apparent ability and the command of authority and control he has over these people.
In many peoples eyes Eva Smith could be seen as a slut, moving around from one man to the other. After all we know for certain she slept with Eric and Gerald. But there is evidence in Eric's case that it was not altogether her fault. The first time both he and she were quite drunk, Eric especially. There is also an indication she may have been physically afraid of him as he says to the inspector:
"...Well I was in the state where a chap easily turns nasty - and threatened to make a row."
But the second time I think they were both to blame. They each needed someone to talk to and again they both got fairly drunk and one thing lead to another. Eva has far too much dignity to sleep with the first person she takes a fancy to, almost the antithesis of Mrs Birling, working class woman, proud of what little she has and full of dignity.
When Eva killed herself it wasn't just one person that died, her child died with her. She must not have wanted the child to start life in the same situation she was in. I surpose you could say she loved it enough to kill it.
The end of the play and screen play are quite significant. In the screenplay Sheila and Eric are framed together as are Mr and Mrs Birling - you could say one group has learnt, the other has not. I think Gerald should also be framed with the Birlings as he too has learnt little or nothing and like Birling had not been thinking of the girl (Eva) nor of the lesson that could be found from this, but about himself, where he stood and any possible ways of covering up the whole ordeal. It is also important at the end of the play that Mr Birling answers the phone. If it were anyone else particularly Eric or Sheila you would not feel so relieved the family had not got away with it, you might even feel sorry for them.
Priestley, I think wrote this play for many reasons but I think one stands out a little. He wanted the common people to know they had perhaps more sense and intelligence than these people and they were running the country. That it was time for a new era, a socialist era, the people were entitled to as much of the country's wealth as the upper classes. Maybe this play helped the first solo Labour government come into office in 1945.