Dramatic devices are used to present human weakness throughout the play and in Stanhope, Hibbert and the Colonel. A dramatic device is any technique used within the play to create a specific effect, which is in this case to comment on human weakness. One dramatic device Sherriff uses is a physical description within the stage directions. Although the audience would obviously not read this, it would translate into the way a character was presented (costume, choice of actor, make-up etc.) on stage. Both Stanhope and Hibbert are described in this manner, the Colonel is not, although this has something to say about his weaknesses as well.
While both Stanhope and Hibbert are described in the stage directions, Stanhope is presented as an upstanding young officer, while Hibbert is immediately presented as weak. Sherriff describes Stanhope as having “dark hair... carefully brushed” and wearing a “uniform ...[which is] well cut and cared for”. This suggests that Stanhope is a professional who, despite his age, is eager to appear as smart as possible. At this point he appears to be a 'normal' young, high-flying officer (we are told that he is wearing “stars of rank.... [despite being] no more than a boy”, indicating that he is performing well above his age and is an able and confident officer. His appearance reinforces this impression). Hibbert, however, appears to be the opposite. He is “small and slightly built”, suggesting that he is physically weak (and probably mentally as well), contrasting with the powerful, commanding presence of Stanhope in his “well cut” uniform. Hibbert's “little moustache” implies that with his failure to grow a “real” moustache, he is also a failure in life. While Stanhope's “carefully brushed” hair seems professional, Hibbert's failed attempt at a moustache suggests someone who is vain, and perhaps deluded as to how others see him. Both men have their weaknesses hinted at through their pale faces (Stanhope has “a pallor under his skin” while Hibbert has “a pallid face”), though Stanhope's weaknesses seem to be half concealed, hence why the pallor is described as being “under his skin” rather than in plain sight as Hibbert's are. Sherriff presents the audience with two conflicting images of human weakness: Hibbert, the stereotypically weak man, and Stanhope, the seemingly strong and confident company commander, who tries hard to conceal his weaknesses but never quite manages it.
The Colonel is completely different to both Stanhope and Hibbert. He is not described, and is never named more personally than “the Colonel”. Although in a production of 'Journey's End' there would obviously be an actor playing the Colonel, the lack of description in the stage directions seems to suggest that either it does not matter what the Colonel looks like, or that the Colonel simply acts as a vehicle for Sherriff's views on the weaknesses high-ranking officers and/or men from the upper classes display. The latter seems more likely, given that the Colonel behaves in a way which is stereotypical of his role and class. As already mentioned, the Colonel's main weakness is a lack of empathy, stemming from cowardice. This will be expanded upon later in this essay, but for now it suffices to say that Sherriff, through the lack of description of the Colonel, effectively states that the majority of higher-ranking officers are cowards.
Sherriff also uses the actions of characters in the stage directions to comment on their weaknesses. For Stanhope especially there are repeated references to him drinking (“taking another whisky”, “… helping himself to another drink”, “Stanhope... helps the Sergeant-Major to a large tot, and takes one for himself”) and this seems to be, from the frequent references, a common occurrence. This suggests both that drinking itself is a weakness of Stanhope's, but also that it is driven by the stress placed on him by his role in the army and within the war itself. It is therefore possible to surmise that Stanhope is trapped in a cycle: he drinks to cope with his 'weaknesses' regarding his inability to cope with the pressures placed on him by the war, but he also drinks because he is so used to it. Stanhope appears to be an alcoholic, although there is a clear reason for his alcoholism.
Hibbert also drinks, but his motivations seem different from Stanhope's. He does use alcohol as a coping mechanism; when he tells Stanhope the real reason he wants to leave the trenches, becoming hysterical in the process, he gladly “takes the mug [of whisky] and drinks” as a way to calm himself down. Yet Hibbert seems to drink more socially than Stanhope; at the beginning of Act Three Scene Two he, Stanhope and Trotter are drinking from “two champagne bottles” and Hibbert's “high-pitched and excited” (and frequent) laughter suggests that he is drunk, but also that he is eager to please Stanhope by laughing at his jokes. This implies that Hibbert is keen to fit in and, factoring in his vain appearance, it seems as though other's opinions matter highly to him. This is another aspect of Hibbert's weakness, as well as the vice of drinking.
Unlike Hibbert and Stanhope, the Colonel does not abuse alcohol. Instead, his actions within the stage directions which relate to his weaknesses are mainly pauses. He generally only appears in the play when passing on important information to Stanhope, which is generally of a delicate nature and usually involves the loss of life. During these conversations the Colonel frequently pauses (“There is a pause”, “another pause” etc.). This indicates that he feels uncomfortable with what he is saying and with the loss of life, but prefers to ignore the issue rather than speak up or alter the plans. When he speaks “over his shoulder” to Osborne and Raleigh, who he is aware will be in grave danger on the raid he has sent them on, he further reinforces this. He cannot bear to face the men whose lives he has put in danger face-to-face, implying that he is cowardly in this respect.
Another dramatic device Sherriff uses is the language he actually chooses for each character's speech. There is far too much to analyse, even in an entire essay, so the most important point for each character in relation to human weakness is discussed here.
Stanhope has a very distinctive, public school voice. His speech contains typical middle/upper class vernacular such as “chaps”, “rotten”, “Lord, no”, “awfully” and “cheero”. Although this is not as pronounced as in Raleigh's speech (Sherriff probably intended this to show that Stanhope has more experience of the real world and the effect of visible class differences than Raleigh), it certainly sets Stanhope apart. However, by doing so Sherriff makes a statement that it is not just 'weak' men who suffer from the effects of war or from conditions such as alcoholism; these men can be strong, upstanding, middle or upper class, and well-educated, and still suffer in the same way as a man who appears physically and mentally weak. Sherriff seems to be directly targeting the audience, many of whom would no doubt have fitted, at least partially, what Stanhope represents here.
Hibbert, who up until Act Two Scene Two has appeared to be a character who fits the audience's stereotypes of a 'weak' man, reveals through the hyperbolic nature of his speech that his desire to return home is not due simply to cowardice. Here he attempts to be sent down the line due to his supposed neuralgia but Stanhope refuses to let him leave, prompting hysterics and a full explanation from Hibbert. Hibbert claims that he “shall die of this pain”, which shows the intensity of his suffering and how complete his desire to leave the trenches is, how desperate he has become. When Stanhope threatens him at gunpoint Hibbert says “Go on, then, shoot! … I swear I'll never go into those trenches again. Shoot! - and thank God -”. Here a completely different facet of Hibbert's weaknesses are uncovered; he is not just a coward or simply weak, for he would happily accept death rather than face going out of the dug-out and into the trenches again. This is not a decision to be made lightly and Hibbert, although speaking in quite a hyperbolic way, seems to be fully aware of the implications of his decision. That he actually encourages Stanhope to shoot when it seems as though Stanhope would willingly do so surely suggests that Hibbert had been broken by the war, just as Stanhope himself has.
Once again, the Colonel's use of language reinforces the concept of commanding officers who have no idea of the reality of warfare, or, if they do, choose to ignore it as long as they remain safe. The Colonel uses understated language when talking about the war, such as “good show”, which indicates his detachment from the war and the reality of what soldiers and officers on the frontline must face. The quotation indicates that he sees war as something of a game, which must be entertaining to watch, if not participate in. In addition, his description of taking prisoners when talking to Raleigh trivialises the entire war. He says that “one'll do [one German soldier], but bring more if you see any handy”, which is a phrase more suited to grocery shopping than to war. In only one sentence Sherriff manages to sum up perfectly the Colonel and other commanding officers' views of war; they are not required to risk their lives, but merely sit back and reap the rewards of it, while ignoring the dangers faced by others under their command.
The structure of the text also helps Sherriff present his views on human weakness. Both Hibbert and Stanhope speak in broken sentences when stressed; the use of dashes signifies this in the script (“If you went, I'd have you shot – for deserting. It's a hell of a disgrace – to die like that.”). The quotation in brackets is said by Stanhope, when Hibbert threatens to leave, and the dashes help signify Stanhope's tumultuous state of mind. The dashes also help to show how he is breaking down, as the sentence structure itself is disrupted. This is also true of Hibbert's broken sentences; a few lines later he says “every sound up there makes me all – cold and sick. I'm different to – to the others – you don't understand.” The language shows the extent of Hibbert's suffering, but it is the broken structure and frequent pauses which add impact and reinforce that Hibbert is on the edge of a complete breakdown.
The Colonel, unlike Hibbert and Stanhope, does not appear to be on the edge of a breakdown. He speaks in short, commanding sentences, as befitting a senior officer. His short sentences and brief answers to Stanhope, such as “Yes. I suggested that.” and “I'm afraid not. It's got to be done.” also convey that he doesn't wish to discuss what Stanhope is talking about (the raid). The abrupt effect this gives his speech fits with the previous conclusion that he wishes to ignore the dangers the soldiers face, and additionally implies that he is, to a degree, incapable of sympathising with Stanhope and others' views.
In 'Journey's End', Sherriff challenges commonly-held views of human weakness. He shows the audience through the character of Stanhope that even if someone appears outwardly strong and in control, they can still be considered 'weak'. He challenges the very concept of weakness, arguing through the prevalence of classically 'weak' behaviour in the play that what many people would have considered as being weak at the time the play was written and performed is in fact a perfectly logical response to war and combat situations. The view of weakness as being effeminate is also shown to be false through the fact that both Stanhope and Hibbert, such as when he says that he would rather die than go back into the trenches, can behave courageously, which is generally seen as a masculine characteristic. Sherriff also seems to conclude that mental disturbance is linked to warfare and, through the character of the Colonel, voices the opinion that this is partly because the officers do not see the soldiers as real people, but as pawns on a chessboard. Overall, Sherriff presents human weakness as something we all suffer from, albeit in different forms.