In this essay I will discuss and analyse how the author uses the inspector to impart an important lesson to the Birlings; primarily, the lesson that they have to take responsibility for their actions, and that their actions have great reverberations on the lives of others. This is another important aspect of socialism that Priestley conveys via the inspector.
Priestley uses various dramatic devices throughout the play to influence the audience. One of the primary devices he uses is dramatic irony (when the audience or reader
knows something a character does not). Priestley uses this to promote the Inspector yet mock Birling. This also involves the audience in the play. In Birling’s speech in Act One, he categorically states, “there isn’t a chance of war.” This immediately changes the audience’s perception of Birling, and they now view him as foolish. By mocking Birling, Priestley entertains the audience, but more critically he invalidates his political stance. Another example of dramatic irony in the same speech is Birling’s assertion that the Titanic is “absolutely unsinkable.” The audience of course know the enormous irony of this statement, and this further devalues Birling’s political outlook. This use of dramatic irony ridicules Birling’s views, and enables the author to contrast this with the views and predictions of the Inspector later on in the play, which are totally correct. This supports Priestley’s socialist dogma, while discredits Birling’s capitalist views.
Priestley utilises stage directions to great effect. He uses them to change the mood and reflect the changing emotions of the characters. One of these stage directions used expertly is lighting. At the start of Act One, the lighting is as described as ‘pink and intimate,’ representative of the joyful and pleasant atmosphere at the very beginning of the act. The lighting is not clear, and so too the audience get the impression that there is some concealment of truth, and a noticeable lack of clarity. This changes strikingly when the Inspector arrives. The lighting is described as ‘brighter and harder.’ This gives the impression of exposure and the revelation of truth. These changes bear great significance as they indicate to the audience a sudden change in the turn of events.
The pivotal moment in the turning of events is the ring of the doorbell. Priestley uses this dramatic effect skilfully. He describes it in his stage directions as ‘the sharp ring of the front door bell.’ This sound suddenly cuts the atmosphere of self-satisfaction and warmth. The doorbell signifies an abrupt turn of events, and the end of the ‘innocent’ dinner.
Another dramatic technique that Priestley uses adroitly is that of the introduction of a new character. This again aids the transition of atmosphere. When the Inspector arrives the behaviour of the characters immediately begins to change. Birling starts off reasonably courteous, but quickly becomes curt and irritable: He says ‘Yes, yes, but I don’t understand why you should come here…’ and then later on he becomes openly rude to the Inspector. The Inspector also has an effect on Birling’s political and social outlook. When Eric brings up what Birling was saying before the inspector arrived he responds hastily, ‘Yes, well, we don’t need to go into all of that.’ This indicates a slight sense of embarrassment about his political views. By doing this, Priestley seeks to highlight what he (Priestley) views as flaws in Birlings political stance, i.e. that he is mindful of the flaws of capitalism. The introduction of the Inspector also has a marked impact on Eric. When an opposition is presented to his father he rapidly becomes assertive and stands up to his father. In response to his father’s account of his dismissal of Eva Smith, Eric responds ‘It isn’t if you can’t go somewhere else.’ He realises the strong moral objection, and does not feel afraid to voice his opinion. This interests the audience, as this begins to alter the relationship dynamics of the characters. It also, more crucially, demonstrates to the audience that the future, i.e. Eric is morally conscious and unafraid to oppose capitalist wrongdoings; this is an indication that Priestley wants the audience to view the future as a bright prospect.
Character exits throughout Act one are another dramatic device used proficiently. The exit of a character enables the characters to interact differently, and causes a further exposure of truth. When the Inspector enters, only Birling, Gerald, and Eric are present. They all discuss the case of Eva Smith. Then, Sheila re-enters the room and they discuss matters. Following this, Sheila leaves after seeing the picture of Eva Smith. This immediately generates tension, as the audience does not know why she is so distressed, but the characters then surmise that she recognised Eva Smith. This begins to interest the audience and build tension, as the audience discover that the characters are unaware of each other’s involvements with Eva Smith. When later, Sheila returns and she admits that she had dealings with Eva Smith to the Inspector, Birling is not present. She feels able to confide her feelings of guilt to the Inspector, but not so much to her father, who disregards them: “I’ve told my father – he didn’t seem to think it amounted to much – but I felt rotten about it…” The exit of Birling reveals a great deal about Sheila. She is socially conscientious, and feels a communal responsibility, but finds no sympathy or similar feeling with her father. However, she can with the Inspector. This exit of character reveals Sheila’s true political persuasion. This again accentuates the difference between the two generations, and demonstrates Presley’s political optimism.
Act One concludes with a cliffhanger. This has a major effect on the audience. At the end of Act One Gerald admits to Sheila that he had had an affair with Eva Smith. The Inspector then enters and simply says "Well?" this hooks the audience, and leaves them asking questions. This suspense-filled word leaves the audience wanting more, and involves the audience in the plays progress.
The irony throughout Act One is a further example of Priestley’s dramatic prowess. The fact that most of Act One is ironic in retrospect ridicules the characters, and makes them appear foolish. In this way, Priestley further discredits the Birlings’ views, and thus ridicules their political stance. This also adds intrigue and drama to the play, and engages the audience in the unfolding plot.
In Act One, Priestley subtly changes the audience’s opinion of the playwright. He does this using an array of dramatic devices. One of the prime devices used to do this, is the juxtaposition of Birling’s character (and thus his political outlook), with that of the Inspector. Because of Birling’s bigoted and uncouth manner, he instantaneously loses the audience’s favour. Conversely, the Inspector’s courteous manner and his quiet, probing temperament, immediately endear to him the audience, and thus validate his political message. Priestley uses a range of techniques to interest and involve the audience; an excellent example of this is the suspense at the end of Act One, the conclusion keeps the audience on the edge of their seats, and draws them into the plot. Priestley uses these techniques to interest the audience and as a result, interest them in his political views. In my opinion, the play and its message are as relevant today as in the day it was written. The message of capitalist bigotry, lack of communal responsibility, and parsimony is enormously relevant in an age where money is more important than the welfare of others. Priestley’s political message of communal responsibility is definitely significant to today’s society.
