An Inspector Calls, Coursework
I liked and enjoyed the play "An Inspector Calls" because I thought it was interesting and I liked the surprising twist at the end.
This play is a play about a spoilt wealthy family just trying to improve their social standards. An inspector comes and interrogates the Birling's and Gerald Croft about a girl, Eva Smith, who committed suicide by drinking a bottle of disinfectant. The inspector slowly gets these people into admitting that they all played a major part in the "hours of agony" P17 that turned Eva Smith "inside out". After the Birling's have been shook up and the truth has all come out. Gerald finds out that the inspector, inspector Goole isn't an inspector at all and that a police inspector's coming round to ask them a few questions about a "girl who just died - on her way to the Infirmary after swallowing some disinfectant".
Whilst reading and watching this play I realised that Sheila was the antithesis of Eva Smith, Eva has worked hard all her life to make her life worth living and Sheila was just handed life on a plate. Even when Eva Smith had the chance to destroy the Birling family by saying that Eric was the father she didn't, but Sheila didn't think twice about getting Eva sacked from her job. I think this shows that Sheila was bought up in a class and a family that gets what they want and they do this by abusing their power. Mr Birling uses his power to sack Eva after she asked for a pay rise, "its better to ask for the world than to take it" is what the inspector said. Is it not her right to ask for better in the world if Eva puts in the effort for it? I think that Priestly was trying to express his views that everyone should be equal and that should occur by the law changing and not a revolution-taking place. Which was basically why J.B Priestly was in the Fabian society because wanted things to change but through law and not through communism like in animal farm.
Mrs Birling abused her power by persuading the rest of the board to look away from Eva's case. Sheila abused her power by threatening to close her mothers account in a shop; she only did this because Eva looked better in the hat than she did. The Birling's are the antithesis of the Fabian society and Priestly's views.
Priestly used the idea of Eva Smith and Sheila Birling being the same ages very well. Eva and Sheila are from very different classes; they're completely different in personality. I think that Priestly is trying to show the public how different people can be and maybe he was trying to say that Sheila was the epitome of the in a higher class.
As I was reading and watching this play I realised that J.B Priestly was determined to keep to the three rules that the Ancient Greeks set. He manages to stick to every one and he ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Priestly used the idea of Eva Smith and Sheila Birling being the same ages very well. Eva and Sheila are from very different classes; they're completely different in personality. I think that Priestly is trying to show the public how different people can be and maybe he was trying to say that Sheila was the epitome of the in a higher class.
As I was reading and watching this play I realised that J.B Priestly was determined to keep to the three rules that the Ancient Greeks set. He manages to stick to every one and he even kept to the time rule to the exact second, this proves what a skilled writer Priestly was. I thought that Priestly used the factor of time very well. He did this by making the inspector always conscious to it; he's always pushing them as if he needs to keep to a strong schedule. "I'm losing all patience with you people" (p46), he doesn't have time to be patient. The inspector knows what's coming next, for example on page 49 when first he raises his hand; this symbolises that he is in control. That's a very definite hand signal, then the front door goes, he knew exactly when the bell would ring and that it would be Eric. This happened at the very end of act 2, and more tension occurred because the curtain falls "quickly", this is clever as it would leave the audience in shock. J.B. Priestly has used this very thoughtfully because he has now bought in the audience who would discuss what has just happened amongst each other, getting them more excited and interested in what's going to happen next. If the play would just run straight from act 2 to act 3 then I think that some of the shock would be lost because the audience wouldn't have time to run over their minds what had just happened. Therefor wouldn't be paying complete attention to the next 5minutes of the play.
Because of the fact that he kept to the factor of time to the exact second then it made the book so much more enjoyable to read. This is so because it raises the tension and if the time was over a few days then the tension is broken up. The quickening pace of act 2 was vital to this play. It didn't give time for the Birling's to realise what they were saying and what was happening. It also doesn't give the audience and it didn't give me the time to work out how the play would end. This added to the blow when it suddenly hit me that Eric was the dad and Mrs Birling had virtually killed his son, her grandson because of her selfish ways.
Whilst watching the film I thought that the person playing Eric was quite talented and made me feel sorry for him although he drunk and was only with Eva Smith for sex. Because of this fact my attention was diverted away from what he was doing which was very wrong and just as wrong as what Gerald did to Eva. This also didn't make me think that Eric was adding to the tragedies of her slowly deteriorating life, but that he's just a young boy driven to alcoholism.
The film though didn't stick to the 3 rules but I thought that the film was very good and gave me a different perspective. Although the film didn't stick to all the 3 rules, it still kept the chronological order the same. If the film didn't keep to the same chronological order then the film would loose its tension and the drama with Mrs Birling wouldn't have taken place, as she would have already known about Eric.
Towards the end of Act 2 a great deal of irony is shown. Mrs Birling is being interrogated about her "responsibilities" and the charity work she is doing. She uses her power to persuade the other people on the committee saying because she has a high social class and women will be afraid to go against her. I think that Priestly was trying to get people to consider the consequences of everyone else as well as your own well being. Mrs Birling starts to realise that she could be in trouble for the work she is using to help her social standards, she is not facing up too her responsibilities, she's not ignoring them. So she passes on the blame, "it's the father that should be made an example". She starts on the father of the child by basically saying the father should be aware of his responsibilities, the opposite to what Mrs Birling is doing but she doesn't realise that its Eric that's the father. She hasn't got a clue. This made me realise how slow minded Mrs Birling really is because every one else knows that its Eric, even Sheila knows and is warning her to stop but Mrs Birling and her intransigent mind just wont listen, she always has to be right.
Mr Birling is very like Mrs Birling. He only married her to improve his social standards. Mr Birling is like the Titanic, supposedly "unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable". I think that this basically sums up that he's the epitome of Edwardian society, but the frightening thing is that we as a human race haven't really learnt anything in 40years. Mr Birling was going on about how modern technology was so good, because of it; he has been brutally attacked, and sunk. This was the telephone, the telephone that destroyed him and his chances for his precious knighthood. We are still ignorant towards "war" and that we seem to be "dodging" it. Priestly's words, "unsinkable" frightened me because the words echoed and maybe the Americans thought that they were unsinkable? They were sunk with fire on September 11th. They still haven't learnt. It's exactly what the inspector said, "we will be taught in fire, blood and anguish." As H.G. Wells said "The future is a race between education and catastrophe."
At the beginning of this play, Priestly is very precise about the settings and background. I think that he has thought hard about the furniture in the Birling's house. The furniture is elegant and expensive but not comfortable, it personifies Mr Birling and his family: they're wealthy but there's no love, they're really comfortable with each other. Mr Birling thinks that he's as good as he gets, "knighthood" in the near future, ex-mayor, but what Priestly's trying to say is do you really want him to go to the house of lords? He would be allowed to change people's opinions democratically but he doesn't like people in a lower class, "... the way some cranks talk and write now, you'd think that everyone has to look out for everyone else" p10. Mr Birling's like Napoleon from animal farm, he's the paradox to an altruist.
Priestly also sets the lighting at the beginning of the play, as "rosy", rosy being a safe colour therefor the room was safe. Its like Mr Birling wearing light, rose tinted spectacles. He only sees good for himself when he's wearing them but then he asks Edna to give us some more light, to change the light to a harsher colour. The protection has been lost from the room. The room is no longer safe and Mr Birling has bought that upon himself.
I would end this play on a with Mr Birling standing next to a rosy light near the telephone because even at the end of all of this he still doesn't know any different, he doesn't know what he's done wrong. As they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. He still thinks that everything will be all right and life will continue the same- he's afraid of change, and this is what the rosy light symbolises.
I would separate Mrs Birling and Mr Birling from the others but still have Mrs Birling away from Mr Birling; I would do this because Mr and Mrs Birling haven't learnt or realised that they need to think about the consequences before they abuse their power to do something.
Sheila and Eric would be together maybe hugging each other as they have learnt what they have done is wrong unlike Mr and Mrs Birling who think that they were justified. These two younger people are the people of the future, because of this learning flaw they have come to they will change for the good and teach their children to do things for the better and always think of the consequences. They will never make the same mistake because of Eva Smith's death and the guilt on their conscious. These two would be nearer a harsher light because of the reason I just stated that they've change for the good and have realised the harsher side of life, they can't just cover up what's wrong.
I would still have the inspector "closing his note book" at the end as if to say, "my work here is done." This gives me the thought that after he goes he's going on to another persons home just like the Birling's to teach the kids of the future the same lesson and to make them realise that not everything in life is bought to them on a plate.
My ending would finish with Mrs Birling turning away from Mr Birling as he hears the news about the girl in the infirmary because this would show that even she is ashamed of him.
