'An Inspector Calls' operates in real time in a tense discussion about the consequences of the Birlings’s selfish actions. The heartless acts do not actually occur in the play but are only spoken about and the audiences are informed through conversation about Eva Smith’s suicide and her reasons. As the audience never experience events contributing to her death or her actual death, the author has the opportunity to alter previous events. The dubious information leaves the audience in anticipation. As the action is not witnessed it is easier for the audience to accept Eva Smith symbolising the future.
Except for Eric and Mrs Birling the inspector confronts each member of the family in chronological order, to complete the audiences and the characters’ understanding. The inspector reveals that Mrs Birling rejected Eva Smith from her charity organisation before she knew Eric was the father. This is because with the knowledge that Eric was the father, Mrs Birling would have reacted differently and not shown her hypocrisy.
The play is easy to accept because it is in a realistic setting and at the time it was written, many people had similar beliefs to those raised in the play.
As the story slowly unwinds, the audience senses an approaching climax that keeps them in suspense. The inspector keeps releasing clues and the mounting tension with each interrogation holds the audiences’ interest and challenges them to solve the mystery. For example Sheila says to Gerald ‘I expect you’ve done things you’re ashamed of too’, which hints that Gerald has a shameful secret.
The inspector enters the play dressed in a darkish suit and is described as a man who creates an ‘impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness.’ His strong presence interrupts the excitable atmosphere of Sheila and Gerald’s engagement celebrations and transforms almost instantly into an aura of tension by his uncomfortable questions, despite the families attempt to avoid the inspector’s enquiry. He proceeds to slowly reveal the truth in a logical fashion to influence both the play characters and the audience. The inspector presents many clues, such as insinuating Eric’s involvement as he protests for Eric not to ‘turn in’ as ‘you might have to turn out again soon’.
The order is important as this is designed to both intrigue the audience and to influence the audience’s thoughts. Priestly used this as an instrument to convey his notions. The inspector allows the characters to announce their opinions in an arrogant manner, then contradicts them by revealing the truth. The inspector asks who is to blame and Mrs Birling reply’s ‘blame the young man who was the father’ but later the inspector reveals Eric is the father. The audience relates to the inspector’s questions connected to the current social events of the period. In a similar way to the characters, the audience is allowed to form opinions, which are later demolished. The inspector exits with a final summary of Priestley’s righteous notion, ‘We don’t live alone. We are members of one body-We are responsible for each other’ as our lives are ‘intertwined with’ occurrences of the future and peoples happiness. The effect caused by Birling’s selfish beliefs correlate with society’s similar views that this would result in disastrous consequences of ‘fire and blood and anguish.’ The inspector acts as a Greek chorus filling in pieces of information and makes righteous comments as if he is on a higher moral level. One example of Priestley’s ideas about social status being unrelated to ones nobility, is communicated through the inspector as he says ‘Sometimes there isn’t as much difference as you think.’ In response to ‘we’re respectable citizens and not criminals, Priestley did not want too much attention concentrated on who the inspector was, but to the points he made. As a result the inspector spoke concisely with little emotion or information about himself, he would either ask a question ‘She talked about herself.’, a comment to show he was listening such as ‘Go on’ or a judgmental comment such as ‘I was looking at what was left of Eva Smith. A nice promising life there, I thought, and a nasty mess somebody’s made of it’ referring to the Birling family symbolising the destruction cause by someone’s unnecessary action to instigate a war.
Unlike conventional police inspectors, it becomes apparent he thinks he is entitled to pass judgement on the character’s actions in the play. It raises many questions about who is the inspector, maybe he is a police inspector or a hoaxer or something greater than a human being and Priestley aims to convince his readers of the inspectors views. The inspector’s judgmental comments transform the detective story into a moralistic tale and the audience seems to connect to Eric and Sheila’s views that ‘Whoever the chap [inspector] was, the fact remains that I did what I did’ and so agreed it is irrelevant whoever the inspector is.
Mr Birling is introduced as a superficial character because he sees his daughter’s engagement as a good business prospect for a time when ‘Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together- for lower costs and higher prices’ rather than a chance of happiness for his daughter. He creates an air of pomposity and foolishness due to his several long speeches about his business and makes harsh contradictions about tragic facts, which lead the audience to lose respect and warmth for the character. The Birlings defensive reactions and lack of guilt perpetuate the audience’s dislike for the Birlings further.
Throughout Priestley’s existence his views were contrasting with Mr and Mrs Birling’s ideas. Their old fashion views about society ‘that a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own’ throughout the play convey no remorse for their actions. Their characters symbolised the vulnerable capitalist beliefs that many of the 1945’s audience may have held, even though ironically he start ‘a chain of events’ that lead to the death of his granddaughter. Due to the Birlings behaviour the audience are most distant from the Birlings. Priestley showed the audience a different perspective of capitalism and its’ effects.
As the inspector informs Mr Birling that his actions ‘may have determined what happened to her afterwards, and what happened to her afterwards may have driven her to suicide.’ Mr Birling denies any responsibility as ‘If we were all responsible for every that happened to everybody we’d had anything to do with, it would be very awkward’.
Mrs Birling allows herself to be manipulated into revealing her hypocrisy, as she holds the strong opinion that the inspector should ‘Go and look for the father of the child. It’s his responsibility’ until it was clear it was her son. However, she remained eager she ‘was the only one who didn’t give in to him’. The audience is aware of this untruth, and her constant lies to protect her reputation prove her to be selfish and unable to take responsibility for her actions. The Birlings’s attitudes correlate with the stereotype that older people are sometimes stuck in the past, this is important as they had the most power.
Mr Birling’s main concern that Eric was the father of Eva Smiths child was ‘There’ll be a public scandal’. When he was assured that Eva Smith may not exist, he and his wife began rebuild their old capitalistic views untouched by the message dispensed by the inspector. This is how Priestley expected the older generation to react to the play and events such as war. Priestley put his faith in the younger generation, as they were more impressionable. Priestley used the Birling’s attitudes as a warning to the young generation that the Birling attitude had dramatic consequences.
Sheila and Eric are the same age as Eva Smith, this allows them to identify with her and realise they were born into a higher class by chance and could have been in her position.
Sheila’s vanity is revealed to the audience as her questions about Eva Smith begin with was she ‘Pretty’. This comment prepares the audience for Sheila using her social status to dismiss Eva Smith from her job, because she ‘couldn’t be sorry for her’ due to Sheila’s jealously of her attractiveness. Eric is portrayed as having a mature attitude, who ‘just had to laugh’ at life. Eric and Sheila then begin to display admissions of guilt, by Sheila admitting she ‘behaved badly’ and that she was ‘ashamed of it’ and Eric shows concern. This remorse allows the audience to like them and shows they are genuine people.
When the younger characters in the play took responsibility for their actions and maturely changed their views of how society should exist, Priestley hoped this would influence the younger generation to follow suit and admit there mistakes ‘So I’m really responsible?’. Priestly targeted the younger generation as opposed to older people, they were more idealistic and impressionable and the decision-makers of the future.
Eva Smith is presented as an innocent victim of other people’s selfish attitudes. There is no focus on her responsibility for her actions and for her child. This is mainly because Eva Smith is a representation of the innocent victims of the future through war and capitalistic living. As Eva Smith is an invisible character, it makes it easier for the audience to feel sympathy towards her, as there are no limits to her innocence. Eva Smith seems to be more of an innocent victim because she was a young, pretty, woman who fell in love with Gerald, features of stereotypically weakness. As Eva Smith chose a horrific death, it seemed the inspector viewed her as blameless.
Gerald is a character with combined older generation and younger generation views, he seems to agree mainly with Mr and Mrs Birling but does not project any firm beliefs of his own. Perhaps Gerald is just attempting to satisfy Mr and Mrs Birling as they are his future in laws. To regain some creditability after the revealing of Gerald’s actions he is determined to impress Mr and Mrs Birling by suggesting ‘Was it a hoax?’ As Mr and Mrs Birling are so anxious to remove their blame they congratulate Gerald immediately ‘I must say, Gerald you’ve argued this very cleverly, and I’m most grateful.’
Priestley conveys his message forcefully throughout the play, he introduces Mr Birling as an un-likeable character so the audience can accept the inspectors remarks about Birlings views. As Priestley aimed in this play at the younger generation audience, he involved many techniques to persuade them to his views, such as building up selfish characters to warn the young audiences this is what they will become. Priesltey included young, ignorant characters who the young audience can identify with, when Eric and Sheila are shown the effect of their actions, they immediately take responsibility, as he hoped the young audience would. The inspector constantly says many righteous comments, which become more effective as the play proceeds. As the audience and characters are slowly worn down by the increasing amount of evidence, the inspector says a speech that the characters can not argue with as the inspector’s views have so much evidence supporting it. The dramatic structure increases to the tension that intrigues the audiences and forces them to think about the issues.