The play can also be considered a well made play as during the course of the play all of the characters, some – unfortunately – in a negative way, progress from a form of ignorance to knowledge. An example of this is when Birling comments on Eric’s drinking problem, he said, “I understand a lot of things now I didn’t understand before.” This is all very good but he seems to be missing the point about the fact that collectively they just drove an innocent woman to suicide. During the play the time span is designed to be equivalent to that of what is happening on stage. By having the time span as well as the other unities of place and action we are shown what happens, as it happens. Unlike a modern soap where we cut to different scenes when something interesting is happening we are kept in the same place with the same people and as if Priestley has kept the audience there. Their minds are focused on what is happening and his messages about social change come across powerfully. When Birling talks about the war that is not going to happen – “the German’s don’t want war” – the audience can see and almost laugh at Birling’s complete lack of common sense and his total focus on his goal of making money without realising what is going on around him.
‘An Inspector Calls’ is a bit like a murder-mystery except it is lacking in a murder, we as the audience are drawn in to see who is guilty even though nothing has actually happened that is illegal. One technique Priestley uses is to start gaining evidence from each character in a particular order, rather like Hercule Poirot in ‘Murder on the Orient Express’. By gaining information about each character piece by piece we can see their part in the tragedy, the audiences interest is maintained. After the interrogation by the Inspector each character has been completely shamed. Although it may seem obvious as to what will happen later on and who will become the guilty party after the next stage we are still left on a cliff-hanger as we have several different ideas in our minds of what could happen. This is very effective and shows the play is well made. By interrogating Birling first we see that his priority is, “to keep labour costs down.” This shows Birling is self obsessed and his only goal is to make money. During the rationing period of the war and the years after wards having money could not buy you all you wanted, but for the modern materialistic audience it seems very appropriate which is quite incredible that the meaning of that is just as important today.
The setting of the play is a key factor when we consider its meanings and their appropriateness a modern audience. The play is set in 1912 which was a very depressing time in Britain. However the gap between rich and poor was increasing, the rich were becoming more complacent about the future, in contrast to the poor who were starving. There were many strikes, violence, worry about a possible war with the Germans and the Suffragettes were beginning to pressure the government into giving women the right to vote. This was a very dark time and the play is deliberately set in the period. Birling seems to be looking forward to the Titanic sailing and is certain there will be no war. He seems to be looking on the bright side, as he is not aware of what is going on around him. This is not very wise, as if you are focused on one thing you may not realise that other things such as paying your workers more is an important issue, “well it’s my duty to keep labour rates down.” This was what Birling wanted to do as the boss of his company.
The play was written in 1944/1945, which was potentially the start of a very prosperous period, the war seemed almost over and the proposed common market, Welfare State and National Health Service gave hope to the lower social classes in Britain. In 1945 after the war was over Clement Atlee won the election. This suggested a possible shift in the political views of British people. However this did not last and in 1951 a conservative government was re-elected.
The set that the play takes place on is a setting which was typical of a middle class family of the time. Preistley’s audience almost thirty years later would still have been able to identify and feel at home with the setting. I do not believe that the set would make a more modern audience feel as comfortable as we are not used to smoking cigars and drinking port at the dinner table and the whole atmosphere seems too ‘ancient’ as we are not used to this scenario. The modern audience does not relate, in my opinion, to the, “decanter of port, cigar box and cigarettes,” that are on the table. Priestley designed the set to be like this so that the audience of his day would be able to see the mistakes the Birling family had all made and the fact that cumulatively they managed to force Eva Smith to suicide. He could not predict what people’s thoughts would be like in the future but it is still easy to understand parts of the set idea and to listen to the ideas that Priestley is presenting to the audience.
The set can tell us key things about the role of the characters. It can tell us things in pictures, rather then the characters saying something. One example is in the last act of the play when the Inspector allows Eric to pour himself a drink before answering questions. The stage directions give an idea of what would happen on the set and could be used to show the audience that Eric is a heavy and experienced drinker. The stage directions read, “his whole manner of handling the decanter and then the drink shows his familiarity with quick heavy drinking. The others watch him narrowly.” This shows that a director could make use of this to convey the message that Eric made a mistake by stealing and this was caused by him drinking and meeting a girl when he was drunk. Another example of the set being used to convey a message about a character concerns Arthur Birling; he is seated at the head of the table. The audience can gather from just a fraction of second after the play begins that Birling is an important and key character as he is shown to be senior to the other characters. His wife is seated at the other end but she doesn’t ‘show off’ about it like Birling does by keeping all the attention on himself. These ideas show the Birling family to be more obsessed by possessions and not by love or affection.
Inspector Goole is a complex, enigmatic and ultimately paradoxical character. He arrives, into a normal family scene, acting reasonably normally but during his stay he interrogates each character in a highly unusual fashion which can confuse the audience. When he leaves he has torn the family apart and left them thinking that they drove a girl to suicide. The family then decides amongst themselves that the Inspector wasn’t really a police officer of any sort. He could have been one of many things, firstly he could have been – but very unlikely – a real Inspector. Secondly he could have been a representation of Jesus, who had returned as he promised. He wanted show that there are still evils in the world and was using the Birling family as his example. A more likely religious figure he could be would be a Catholic Priest as Priestley was a religious man and this would also tie in with his name. The Inspector uses religious language in his final speech, “their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering…”Another suggestion of who the man who played the Inspector could have been a journalist who had some information on them and wanted to strike lucky and scoop a story. This could be possible because he acts very much like a journalist in his direct approach but also because the Birling’s tell him everything, this could show that he didn’t know everything he said he did but just wanted to piece bits of information to her to make a story.
Another possible suggestion, of who the Inspector really was, is a social leader trying to gain support for his cause and equality for everyone, however rich or poor. This does have some truth in it as he is telling the rich Birling’s that the way they treated Eva Smith (or up to five girls) was bad, they did however give her money but they kicked her out of jobs and made her pregnant and made her feel desperate. This social activist or campaigner is like Martin Luther King, trying to earn equality not just for his part of society but for all. This message is important and if the audience realises this then they are shown what inequality can do to a poor, innocent young girl.
A final ‘guess’ as to who the Inspector could be is in his name. His name – Goole – sounds very much like ‘ghoul’. Ghouls or ghosts are considered to be shadowy, invisible figures who come and go. The Inspector has turned up out of nowhere to tell the Birling family something special and has then disappeared again. This would not have any relation to realism and the audiences are unlikely to understand what a ghost has to so with the play whether they were the audiences of the 1940s or the current time. The play does have some surreal points it, for example how did the Inspector know that, “two hours ago a young girl dies in the Infirmary” when she hadn’t actually died yet? This is an example of the play being both realistic but also pushing the boundaries of realism to make a social point to those viewing.
Sheila is a very interesting character. She has many things going round her head and is the first to be suspicious of the Inspector’s identity. Her parents are very unkind to her and as she is young do not want to listen to her, very much like the phrases ‘silence is golden’ and ‘children should be seen and not heard.’ Being a child makes her inferior to the parents in their eyes. In the 1940’s this still existed and children would do what their parents said as they were always correct. This is not as true nowadays. Sheila is David in the battle against the Goliath of her parents. They want to believe something that is not true and Sheila sees the mistakes they are making. “Of course he knows…you’ll see.” Rather like a comedy it is painfully funny to see the parents acting as if they know best when we can see the opposite. Sheila represents the voice of youth and she shows that children are just as equal as adults are.
Mr. and Mrs. Birling are also major characters in the play. They both seem oblivious to the truth. From the outset of the play Birling talks about “a time of steadily increasing prosperity.” He also mentions the fact that the Titanic is a great feat of engineering and that there will be no war in Europe. He, along with many politicians of the time was wrong about all three of these statements. Mr. Birling is the most ‘stupid’ character in the play. By using Birling’s character to show the audience the mistakes that have been made the audience a better understanding of the of the things that the characters have done. Birling is an unusual character, as he doesn’t represent something as such, he does however have the ignorant characteristic so he could be compared to the politicians of his time. This would make sense as Priestley wrote the play at the end of the Second World War and wanted to show that having the first war was a catastrophic mistake, and the reasons for it lay in ignorance and greed. Mrs. Birling shows this ignorance by the way she treats Sheila and we see that the attitudes still have not changed.
The plot of the play is a very simple but ultimately confusing one. The characters do unusual things, that make the audience confused but at the same time they would like to know what will happen next. The main surprise of the play is the ending, where it is revealed that after having decided that the Inspector was not real their doubts are confirmed – unfortunately by the suicide of a young woman. Birling is told an Inspector is coming to the house to ask them questions. Suddenly they realise that it may not have been four or five girls that they affected, but just one. This led her to suicide; the family finally feels guilt and is stunned. We do not know what happens at the end of the play for a very simple reason. Priestley wanted his audiences to think about what they would have done in that situation; if they had made those mistakes would they learnt from them, cover them up or take full responsibility. Priestley is making people ponder over the play after the curtain falls and to think about whether they have done things wrong and how can they learn. It is important to notice that it is Birling who receives the telephone call at the end. It is the last attempt of innocence to plead to Birling to make him listen – to stop telling himself that he was right, to tell himself and his family that they all did wrong and it is time they owned up to it even though what they did was not illegal. This telephone call affects the audience and can broaden their understanding of the social messages contained within it.
The Inspector (at the time when the characters and audience believe he is a real Inspector) makes a rather unusual decision. He stops some of the characters from seeing the photo of Eva Smith; some of the characters never see it. This is unusual, as you would have thought that the Inspector would show everyone the photo and everyone would pretend they didn’t know her. They would of course crack, eventually, and the Inspector would be able to prise the information from them. The reason, we discover after the Inspector leaves, is because it is almost certain according to Gerald that the Inspector was a fraud and was lying about who he was. The characters realise that they may have done wrong to several different girls, which according to them is at least acceptable. The reason the Inspector didn’t show them all, the photograph was because he showed different ones each time and for the girls he didn’t have photos for he made excuses as to why the family members couldn’t see them. Of course we never find out what the family think after Birling s the call at the end of the play.
After the Inspector leaves the ‘party’ Gerald returns to the house with news. He informs the family that the Inspector was lying about his true identity. It is conceivable that Gerald, who asked a friend of his who is a sergeant in the police force was inaccurate with his information but as Inspector’s are few and far between in the police it is unlikely that the sergeant would have not known the Inspector. The important thing to understand from this is that the family is more or less relieved by this news with the possible exception of Birling, who is worried that the ‘Inspector’ may reveal all the information he gained in the papers. The family has completely forgotten that they treated a number of girls with complete disregard; this is vital to remember. The family thinks that they are free from guilt as no girl has died. This is a very small but significant part of the play. They are proved wrong later on. Only Gerald and Sheila have learnt from the experience. Sheila says, “But now your beginning all over again.” This shows that Sheila is desperate for her parents to listen to her.
The ending of the play shows a very creative approach by Priestley. Having the surprise ending it not only ranks alongside greats such as the Mousetrap but it is also extremely thought provoking. The audience have been lulled into thinking that as Eva Smith was only one of several girls that have been affected they are suddenly relieved that the family isn’t as mean as they had though. The audience has become psychologically hypnotised to believe that as no girl has died the family are innocent. Some audiences may follow Sheila’s line of thought but would be in the minority dure to the strength of negatie argument put forward by Priestley. The call at the end throws the audience from this belief. This affects the way the whole play is perceived from the audiences’ point of view. Communication of these messages is where Priestley excels. The shock at the end makes you realise suddenly that the peaceful tranquillity of the home has been shattered and before you have time to think of the consequences the play ends. There is one interesting thing about the ending, that could be deliberate or it could be a mistake. When the Inspector arrives he says that, “a young woman died in the Infirmary.” In the closing speech by Birling he states that, “A girl has just died – on her way to the Infirmary.” These quotes could indicate that there has been an unfortunate coincidence. By making the audience carry on thinking after reading or viewing the play Priestley achieves the effect he wanted by making people think about the social and slightly political messages after the play has finished. He wants the audience to think about treating people better, very much like thinking before speaking.
During ‘An Inspector Calls’ J B Priestley sends out a number of highly important and politically controversial social messages. Using varying techniques from a surprise ending to a supernatural character he shows his readers and viewers that there are many important issues and that in the Birling family they have collectively been incredibly selfish. Priestley highlights all the problems that he sees are necessary and puts them all together. He achieves his goal of presenting these messages to the audience as they listen to the characters and believe them when they decide that they haven’t done anything wrong. After the surprise ending many viewers will and should feel guilty that they went along with the Birlings’ idea and that they didn’t think like the people they hoped they were. This is the best way that Priestley could have done what he set out to do and he does it with considerable effect. When this play was first produced I think that the messages would have hit home just as well as they do nowadays. The play was first performed just after the Second World War, which may have influenced the thinking of the people but would still have made them think about their actions and possibly even support the socialist ideology. The play was recently reproduced for Shaftsbury Avenue under a Conservative government (funnily enough the same as when the play was first produced even though the government does not decide what is on.) It is safe to assume that people would have been affected in the same way with guilt and more understanding of the world after the play had finished. The play was terminated stopped in 2003 under a Labour government which may be due to costs or as we then lived under a different government peoples attitudes were different and the modern audience would not be affected as much as the older audiences.
I personally feel that Priestley’s messages are very valuable and can freely admit that after the Birlings discovered that the Inspector was fake and they were innocent I agreed with them, the ending surprised me as well as millions of people all over the world. I do not need to be convinced that the messages are important and that everyone should have at least some understanding of them. I agree with Priestley that many of the things that happened in the play were wrong but I do not understand how in a capitalist country Birling was in any way wrong to lay off several of his workers. He was entitled to as their boss and was well within his rights under a democratic government. I assume that as Priestley was a socialist he would disagree with this, as this is almost the total opposite of the socialist theology. I agree that the messages Priestley sent through the play are vitally important to any society. I also must emphasise that many of them have many important meanings that are equally if not more important within society today as they were when they were first written back in 1944/1945.