An Inspector Calls - J.B Priestley
Coursework:
J.B. Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls'
Compare and contrast the reactions of the older generation and the younger to interrogation by the Inspector.
Evaluate the social and historical setting of the play and it's cultural setting.
In Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls' one receives hints throughout the play that point towards a rigid class system, in that Sir and Lady Croft appear to be the highest ranking of the characters mentioned, followed by the middle class Birling's, with Eva Smith at the very bottom of the spectrum. After studying the historical background of the time of J.B. Priestley, one is able to see why such references to, and familiarity with, this class system appear to be second nature to the characters.
The rigidity and order of the apparent class-system demonstrated by Priestley could be linked closely to the Feudal System, the last vestiges of which were far from gone in 1912 as it had been in force for hundreds of years before. Hence the great impact of the history of the time on Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls', a knowledge of which is crucial for a full and complete appreciation of the play.
I will concentrate mainly on the Birling family as Gerald faces no real interrogation due to his honesty and small involvement, also, he leaves very shortly after his brief questioning and we don't see any effects that the questioning may or may not have had. Edna (maid) will not be analysed, as she faced no questioning whatsoever.
The older generation, therefore, is composed of Mr. and Mrs. Birling and the younger generation consists of Gerald and Sheila Birling.
At first, Mr. Birling's reaction to interrogation is that of indignance and he feels it necessary to inform the Inspector of his position in society, connections and possible retribution that the inspector may face. For example, in the face of tough questioning, Mr. Birling mentions the Chief constable and says to the Inspector "Perhaps I ought to warn you that he (the Chief Constable) is an old friend of mine, and that I see him quite frequently", the implication being that because of his connections the Inspector should ease up a little. But in Act Three, after Mr. Birling learns of Eric's involvement with Eva Smith, he becomes quieter, more eager to help the Inspector and almost repentant, "I'd give thousands, yes thousands". However, as soon as the Inspector leaves, Mr. Birling's demeanour changes into one of feverish desperation, namely, to limit the ill repute that, in his opinion, will certainly be attached to the family name. Birling says "... you don't realise yet all you've done ... There'll be a public scandal".
Similarly, Mrs. Birling's initial reaction to interrogation is of indignance, but in her own fashion, at the fact that she may be suspect when, quite clearly, she feels she can not possibly bear any responsibility, "... I did nothing I'm ashamed of, or that won't bear investigation ... I consider I did my duty". But Mrs. Birling seems to be so horrified as to be at a loss when, after her harsh admonishments, the father of Eva Smith's child is revealed to be Eric Birling. "No - Eric - please - I didn't know - I didn't understand ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Similarly, Mrs. Birling's initial reaction to interrogation is of indignance, but in her own fashion, at the fact that she may be suspect when, quite clearly, she feels she can not possibly bear any responsibility, "... I did nothing I'm ashamed of, or that won't bear investigation ... I consider I did my duty". But Mrs. Birling seems to be so horrified as to be at a loss when, after her harsh admonishments, the father of Eva Smith's child is revealed to be Eric Birling. "No - Eric - please - I didn't know - I didn't understand -"
When the Inspector comes in, Eric seems to be quite happy to help him along and interject with his opinion of what is being said, 'Why shouldn't they try for higher wages? We try for the highest prices.' However, when Eric realises that the Inspector plans to question each person present separately he takes the first opportunity to leave (when he takes the Inspector to the drawing room), and stays away until partway through the third act. When Eric gets back, he is resigned to the fact that the people present know of his association with Eva Smith and he also admits the fact that he has stolen from the Birling's company office. The only time Eric really is affected is when Mr. Birling gets angry with him and when he learns of Mrs. Birling's involvement in the affair.
Sheila is the person in the play who is affected the most by the inspector's questioning, we could, in fact, argue that she is so affected as to have been 'unhinged', or made hysterical. However, when we examine the play more carefully, we see that Sheila's apparent hysteria is due to the actions, namely the statements, of her family, in particular her parents. Sheila is the second person to be questioned, after Mr. Birling, and it is almost directly after this questioning that she starts to display signs of the aforementioned hysterical behaviour. It is my opinion that she only becomes hysterical when one of the other persons being questioned starts to, or intends to, lie to the Inspector. This, I feel, is actually due to Sheila's perceptive nature as, after she herself is questioned, she realises the Inspector knows a lot more than he is letting on. It is my view that Sheila is the voice of reason in the play, as she is the only person who, during the questioning, advocates truthfulness and caution, because she knows the Inspector has a plan to ensnare each person and then reveal his knowledge of what they have done after they have irrevocably put themselves in a position of denying the Inspector's claims, and unknowingly condemning themselves (in Mrs. Birling's case it appears that Eric is the one who comes out badly, but I think Mrs. Birling's love for Eric condemns herself along with him). However, Priestley masks the reason in Sheila's statements with a cloak of supposed hysteria and mental instability, perhaps to stop Sheila's true persona being too readily identifiable to the audience so they have something to mull over long after the play is over.
As we can see, the two generations react differently to questioning by the Inspector. Mr. and Mrs. Birling are at first indignant and resistant to the Inspectors queries, and when they learn what is going on fully they rack their brains for a solution to the problem that has arisen, namely that the family name will be publicly disgraced and that they may lose custom at the office, resulting in a degradation of their lifestyle, public image and social status. However, Eric and Sheila show totally different reactions to Mr. and Mrs. Birling, when the Inspector questions them. Both members of the younger tell the truth to the Inspector, and both are, at one time or another, strong advocates of the truth, believing that repentance for their collective crimes is by far more important than saving face in public. Throughout the whole play, Sheila encourages the entire family to tell the truth and admit their crimes. Eric, in turn, tells the truth and advocates acceptance of the truth and repentance once the Inspector has left. The two different generation groups show different reactions to the incident, and neither can understand the mentality of the other when it comes to the way they deal with the situation after the Inspector leaves.
After the Inspector leaves, the Birling's and Gerald discover that Inspector Goole was not a real Inspector at all, but a fake. Mr. and Mrs. Birling and Gerald are overjoyed when they discover that they are not in jeopardy of being linked to the untimely death of a young girl, but Eric and Sheila maintain that this turn of events changes nothing, they should be sorry for the actions they have taken and learn from the events that transpired that evening. Then, on the last page of the text and in the last few seconds of the play, there is a telephone call to tell the Birling's that a girl has just died in the infirmary and an inspector is on his way to visit them. This could lead the audience to think that perhaps the Inspector was an anthropomorphic personification of the collective consciences of the Birling's and Gerald, who was sent to the Birling's to teach them their lesson before it was too late. During this saving of the Birling's we learn that it is the younger generation who, contrary to popular belief, are accepting of their wrongdoing and prepared to change and learn from this event, whether it's repercussions reached as far as degrading their lives or not. However, the older generation, who may normally be expected to act as the younger generation have, refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and are only concerned with maintaining the lifestyle they have carved out for themselves, whether it remains spiritually and conscientiously empty or not.
For a full and true understanding of 'An Inspector Calls', one must first have a knowledge and understanding of how the dates of the play (the date it was set, the date it was first shown, and the dates of major world events that occurred between the time of it's setting and the time of it's first showing) are all inextricably linked, and combine to magnify the impact of the message Priestley is trying to convey to his audience. It would be sensible to assume that the Inspector in the play represents Priestley himself, as the morals and values exhibited by the Inspector reflect Priestley's own; they both believe that all people should be treated as equals, for example. The representation of Priestley's political and philosophical opinions in the play is reinforced in the younger generation (Gerald and Sheila Birling) as they both exhibit a preference for social responsibility and care towards fellow humans. Conversely, Mr. Birling brings together all of the personality traits and attitudes that Priestley so hated and fervently campaigned against, the arrogance of those left over from the Old Edwardian era, the perception of 'we, the rich' and 'they, the poor', and the unwavering confidence that this state of affairs could never change, coupled with an inability to see any possible breakdown of this system. This character profile and viewpoint is backed up by Mrs. Birling who shares Mr. Birling's views, and provides a supporting role to reinforce the contrast between the Inspector/Priestley's Socialist views and the Edwardian upper-class views of Mr. and Mrs. Birling. The diametrically opposed views and personalities of these two characters in itself would be enough to highlight just how strong Priestley's views are, but this is coupled with a superb manipulation of the timing of the plays setting and first showing. The play was written in 1944-45, first shown in Moscow in 1945 and in London in 1946, and was set in 1912. In the first act of the play, Mr. Birling makes an impassioned speech that details his political views and makes several statements in the aforementioned arrogance of his peer group; namely, that there will be no war 'Just because the Kaiser makes a speech or two'; the Titanic is 'unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable'; that all the fuss about the Labour party will have blown over; and that 'Russia . . . will always be behindhand'. These statements, in the intervening years between the date of the play's setting and the date of the plays showing, prove to be wholly inaccurate. Two World Wars have broken out, both heavily involving the Germans, the Titanic has sunk after a collision with an iceberg, the Labour party has been voted in several times and will have continued success even though the war is won under a Conservative Churchill, and Russia will become a great 20th Century world power and birthplace of fabulous wealth due to it's abundance of natural resources. As well as Mr. Birling's predictions for the future being dashed to pieces by world events of the next 20 years, his very philosophies on how society should operate were proven to be outdated and incompatible with modern life by the new Socialist movement. The twelve years between 1906 and 1918 proved to be the turning point that defined our current political system in this country and the advent of 'the nanny state'. In this period the vote for parliamentary elections was rolled out to all persons aged 18 and over, education became compulsory up to the age of 12, and the Social Security system was founded, providing pensions and unemployment for people who needed them. Granted, these systems were not perfect, but this interlinked lattice of world events, the socialist movement, and the timing of the play serves to make Priestley's point just as eloquently and effectively as the play itself does.
