This one speech tells the audience a great deal about Mr Birling and it uses a lot of dramatic irony. The audiences watching knew that in 1926 there was a big general strike lasting nine days, during which the British economy was almost totally paralysed, that not only was there World War I from 1914 to 1918 killing thousands, but also World War II from 1939 to 1945, the most devastating war in human history (that the audiences in 1945, when the play was first performed, would have just experienced.)
The Titanic that everyone claimed to be unsinkable, sank in less then three hours on it's maiden voyage after an iceberg punctured five of the 16 watertight compartments which was one more that had been considered possible in any accident. Every one of the predictions Birling makes is wrong. This leads us to regard him as a man of many words but little sense! So what he states during the rest of the play we have to doubt.
If we contrast the character of Birling with that of the Inspector, we can see Priestly aims showing. The Inspector is the opposite of Birling. Where Birling’s predictions are wrong, the Inspector predicts that if people don't learn their responsibilities, they will be taught in "fire and blood and anguish". This prediction refers to World War I most obviously, but also can refer to World War II.
His wife, Sybil Birling, has similar characteristics as her husband apart from the fact that she is cold, snobbish and arrogant. She told the Inspector of how she suggested that the father of Eva Smith’s child should be punished, when really if she knew all of the background information and that her own son was the father, I know that she would not be recommending that the “young man should be made to confess in public his responsibility” and “make an example of the young man.”
Their daughter, Sheila Birling, is not really like her parents at all. She is more compassionate, warm hearted, affectionate, thoughtful, considerate and kind.
One of Priestley's messages seems to be that there is hope for the future. On seeing how they have affected Eva Smith, both Sheila and Eric act remorsefully. The character of Sheila is fairly caring at the beginning of the play, but as events unravel, and Sheila realises her guilt, her character develops from a fairly naive young girlish character to a more mature, understanding character. This change is so dramatic that to compare the Sheila who at the end of the play has taken to heart the Inspectors lessons ("I remember what he said, how he looked, and what he made me feel. Fire and blood and anguish."), with the Sheila who had a young girl fired from her job because of her own personal paranoia and who acted so differently earlier, you would think they were different people. This is similar to a comparison made between the drunken, playful Eric of Act 1 with the sober serious Eric at the end of Act 3 who has learned that his own mother played a major role in driving the woman bearing his child to suicide.
The results of the Inspectors visit as regards the younger generation are total metamorphoses of character. The older generation however don't see that they have done anything wrong. Mr and Mrs Birling are all too happy to dismiss the evening’s events as false once the chance appears that the Inspector may not have been a police Inspector. Their characters stay the same virtually from beginning to end, with only the short amount of time between Eric's part in the saga becoming known and the Inspector showing any waver in their determination that they were right. The senior Birlings are the examples of the people who will be taught through "Fire and blood and anguish". This is very different to the younger generation. "You seem to have made a great impression on this child Inspector" comments Birling, and is answered with the statement "We often do on the young ones. They're more impressionable." This implies that Priestley is trying to say that there is potential for change in the "young ones" which is not as evident in the older generation.
Eric Birling is the youngest child of the family, and in Act 1 he certainly acts like it. He is immature, emotional, loud, silly, ignorant, thoughtless and uneasy but as stated above he does change throughout the play.
Gerald Croft is the fiancé of Sheila Birling. He seems to be quite mature, self assured and confident. Gerald never did anything terrible to Eva, he simply felt sorry for her. But it was while he was with Shelia when this all happened.
Eva Smith is never actually seen in the play, she is only spoken of or about by the other characters. From what we can tell she is honest, sincere, caring, hard working and attractive
Inspector Goole is strong, determined, sharp, stern, formal, serious and forceful.
The character of Inspector Goole is mysterious. This air of mystery is intentional. He is mysterious because of his character. The name Inspector Goole is an obvious pun (Inspector À spectre, Goole À ghoul). We as an audience never find out who this Inspector is. There are many possibilities - he could be the ghost of Eva Smith avenging her death; he could be some form of cosmic balance, keeping people considerate; he could be amass hallucination brought on by too much champagne of something in the food. He could be anybody or anything. Priestley left the character as a mystery so as to have a larger impact on the audience, making them think more about the play, and helping them think more about the messages the play brings. Through the Inspector, the audiences are educated in their social understandings and behaviour, seeing the examples of the Birlings and hearing Inspector Goole's prediction.
Things started to go wrong from the point when the Inspector arrived; the whole family felt an air of discomfort. The atmosphere changed considerably, the Birling's started to feel awkward from the moment Inspector Goole entered into their home.
The Inspector explained the issue he had come to see them about. All of the characters are quizzed and questioned about the suicide of Eva Smith and in turn each character responds in a different way towards the Inspector, in some cases, giving away that they played a part in the build up to her taking her own life. It is then the end of the play and the audience are left wondering what the conclusion eventually was.
The message of the play was particularly effective to the audiences of 1946. Priestly knew that the message of his play would reach the war-weary audiences of the era more effectively than it would reach the audiences of a different time. The "fire and blood and anguish" reference to the First and Second World Wars would be very influential to the audience. The setting of the play in 1912 allowed for predictions to be made by both Birling and Inspector Goole. The intended effect of the predictions was to make the audience see a glimpse of the kind of person the predictive character is. In the case of Birling, the audience would see him as a character whose opinion is not to be trusted, whereas the predictions made by the Inspector chill the audience and make them see that the lesson he speaks of has been re-taught through fire and blood and anguish twice already. The audiences had experienced the horrors of war and were not eager to experience them again, so they may think that if they followed JB Priestley’s message, they would prevent yet another world war.
The play was set in 1912, and being set at this time, there was not only the opportunity for predictions, but also for a more drastic look at the relationship between the rich and the poor. The class gap of 1912 was much larger than that of 1946, and so was more noticeable to the audiences. With the upper class, we have mentalities like that of Sybil Birling, who would seem to think that all members of the lower classes are beneath her and her family. She say to Birling "Arthur, you're not supposed to say such things," when he compliments the cook (the cook being a member of the lower classes). This shows that she believes that the lower classes are there to serve, not to be thanked or complimented. This is a strange viewpoint for a "prominent member of the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation". With the lower classes however, we have Eva Smith, a young woman who is shown as the innocent victim of the thoughtless actions of the Birlings. This contrast is one of many in the play, set up to show one side to be better than the other. The Inspector against Birling, Eva Smith against Sybil Birling, Sheila and Eric at the end of the play against Arthur and Sybil, they all show examples of what Priestly viewed as the Right way against the Wrong way. The other parties have views similar to Priestley, so Priestley was trying to get his message of community and socialism across to the audience through the actions of the characters.
The ending, as I have already pointed out, symbolises the fact that if you do not learn your lesson the first time, you will be taught it again and again. It symbolises that you can't run from your conscience, as the Birlings will find out. Priestley uses the dramatic twist of the phone call at the end of the play to emphasis this point, and makes it more effective by placing it just as the characters are beginning to relax. It serves to 'prick' the consciences of both the characters and the audience.
Priestly wanted everyone to believe that they were all responsible for each other and that everyone should have equal chances and equal rights in their lives.
Overall, I would say that Priestly has achieved what he wanted to achieve. I found the play quite entertaining and interesting to read. It deals with a number of key issues compared to the time it was written in, as well as gripping the reader as the story twists and turns. Surprises are frequent and also well written. I was truly stunned by the turn the play takes in the end.
By reading the play I can now understand how a perfect world can soon be broken down.
