Again, act three starts where act two stopped. Eric is standing alone in a distressed mood. Sheila tells Eric what Mrs Birling said about the young man who got this girl Eva Smith into trouble. The Inspector the proceeds to question Eric and we find out that Eric is that father of her child Eva Smith is bearing. We then find out that Eric is stealing money and giving it to Eva smith. When Eva Smith found out the money is stolen, she refused to accept anymore. After this the inspectors leaves the family to argue amongst themselves. Gerald then comes back into the house. Soon the phone rings. Silence fills the room as Mr Birling goes over to pick up the phone. He then tells the Birling family and Gerald that an inspector is on the way to question them about a young girls suicide who died the same way as Eva Smith did.
Throughout the play Priestley keeps the audience interested and in suspense. He does this by carefully manipulating the Inspector’s responses to each character to keep the action of the plot moving forward. Some ways he does this is by making sure that the inspector is only doing one line of inquiry at a time.
‘It’s the way I like to work. One person and one line of enquire at a time. Otherwise there’s a muddle’
.This proves that Priestley meant to keep the action going forward which makes the play less confusing for the audience which keeps them interested in the play. Another way Priestley keeps the audience interested is by making the Inspector recap the story and the information that has been given so far at regular intervals. This makes the story easier to understand for the audience and makes the audience see things that they might have missed.
The inspector focusing on each character in turn in a certain order slowly develops the plot of the play. For example when the inspector interviews Mr Birling, he reacts angrily towards the inspector. Mr Birling also tries to use his class against the Inspector to try and show the Inspector that he is better than him.
‘Perhaps I ought to warn you that he’s an old friend of mine and that I see him fairly frequently. We play golf together sometimes up at West Brumley’
Here Mr Birling is trying to use his status and his social class to scare the inspector but it does not work. Here Priestley is trying to say that the audience should not hide behind their social class. Priestley uses Mr Birling to represent the upper classes attitude and actions towards the working class. Mr Birling also does not show respect to the Inspector.
Even Mrs Birling’s interview shows that she is ignorant, arrogant and a hypocrite. She cannot see that she should be helping all people who come to her charity for help and as part of a charity she should not be prejudice to any case.
‘Inspector: - So you admit being prejudice against her case?
Mrs Birling: - Yes’
This shows that she is unaware of how worse life is for people of working classes and that she should help them however and whenever she can. She is also quite arrogant and big headed and thinks that problems do not involve her so why should she be sorry for them. ‘Im very sorry, but I think she only has herself to blame’. We also find out that she is hypocritical. She is saying that the person who got this Eva Smith pregnant is responsible for her but when she finds out it is her son Eric she thinks that Eric should not get any blame.
‘But I didn’t know it was you – I never dreamt. Besides you’re not the type – you don’t get drunk –‘
This shows that she does not care if it is someone else’s problem and thinks that they should take all the blame. However, if it is her son then he should get away with it. This again shows her ignorance about Erics drinking even after Sheila tells her about it. By this Priestley wants to show us that the upper class treat the working class worse than people in their own class.
Following the Inspector’s questioning of Sheila, we find that she reacts guiltily towards her past actions towards Eva smith. She is genuinely sad about what she has done and feels bad about herself and for Eva Smith.
‘…It’s the only time I’ve ever done anything like that, and I’ll never, never do it again to anybody…’
By this Priestley wanted to show us why we should listen to younger people because they can embrace new ideas and can accept new lifestyles easily. In addition, Priestly wanted to show us how the older generation can be set in their ways and do not embrace change easily.
From both Gerald and Eric’s interviews, it seems that they both use their positions to manipulate and abuse Eva Smith. Gerald, at first, helped her out of a bad situation, housed her, and cared for her. Soon after this, he starts to use her and she becomes his mistress,
‘Yes. I suppose it was inevitable. She was young and pretty and warm hearted – and intensely grateful. I became at once the most important person in her life – you understand?’
Gerald is the only person in Eva’s life that treated her well. He gave her lodging, money, care and possibly loves her. In the end, though Gerald could not accommodate her in that house forever because his friend is coming back. Gerald then gave her enough money to last her a month or two and had to make her leave the house. Eva knew that it would not last forever but when she is forced to leave, she used the money to make her happiness last longer by going away for two months on holiday. Gerald at first appears to care quite deeply for Eva Smith
‘In that case – as im rather more – upset – by this business than I probably appear to be – and - well, I’d like to be alone for a while…’
Later in the play we find out that he does not feel sorry for her because he tries to forget her and cover up what happened and heads the idea that all that happened when the inspector did his enquiries hoax.
When Eric was with Eva Smith he did not help her from the start like Gerald. instead Eric is drunk and ‘in that state when a chap easily turns nasty’. Eva let him into her home and Eric did not remember what happened that night. They met again in the Palace bar. They talked and later that night made love again. They arranged to meet again and Eva told Eric that she is pregnant and is going to have a baby. She did not want Eric to marry her because he did not love her. This shows that Eva Smith had morals. This also shows Eric does care for her but he did use his position to abuse Eva Smith by making love to her while she was under a treat of violence from Eric.
Dramatic irony is a technique also used to great effect by Priestley to help keep the audience interested. For example in act one when Mr Birling is talking to the family and his guest he talks about how the titanic is an unsinkable ship ‘New York in 5 days – every luxury – and unsinkable’ well the audience knows what happened to that supposedly unsinkable ship. The audience will think this type of dramatic irony of as humorous. Humour will keep an audience attentive and will make them enjoy the play further. In addition, in the same speech, Mr Birling talks about how these cranks who say there are going to be wars are wrong and how we will all be living happy lives. ‘Lets say, in 1940 – you may be giving a little party like this -’. The audience would have known through dramatic irony that there is a war going on in 1940 and there would be no parties. Instead, we would be having rations. Again people will find Birlings opinions on the future quite humorous. Also in act three the Inspector talks about fire blood and anguish which is an ironic reference to World War Two.
Any actor preparing his or her role for the play would be left in little doubt about how precisely Priestley wanted them to portray his characters because of the detail in his stage directions. For example at the start of act one Priestley uses detailed notes on where the actors are to sit on at the table.
‘…the for Birlings and Gerald are seated at the table, with Arthur Birling at one end, his wife at the other, Eric downstage, and Sheila and Gerald seated upstage.’
From this, we can tell that Eric and Mr Birling might not have a strong relationship with each other because they are at opposite ends of the table. Also from this, the audience could gather that Eric depends on his mum. From Eric’s carefully contrived actions concerning drink we find out that Eric a hard drinker from the way he handles a decanter
‘…his whole manner of handling the decanter and then the drink shows his familiarity with quick hard drinking.’
This stage direction clearly shows us one way in which Priestley uses stage directions to portray a character, in this case Eric. Priestley also uses many small stage directions on how the characters should look or say things. For instance ‘bitterly’, ‘cutting in smoothly’ and ‘distressed’. These small stage directions can greatly effect how a reaction sounds to the audience so Priestley uses these to intricately guide the actor into making the character into what Priestley intended them to be.
Through the carefully controlled script, Priestley is able to develop his themes. For example, he wanted to show that the upper class had responsibilities to the lower classes and that they should have no social prejudices towards each other. He does this in his last speech before he leaves the Birlings house.
‘But remember this. One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We don’t live alone, We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other’
This shows us that Priestley wanted the audience to realise that we are all supposed to look out for each other and care for each other. Priestly does this by having the Inspector saying that all people in working classes are like the audience. ‘…but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears…’ here Priestly is trying to gain sympathy from the audience and tries to make the audience relate to the working classes. Also Priestly tries to tell the audience that we should all work and live together harmoniously. ‘…all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We don’t live alone, We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other…’ this proves Priestlys theme of suggesting a socialist way of life to the audience.
Priestley also touches on a political theme to the play. He wanted the audience to think about getting more rights for lower class people because their lives shown by Priestley to be as terrible as they are in this play. This also mixes with a similar theme of better pay for workers. This theme is shown by what happened after Eva Smith is refused the small raise in pay and is fired for starting a protest for it. This would make the audience think that Eva Smiths death could have been avoided if her pay is higher or she had gotten that raise in pay. The other political theme was Priestly wanting more rights for the working classes. This is shown through Evas strike for more pay.
Certainly, lighting played an important part in this play and is used to reflect the mood on the stage. For example at the beginning of the play, the lights are Red and pink to create a relaxed and calm mood to set the scene. Priestley believes that the lighting is important because he included it in the stage directions. ‘The lighting should be pink and intimate until the Inspector arrives…’ However, when the inspector does arrive the lighting changes to create a tense, cold and brutal feel. ‘…until the Inspector arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder’ a sharp white would be a good colour to use in that situation because it is symbolic for tension and realism. This is another way that Priestley uses small details to set the mood of the play and creates a more realistic atmosphere.
At the end of each act, including the last one, the audience is left in suspense. In act one this is because we find out that Gerald has had a relationship with Eva Smith. Before we learn this all other people in the room leave except for Sheila and Gerald. The inspector left the room with Eric to find Mr Birling. Sheila acts angrily but still stays calm about what she is told by Eric. When we leave act one we have Gerald asking Sheila not to tell the Inspector about how he knows Eva Smith and then having the Inspector enter the room and utter the words ‘well?’ The suspense keeps the audience interested in the play and wanting more. If the audience are engrossed in the play then it is easier for Priestly to convey his message.
When we leave act two with Eric entering the room after Mrs Birling continually blames the father of Eva Smiths baby to be the responsible party and should pay, look after and care for the baby. What she did not realise is that the father is her son Eric. The inspector already knew that Eric is the father and pushed Mrs Birling into saying who is fully responsible for Eva Smith. The act ends with Eric looking pale and distressed as he enters the room and the curtain falls. This tension at the end of act two also keeps the audience interested in the play which also enhances Priestley’s ability to get across his message.
When Act three is about to end the family and Gerald are much happier after they make themselves believe that it is all a hoax and they do not have to learn form the experience. Sheila and maybe Eric are the only people to learn from this experience, possibly because they are younger and can accept new things faster and easier. Then the phone rings. Silence fills the room and tension builds up. Mr Birling slowly walks over to the phone and picks up the receiver. After a short conversation, Mr Birling comes back out with a panic-stricken look on his face and brings himself to say ‘that is the police. A girl has just died – on her way to the infirmary – after swallowing some disinfectant and a police inspector is on his way here – to ask some – questions - ’ This brings back all the tension that is lost when the Birlings and Gerald were discussing whether the Inspector is a hoax. This is also Irony on Priestley’s part. It is an ironic reference forward to World War Two, World War Two happened because we didn’t learn from World War One, because the Birlings did not learn from their experience with the Inspector they have to go through another enquiry. This leaves the audience thinking about the ending that in itself can help express Priestleys message by trying to show us what happens if we don’t learn from past mistakes.
Priestley leaves the audience with the problem of deciding who or what is the real role of the inspector. Whether he is a ghost or hoax does not seem as important as Priestley’s / The Inspectors message. As Sheila said, “Well he inspected us alright.” Perhaps that is what Priestley intended the audience to understand.