The film ‘An Inspector Calls’ has many differences that will be told later. It was made by the British Lion Corporation and so keeping the British influence in it, because it was originally wrote by J.B. Priestley who was English (British). A.D. Peters produced it and it was directed by Guy Hamilton. It was produced in 1954 and the main character was the Inspector played by actor Alastair Sim. Alastair Sim was a Scottish actor and director, popular in character parts in British cinema, showing wit, elegance, fine diction, and expressiveness that verged on the grotesque, often used for his large doleful eyes, he was born in Edinburgh in 1900 and died in1976 with a CBE under his belt. He was chose for his mystery and ‘eeriness’ and so he could play the mysterious Inspector. There have been many remakes of J.B. Priestley’s ‘An Inspector Calls’ recently there has been one directed by Stephen Daldry who used a very symbolised look at the play. He used many interesting sets one of which is shown below:
But I won’t be looking at the version done by Stephen Daldry I will be looking at the filmed version by the British Lion Corporation.
To show the differences between the original script version and the filmed version I have categorised them into three groups.
- One which is the script, which means any alterations in the scripts text.
- One which is the character, which means any alterations to the characters in any way.
- Also one which is the location, which is any scene alterations or any kind of change to the location in which it was originally set.
- First I’ll start with the character changes:
Eva Smith is shown in the film version and you get to see her face and this takes away one of the main interests in the script version, which is whether or not the photo graph is of the same person but in the film this is taken away and so spoiling some of the story line.
In the play the Inspectors name is Goole but in the film it is Poole. This is done because in the play the name Goole was a hint that the Inspector wasn’t normal maybe even mysterious in the way of a ghost it’s a play on the name Goole but in the film they didn’t what this hint because they wanted the ending to be a shock so they never used the ghost like name Goole instead they used a very plain name, Poole.
There is another character in the play one named Edna who is the families maid and the film makers thought that there was no need for this character so they cut her out completely and it did actually give the film a good point because when the Inspector first arrives in the play he is announced by Edna and in the film he just appears as if from nowhere giving him the air of mystery back that the name change took away.
In Birling’s flashback about when the strike happened that ended up with Eva losing her job, had a new character in it one that was Birling’s assistant in his office in the factory. He is only seen this once talking about the strike. He is only in the film so that the explanation of what happened at the factory with Eva Smith can be told so that the audience understands what is going off.
In the film the Inspector is more pushy and has a posh voice and in the book he is portrayed more middle class and plain. He is given these enhancements to give the character more forwardness and power over the Birling’s and to stand out more as the main character.
In the film Mrs Birling is always sat in her comfy chair sewing.
Eva according to Gerald’s flashbacks is made to sound weak and middle class. This is done to her to make her be more sympathised with by the audience, in the book she doesn’t sound so desperate. An example is when in Gerald’s flashback she mentions how she lived in the country until 15 and had to work on the family farm. (Oh the poor little girl, what a shame.) Then she moved to Brumley to better herself and ended up losing her job and ending up in a prostitute bar. Now she has no where to live so she must stay with her friend so Gerald can’t resist helping.
But then Gerald gets her a home but he comes around to her place with a hamper and acts all pushy and another side to Gerald is shown, one that isn’t shown nowhere near as well in the book.
The film also shows the upsetness of both Eva and Gerald better when they break up and so this is a good point in the film, the way that it can show more expression than the book in the way the characters react and their faces and actions.
The Inspector undermines the Birling’s and acts as if he is of higher class than them and this is shown most excellently in the film, again in expressions and actions.
In the film Eric is shown to be more stupid and simple and plain like in one of his flashbacks when he met Eva on the tram and he is drunk it shows how silly he could be and the book never recognised Eric as being a bit dim.
The book never showed that Eric really ever cared for Eva but the film showed that he did actually care when it was mentioned that he left her when he found out she was pregnant and he got really upset and angry.
When Gerald returns from the walk he took he and Sheila hold hands which is a sign that she still loves him and that is not in the play.
In the book Birling is aloof and quick to lose his temper but in the film he seems calmer and is not such an important character as the book made him.
In the film there are even more background characters such as the charity people and the men in the bar.
- Now I will deal with the location and picture alterations:
The Film is in Black and White.
At critical moments in the play a kind of danger music (very dramatic) begins to play, such as when the photo is shown to the character and they realise what they have done to Eva.
At happy or triumphant moments a happy, jolly, cheery music plays in the background such as when Gerald met Eva and saved her from a nasty man.
In the script the characters are based in the living room for nearly the entire play, which would make it, a bit boring for an audience to watch so it is altered to give a more interesting outlook. There are flashbacks added to show what has happened and they go to bars and on trams exc. where the book doesn’t go and in the film there are scenes where the characters go into different areas that is not in the play such as in the hallway or staircase, street or even the garden.
Smoke, laughter and cheering is added to give a more realistic feel in some of the flashbacks and to give an atmospheric appearance.
- Now, finally I will deal with the script changes:
In the script Eva’s face is never shown.
There’s an Edna in the script and she announces any people at the door.
There are flashbacks that are not in the book.
The Inspector appears as if from nowhere but in the script Edna announces him.
The Inspector says to Sheila that the girl drank Poisson but in the book he says she drank disinfectant.
In Milwards in Sheila’s flashback her mother is with her and it’s a hat instead of a dress.
Gerald has a flashback of the bar when he meets Eva. Gerald rescues Eva from a man in the bar and he takes her to a terrace that he is looking after for a friend and he lets her stay there because she has nowhere to go only to her friends so she stays there over night. Gerald comes back in the morning he comes around with a hamper and they kiss. This much detail is not in the book.
There is another flashback, which is also not in the book. When Gerald and Eva break up.
There is another flashback when Eva goes to MRS Birling and asks for help and says she is MRS Birling.
In the book Eva was never made to sit down because she was pregnant and this is another sympathy vote for Eva.
There’s another flashback and it’s when Eric meets Eva on a tram. He is drunk. But in the book he meets her in the Palace bar and they went to her lodgings and that’s all it says. But in the flashback they then go from the tram to the fish shop and then she goes home and allows him to come in.
Then in another flashback, its when she says she can’t marry him and Eric goes to his father asking for money and he says no so he steals £50 for the debtors accounts. (Which is now£1000).
The ‘Blood and Anguish’ speech is total cut out of the entire film and so alters the whole meaning of the play that the warning isn’t going to happen about the war has been altered and the Inspector doesn’t leave then.
In the street Gerald talks to the policeman and this is shown but in the book he says he has talked to a policeman it doesn’t actually tell the street part.
Gerald stops the Inspector from leaving because he knows that he isn’t an actual Inspector and so he is sent into the study. In the play the Inspector is already gone.
Eric was about to report by telephone that there is an Impostor impersonating a police officer in their house. But Mr Birling stops him and goes into the study and tells the Inspector they won’t be much longer. They think they have him trapped. They then realise they may have not all seen the same photo. Nearly all this is not in the book.
Mr Birling calling the police is not in the film (to see if the Inspector is real).
Inspector is still in the study and Mr Birling goes in wanting to ask him some questions. Birling receives a telephone call and he gets told that a girl has died and an Inspector will be coming around. Then he looks in on the Inspector and he has vanished. All this is an altering to J.B. Priestleys work, he says that there is a girl dead and an Inspector is going to come but the Inspector that has already been has gone.
In my opinion the alterations that the filmed version has done makes the Inspector character more interesting but it spoils J.B. Priestleys message. The filmed version gives a more exciting ending but still the mystery at the beginning of the play of is the photos of the same girl is taken away and so the begin of the film would have been boring if it hadn’t of had the flashbacks that show the enormous amounts of emotion that this story brings.
The meaning of the play is still there but it isn’t as strong as in the book because the attention has been taken away for the important message and the attention is now focused on the Inspectors mysteriousness. The fact that what everyone does effects everyone else isn’t that strong and so people would notice this meaning that much if they had not read the book because they would be to interested in the characters problem, emotions, dilemmas and worries.
I would suggest that to make the production better the importance of Eva Smiths death should be brought out more at the end and the ‘Blood and Anguish’ speech should be in there somewhere else some of the meaning is lost.
The filmed version has a advantage that it can give the audience what is wanted at that time because when the play was written the importance of the war was wanted to be shown to the reader but when the film was made they wanted to take their minds off the war. Also the filmed version can excite the audience in many other ways such as in the way that emotions can be exaggerated and problems at the time can be brought out and fun can be made, such as in the way that the Inspector disappears.
The differences between the play and film are mainly that the ending has totally been altered and that the most important speech has been cut. In my opinion the filmed version has totally altered the script and is now purely for entertainment reasons and is not for the fact that the social factors matter. Its not for J.B. Priestleys very important message any more, the play has been ruined in my eyes, but the audience of 1954 (when the film was made) wanted it that way else it would not of been altered that drastically.
