Something else that the inspector does to control the interrogation is to only show the photo to one person at a time. For example, he simply shows a photo of the girl to Birling, and refuses to show it to an irritated Eric and Gerald. This is a strong example of the inspector controlling the investigation. The inspector simply cites ‘there might be’ a reason as to why Gerald and Eric shouldn’t see the photo. The way that Priestley writes the inspector’s character is rather consistent. This one phrase is incredibly mysterious, and doesn’t give much away, which is true to the inspector’s character throughout. At the end of the inspector’s one sentence, we are unsure what he means and what he is about, and by the end of the play, this confusion resides. He is mysterious in his language on other occasions, too. For example, when Birling tells the inspector that his business is not of the inspector’s concern, the inspector shoots back that ‘it might be, you know’. The mysteriousness of the inspector’s character is intended not only to confuse the characters in the play, but also to genuinely puzzle the audience, and maintain their interest. If the Inspector was just straightforward with his answers, he would lose his mystique, and the audience would soon tire of him. After backing up his argument to not show the photo to Gerald and Eric, by mentioning it is something to do with ‘the way [he likes] to go to work’, the inspector is barely questioned at all as to why he doesn’t show photos to more than one member of the family at one time, despite the obvious possibility that the characters are not seeing the same photo each time. But, due to his method of controlling the interrogations, and intimidating the family, coupled with his calm facade, the inspector is no longer questioned as much, helping him control the interrogation as much as possible, due to the level of authority he has gained via such a defence.
The situation of the inspector controlling an investigation of a whole upper-class family is a very unusual one, and one that would have probably provoked some feelings within the audience of 1945, whether they were feelings of total shock that someone is appearing more authorative that an upper-class family, or maybe happy to see an upper-class family put in their place. This is mainly because, at such a time, a clear class division was easily spotted. To see an upper class family squirming under the spotlight on a police interrogation would be a rare treat for anyone watching the play. Naturally, this type of thing would entice the audience even more, as it plays on emotion. This may also help the audience gain a sense of superiority over the Birlings, too, which would no doubt make them enjoy it even more! At the same time, other audience members may feel different to this. Some people may actually see this interrogation as a way of showing that people of upper class are just regular human beings like themselves. Therefore, someone may, alternatively see the Birlings in a more positive light after such questioning. It depends entirely on the audience! JB Priestley has written the inspector’s treatment of the Birling family as a poke at the class system to stir any emotion possible in the audience.
During Birling’s interrogation, there are several points in which Inspector Goole’s tone may come across as pretty inappropriate. Even Birling points this out when Goole cheekily remarks ‘It might be, you know’, in response to Birling’s accusation that his business is none of the inspector’s business. The inspector’s rudeness could really be interpreted in a couple of different ways. You could say the inspector is just being rude and cheeky for the sake of it, because he doesn’t seem to have any clear, major reason or intent to backchat Birling. Alternatively, you could suggest that he is in fact trying to establish more authority over Birling. By speaking mysteriously, he is confusing and angering Birling, giving himself a higher status, and also maintaining the audience’s interest, by confusing them at the same time! Just by making meaningless, mysterious comments, such as the one just stated, the inspector is showing that he is not scared by Birling, and is in fact in charge of the investigation. He can say whatever he wants, and it almost doesn’t matter if Birling doesn’t understand him. As already discussed, the inspector’s challenging of Birling would almost certainly affect the audience’s opinion of the inspector. For example, if an audience member felt negatively towards Birling, the inspector challenging him may make the inspector be seen in a positive light. Alternatively, if the audience saw Birling in a positive light, any challenge by the inspector may make them see the inspector negatively. The behaviour is also very enticing for the audience, because it’s not how you’d expect a police inspector to behave and address someone of upper class. You can’t quite tell his intentions, and this may confuse and mystify the audience, ensuring they are interested, at the same time.
Birling’s interrogation keeps the audience on their toes, with many unexpected sequences relating to the era the play is set in and performed, as well as the attitudes and behaviour of the characters involved. Sheila’s interrogation, later in the play is also very well crafted and interesting in a similar fashion.
During her interrogation, Sheila displays some very interesting characteristics, which tremendously affect the audience’s opinion of her. The general opinion of Sheila evolves as the play continues. For example, at first, Sheila appears like a spoilt little rich girl, but gradually shows herself to be arguably more mature than her parents and her fiancé. Sheila starts off being very protected by her father as Birling states that he is ‘trying to settle it for [Sheila]’. Birling treats Sheila as if she can’t deal with the Inspector herself, suggesting to the audience that Sheila is dependent and spoilt, despite being engaged. Additionally, Birling appears to defend Sheila throughout her interrogation, as if she were too fragile or stupid to do it herself. He angrily questions the inspector as to why he ‘[upset] the child like that’, when Sheila cries after seeing the photo of Eva Smith. Once again, he is protecting her, giving the impression to the audience she is spoilt and needs to be looked after. This is emphasised by JB Priestley’s use of the word ‘child’. Sheila is engaged, yet her father still refers to her as a child! This sequence sets up the stage for the main purpose of the play, to expose the class system, by showing how an upper class family generally works, before dissecting it. It demonstrates how women and the younger members of the family weren’t as highly thought of as the males and elders. This makes the change in the structure of the family throughout the play even more evident as the play progresses. Because of this, Sheila’s later rebellion is even more shocking to the audience, and keeps them even more interested in what’s going on.
Sheila appearing spoilt and childish at the start of her interrogation paves the way for her coming of age as the play continues. She later accepts her role in Eva Smith’s demise when she solemnly announces ‘I’m really responsible’. The fact that she can admit that something very minor that she did months ago was so important to Eva Smith’s death shows that she is a great deal more mature than both her parents, who deny that their roles in Eva Smith’s death were significant. For example, later in the play, Mrs. Birling refuses to accept responsibility for Eva Smith. ‘Go and look for the father of the child. It’s his responsibility’, she claims, denouncing herself of any part in Eva’s subsequent death. Furthermore, Sheila does state that ‘It was [her] own fault’ as to why she was in a bad mood on the day she got Eva Smith sacked. This mature approach is juxtaposition from the spoilt Sheila the audience thought was, and takes the audience totally off guard.
In addition to the maturity of Sheila, she also proves to have figured things out a lot sooner than the other members of the family. Once again, this is a contrast to the typical rich girl stereotype that Sheila is originally portrayed as. Sheila is intelligent enough to work out that ‘he knows!’ about Gerald’s affair, when Gerald suggests keeping it a secret from the inspector. Sheila also later works out that Eric is the father of Eva Smith’s baby before her mother. She vainly tries to inform her slow-witted mother of this. ‘But don’t you see-’. The intelligent and mature Sheila is intended to give the impression of a sensible young woman, who can accept responsibility. This is hugely ironic, because although the audience can see this in Sheila, her parents still consider her a ‘child’. And although Birling thinks he is the smart one and Sheila is the young, stupid one, the audience’s opinion is pretty much the opposite. Birling is the immature one that can’t accept responsibility. Mrs. Birling is the one who doesn’t accept responsibility, and doesn’t work out whom the father of Eva Smith’s baby is, and Sheila is the quick-witted, kind-hearted and intuitive young woman.
JB Priestley also uses the general opinions of people at the time of release of the play to his advantage, as he crafts the play in such a way that an audience would most likely react positively to Sheila. The play was set just before the Sufragette women’s movement came into full flow, and was released when women were seen as much more equal than they used to be. Therefore, Sheila’s defiant, independent attitude is symbolic of this movement, and would have struck a chord with the women of the time, as well as many other oppressed people fighting against their alleged ‘superiors’, giving the positive impression of Sheila that Priestley desired.
JB Priestley writes Sheila as a conscientious, aware individual, to give a positive impression on the audience. His use of language by Sheila and other characters depicts the audience’s opinion of her, as she changes throughout the course of the play, to surprise the audience. He also uses the context of when the play is set to play on the audience’s emotions, getting a reaction out of them and maintaining their interest. The majority of prejudices an audience may have against an upper class family such as the Birlings are almost inapplicable to Sheila during her interrogation, because JB Priestley writes her character so, through the fact that she isn’t prejudiced against a lower class person, she accepts responsibility and that she can feel remorse.
Sheila’s behaviour during her interrogation leads the audience to respond in many ways. Once again, JB Priestley uses dramatic techniques, language and behaviour of the characters throughout these sequences to mould the audience’s reactions and keep their interest.
Throughout the play, JB Priestley controls and influences the audience’s views on the situations and characters in ‘An Inspector Calls’ in a variety of ways, which are evident in the two key sequences discussed. Audiences are not guaranteed to react in certain ways, however Priestley manages to maintain their interest throughout the play again and again, at the same time as conveying the purpose of the play; the message that the class system can be broken down, as demonstrated in the play. Maybe Priestley wanted to encourage less division between the classes in the future through this play.