In this 1st scene the inspectors character is the one who seems to stand out from the other characters .The inspector is the only person in the play who, at the start, actually thinks what has happened to Ms Smith is morally wrong. His views are, to put it bluntly, leftwing. In this way, we can see that the inspector is a conduit for an outpouring of Priestly political views and philosophy. The Inspector shows this clear disregard for financial power over the people of the country, when he almost preaches this at the Birlings;
‘Public men have responsibilities as well as privileges’
This shows Priestly is trying to get his message across, for the benefit and edification of the audience, via the Inspector. This quote is very clever because it doesn’t address Mr Birling directly by doing this priestly is leaving the statement open to apply to members of the audience of people they know.
The Inspector is constantly in argument with Arthur Birling and shows a total disregard towards all his attempts to almost bribe the inspector with social status, this later on begins to irritate Mr Birling and he becomes more and more narrow-minded, pompous, arrogant and idiotic. For example, he begins by talking in act one about:
‘How well the world is going [and how] no-one wants war, except some half civilised folk in the Balkans’
Remembering that the play is set in 1912, just two years before the outbreak of world war one, the audience can see that he is a fool who knows nothing of what he is talking about, and how effortless it is for Priestly to direct insults at him and the kind of people he represents, despite him constantly reassuring himself that he is
‘A hard-headed business man, who knows what he is talking about’
This also shows how short-sighted, overconfident and uncritically superior this type of person was. He is a man who is always trying to be bigger than everyone else and he tries to bully people into agreeing with him. For instance, when the Inspector levels an accusation at him, he defends himself by saying
‘You know I play golf with your chief constable’
to which the Inspector, despite the fact that this puts Mr Birling in quite a powerful position, as such a thing is merely code for saying that you are a member of the “old boy’s” club, merely replies with:
‘I don’t play golf’
This confidence that Mr Birling has that the Chief will help him solely because he is his friend, shows the clear corruption of the “higher” social order, but also allows Priestly to demonstrate how to deal with these people, by being neither impressed nor swayed by his social rank.
In addition to this, Mr Birling is a cruel and petty man. This is plainly shown by his sacking of Eva Smith over a strike, relating to a miniscule pay increase, showing that he puts more stock in his own financial gain than in the welfare of his long suffering workforce. This of course, begins the
‘Chain of events,’
As described by the Inspector, that lead up to the death of Ms Smith. As you can see, Arthur is the representation of the head man. “The man in charge”. However, we can see that he can not do this right, because the inspector is constantly outsmarting him and making him look like a fool. I believe this is because Mr Birling is, unlike Sybil Birling and Gerald Croft, not used to the position that he is in. He is what you would call new money or that he is “fresh” to the system, unlike Gerald and Sybil, who have inherited all of their wealth and therefore see their privileges as an undeniable right.
Gerald and Sybil, as I said, are quite different. They were born into what they have and, thus, are all the more arrogant and narrow minded. Sybil, when confronted with her own, quite blatantly awful behaviour and deadly decisions, such as rejecting Eva Smith’s plea for help, on the grounds that she was impertinent, still tries to pin the true blame on someone else. This ties in with Arthur’s philosophy of caring for only yourself. However, this only makes the situation worse for her and her family, as the Inspector manages to get her to pin all of the blame on her son, Eric. He does this by getting her to firstly make the excuse that Eva’s situation is solely the responsibility of the man who got her pregnant. After this, he subtlety moves her opinion into making an example of this man. This, I feel, is a dramatic irony, designed to make the audience think about the foolishness of the “caring for only ones self” philosophy. Gerald, though, is at least a little more honest about what he has done. However, he does try to get Sheila out of the room before he admits to having an affair with Eva Smith, something that the inspector later pulls him up on. They both, I feel, suffer from a lack of understanding for their “inferiors”. In the case of Sybil, this manifests itself in blind loathing for the “lower” classes. For both Sybil and Gerald, there is little hope of them becoming ‘changed’ people. However, it is a different story for Eric and Sheila.
Both Eric and Sheila, by the end of the play, have seen the error of their ways and are at least trying to make amends, unlike Arthur and Sybil, who are just trying to cover up what has happened. Sheila, I think, changes to the Inspector’s way of thinking because of what has happened to Ms Smith, and is disgusted at herself and her family for what they have done to such a defenceless young lady. This transformation shows that there is perhaps light at the end of the tunnel, and that perhaps the world is not as rigidly divided as Sybil, Arthur and Gerald would have you think. This is Priestley’s way of showing the audience that there is a way out, we can change. Eric, however, changes because what happened to Eva was link personally to him, as Eva’s death was also the death of his son. I also doubt that he will ever forgive his mother for what she did to him and Eva Smith.
I think the ending was effective in showing that people can change by having the inspector leave before the end gave the characters time to reflect on their behaviour and to let the audience reflect on the message. I think the end also shows some character definition because although the inspector has left and has had a considerable impact on the family some members still try and polish over what they have done by saying the inspector was a hoax and miss the point that it didn’t matter if the issues were separate what they had done was morally wrong.
To end, I would like to say that, as an investigation into the lives and times of an upper-middle class family in the early 1900’s, An Inspector Calls works very well. It is able to subtly work into its plot a rich and in depth look at the wickedness and weakness of the people in that “upper” class bracket. When reading and then further analysing this play, something struck me. The whole play is a long fable. It tells the story of the Birlings, shows the message and then tells the audience not to worry, we can still change. Also, I would like to remind you that Priestley’s message holds true to this very day. I will leave you now with the quote that best illustrates and embodies this message. During a conversation with the Inspector in act one Gerald states that
‘After all, you know, we are respectable citizens, not criminals’
To which the Inspector replies:
‘Sometimes, there is not as much difference as you would think. If it was left to me, I don’t think I would know where to draw the line.’
