It is possible that the man was not an inspector; however he was still a “real man”. He was clearly a fraud as his correct identity was not that of his alleged identity. However his motives of fraud are unclear. It is a possibility that the fraud may have been a business enemy, and his intentions were to extract the scandals in order to ruin the Birlings’ business. The fraud may have been an industrial espionage agent, sent to help to ruin the Birlings’ good name and their company. The character may have also been a blackmailer, knowing the family were not short of money and were particularly wealthy. He may have extracted the secrets in order to uncover the scandal therefore blackmailing the family with the threat of exposing the secrets.
The unidentified character may have had a more evil role than suggested above. He may have been a murderer of some division. The man may have been a back street abortionist who accidentally killed Eva Smith and is now trying to hit upon a scapegoat and to cover his tracks. Again, the man may have been a business enemy who murdered Eva Smith on purpose and has arrived to undermine the Birlings.
The character may have been a friend of the girl, and has now arrived to uncover her exact fate, and the reasons behind her death. He may want to make the Birlings deeply suffer for their actions toward her and for their selfish abuse of her.
There is always a possibility that “inspector Goole” is not a real man at all, he may be a supernatural being. He maybe the ghost of Eva Smith and is performing a pre-haunting of some kind. He maybe a messenger from God, sent to teach the Birlings how to behave and to eliminate their arrogant and self-centred behaviour. He may act as the spirit of natural justice, a collective hallucination or possibly a symbol of the Birlings’ guilty conscience.
Throughout the play the inspector is used almost as a structural device. The storyline is released via this character in a somewhat orderly and simple paced manner; therefore the audience can understand the play more easily. The way that the inspector extracts the information from the Birlings helps the play to flow. Throughout the play, Inspector Goole shows photographic visuals, individually to different members of the Birling family. Once the inspector has left and his true identity is left a mystery it becomes apparent that the inspector may have been showing each family member a different photo of whom they thought was Eva Smith. By showing different photographs the inspector could then continue to extract the guilty scandal. The inspector’s character could also be the script writer, J.B. Priestly, speaking to the audience in a thin disguise, when using the miscellaneous character. It could well be his way at voicing his opinions on the social climate of the time, by showing the upper class wealth, and the selfish trail left beneath.
The confusion, excitement and on going contemplation caused by the inspectors role, works particularly well on stage. It keeps the audience interested, focused and waiting on every word as more information is unfolded. Apart from the inspectors exact role, the story never becomes so complicated that it is hard to follow therefore the play becomes a deep, twisted, thrilling and easy viewing play. The way in which the story is un-ravelled and shared seems a very appropriate style, not only does it keep the play awe-inspiring and fascinating it is also somewhat varied from a typical play. The play seems close to an on-stage essay at times in which an interrogation into the social behaviour of the upper class is taking place. This could be understandable, as the social critic, J.B. Priestley was once an essayist, as well as a novelist and script writer. At points during the play, the main character is discredited on stage; this works well as it breaks the play up more and makes the play less one sided.
The audience of the time would have had an immense reaction to this and loved the play for many reasons. The play was written by J.B. Priestley in 1945, however the play was set in 1912 therefore it includes some ironic hindsight, shared by the audience on past happenings. For example this is a reference to the famous liner, the Titanic which sunk on its maiden voyage. To accentuate the fact that Mr. Birling does not know everything, like he thinks he does, he stresses in the play that the Titanic is unsinkable, however both the writer and the audience know this is not the case, as it sunk over thirty years ago. He also makes a remark that a Second World War would be impossible and by 1945, the audience know this is definitely not true, with the Second World War ending the very same year. Mr. Birling mentions that he believes by 1940 they will be peace everywhere across the world, again the audience would know this is not the case. These references from Mr. Birling would have brought some humour to the audience of the time. The audience would have appreciated and enjoyed the inspector’s role, and the excitement he brings to the play is excellent. Overall the audience of the time would have enjoyed the play with its thrillingly deep story line and its slight touch on humour.
The reaction if the audience today would be similar to that of an audience of the time. However the humorous aspects of the play may not be received in quite the same way they were, as these historical events were fairly recent for the audience of the time. Today’s audience would be bale to pick out the underlying point made by the social critic writer, J.B. Priestley. He shows how he is a social detractor, by firstly showing the audience upper class prosperity then reveals to the audience the rottenness behind the façade. Any audience must respect the originality behind the play and must applaud the miscellaneous role of the inspector. It would be an enjoyment for any audience to watch the play unfold in the way that “An Inspector Calls” does. Audiences of today would also live to devise their own theories of the detectives’ true identity.
In my personal response to the play, I thoroughly enjoyed reading and acting some parts of the play out. The play is well written, with a clear message within the play, to outline the social problems of the time. Drawing together the threads from the different ideas have explored in the essay, I believe that the “inspector” was a real man, a human being. I believe he was hired and sent from a rival business in order to expose the Birlings and ruin the company. The inspector is obviously a professional at extracting secret information; therefore he was hired to work as an undercover industrial agent, to fulfil the fraud inclusive post.
