The social conscience of Sheila was tapped into by the inspector easily because Sheila was an essential honest character. This tells me that she acted like an accomplice for the inspector. I know that she was influenced a great deal because she often showed it,
“I feel you’re beginning all wrong and I am afraid you will say or do something that’ll soon be sorry for afterwards”,
“We all started like that – so confident, so pleased with ourselves until he asked questions”.
Sheila and Eric were most deeply affected by the inspector’s revelations in the play.
Persuading the Birlings was a “piece of cake” for the inspector. He used little information and pretended to know more than already does. This was allowed by the Birlings innocent selves as they juggled with their own untruthful lies. Even Mrs Birling, “the hardest nut to crack”, was outplayed and contradicted. Mr Birling was easily convinced but it took some explaining to do,
“Yes yes horrid business. But I don’t understand why you should come here, Inspector.”
Soon after the capitalistic business man understood his wrongful actions and was treated as a stereotype. He was well aware of this and he would of done anything unrealistic to hide his dreadful history from the public, “I will pay thousands, thousands”.
Sheila was mostly responsible with juggling with the family affairs and for a writer like Priestley who was a socialist writer with political opinions; this would be an ideal character to have in such a specialised play to depict the audience into realising their greed and wrongdoings. Therefore a play, which was a popular entertainment in 1947, would be extremely helpful for passing a message morally. The main message was acted by the inspector later on in this play.
Eric was detached from the family problems and conversations in the play. This was probably why he appeared like a different member of the family. The unusual soft approach was affectively used to draw the necessary information out of Eric.
“I know he’s your son and this is your house – but look at him. He needs a drink now just see to him”,
The inspector had greater empathy towards Eric and his sister due to the fact that they accepted their responsibilities better than their parents,
“You’ll be able to divide the responsibilities between you when I’ve gone”.
The role of the enigmatic inspector had two distinctive sides: at times he was incredibly formal and others odd for a police official. The split characteristic makes the inspector more mysterious as it makes the Birlings feel uncomfortable in their elegant home. When questioning the senior Birlings the inspector is disrespectful to their status, at times rude and cheeky. (I find this awkward as normally someone would disrespect the younger more forgettable ones instead of the parents who get more annoyed.) All these attribute unsettle the older Birlings,
“You seem to be conducting it in a rather peculiar and offensive manner”,
And their paranoia was easily slipped, where as the young were treated respectfully and responded to the formal police questions with courtesy. Their social standing was not used against the inspectors authorities status, where as their parents did. The non threatening approach with the younger generation generated additional information for the inspector.
“This isn’t the time to pretend that Eric isn’t used to drink. He’s been steadily drinking too much for the last year”,
Sheila openly criticises her mother’s attempts to cover up Eric’s dysfunctional (anti social) behaviour.
The staging played a main part indirectly sending messages as props at significant parts of the play. When I went to watch the play live, I noticed that the inspector stood at a lower level of the stage than the Birlings, but as they gradually exposed their sins, the inspector and the Birlings ended at the same level. This shows that they weren’t above everyone but a normal family who thought they were. I also noticed that at the start of the play the inspector appears ‘out of the blue’ from the audience, which means that he is representing audience in a way against the Birling’s so the spectators play a huge piece as part of the staging. The inspector stood near a huge lamp post with great shining light most of the time in the play. This shows that the inspector shows truth and the light is there to shine upon purity of goodness. The house of the Birling’s was high up as if it were with the gods in the sky showing their superiority. There were houses in the background which were owned by other rich families but they were situated far away from the house. This shows the Birling’s were isolated and kept away from reality so they weren’t up to date with what’s right to wrong.
A major part of the props was the uniform of the actors. Both Eric and Gerald wore suits which showed that they are brought up well and like to be looked upon as rich smart individuals. This was cleverly planned for contrasting uniform between the wealthy Birlings and poor Edna. She was also much bellow them on stage and wore tatty ragged clothes. Mrs Birling’s was wearing a red dress which was the colour of wealth. As the play progressed Eric and Sheila usually took their upper layers of clothing off as they uncovered their wellbeing.
Without the odd special effects the play would lose the tension. At the beginning an air raid siren would sound at a high volume telling the audience something extraordinary is going to happen. It’s as if its leading up to war and the inspector is the bomb shell that will destroy territory which has been untruthful. As this happens the odd shower is added for realism and attention. As victims are victimised the spot light is brilliant for shinning through the lies.
The supernatural significance of inspector Goole has been cleverly manipulated by Priestly to portray a ‘spirit’ or ‘ghostly’ figure to the Russian audience in 1945. The author has used a pun when choosing Goole as his name obviously implying to the word ‘ghoul’. JB Priestley cleverly used dramatic staging affects to capture the audience’s attention by shadowing the characters face at all times. This creates heightened tension for the audience because they are curious on his physical appearance. The ghoul’s atmosphere surrounding the inspector tormented the consciences of the characters in the play. Mr Birling had been enraged by the line of questioning,
“I don’t like that tone”, the same approach was used for Miss Birling,
“Eva Smiths gone and you aren’t going to do any more harm”. He approaches his line of questions in a judgmental way as if he were taking revenge for the tormented young working class girl, Eva Smith. The audience is held on a cliff hanger when the identity of the inspector is called into question. Not only can the character not be questioned but Priestly has created an ending which can also be manipulated according to the director’s wishes. The inspector could disappear at the end to heighten his spiritual understanding or walk away from the scene with normality. The choice is therefore flexible.
The influence played on Sheila was a big part of convincing the Birling’s into them confessing. Her honesty was part of the reason why she acted very accomplice like for the inspector. She also made it easier throughout the play for the inspector to ask uncomfortable questions. Her influence was a big role in the play as she was ‘the next generation’ therefore passing on responsibility for her and her future. She often would drop into a conversation the inspector would have with the elders mostly intending to make the matter worse than it already was.
“For letting father and me have her chucked out of her jobs”.
Eric was mature but his adolescent attitude of life let him down “(Shocked) Eric! You stole money?” He wasn’t able to control his juvenile thoughts which were disappointing for both the inspectors and the parents. A strong hope was on Sheila for ‘setting the trend’ in the upcoming years ahead.
The most important part of the play was the speech of the inspector. It was significant because JB Priestley used the character of the inspector to pass on an imperative message which would help the audience into realising that something should be done about inequality and injustice within the world. It focuses on the main aspects of responsibilities of the parents and children, employer and employees, and society in general e.g. role of the charitable organisation and how men treat women e.g. Eric’s behaviour with Eva Smith. Throughout the whole play there is a strong warning against pride e.g. Mr Birling and Mrs Birling, and also a reminder not to rely upon your social status. This could be seen as Priestley’s view upon the nation and its need to progress from the old ways to the new. No longer are the high classes allowed to remain corrupt above the law and reasonably unquestioned to capture these points the inspector warns,
“One Eva Smiths gone – but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us”,
Priestley uses the character the inspector most effectively but cautiously. He endeavours to make the Birlings develop a conscience cause an effect and that their roles were instrumental in the cause and effect upon Eva’s short life. He was symbolising the political views of Priestley’s at the time of writing.
My Opinion is that I think the high class people in society should not take advantage of their partition, change a decision on the exclusion of a child because of knowing the chairman of the governors for example. Priestley used similar situations to enlighten the Birlings that they could no longer rely on status alone for security, although Mr Birling was in line for a knighthood but the inspector questioned him both formally and directly showing no regard. Without the inspector being portrayed in the duel way the play would have lacked the message of equality amongst the social statuses. I thought this play portrayed through its character a lack of comparison which came together in a climactic ending almost like a cliff-hanger or a Day of Judgment type warning!
