The Inspector retells the story up to its current stage, everything the reader knows up to that point, and then suddenly reveals the next instalment of the mystery by mentioning the name “Daisy Renton”. Not only does this create interest for the reader, but the sudden instinctive reaction of Gerald and his startled question, “what?” suddenly introduces the next character to be interrogated by the Inspector. Gerald is actually shocked, and this is presented in his tone of voice, and his body actions. He may suddenly stand with such surprise, a sudden change in body movement draws in the audiences eyes, and his behaviour is from then on closely watched. The Inspector then in contrast is quite calm and collective, and repeats “steadily” the fact that Eva Smith changed her name to Daisy Renton. This suggests that he is biding time to not only increase the suspense, but that he is acting steadily so he can keep a firm watch over Gerald’s reaction to the name. Gerald’s hesitation and lack of immediate honesty immediately suggests he has an involvement with this girl, and the need for a drink suggests a deep involvement and a great unwillingness to reveal it. This suspense builds the tension between the characters on stage, the fact that the Inspector knows, and Sheila doesn’t, creates a barrier between him and his fiancé, and the lack of honesty within their relationship. Sheila’s watchful eye suggests her lack of trust and awareness of what is to come, “SHEILA merely nods, still staring at him”.
Sheila’s request for Eric and the Inspector to leave the room suggests an impending climax between Sheila and Gerald, this will be the first time that he has left the room and he respects the situation enough to allow them to confer before he is to be part of the unravelling of events, “the INSPECTOR looks from SHEILA to GERALD, then goes out”.
Gerald’s continuous hesitation continues to build suspense, “Well what, Sheila?” “Lets leave it at that”, the audience and reader is waiting on the edge of their seats for his connection to Eva Smith to be revealed. Gerald uses imperitives to direct and take control of the direction of the conversation, “Let’s leave it at that.” “Now listen”. This doesn’t work however and the tension is building between him and Sheila due to his lack of honesty which is beginning to frustrate and unnerve her. “Oh don’t be stupid” “We can’t leave it at that”. She is taking charge and not accepting his diversions. The more Gerald refuses to say however, the more Sheila understands about his relationship with Eva. This reveals an underlying lack of trust within their relationship, usually considered the fundamental part of a successful marriage. She is quite reflective, and thinks through what she is saying. She mentions Gerald’s whereabouts last summer again, something previously mentioned at the dining table. It becomes clear that she had always had a subconscious suspicion of him having an affair, due to her immediate response to this without any fault. Yet she stil has to ask him, so that he can me descent enough to respond. And again he remains silent. “He does not reply but looks at her.”
Although he tries to convince her that it is over and in the past, he selfishly doesn’t want Sheila to mention it to the Inspector. She on the other hand doesn’t undermine the Inspectors ability to find the truth, “Of course he knows” The couple are taking behind the Inspectors back, and the way he walks into the room and says, “Well?” will tie all the arguments together and make Gerald’s affair reality. Sheila can be a very dramatic character, “laughs rather hysterically”, and her exuberance is a complete contrast to Gerald’s silence. Gerald is also very ashamed and through his body language, looking down at his feet, never in her eyes, amplifies his dishonesty and lack of forthright.
In Act 2 the storyline has reached a big climax where the audience has discovered that each member of the family is likely to be involved in the lead up to Eva Smith’s suicide.
This passage is all about ignorance and knowledge. Mrs Birling has been perceived from the very beginning of the play to be a very snobby, ignorant, kept together person. She doesn’t allow herself to lose control, but as the Inspector keeps pursuing, she looses her composure towards the end of this act. At the beginning of the passage she is very proud, and continues to state: “I’m sorry she should come to such a horrible end. But i accept no blame for it at all.” The use of the conjunction But, and the statement all, suggests a very defiant, assured opinion. She has no room for argument or debate. She shifts the blame onto the “drunken young idler”, i description that is familiar to most of Eric, and buries herself in her own grave.
The unsettling nature of this passage is the change in opinion of the Inspector. He shifts his tone and begins to agree with Mrs Birling, “So he is the chief culprit” prompting her to make the situation as worse for herself as she possibly can. This suggests a moral climax shall be reached. The audience becomes more and more aware of this, and the more it continues the more it is understood that she will learn a big leason. Not only is the audience aware of this but Sheila is, “Mother- Stop- stop!” she says with “sudden alarm”. Sheila has realised that is Eric that her mother and the Inspector is talking about. She understands what the Inspector is doing and is trying to warn her mother. The panic id clear through the use of exclamation marks, and this all adds to the impact on the audience of the shouting and use of imperative phrases.
The contrast in character behaviour between Sheila and Mrs Birling is ironic because Mrs Birling who is unaware and ignorant to the truth is composing herself so calmly and stubbornly she acts “triumphant”, and then Sheila who has a good understanding of the Inspectors nature and capability is acting so hysterically. It all adds to the fundamental ignorance of the older generation, and impressionability of the younger generation.
Mrs Birling’s persistent stubbornness, “and he ought to be dealt with very seriously”, “compelled to confess in public his responsibility” is what creates the largest effect on the characters and the audience. She is being silently mocked, and the lack of awareness shows how little responsibility she holds.
The inspector then turns it round as the truth is revealed. Suddenly Mrs Birling looses all sense of composure as she “stops, and exchanges a frightened glance with her husband”. She suddenly realises the implications of what she has being saying. This is visible from then on in her use of language. Her sentences become much more hesitant and unsure, she cannot even string a proper sentence together, “But surely.......I mean......it’s ridiculous...” Even Mr Birling cannot speak in full sentences, “you’re not trying to tell us that – that my boy – is mixed up in this?” The repeating of “that” shows a sense of uncertainty and doubt. This is a direct comparison to the way both characters have been known to preach and make speeches for the Inspector about their lack of involvement.
The way Mrs Birling holds herself also changes from the beginning to the end which alters the audience’s perception of that character. Throughout the play she has been confident, smiling, talking with an upbeat tone, with her head held high with superiority. As the events of Eric’s involvement unwind the non-verbal communication between the family changes. People begin to sneak glances at one another suggests weakness and the quest for approval. Characters begin to pace the stage suggesting panic. Serious sudden body movements suggest anger and frustration. Mrs Birling is left with a sour, saddened expression on her face, and is unable to hold her head up high anymore. She has been knocked of her pedestal.
The final climax of Act 2 ends just as Act 1 did, the character to which has been talked about on stage to the audience enters, and it is clear from the air of secrecy and dishonesty that is left between all the characters, that the silence speaks louder than words.
Throughout these two extracts Priestly creates dramatic tension through painstakingly slowly revealing the families involvement in Eva Smith’s death. Each time the inspector calmly moves from one character to the next, as the involvement gets worse, and closer to the present day, the tension increases. Throughout the play the audience is waiting for the Inspector to interview each character, which is why Act 2 finishes with one of the biggest climaxes of them all, as all five characters participation are exposed. Priestly uses silences, and hesitation to create suspense, and then uses tone of voice, manner of speaking in the verbal communication, and the use of stage direction and body movements in non-verbal communication to show the ultimate breaking down of the family’s pretences. The confessions become more and more involuntary and the seriousness creates a very dramatic climax to the story. In the end they have all been conquered and humbled because the Inspector has morally overruled them.