It is when interrogating Arthur Birling that the audience first sees the inspector in action. In this part of the play I would want the audience to feel and understand how ‘in-control’ the inspector is. Everything about him shows his confidence and intolerance of time-wasting. Birling’s attitude is very impatient and careless, for example when the inspector mentions to Birling the incident of Eva Smith’s death a second time his response is, ‘rather impatiently, Yes, yes. Horrid business etc,’ he obviously doesn’t really care. Also, when the inspector asks if he recognizes Eva Smith’s photo Birling carelessly can’t recognize her until further prompting from the inspector helps him to remember. The inspector speaks carefully and clearly – not wasting breath or time. The way in which he maintains strong eye-contact should tell the audience how the inspector has full confidence in himself and what he is doing. His ‘habit of looking hard at the person he addresses before speaking’ makes them feel uneasy, vulnerable and more willing to give information.
With his style and skill – the inspector quickly breaks Birling down, also discovering and understanding Birlings personality and using them to his advantage. The stage directions are very useful when it comes to determining expression and manner. At one point the directions tell me that the inspector ‘cuts through – massively,’ this shows how the inspector is now realizing how much Birling likes to talk and has decided to rather rudely interrupt him in a way that Birling has to stop talking so as not to continually rant on. If I was being interrogated by the inspector I would feel uneasy and under pressure – that is how I would want the audience to be feel.
When questioning Sheila, I would want the audience to see a different approach from the inspector. When interrogating Sheila, he is far more sympathetic and far less imposing as he was towards Birling. He still doesn’t expose much more emotion - but at one point he does try to console her. The reason for his change in attitude with Sheila is mainly to do with her attitude. She is far more accepting of the situation, does not try to hold back any information and does not lie. She realizes unusually quickly the inspector’s power and skill and does not bother to hide anything from him, and with her being so much easier to deal with than Birling, the inspector need not be so difficult with her. As he says earlier in the play to Arthur Birling: ‘if you’re easy with me, I’m easy with you’.
There are many examples of how accepting and understanding Sheila is and the contrast between her and Birlings interrogation. One point is how the inspector will not let her take all the blame she puts on herself although neither does he deny that she had been at great fault. Another point is how the inspector doesn’t make any cynical comments as he does with Birling which is quite a major difference.
The inspector also helps her to understand why she behaved like she did at Millwards – he helps her to confess her crimes. He doesn’t need to ask her as many questions as with Birling as her answers are so willing and honest. For example when the inspector asks her, ‘was it the girls fault?’ she replies with, ‘No, not really. It was my own fault etc.’ Or how he helps her to confess, ‘In fact, in a kind of way, you might be said to have been jealous of her.’ Breaking her down in a different and much easier way than with Arthur Birling.
I would want the audience to view both interrogations very differently – the main way I could do this would be to have the actor playing the inspector to act very effectively but in very different ways in the two interrogations. When speaking to Sheila his stare could be less harsh and penetrating, his voice more subtle, he could lean towards Sheila more and not write to show he is listening with greater care than with Birling. He should occasionally suck the end of his pen as if in thought. But he must try not to be too sympathetic because that would spoil the character of the inspector. Basically – any other way in which he could create a large contrast is in his dialogue.
The inspectors final speeches are the last time the audience see him, therefore it is vital he makes a strong impression. He needs to go out on a high, with a grand exit to make a very dramatic effect on both the family and the audience. In the first speech he tells them that they should not forget the crimes they have committed and reminds each of them what they have done. In his ultimate speech he goes on to explain how there are many people in the world in the same situation as Eva Smith and that everybody should look after and care for each other before they are taught their lesson ‘in fire and blood and anguish’, metaphorically stating war, violence, even death.
The purpose of his speeches and his whole visit are to teach the family a lesson they should never forget: that everyone is responsible for one another and selfishness and ignorance will get them nowhere. When the inspector leaves it is quite obvious that Sheila and Eric have learnt their lesson whereas Arthur, Mrs Birling and Gerald haven’t.
To achieve the effect the inspector would require, I would have the actor positioned in the center of the stage, maybe with a faint spotlight on him with the family around him so he can see them all. His actions and vocals should be broad and powerful. As he talks he would be stood up and looking at each person in turn and his words should be full of emotion but without signs of weakness, only strength and solidity. His lines would be delivered quickly yet moderately with heated anticipation. When he says ‘Good night’ he could use some form of a closing, finishing gesture like shutting his notebook or putting his hat on – to effectively and dramatically show both the family and the audience that he has concluded his business. He would leave the stage making a clean exit quickly and swiftly yet not making too much fuss.
Hopefully he should make a large impact on the audience in both his words and actions. The reaction I would want from them would be along the lines of surprise and excitement – maybe even some slight relief. It would be good if they were to think it the end of the play before realizing there is more to come.
We then discover the inspector is actually a fake. This point in the play is where the audience should definitely be interested and excited. In my opinion, I think that the inspector is a form of supernatural being – he seems to be some kind of teacher, to show the Birlings and Gerlad the error of their ways. A less extra-ordinary explanation is that the inspector is a friend or relative of Eva Smith, he would know about her life and problems and could want revenge or want to punish the family. Another idea could be that he is a rival of Burling in business and may want to cause damage or blackmail Birling for money. The problem with these more ordinary ideas is that it is hard to explain how such a person would know so much more about the family and their secrets than they know about each other.
The audience, at this point, will all see the inspector in different ways. I would hope though, for the majority, to perceive an idea of him being supernatural in some way. As the director I would find it difficult to do this just by the actors movement or speech or their general acting. The audience can only have their own vision of who the inspector is by the script and by their own imagination. I can only help by telling the actor to deliver their lines in a certain style – with strong suspicion.
There is also a very important reason why the inspector’s true identity is never revealed – it’s a clever trick that makes the audience leave the play trying to work out who or what he was, it creates a cliffhanger ending, making the play more exciting and giving it a longer lasting effect.
In this essay I have described and explained the different ways in which I would have portrayed the character of the inspector and I have also explained how I would use the stage directions wisely as well as my own imagination to help in doing this.
What most of the audience probably won’t realize is that the inspector is far more than he seems. He is also a ‘mouthpiece’ for the writer of the play – J.B. Priestly. Priestly has very strong views on socialism, community and responsibility. He expresses these views through the lines of the inspector, without obviously stating it himself. It is a play that is used to show the differences and separation between society and the inspector acts as Priestly – trying to stop these differences.
Priestly’s strong political views stemmed from the situation at the time when the play was set. There were huge social divisions, 87% of the country’s wealth was in the hands of 5% of the population. Many were underfed, lived in poor housing and were poorly clothed. Eva Smith is an example of such a person that both the inspector and Priestly felt should be helped by a more fair and balanced society.