The audience does not know who the Inspector is or why he has called. Priestley also includes character descriptions into his stage directions. He states that the characters in the opening scene are “pleased with themselves”. He wants the audience to understand that the characters are very satisfied with the way their lives are going and that they are quite smug. Mrs Birling is described by the playwright as “a rather cold woman and her husband’s social superior”. This might indicate that she thinks she is better than others and is not a sympathetic person. Eric is described as “not quite at ease” which will allow the audience to see that he is pre-occupied or feels that he does not quite fit in with the rest of the family. He may be a bit of an outsider.
Priestley’s use of dramatic irony early on in the play seems to be used in a humorous way, but it also has a darker side. Dramatic irony is when a character in a play (or film) says something that the audience will understand, even though the characters in the film may not. The play was written in 1945 but is set in 1912 before World War I and before the voyage of The Titanic and the Great Depression. Early in Act I Mr Birling says “The Germans don’t want war” going on to say that the rumours of war are “nonsense” and that the only people who want war are “some half-civilized folks in the Balkans”. He even states that “there isn’t a chance of war” but as the audience are aware, the Germans did want war and that World War I would start with an incident in the Balkans. Continuing the heavy dramatic irony Mr Birling also says that The Titanic is “absolutely unsinkable” although the play’s audience would know that it sank on its maiden voyage. Although the audience might find this remark quite funny, it would also let them know that Mr Birling is self-important but does not know everything about the world. He goes on to make even greater claims about what will happen socially and politically in the future (“in 1940 … there’ll be peace and prosperity and rapid progress everywhere”) all of which is wrong. This prepares the audience for later scenes when the Inspector makes the family realise that they can be taught lessons in life. It also allows the audience to doubt the predictions Mr Birling makes for his own future regarding the “chance of a knighthood”.
At this point, Priestley also uses foreshadowing, where Mr Birling unknowingly predicts an event before it happens. He says almost jokingly to Gerald that he believes he has “a very good chance” of the knighthood “so long as we behave ourselves, don’t get into police court or start a scandal”. The audience would remember this later in the play when the scandal about Eva/Daisy is revealed.
When the Inspector enters the stage directions say “the Inspector need not be a big man” but he should create “an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness”. His “plain darkish suit” would give him a natural air of authority. The directions further characterise the Inspector saying that “he speaks carefully, weightily” and that he has a habit of looking hard at people before he speaks to them. These characteristics would make the Inspector seem to have a lot of knowledge about the characters, even though he has not met them before. It would be as if he had supernatural powers.
The Inspector’s lines do make him a strange character. Most of his speeches are very short and to the point and many are in the form of short questions. This means that the Inspector controls the pace and direction of the conversations he has with the other characters. His name too is a pun on ghoul or spirit and he gives the impression of being morally superior. His entrance happens just as Mr Birling is giving a speech about how “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own”. In the same speech he openly disagrees with social responsibility saying “the way some of these cranks talk … you’d think everybody has to look after everybody else … like bees in a hive”. The lighting changes at the Inspector’s entrance from soft pink to a harsher brightness as if the Inspector is going to wake up the family to the realities of life.
The Inspector has a clear role in the play as we understand from the title. He controls the characters by allowing them to make bold statements, which reveal their actions before the evening of the play. After Birling explains that he “refused, of course” to give his workers a pay rise, the Inspector asks “why?” which annoys Birling but makes him explain his actions in a way that lets the audience know he is proud of what he has done. He says “it’s my duty to keep labour costs down.” The Inspector then brings the family down with just a few words adding a strong moral viewpoint to each situation. A good example of this is when Mr Birling says about his workers who had asked for more money “If you don’t come down sharply on some of these people, they’d soon be asking for the earth” and the Inspector simply replies “They might. But … it’s better to ask for the earth than to take it”. By this method Priestley uses the Inspector to manipulate the characters so that they open up to him, each other and the audience. He slowly ruins the atmosphere of the engagement and the play begins to turn from a standard whodunit into a morality play.
The reactions of the various members of the family to the Inspector in Act I also reveal Priestley’s underlying message. Mr Birling’s response is mainly to get angry and resort to his usual tactic of bullying and threatening as we see when he asks the Inspector how he gets on with the Chief Constable who is “an old friend”. His hint that he will get the Inspector into trouble is not subtle. However, the Inspector has an entirely different impact on Sheila who is immediately distressed by the news of Eva’s death saying “I’ve been so happy tonight. Oh I wish you hadn’t told me”. When later on the Inspector tells her that she is “partly to blame” Sheila quickly regrets her actions and wishes she could take them back. Priestley uses the Birlings to reflect how different groups in society can be influenced. The younger members of the family, Sheila and Eric, are both quickly sorry for what has happened to the girl. Eric states his father “could have kept her on instead of throwing her out. I call it tough luck.” Mr and Mrs Birling are harder to convince. When Sheila stands up for the girl, her father says “Rubbish!”
In the first Act, Priestley has the characters take different positions. Mr Birling is arrogant and self-satisfied and refuses to take any responsibility. Mrs Birling is almost absent except for the short dinner scene where she is proud and distant. Gerald appears to agree with Mr Birling’s ideas of keeping the social structure and how to treat workers to make the most profit: “You couldn’t have done anything else”. But at the end of the scene he begins to fall apart when Sheila discovers his affair with Daisy Renton and he begs “for God’s sake – don’t say anything to the Inspector”. Sheila is shows herself to be the quickest and brightest of them when she almost ends the scene saying “Why - you fool – he knows … You’ll see. You’ll see”. Priestley has used the generations as a metaphor for the ability to change and form new attitudes towards social class and social justice. The old man is rigid and inflexible, Sheila sees the fault immediately and would put it right if she could and Gerald is in between.
The play has a mainly naturalistic style which means it seems to be like real life. Priestley does this deliberately through his stage directions for furniture, costumes and by using realistic speech of the time, for example when Sheila calls Eric “squiffy” a slang term for drunk. The opening scene of the dinner party is also realistic when Mr Birling praises the meal and the cook, sending his compliments through Mrs Birling, saying “Good dinner too, Sybil. Tell cook from me”. This helps reinforce his position in society as he can afford a cook, but it also reveals his background as Mrs Birling reacts as though he has said something vulgar saying “Arthur, you’re not supposed to say such things”. In fact almost everything Mrs Birling says is talking down to her husband showing that she feels superior because of her background.
Towards the end of Act I the tone of the play has changed. After the Inspector has upset Sheila and made her realise that she is partly responsible for the girl’s suicide, he turns his attention to Gerald. The Inspector gets an immediate startled reaction from Gerald when he says the name “Daisy Renton” who says “What?” Priestley uses a dramatic device to leave Sheila and Gerald alone when Sheila says “Eric, take the Inspector along to the drawing room.” When the Inspector leaves Gerald and Sheila alone at this point it is as if he knows what will happen between them. Sheila asks Gerald questions instead of the Inspector: “How did you come to know this girl?” and “When did you first get to know her” showing that she has guessed the truth, “Were you seeing her last spring and summer … when you hardly came near me?” Gerald is keen to apologise to Sheila but does not want to be dragged into being blamed for the girl’s death so he says “Let’s leave it at that.” Sheila knows they “can’t leave it at that”. Sheila shows that she understands about the Inspector’s ability to know everything and hints to the audience that there is more to come.
Through this Priestley creates anticipation in the audience. They want to know more about the mysterious Inspector and to discover other family secrets. The Inspector comes back in at the end of the scene to stare at Sheila and Gerald “searchingly” and says one word – “Well?” This is a brilliant ending to the scene as it leaves the audience on a dark cliff-hanger. The use of the question here lets the audience know that he is waiting for a reply. The audience is thirsty for more and on the edge of their seats for what will happen next. The audience is totally involved in the play through Priestley’s use of dramatic devices and he ends the scene with more questions raised than answers.
In Act I Priestley has set up a conventional middle class scene but he changes the audience’s opinion of the Birlings and their guest and asks them to question attitudes towards the working class and less fortunate. Priestley uses the mysterious Inspector as a dramatic device in this, introducing him as a character with no part in the death of Eva Smith. Through the use of carefully directed questions he is able to gradually expose the more unpleasant side of the other characters.
Priestley gives clear directions about the Inspector’s use of the photograph. He keeps it in his pocket and uses it to shock the Mr. Birling and Sheila. It is a clever dramatic device that strengthens the audience’s interest as they never see the photograph and only one character sees it at a time, so there is no proof that it is even the same girl in the picture each time. When the Inspector first shows Mr. Birling the photograph there are clear stage directions about how this is done. “Both Gerald and Eric rise to have a look at the photograph, but the Inspector interposes himself between them and the photograph.” After Birling recognises the girl, the stage directions state “the Inspector replaces” the photograph “in his pocket.” It is the Inspector who links the girl to each of the characters who assume they are seeing the same photograph, even though she may have a different name and identity. The reaction of each person to the photograph helps to change our opinion of them. Sheila is described as “a pretty girl in her early twenties, pleased with life and rather excited”. By the end of Act I Sheila is “distressed” at her part in the girl’s downfall and is the only member of the family to understand the Inspector. The audience would begin to realise by the end of Act I that this is not a normal whodunit and that each member of the family can be blamed, although how much they are all to blame doesn’t become clear until later.
The Birlings and Gerald represent the whole of comfortable society in England, while Eva Smith/Daisy Renton represents those who are in a bad position and have no one to turn to. By introducing the Inspector who reports all the terrible things that have happened to the girl, Priestley can bring a lot of horror and shock to the play without having to stage it. The Inspector describes the girl’s death in strong terms saying the disinfectant had “burnt her insides out” and that she “died after several hours of agony.” The girl is a really important character but does not appear in the play at all.
The play is really a morality play with a strong message – think carefully about how you act towards other people because you might have the power to help them or ruin their lives. I think that the message in this play is just as relevant today as it was in 1945. We still have groups of people that our society does not help much and many think it is all right to ignore and reject them. For example drug users, mentally ill people, prostitutes, the homeless and immigrants are groups of people who may not have anyone to look after them and the rest of us might think they deserve all they get and that it is their own fault if they have problems. Priestley wanted to get across the message that middle class people have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than themselves. Eva Smith/Daisy Renton acts as a metaphor for the unfortunate underclass in our society.
Priestley challenges the audience as the Inspector challenges the characters in the play about their responses to others. He shows this in one particular speech when Mr Birling complains that the Inspector has made a mess of their celebration, the Inspector says “That’s … what I was thinking earlier tonight, when I was at the Infirmary looking at what was left of Eva Smith. A nice little promising life there, I thought, and a nasty mess somebody’s made of it”. Priestley wants the audience to think about individual responsibility as well as society’s responsibility and uses the mystery story and dramatic devices to interest and involve them in the play and get them to think about social justice and responsibility.
