In order to influence to the audience with optimum effect, Priestley uses a range of dramatic devices, which are designed not only to interest the audience, therefore making it easier to convey his messages, but to reinforce and strengthen the way in which his messages are related to the audience.
The use of sound effects is an example of a dramatic device in effect, with particular reference to the doorbell, the most prominent sound effect in the entire play. The doorbell is used in order to surprise the audience, a factor to increase the interest and the appeal that the play has. The situation, as it stands at this point in the play, is a comfortable, warm setting, a celebration of the engagement between Mr. Birling’s daughter, and one of his business rivals son. It is a formal, and lavish evening party, of an affluent and prosperous family of the upper classes. The doorbell therefore comes as a surprise to the audience, as it would not be commonplace for anybody to call round on a family of this social standing without invitation, especially not at this time of the evening. This is used to arouse an interest in the audience, to make them more receptive to the ideas that Priestley tries to convey.
After Mr. Birling’s philosophy on life, how one must look after one’s self and their family, “you’d think everybody has to look after everybody else…community and all that nonsense…a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own.” The doorbell sounds, almost as a contradiction in itself to Mr. Birling’s philosophy. This is precisely the attitude that Priestley is contemptuous of, and with the use of many other dramatic devices, attempts to challenge these ideas of a society of superiors and inferiors. The doorbell is almost a challenge to Mr. Birling’s ideas, a wake up call, which the inspector challenges at the end of the play. The doorbell may be a preliminary warning as to what is to come later on. After this point, the revelations in the play go on to assault and ridicule these views, which was Priestley’s primary purpose in writing this play.
Another dramatic device that Priestley uses very well is the effect of the lighting, and what it infers in the different situations. When the play begins, with the family enjoying the party, the stage directions state that the lighting should be, “pink and intimate, until the inspector arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder.” The effect of the pink and intimate light is to create an impression and a mood of softness, and of tranquil contentment. It reflects the calm atmosphere of the party, and builds apprehension as the audience try to prepare for something that will, inevitably, shatter this quiet and relaxed state of affairs.
After Mr. Birling’s philosophy on life, and the arrival of the inspector, the lighting turns harsh and bright; a device which is used to reflect the increase in tension that is to follow, and the general contrast of the two situations, i.e. the way that after the arrival of the inspector, the play goes on to contrast, challenge and ridicule the morals by which Mr. Birling lives his life. This is a very subtle technique, but it is very effective in signalling a dramatic change to the circumstances or one that is to follow from that moment.
It has been described that a “well-made” play, is a progression from ignorance to enlightenment, which is displayed in “An Inspector Calls” clearly, not only for the audience, but for the characters as well, as each member’s involvement with the girl, Eva Smith is revealed, and the inspector delivers the final message of condemnation to the family, which is also designed to target the audience. Priestley uses the classical unities of Time; Place and Action, a factor that enables Priestley to involve the audience in the plot more deeply, therefore making it easier to convey his messages, because the play flows in correspondence to the time of the day and the revelations are made as they would in real life; there is no backtracking, we do not actually see the events that have happened to Eva. The real-life type progression of the play is designed to make it seem more realistic and believable, making it seem more comprehendible to the audience, and therefore involving them to a greater level.
The setting for the play is consistent; the Birling’s dining room and there are no complicating sub-plots and there is no extra information that is surplus to requirements. We are given only the information we need, by the inspector, which helps to focus the audiences attention on the primary aspects of the play, the messages that Priestley wishes to convey; the behaviour of the Birling’s and their attitude towards society and others, without allowing the audience’s thoughts to deviate away onto other, less pressing matters occurring in the play.
This serves to strengthen the focus on the lessons that Priestley wished to convey. Had the events that were not necessary been acted out, there is the strong possibility that the play would have been “diluted” and the focus diverted, therefore making it more difficult for the audience to understand the lesson’s being imparted.
The structure of this play is very typical of a classical Greek drama, and the inspector is used in the same way that a Greek Chorus would be; periodically, he concludes what has happened, in order to ensure that the necessary views have been established. Having seen a film version of “An Inspector Calls”, in which the events that take part off-screen in the play are acted out, I can conclude that the film is not as effective at conveying the messages inferred by Priestley as when the extraneous elements of the story have been left out, as in the play, as it merely serves a distraction from other, more important factors of the drama. The film takes away the attention that is directed at the characters attitudes in the play; it lacks the focus on the character’s attitudes and on the character’s own perspective on the events. It also lacks the inspector’s hugely influential input, which is significant in the presentation of the ideas that Priestley tries to convey.
By using these dramatic unities, Priestley is faced with limitations on the ways in which he can develop the plot. For example, had they just heard of the suicide, would the revelations of each member’s involvement with Eva Smith have emerged, without the presence of the inspector? The answer is almost certainly not. Without the inspector, following the unities, as described above, would have made it impossible for the revelations to come about, and Priestley could not have conveyed his message. The inspector is used, to some extent, as a catalyst, in order to make the play progress and develop, thus allowing Priestley to convey his ideas. He has seemingly omniscient powers; he draws out the truth from each family member, with seemingly little provocation. It is these powers bestowed upon this character by Priestley, which enables the inspector to convey to the characters, the message that Priestley wants to communicate to his audience.
The effect that the inspector has on each character is symbolic of the morals that the “old generation” lived by, the ones that Priestley did not want society to degenerate to again, and the ones that are represented by the post war generation, the need to build on what they had learnt, from the two world wars. When the inspector has only just arrived, we are given a very good indication already of the sort of morals that the different generations of the family represent. When told of the suicide of the young girl, before her name is disclosed, the reactions of the representatives of each generation are very conflicting. Eric’s immediate reaction is an involuntary outburst of, “My God!” a contradiction to Mr Birling’s impatient “Yes, yes. Horrid business.” which immediately conveys the difference in attitude of the generations. Another example of this is how the inspector makes Mr. Birling angry, but not remorseful. He still lives by the morals of the “old-generation” of society, and does not intend to change his views despite everything that is revealed. Priestley uses this to highlight the exact way of life and the exact morals lived by that he does not want people to revert back to. However, the effect that the inspector has on the younger generations of the family, Sheila and Eric, differs greatly in comparison to the effect that he has on the older generations. They are greatly affected by the revelations of the inspector, and are keen to embark on a life of new morals, more respectful of other people and of the greater community that they are part of. It is this effect that Priestley uses to emphasise his beliefs and display this to the audience, in order for them to realise how it is that they should behave towards others. When the inspector has only just arrived, we are given a very good indication already of the sort of morals that the different generations of the family represent.
J.B. Priestley uses the entrances and exits of different characters to effectively enable the story to continue and the plot to unravel, therefore enabling him to convey his ideas more efficiently. By using the classical unities of time, place and action, Priestley was limited in the information that he could present to the audience, had all of the characters been present at all times, due to the use of only one location, and it is therefore vital for the entrances and exits to be plotted carefully, thus allowing the plot to develop, with certain characters present at certain times. By keeping everything focused on this single setting, the focus on the unfolding plot was maintained, but it does not allow for the narrative to develop, unless certain situations are created that enable opportunities for irony and transformations to occur. It is with the entrances and exits of particular characters that Priestley creates these opportunities for the developments to transpire.
Also, by changing the arrangement of the setting, e.g. by changing the composition of characters, Priestley is also creating a series of changing situations, which effectively keeps the audience interested and more receptive to his ideas. A good example of Priestley using the entrances and exits of characters to allow the plot to advance is when Gerald and Mr. Birling are left alone, near the beginning of Act One, where Mr. Birling hints at the possibility of being awarded a knighthood, mentioning that, “there’s a very good chance of a knighthood…so long as we don’t get into a police court or start a scandal.” This immediately rouses the audience, because it becomes apparent, after information that we have already deduced from Mr. Birling through the use of irony, and the way we are introduced to his morals and priorities in life, that something will now, inevitably, happen that could jeopardise his chance of a knighthood. Had any of the other characters been present, this information would probably never have been revealed. It is a useful technique, as it serves the purpose, not only of reducing our respect for Mr. Birling, but also to excite and interest the audience.
Another example of the use of entrances and exits used to allow the plot to develop and become more interesting is at the end of Act One, when all of the characters exit with exception to Sheila and Gerald. She extorted from Gerald the fact that he had had an affair with the girl Eva Smith/Daisy Renton, and he begs her to conceal it from the inspector. She realises however, that he already knows, and recognises him as some sort of almost surreal person. Had any of the other characters been present, the information regarding Gerald’s affair would not have been revealed, and would have only been revealed by the inspector at a later point. This would not have been as effective, because it would not have built up the apprehension in the audience, it would not have left them questioning, “Does the inspector really know about this?” and this issues regarding the inspectors persona would not have been highlighted as effectively. When the inspector emerges at the end of this Act, it creates a cliffhanger, designed to interest the audience, and to make them more responsive to any messages that Priestley wishes to convey. It leaves the audience wondering whether the inspector does already know, and whether Sheila’s premonitions about him are correct, something that the audience will only find out in the next act.
Perhaps one of the most successful dramatically effective devices that Priestley uses, in Act One, is irony, both retrospective, and dramatic, things that would already be known to the audience of 1945 to be ironic. The use of irony is to make the audience lose respect for Mr. Birling, the representative of the old morals and values that Priestley does not want to revert back to. The purpose is to hold the ideas, which Mr. Birling represents, to ridicule, and to make the audience think that his way of thinking and behaving is imprudent. By setting this play in 1912, Priestley was able to present all of the ideas that he wished to ridicule, effectively, because an audience in 1945 would be aware of all of the things that occurred after 1912 that proved all Mr. Birling’s remarks to actually be ironic, therefore ridiculing his values.
An example of the predictions made by Mr. Birling that prove to be ironic are such as his view of being, “in for a time of steadily increasing prosperity” a theory that was proved to be incorrect by the various disasters, such as the World Wars, which caused huge global economic depression in many countries, forcing hundreds of businesses to close, and many people to lose large amounts of money.
Mr. Birling also predicted a variety of other occurrences, which would be known to be ironic to the audience:
“German’s don’t want war, nobody wants war, except for some half civilised folk in the Balkans.”
“The Titanic…unsinkable”
“There will be peace and prosperity everywhere…”
“Russia, which will always be behindhand naturally.”
As the audience would know, that there was a war, two major one in fact, the Titanic did sink, there was not peace and prosperity everywhere, far from it, and the Russians evolved into one of the great superpowers of the times.
Due to the fact that Mr. Birling represents all of the values of an upper class society, the very ideas that Priestley attempts to condemn, this has a very strong effect on the audience regarding everything that Mr. Birling exemplifies. He is made to look ridiculous, his values preposterous, and the audience consequentially lose respect for Mr. Birling and everything that he embodies. This is a very effective way for Priestley to convey his opinion on the old way of society. Now that the audience knows of the absurdity of the predictions made by Mr. Birling, it casts a certain uncertainty over everything else that has been revealed in the play. Mr. Birling is the head of the household, he is supposed to be revered and respected, more erudite and experienced than any of the younger generation, and Priestley uses this presumption and further ridicule of this character to imply that perhaps the older generation, who are considered to be more knowledgeable, are not always right, and neither are the values that the older generation, the previous way of things represented.
Another form of irony that Priestley uses to convey hid ideas is retrospective irony, things that, whilst not particularly important in the beginning of the play, actually emerge to be ironic later on, as a result of what the characters are unintentionally forced to reveal about themselves as the play develops. This type of irony is self-contained within the play, and works regardless of the knowledge that the audience has when they come to see the play.
An example of this retrospective irony is when Mr. Birling is talking to the rest of the family, about how much he is enjoying this night, “It’s one of the happiest nights of my life.” Yet it later evolves into one of the worst, a night that could damage his reputation, and diminish his chances of receiving a knighthood.
Another example, near the beginning of Act One, whilst the family are enjoying the party, is when Gerald is speaking to Sheila, “I hope I make you as happy as you deserve to be” also when Mr. Birling proclaims, “She’ll make you [Gerald] happy, and I’m sure you’ll make her [Sheila] happy.” Both of the remarks turn out to be ironic in retrospect, when it emerges that Gerald has in fact had an affair, clandestinely, behind Sheila’s back, when he was allegedly “busy with work”. The effect that this has is to not only interest and captivate the audience, but also to build up a distrust of the people in the play who represent the old values of society, the ones that Priestley condemns.
Further examples of the retrospective irony include the revelation made by Mr. Birling of the possibility of finding himself on the next honours list, providing of course that “we don’t find ourselves in a police court or start a scandal.” The imminent threat of something to complicate matters for Mr. Birling becomes very apparent to the audience, and they wait, captivated, for the moment that this intervention comes.
“You don’t know what some of these boys get up to nowadays” is also an example of retrospective irony, as it becomes apparent, later in the play, that, indeed they do not know what some of these boys get up to nowadays, as Eric’s involvement with Eva Smith is revealed.
The effect of this irony is to keep the audience interested and entertained; if they were to become disengaged, they would not be as receptive to Priestley’s ideas, the primary purpose of the play.
In conclusion, I feel that Priestley has demonstrated and incredible ability to achieve the right balance between creating a play that is both interesting for the audience; a play that will captivate them and enthuse them; and also one that conveys his doubts and worries towards the attitudes of society regarding their fellow man. It is essential to achieve this balance with precision, if the audience is not interested, they will become disengaged, and will become less receptive to the opinions of the playwright, if there are too many extraneous factors which contribute to the play, then they will also become distracted by these, losing focus on the morals of the play.
I feel that Priestley uses dramatic devices well to achieve this balance, he managed to retain focus, and interest at the same level, which is not easy. The sound effects are used well to assert the audience in the necessary places; the lighting creates a strong impression of the mood, enabling the audience to become more aware of the play, and therefore more receptive; the dramatic unities are a particularly effective devices that Priestley uses, as it enables him to concentrate the audience’s focus on the aspects that he wants them to focus on, he does not distract them with other extraneous factors, and this use of an unchanging setting requires him to use strategic entrances and exits of different characters, enabling the play to develop and reach new levels, a technique that increases the audience’s enjoyment and involvement.
He uses the inspector to develop the play; he can almost be described as a catalyst for the events. He is also able to affect the characters in ways that provoke a response, symbolic of what the characters represent, and it is because of this that the introduction of the inspector is effective in conveying the ideas of Priestley, whilst maintaining a flow of plot that the audience can become engaged in the story.
I feel that the most effective device that Priestley uses in the play is irony, particularly that dramatic irony. In doing this he makes the audience lose respect for the people in the play who represent the values that Priestley wishes to condemn, he makes the audience feel that everything that these people say or do, is wrong, including the values that they live their life by. This convinces the audience to share the same opinion as Priestley, therefore conveying his worries effectively. The retrospective irony complements the dramatic irony, because, in effect, it balances out the playwright’s own inferences, with something that will captivate the audience.
I feel that this play would still be relevant in today’s society, despite extensive improvements in people’s attitudes towards the greater community, there are still a great many extensive improvements still to be made, and everyone could benefit from doing so.
Priestley has made clear the society that he does not want people to revert to, so that they can build on a better society in the future, where people look after everybody else, and realise that they are all part of one body, and that their actions can have consequences that stretch far beyond anything that they could comprehend; that other’s lives are inextricably tangled within our own.