Toward the end, from scene 36 onwards, the play unveils a relationship between Linda and Reilly. The two have been conveyed as sad, helpless characters throughout the play. They are each shown to have hopeless fancies for teachers. Reilly plays up to his fellow peers by flirting with Susan (a teacher) though when she confronts him in scene thirty three he is shown to shy, to cower in a fashion which demonstrates his lack of experience, Susan sums this up perfectly by saying to him that she is the sort of woman “who could break you into little pieces”. This undoubtedly shatters his brashness, he is far less cocky, this causes him to realise that he was reaching for an unattainable goal, and that in future he should aim within sensible bounds. Linda is also brought to understand that she should aim lower, Karen shrieks “Don’t be stupid, you. You won’t get a husband like sir” after Linda suggests that Colin (a teacher) might marry her. The two seem to go well with one another due to the fact that they are in similar situations. The relationship demonstrates that happiness can be attained even though you have a low IQ and income, which would suggest otherwise. The relationship shows that love can flourish in all situations.
The play also brings to light the fact that two people can be in the same profession, the same situation, though still hold and express, totally different opinions. This is most prominent with the contrast between Mrs Kay and Mr Briggs. Mrs Kay is shown to be a kind, pleasant, sympathetic, loving, non-judgemental woman, very much in contrast with Mr Briggs who is conveyed as a cold, heartless man. Their differing methods meet one another head on, almost constantly. From the start of the play the two characters are shown in essence of their opposing personalities; Mr Briggs is shown to stamp his authority in the first possible instance telling two boys to “Come on, move!” he then refers in a derogative, sarcastic manner to the pupils of the progress class calling them “some real bright sparks”. On the other hand Mrs Kay is shown from the beginning and throughout as being nothing short of a genuinely loving person; she is shown to express great care for the children shouting “Maurice! Come away from that road” and linking arms with a troubled student (Carol) after having consoled her. Even though Mr Briggs is shown to change for a short while, he ends the day as he began it. Both Mr Briggs and Mrs Kay were witness to the same behaviour, and attitude of the students though at the end of the trip they still held opposite views on the situation. I think that the difference and contrast between Mr Briggs and Mrs Kay points out the fact that everyone has differing opinions and that they will draw very different conclusions in regards to exactly the same situation.
Throughout the play up until scene thirty-five, Mr Briggs is portrayed as cold and heartless, an iron-man if you will. Mr Briggs is shown to speak ill of Mrs Kay describing her as “a mother hen rather than a teacher”, and he is equally as cruel in reference to the children saying that they “act like animals”. Upon encountering Mrs Kay’s sympathetic attitude (which later he largely adopts) he dismisses it as “woolly-headed liberalism”, demeaning it to the level of a joke. Though in scene thirty-five Mr Briggs is shown to take a radical new direction after meeting Carol on the cliff top. The colloquy begins predictably; Mr Briggs calls “Carol Chandler”, the following dialogue continues with angrily conveyed demands from Mr Briggs, such as “Just come here” and “just get yourself moving”. Carol retorts in a manner that accentuates her inner strength and just feelings, for example, “No one.” and “Don’t you come near me!”. This seems to work, to crumble Mr Briggs’s callous character, his angry demands soon turn into desperate rhetorical questions such as “Just what are you trying to do to me?”. By the end of the dialogue the two are far different from how they were at the beginning; Carol has a renewed sense of hope and Mr Briggs is shown to be quite the opposite of his former heartless self. This suggests the possibility of change and also suggests that individuals can have an influence on the future of others, that change begets change. Mr Briggs continues to act in his newly adopted manner; this is shown to affect the group, they are shown to enjoy themselves more, they are even shown to thank Mr Briggs, one says “Sir, thanks, sir”. It appears that one encounter has managed to dramatically change Mr Briggs’s personality; he is shown to be sitting on the back seat with several students, wearing a cowboy hat and singing which serves perfectly as an example. However in Scene 41 Mr Briggs is shown to revert back to his former self; he becomes aware that he has lost his fear-enforced respect from the students as Reilly says “Night, sir. Enjoyed yourself today, didn’t y’ sir?” which sounds as if Reilly was conversing with a fellow peer. Even though Reilly’s language was inoffensive and shows respect, Mr Briggs views it as a lax in order. The final scene ends with Mr Briggs destroying the camera film, which portrayed him as fun loving and jovial; this demonstrates that he has reverted back to his former self. The change, which seemed so miraculous, is shown to be little more than a temporary mood swing; it shows a person cannot be changed during a single encounter, so thus the play ends on depressing note.
In conclusion I can say that the play deals with several issues and communicates the feelings of the writer, Willy Russel. The play deals with sensitive issues with which many can relate, it also offers an inside perspective for those living within a middle class society. The play emphasises the painfully empty lives that are endured by people hailing from underprivileged backgrounds; the fact that they will have a childhood dominated by crime and poverty before proceeding unwillingly into a hopeless, pointless job. The play also shows that change is either unattainable or fleeting, this goes to say that the underclass of Britain will perpetuate due to either an inability, or more sinisterly, because of a premeditated decision to provide a working force for British industry. The play goes to demonstrate that the same situation is never viewed by everyone in the same way, that people cannot expect to be fairly judged; some will over sympathise others will unfairly condemn. With the play saying that change is either unattainable or fleeting it also goes to say that they cannot expect to see a deep, positive change so it would be accurate to say that the children of the progress class cannot hope for anything more than a day out.
- (I’ve used the definition as follows) In Jungian psychology: one’s character as one presents it to the world, masking one’s inner thoughts, feelings, etc.
By Simon Smith
