Priestley was a socialist, and ‘An Inspector calls’ was intended as a beacon and reminder to all those living at the time. Priestley’s message seems to be that the audience is living at a time of political and social upheaval, which should learn from its mistakes and faults, and acknowledge the responsibility it holds for its fellow man. I think that this message is just as relevant now as it ever has been.
Throughout the play, epitomized in the last scene of the First Act, Sheila almost takes the role of a modern day Greek Chorus. The chorus’s role was to offer a summary of what had happened so far, comment on the characters within the play and explain to everyone the lessons to be learnt. If you think back to the scene in which Gerald admits to Sheila that he knows something of the girl, she immediately summarises the situation, and the way in which the Inspector, as the eponymous character, will draw all Gerald knows into the open. “ Why – you fool – he knows. And I hate to think how much he knows that we don’t know yet. You’ll see. You’ll see.” This gives us a slight hint as to the way the play will develop, and what the final outcome will be.
Sheila is unique among the Birlings: not only is she the one character that hurt Eva for nothing more than a feeling. The others could plead ideology, accidental slide, drink and mistake. She is also the first to show real guilt, shame and regret for what she has done, and remains adamant to the very end. Sheila also catches on to the inspector’s game late in the play, and is quite obviously in awe of his inspiring, supernatural presence.
It would be all to easy to brush Gerald Croft aside, or to only mention him briefly, stating that he is not a particularly important character, or that he is shallow and snobbish. However, I feel that Gerald is one of the most complicated characters in the play. When the audience is first introduced to Gerald he seems a pleasant, polite young man, with an air of good breeding. In fact, some may suggest that Mr Birling is trying to impress Gerald, offering him the port Gerald’s father is known to appreciate. The reason for such an attempt could not be made clearer.
Gerald is a member of the nobility, his mother his referred to as ‘the Lady croft’ and his father ‘the Governor’. Not only are the Crofts a family of note, and the social superiors of the Birling’s, they are also businessmen, and in the same market. It is no wonder that he wants to impress Gerald and his family. Sheila is Gerald’s social inferior, and for this very reason the crofts may wish to marry better. “ I have an idea that your mother- lady Croft – while she doesn’t object to my girl – feels you might have done better for yourself socially.” This difference of class underlines the underlines the entire relationship, and manipulates the audience in to pondering the Birling’s own importance in society. After all, if they are mistreat their social inferiors, would it be possible for them to be treated in much the same way? Probably not, but it helps to add to the sense that the Birling’s are not invincible.
Gerald and Sheila seem the perfect couple, there is a good deal of friendly banter between them “Go on, Gerald – just you object!” this strengthens the audiences conviction that they are destined for a happy life. Further more, the love and respect they hold for each other is hard to doubt when the audience observes the obvious passion and contentment with each other the two express at the dinner table. Sheila- “ All right then, I’ll drink to you Gerald.” Gerald- (quietly) “ Thank you. And I drink to you – and hope I can make you as happy as you deserve to be.” These original views on the relationship, held by the audience, emphasises the complete lack of trust and understanding in their relationship, as well as the unfaithfulness displayed by Gerald, and the childish, cruel behaviour that Sheila admits to.
So we know that Gerald had a relationship with Eva Smith, a woman at the other end of the social scale, and a girl he hardly knew. That is by no means the worst of it; he was engaged to Sheila at the time. The fiend! It is made all too easy for the audience to revel in their dislike of the revelations made by Gerald croft, and the majority of them must have felt some kind of sympathy for Sheila, who has been cheated of a happy life. It is important to note that if Sheila hadn’t had Eva sacked the relationship would never have taken place, and Eva would still be alive. By no means does this excuse Gerald for his actions, but it does mean that we have to look at the entire incident again, from Gerald’s perspective. While Sheila viciously, and for no real reason had Eva removed from her new, safer and probably higher paying job, all Gerald did was help her get back on her feet, and make realise that some people in the world did care. Unfortunately, he got too heavily involved, found himself in a sexual relationship with Eva, and backed away, disproving his own argument, and leaving her once more in the gutter.
Neither Gerald or Eva loved the other, but both had come to each other in a time of uncertainty and worry. If Gerald were guilty of a sin it would have to be covetousness. He could not control his baser emotions, and because of that, a young girl slid even closer to the bottom of the dark, deep pit of despair.
Although Gerald is a member of the younger generation he stand out because at the very end of the play he sides with Mr and Mrs Birling, as opposed to Eric and Sheila. Why he does so is at first quite hard to understand, but his actions alone directly hurt another member of the group, his fiancé, Sheila. And maybe it is because of this that he sides with the parents, because he doesn’t want all that the inspector has said to be true. Not because he is an arrogant snob, but because he hopes, rather irrationally, that if her death isn’t true, he is not responsible for any problem he has caused. All human beings sometimes find it hard to accept criticism and responsibility, and Gerald is no different. In a way, his reaction forces the audience back to the political message Priestley is putting across, that those in a position of power and privilege must accept responsibility for their actions, and for the state of those ‘below’ them on the social scale.
Sybil Birling is the mother of Eric and Sheila Birling, as well as the wife of Arthur Birling. From the outset of the play she is depicted as a rather conservative, traditional, and arrogant old woman. I’m not sure why you get the impression that she is particularly old; certainly, it has always been there. Maybe it is because she is unwilling to accept change in any shape or form. She is Mr Birlings social superior, and the audience may wonder why she ever married him, after all, she seems to make take offence at some of the things he does and says. Maybe they got married because they are so alike. Stubborn, ambitious, arrogant, possessive and idiotic. Certainly, she does nothing in the play to shatter this assessment, and it is one quite easily made.
Still I can’t help feeling that there is more to Mrs Birling than meets the eye. Although she is no less of a snob I believe that deep down she has a loving, caring heart, and that she has been deeply disappointed by life. She shows all the usual signs of a possessive mother, the first being that she seems unwilling to accept that her children have grown up, and that they are capable of looking after themselves, and getting themselves into serious trouble that they are to blame for. “ So you ought, darling. It’s a lovely ring. Be careful with it.” Be careful with it! Such a remark sounds unusually similar to the kind of warning a mother might give her young child, as he or she rushes of to play with a new toy. In Mrs Birlings mind, her daughter, who is soon to be married, is still a child. A child that needs protecting from a cruel world. If Sheila is just a little girl, how much more so is Eric simply a little boy? A boy that can do no wrong in his mother’s eyes, and who cannot possibly be held responsible for his own actions. Inspector- “ Isn’t he used to drinking?” Mrs B- “no, of course not. He’s only a boy.” Her attitude is quite scary, considering that she professes to now a great deal about family cases, and the problems of “her sought.” Could it be that Mrs Birling is so foolish, or is she simply trying to protect herself from the simple truth, that her son is an alcoholic, who likes to fraternize with lower class women of disrepute? Although, whatever she thinks, Eva was by no means such a woman. If Mrs Birling is guilty of sin, then she is guilty of pride and anger. Pride because of her station in life, and anger because the authority and respect that station grants her is being undermined and questioned.
So what of Eric? What part does he have to play in this, and what does he represent in Priestleys mind? Eric is a hard character to place; sometimes he displays courage, and other times immaturity and weakness. He is a young man of extremes, clearly unsatisfied with his life and the world around him. Yet, despite the fact he is quite lazy, despite the fact he shows a complete disregard for politeness and good behaviour, he seems to have some very strong moral beliefs, and is almost the complete opposite of Mr Birling. The most obvious example of this is in the First Act, when Birling irritably explains to the Inspector why, in his mind, he has done nothing wrong. Birling- “ It’s a free country, I told them.” Eric- “ it isn’t if you can’t go and work somewhere else.” But why is he in such opposition to his father, is it because he is a mild socialist, unlikely for a boy of his class, or is it because it gives him the opportunity to proof to himself and his Father that he can stand up for himself. Mr Birling has a very domineering personality, and for someone like Eric, who wants to be something more than he is, who wants respect and recognition from his father, standing up to him is the best course of action. I don’t think that Eric is naturally a weak man; I believe a foolish and unkind father has crushed his spirit.
When I finished reading the play, I found myself wondering what Eric would do next, would he retreat within himself once more, hiding behind the bottle and the bar? Or would he seize control of his own life, take back his responsibility, and prove himself to be a better man than his father? Once more, Priestley throws the idea of responsibility in our face. Once more, a Birling has not had the chance to fully develop, because that Birling has not been given the opportunity. In a way this reflects the situation all the Eva Smiths in the world are in. They can make so much of themselves, if others help them, give them a decent education, and build in them a sense of confidence and self-appreciation. Think of ‘My Fair Lady’ a common girl, who has spent her entire life supporting a drunkard of a father, manages to pass herself off as a Duchess, because she is educated and supported by a social superior.
The Inspector, what a character to have to analyse! Usually, when looking at a character you already know the basics. You know a little of the characters background, of the characters life. Most importantly you know who and what the character is. When it comes to Inspector Goole we have no such luxuries. If we are to discover the origins behind the Inspector, we must look at the text, find clues to his purpose. Only when you know what someone is trying to achieve can you truly understand him or her.
So what is the Inspector not? For a start he is not an Inspector, neither, we must assume has he been working in collaboration with any other party, at least not one hoping to gain from this incident (such as a competitor or old enemy.) If he is not an Inspector what could he be? Is he a man? If so, where does his information come from, after all, he knows so much, and Priestley suggests, in the last scene, that Eva has only just been discovered dead. How could he have knowledge of her death prior to the event? If human, it would mean that he would either have had to have talked to her at great length before her death, and decided to scare them all into repentance, or he would have had to be a member of some mysterious cult or sect, determined to change peoples attitude to life and the world. If he is not human then what can he be? A devil sent to scare the living? Unlikely. An Angel, sent by god to try and change the evil and uncaring ways of humanity? It would make sense, after all, in the play, the second he enters the room the light intensifies, maybe that is as much to do with the Inspectors holiness and intent as it is to do with the dispelling of the comfortable, cosy atmosphere. Further more, in the film version, screen play by priestly himself, the Inspector disappears, simply vanishes, that would imply, very unsubtly, something supernatural. But if this is the case, why is it the case? What purpose does this serve Priestley in getting the message across? Is he trying to appeal to people’s spiritual selves, associating his political ideas with the will of God, and condemning capitalism as the work of the Devil? Or is he simply trying to avoid the possibility that someone might see a subjective motive in the Inspectors actions? A bias that would bring Priestleys message into disrepute? After all, if the Inspector is a messenger of God, he cannot be the messenger of Priestley, can he?
Eva Smith is a central character, despite the fact the audience never see her or hear her (in the Staged version anyway.) in a way, she and the inspector are the most important characters, after all, the entire play is based around her and her sufferings. The fact that the audience never see her only enforces the sense of tragedy with which they view the play. They feel for her, empathize with her and her terrible experiences. This makes it a lot easier for Priestley to turn the audience against the Birlings, who have ended this fine life.
In some ways ‘An Inspector Calls’ can be compared to a medieval morality play. Everyone in the play, with the exceptions of the inspector and the maid, exemplifies one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins, sins that reflected the evils of the day. Sheila is guilty of jealousy.
It has been suggested that Eva was not actually dead at the time the inspector interrogated the family; in fact, some say that whether or not she died depended on the Birling’s repentance or lack of repentance. This would make the Inspector some kind of spirit for good, and ironically, the Birling family the real ghouls, living off the flesh of the workers and the poor. This theory makes sense, as it enforces Priestley’s own social message, that the rich in this world have a responsibility, and if they neglect that responsibility, choosing instead to focus on their rights, then others will suffer.
Priestley uses language to its full extent, he knows how to make an audience feel for a character, he knows how to build up suspense, until the audience is sitting on the edge of their seats, scared to watch on, but determined to nonetheless. Priestley understands how a detective story or Whodunit should be written, and strangely enough, even though there is no murder in ‘An Inspector Calls’ he wrote his play in much the same way. Maybe he is trying to make the point that although an action may not be a crime it does not make it write. In 1945/46 the world was full of such moral dilemmas, the world is full of them now. For example, should a parent hit his or her child, simply because it is not against the law. Priestley is once again trying to get his message of social responsibility across; we have a moral culpability for any action that hurts another. In the same way that it is accepted we have a moral culpability for those things we do that help others. ‘ An Inspector Calls’ is the best example of a well-made play I have ever come across, everything fits together, and everything has a meaning. Not just the words, but also the stage direction, the scenery, a lot of thought has gone into the precise detail of this play. I think that Priestley understood that if he didn’t go into such detail the complex message he is trying to impart would not have been picked up by so many, as it was a message relevant for his time, but a much disputed one.
