I intend to assess Priestley’s purpose in great detail offering my opinions, as to his intentions. I will investigate reasons which would explain the inspector’s abnormality and if there is any relation between ‘Goole‘ and ‘Ghoul’ and that he was there as a supernatural being to allow the family to see the errors of their ways.
During act one, the inspector makes it clear to the Birling family and to Mr. Croft that he is in control, and that he can corrode their lies. Mr. Birling is pompous and voices his opinions clearly to reinitiate the authority, he does not get very far however because the inspector refuses to be intimidated by him. He does not wish to hear about Mr. Birling’s role as “Mayor” two years previously and that he has “friends in high places”, including the ‘inspector’s’ chief constable, “perhaps I ought to warn you that he’s a friend of mine, and that I see him fairly frequently”. However, the inspector concentrates solely on his cross-examination. Tempers fray as the inspector delves into the past of Mr. Birling; he obviously cannot believe that he should be responsible for the girl’s death “I’ve half a mind to report you”. This attitude changes somewhat towards the end of act one as he becomes more apprehensive of the inspector and his actions, an example being when Mr. Birling refuses to have his daughter interrogated by the obnoxious Inspector, Sheila wishes to help the inspector and tell of her encounter with the girl. Sheila, being the intelligent and independent sibling, is the only Birling family member who, at this time takes the valuable lesson which the inspector gives them to heart, expressing her sadness and genuine remorse throughout the life and attitude changing incident. Once Mr. Birling is informed that it is not only an investigation surrounding him but one of the other members of the family as well he is less reluctant to argue however as he sees the focus of attention diverted from himself.
Act Two begins where act one drew to a close; the inspector does not take long to establish Gerald’s involvement, at this point there is no need to show him the photograph for as soon as the name ‘Daisy Renton’ is mention the atmosphere between Gerald and Sheila is that of regret and betrayal; tension mounts and the two exit the room and discuss the movements of Gerald during the spring of the year previously. Gerald touches a nerve as he comments, “Now listen, darling –“; he does not wish Sheila to acknowledge the affaire. Sheila is quick to reply “No, That’s no use. You not only knew her but you knew her very well. Otherwise, you wouldn’t look so guilty about it. When did you first get to know her?” It becomes apparent that Sheila no longer wishes to continue their engagement; she is inquisitive and asks questions. The inspector subsequently begins to piece together the life of Eva Smith between the times of her exit from Milwards and that night in the infirmary. Sheila tries to warn her mother about the consequences of not cooperating or saying too much in her defence. Mrs. Birling is over-confident and ignorant towards the inspectors knowledge of the sequence of events. Mrs. Birling proves mostly confident and arrogant when preaching; “I’m talking to the inspector now, if you don’t mind. I realise that you may have to conduct some sort of inquiry, but I must say that so far you seem to be conducting it in a rather peculiar and offensive manner. You know that my husband was Lord Mayor only two years ago and that he’s still a magistrate –“.
Act three is the final act and is the last line of inquiry. The inspector is very much aware that Eric is an alcoholic and overrules Mr. Birling when Eric takes a drink. The manner in which the inspector obtains Eric’s story is unusual in that the inspector does not question Eric but allows the Birling family to do that for him; Inspector; “he needs a drink now, just to see him through” Mr. Birling then ushers his son along simply to get the family’s ordeal over and done with “All right go on I understand a lot of things now I didn’t understand before”. Now Eric tells his story: He met Eva Smith in the Palace bar and when he was a little ‘squiffy’, he compelled her to take him into her lodging. After this evening he sometimes met her and when she told him about the baby, Eric wanted to give her money, which he had stolen from his father’s office but she didn’t want to receive it. The inspector makes a comment relating to the family “adjusting their relationships” after he has gone. He then exits with the key speech “One Eva Smith has gone-but there are millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their sufferings and a chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think an say and do. We do not live alone. We are all members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught in it fire and blood and anguish. Good night.” The last speech is left engraved in the minds as well as hearts of Eric and Sheila along with the audience, whereas Mr and Mrs. Birling are left untouched by the message and laugh at the thought of the hoax investigation. After the inspector has left the house, Mr. Birling makes Gerald responsible that he cannot get a knighthood now. Also Mrs. Birling looks at all these things from the social point of
view. This prophetic speech allows the audience to fully appreciate Priestley’s perspective on life and enables the Inspector to conclude his opinions through a threatening yet subtle way.
The inspector’s abnormality is once again aroused when the phone call relating to a girl’s death at the infirmary occurs. The inspector’s line of enquiry is unusual as he only shows the photograph “to one person at a time”; this could cast a shadow as to the authenticity of Goole as people subconsciously will analyse this and question whether the photograph was actually the same one or whether it was a series of different photographs. In my opinion, Priestley was trying to articulate that it didn’t matter who was in the photo because they all admitted to harming at least one person’s life throughout the last two years.
I assume that the Birling family also questions this upon the arrival of Gerald who confirms that the inspector was a fake. The inspector uses emotive language such as “great agony” and ”she had been very pretty”. This is because Priestley wants to purvey just how much pain, mentally or physically, you can put a person through by just one small encounter with them in your life. The inspector is very authoritative and seems to know a lot about the young girl’s life and yet the family do not think to question him. His questions are well thought out, almost as if he had repeated them several times over and this was the impact on which the family acted. The inspector has the power to cut down to the bone, kill the nerves, unsteady and chill the other characters. He also shows his authority through his ability to interrupt and shorten Mr. Birling’s speeches. For example Mr. Birling gives long lectures such as “the world is developing so fast…” and yet towards the exit of the inspector Mr. Birling is reduced to an average eight words. A good example of the inspector’s authority over Birling is evident when Birling states: “I don’t want any of that talk from you the inspector simply cuts in with “I don’t want any of it from either of you”. The inspector upon stating his intentions, dictates all of the events and characters on the stage.
Dramatic irony is shrewdly utilised throughout the play. It is simply a term to provide anguish and tension, it also provides a sense of humour. In my opinion the humorous aspect is one that should be studied in great detail. The amusement from the audience’s point of view comes from certain comments made by Mr. Birling and Mr. Croft. I mentioned earlier on in my essay that Mr. Birling was arrogant, arrogant in his opinions making comments such as ‘the Titanic is unsinkable’ little did he know that it was to sink on it’s maiden voyage. He also commented ‘there will be peace and prosperity and rapid progress everywhere’; this emphasises that he was oblivious to the obvious warning signs to each of the downfalls. A vast amount of the opening to the play is made up of past events such as the sinking of the Titanic and the two World Wars, this automatically gives the audience the impression that Mr. Birling does not have a clear vision of the future no does he know what he is talking about and that he clearly is in no position to be a social icon for the audience.
Mr. Birling is surely quite confident that he shall be in the new years honours list. He bases this concept on; “I was Lord Mayor two years ago when royalty visited” and “I have always been regarded as a sound useful party man”. Does this imply a slight weakness for a gathering of men and women to engage in conversation, drink and be merry, or that he allows himself to be bribed into voting a party into government? Throughout the play this question is never explored or answered in any way. Therefore I would be tempted to suggest that he could easily be bribed-this is possibly where some of his ‘money solves everything’ views come from.
During Birling’s speeches surrounding “every man should look after himself and his own”, the inspector enters and disturbs the contempt and celebratory atmosphere. Immediately Mr. Birling assumes that he needs help to receive a warrant of some kind. However this is not the case once Mr. Birling is made aware that he is to be questioned, he instantaneously begins to usher along the unpleasantness of it all, “yes, yes. Horrid business. But I don’t understand why you should come here, Inspector –“ this clearly show that Birling wants the ordeal over and done with as soon as humanly possible.
Priestley used the inspector as a mouthpiece for his own views. He was a crucial character and the play revolved around key moments and speeches given by him. I believe that the inspector was partially created not only to voice Priestley’s view but also to support Ouspensky’s theory. Ouspensky was a philosopher who believed that you relived your life, over and over again each time making fewer mistakes than the time before. You kept on reliving your life until you were the perfect person. Priestley’s interpretations of capitalism and socialism allows the audience to see the benefits of socialism and the flaws of capitalism, he also gives the audience a chance to decide and reflect on their own views. He also states that hope lies with the younger generation (as portrayed by Eric and Sheila Birling and Gerald Croft). However the conversation after the inspector leaves shows that Sheila and Eric are affected by the words of the inspector, but all of the younger generation cannot be changed and some will remain ignorant to each other’s needs.
The use of stage set and lighting is a dramatic effect used in nearly all productions. Conversely the outcome of Priestley’s elucidation was that the lights should begin a soft subtle shade and yet reflect on the family’s hearty celebration. Once the inspector enters the room the lights change to a harsh and bright yellow, this colour is mostly associated with cross-examination and a certain hardness and cold is felt by the audience towards the inspector who should so rudely interrupt the engagement party. Without the change of light the play would not captivate the audience’s attention or imagination. The use of only one set is a cleverly incorporated device in which it allows characters to exit from the room to go for air. When the characters leave for air those remaining in the room begin to realise and discover more and more about each other, for people
all in one family unit they must not talk or communicate as they are shocked by the behaviour of each other.
If I was questioned upon who is to blame for the young girl’s suicide my answer would almost certainly lead to Mrs. Birling. My main reason for thinking that Mrs. Birling is responsible for the death, is not only that she was the last step before Eva ended her life, but because in my eyes she was the most powerful one. Eva was at a time where she was most emotional and she must have been falling desperate as her life had progressed in a downward spiral ever since she lost her job fighting for what she believed in. however she ploughed through, determined to help herself instead of living off hand outs and pity. When she presented her case to Mrs. Birling she did not expect a miracle but did hope for a little help. When Mrs. Birling refused to help her, she must have felt like the whole of the Birling family was dead set against her. She had missed the last escape route to any sort of life improvement and felt that her campaign to live had failed and would be better off ending the turmoil there.
Mrs. Birling followed through her actions with no thought as to the consequences or to the extensive effects upon the young mother to be, which is morally worse. Then continued to dismiss her mistake after the ‘death’. For the stated reasons I feel that if anyone, she is the most to blame. I also consider that in the productions of “An Inspector Calls”, Mrs. Birling is portrayed as the ‘baddie’, who is disliked from the very beginning of the play, making them jump to their own conclusions about her personality and her possible involvement in the storyline, before the production has even gone underway.
In my opinion, I would strongly agree with, the theatre critic’s comment of “Priestley’s play is unusual in that a character, the inspector, could be said to direct the action of the play.” I realised that the inspector’s authority and integrity allows him to counteract Mr and Mrs. Birling’s beliefs but collaborate with Sheila and Eric Birling. By means of dividing the family’s loyalties he is able to show the audience how the capitalists exploited the country but also how the youth provide the necessary change in values for government and ultimately alter the running of the country. I believe that the inspector played on the minds of Sheila and Eric for the reason that they were young and vulnerable but this immature façade could just be a camouflage net to hide behind, or a sign of low self a steam, Sheila is continuously being told that she is a “hysterical young girl” by her mother, they were also more likely to take note of what he was saying because the girl was from their generation. They were able to think and open their thoughts to the feelings and actions of Eva Smith. The definite line drawn between the family leaves Gerald stuck in the middle and somewhat questioned as to where his priorities lie. For example, does he side with his love and future wife or does he side with his future in-laws for the sake of the business arrangement? Instead of making the difficult decision he stands his own ground
and agrees with the inspector on some counts but agrees with the capitalist couple in other cases.
The theatre critic was correct in stating that the inspector controls the action in the play. This is because he acts as the puppeteer who directs and rehearses his act until he has the perfect interrogating and intimidating effect. The inspector is the role model for the audience as he respects the views of the family but corrects and points out their faults and times at which they have faltered. People say that it is impossible to change a person’s beliefs or actions to suit themselves. The inspector does not prove that he has the power to change people but simply allows the characters and the audience to reflect and change themselves.
Therefore, to conclude, I agree that the theatre critic was correct and that the inspector does direct the action of the play to give a sense of authority and order during the investigation. However, I believe that if even a minor detail of the inspector’s character was altered in any way shape or form, the dramatisation of the harsh and hard hearted way in which the inspector voices his opinions and forces himself upon the characters’ minds, that the message would not be brought across in as successful manner. I think that Priestley was certain about the way in which the play was conducted and that is why he went into such detail about the mood and atmospheric changes throughout the play.