Priestly ends each act on a note of high drama. Write about the way he builds tension towards the end of each act, describe how he leaves the audience plenty to think about during the intervals and after the play has finished

Act two is continued from act one when the inspector says “well” the stage directions say that the inspector remains at the door for few moments looking at Sheila and Gerald, he then comes forward and repeats “well?” Again, the awkward silence heightens the tension, and the tension in this reaches its summit when Eric enters, after in interrogation of Gerald and Mrs Birling. I think that Priestly ends Act two intensely. By the end the Birling have now realised that Eric fathered Eva Smith’s baby and they wait for Eric’s return. The stage directions have a lot of dramatic impact on Eric’s entrances. The first part of the scene is almost in silence because the inspector has made everybody listen to the front door. The inspector’s stage directions have a lot of dramatic impact and tension in itself “Inspector holds up a hand” it seems to me that by the inspector holing up a hand, its as if he is saying “halt”, “stop talking” or “listen” without physically speaking. This shows the dramatic impact and tension of Priestly’s stage directions. The tension is heightened at the dramatic entrance of Eric. The next set of stage directions show Eric’s reaction, “Eric enters the room looking extremely pale and distressed he meets their inquiring stares”. This creates a tense mood because Eric comes across as a frightened schoolboy. It makes him look as if he is scared or worried. This also gives the audience an idea of what is going to happen next. When the curtain falls it leaves them on a cliffhanger like in the act two. We get a picture of an immensely tense and quiet room, Eric enters and everyone stops to look at him in silence while Eric is frozen wondering what is going on. The tension here is soaring and Priestly cleverly ended the act there with an interval. Priestly leaves the audience in anticipation waiting to see what will happen during the next scenes.

        In Act three it gets really intense just after the inspector has left the Birling’s, after his speech. I think that Priestly used the speech to cover all the main themes of the play. The inspectors final speech probably would have been one of the main things that Priestly wanted the audience to think about after the play, it is a very dramatic and powerful speech, mainly because of the use of language “If men will no learn this lesson they will be taught in fire, blood and anguish”. The inspector’s speech would have provoked much discussion amongst the audience because of the powerful language used and because the inspector leaved directly after speaking; which again is used to heighten the tension and give a dramatic impact. The most one of dramatic parts in act three

has got to be where the characters work out what or who the inspector is, whether he is a real police inspector or a hoax.

The Final denouement in Act three would be the phone at the end, announcing that a police inspector is on his way. This guarantees that the audience would leave after the play in a state of shock.

        Overall I think that Priestly has productively and skilfully used dramatic devices and specific stage directions to carefully structure how tension build gradually in the play.

Allison Mulimba