This isolation of the Birlings' house from the house in the background brings two ideas into play. Firstly, to perpetuate the Birlings' idea that their actions have no effect on anyone else: their privacy is important. They see themselves as superior and even though there are neighbours in proximity, the relative distance of the house reinforces the Birlings' feelings of self-importance. Secondly, the same house opens up the possibility that what is happening in the Birlings' home could also be being mirrored there and elsewhere, allowing the audience to formulate the abstract notion of the stage play reflecting a much wider sphere - that of society in general and the abuse of one class by another, more privileged one.
The performances of the actors, especially the major characters, was much more realistic than the setting. Stereotypical images of the various members of the family were very well put across. The reactions of Sheila and Eric, upon realisation of their parts in the downfall of Eva Smith, were that of guilt, shock and horror, and the representation of internal stresses was clear. However, it seemed that this was exclusive to those characters who allowed themselves to become aware of the situation in hand. Arthur and Sybil Birling, Gerald Croft and the Inspector gave rather larger-than-life performances: large gestures and outbursts of emotion. The actions of the Inspector himself were very definite and methodical. His removal of various items of apparel was quite comical to watch, but a little macabre. It felt as if, throughout the performance, Inspector Goole was aligning himself further and further away from the Birlings, and it was a little unsettling to see this process in action, performed with such solidity and relentlessness. It was also noted that Sheila and Eric Birling removed clothing, probably for the same reasons.
The costumes of most of the text-based characters, i.e. those characters whose presence is acknowledged in the text of the play, were set in the expected time period - 1912. Luxury and elegance plus richness of colour and texture were all used to equate the Birlings to their social standing. Mother and daughter, although both richly dressed, were contrasted in colour - Sheila in virginal white and Sybil in devilish, worldly red. Arthur and Eric Birling and Gerald Croft were the definitive gentlemen in traditional evening suits. However, in contrast, Inspector Goole and the shadowy, anonymous figures who appeared in the later stages of the play and the children who were present throughout the play were all in 1940's style clothing, possibly representing the time when the play was written. Concurring with this idea was the use of the more modern red telephone box, complete with 1945 telephone directory, which dominated the left hand side of the stage, all of which induced the impression of informed hindsight: what can we learn by looking to the past?.
The special effects and props employed in this production of An Inspector Calls were fairly spectacular, when considered in relation to the original text of the play. This did not detract from their effectiveness. When the house tilted forward and all the contents came spilling out and crashed to the floor, with flashes of light and sound effects, it did produce the desired interpretation of the Birlings' world 'falling about their ears', so to speak. Introducing elements such as this was very much in keeping with the rationale of an expressionistic production, but also spoke of commercialisation. It is logical to presume that such a 'gimmick' could only enhance the reputation and popularity of the play through public word-by-mouth advertising and given that the current location of An Inspector Calls is the West End, it can be questioned how far such details are included for the purposes of economic viability rather than artistic expression.
Various themes within the play linked together and began to strengthen. The house 'falling about their ears' reminded one of the 'Blitz', as did the blankets and the ghostly figures' costumes, the telephone box and so on, returning to the 1940's time scale. There was the sound of an air raid siren at the beginning of the play. All these images and abstractions deliver us into a whole series of connotations about the Second World War - the English family at war - the basis of the economy and the social structures and norms changing - all sections of society uniting against a common enemy. From these ideas it is possible to theorise that An Inspector Calls may have been written as a hope for the future, and also as a warning against going back to the old ways based on an exploitative hierarchical society. Unfortunately, a third time scale exists: that of the current audiences viewing the play from a 1996 perspective, having come through the war and seen things revert to much the same as they were in a lot of ways, yet still producing a minority of people with more humanitarian views. The 1996 audiences have come through the Conservative Thatcher era - a quote in the programme for the play demonstrates this perspective:
"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families" (Margaret Thatcher, Woman's Own, 31st October 1987)
The themes in An Inspector Calls, although written in the 1940's and based in 1912, are still, sadly, incredibly relevant in today's society. Even though we have evolved from those times, social indifference is still the predominant influence. Lessons could have been learned from the past and a new future should have been created. This has not happened, and it is beyond the scope of this analysis to determine the reasons why. It is sufficient to say that An Inspector Calls illuminates the problems and offers food for thought. Contrary to Margaret Thatcher's view of no such thing as society existing, An Inspector Calls is about all families and all individuals; this wider implication shows that it presents a microcosm of a multiplicity of societies.
Summarize the first act.
In act one we have the exposition: a rich businessman's daughter is going to marry a rich businessman's son and the Birlings are celebrating this engagement in quite a formal manner. In this moment a police inspector comes to investigate a suicide committed by a young girl. During the first act he finds out that this girl was employed in Mr Birling's company and then fired for trying to get more wages. The inspector behaves quite unusual when preventing Mr Birling's son and coming son-in-law from watching a photograph shown to Mr Birling. After finding out the circumstances of Mr Birling firing the girl he finds out that Sheila, Mr Birling's daughter, is also involved in the tragic story of Eva Smith because Sheila had forced another employer to fire Eva again for Eva's not being friendly enough.
Are the aims and methods of the Inspector those of the usual policemen ? Explain.
The aims and methods of the inspector are for sure not those of a usual policeman because a normal policeman would not investigate a suicide case for simply not having enough time for investigating such a thing which is obviously no crime. Investigating a suicide would just made sense if the police considered the suicide not to be voluntary. If that was the case the police would concentrate investigation on the direct circumstances of the suicide and not on the reasons and connections to other people. The second point is that a policeman would never be allowed to be so arrogant towards someone who cannot be guilty (in legal sense) of a crime as the inspector is. The third point which makes the inspector's behaviour unlikely to be usual is that a policeman would never assume that delinquents would make themselves responsible for a crime but they would try to do anything which could let them seem unresponsible for a crime. A fourth reason for my denying that is that a policeman would have to tell them their right of speaking with a lawyer before speaking with the police inspector in case of their possibly being accused of something. In general it is obvious that there is no reason for the assumption that the inspector's behaviour is normal.
Which of the two (the Inspector and Mr Birling) represents the author ? Explain.
I think the author represents the inspector. I think so because this is the only explanation for him writing such a drama. The author wants the reader to think about the responbility of people even if they aren't guilty in legal sense. He wants to make clear peoples' dependence on so called more important people and people with more influence. I also think he wants to accuse employees' social rights in Great Britain at the beginning of the 20th century. He does that by using a - for our today's view - small reason for having the employer Mr Birling discharge Eva Smith. The dependence on people with more influence is clearly shown by having Sheila just say one word to make the fashion shop owner discharge the so called Eva. With Gerald's affair with Sheila he shows the arrogance of rich people towards poor people and with Mrs Birling's denying Eva's trying to get welfare for having a baby makes clear the not existing moral in the upper class. All in one it just must be the inspector who is represented by the author. Otherwise the author wouldn't have written the drama if he had wanted to justify the Birling family's behaviour.
Which member of the Birling family changed his attitude the most as a result of the Inspector's visit ? Which person changed his attitude the least ? State the attitude at the beginning and at the end.
I think the member that changed his attitude the most is Sheila because she has turned from being quite arrogant to feeling as responsible as everyone in the Birling family should feel. She is already at the end of act I beginning to try to make clear to the others that they will accuse themselves but the others don't believe. On the other hand the members that changed their attitude the least are Mr and Mrs Birling - I don't know who changes his attitude the very least. But both Mr and Mrs Birling don't think about their behaviour after finding out that the inspector wasn't a real inspector. They believe to know that after that they needn't be worried about anything because the inspector's investigation can't be used against them in any case. Knowing that they can't be legally accused they don't even think about their moral responsibility. In the beginning all members of the family are quite arrogant towards the inspector and pretend not to know what the whole investigation has to do with them. During the investigation there develops a difference between Sheila and Eric on one hand and Mr and Mrs Birling on the other with Gerald standing between them with tendence towards the Birlings' position. Sheila and Eric feel morally responsible for their behaviour whereas the Birlings don't care about their moral responsibility after not being guilty or responsible in legal sense.
Does the discovery that the inspector wasn't a policeman make any difference to the Birlings ? to the reader ?
The discovery that the inspector wasn't a real policeman makes a big difference to Mr and Mrs Birling. They were just worrying about their position in society for the case that the inspector made public the results of his investigation. But at the end they have found out that the inspector isn't a policeman and that makes them indifferent towards the whole affair. They are glad not to be legally punishable for their behaviour towards Eva Smith and therefore do not care about any moral consequences they should care about. To Sheila and Gerald it makes a big difference because they have found out that there is not any trust between them any more after Gerald's confessing to having had an affair with the so called Eva Smith. For Eric it makes a big difference, too, because he knows that his parents who in any case hadn't trusted him very much now do not trust him any more at all. To the reader it does make no difference (if it made it would be a sign of a bad author unable to draw a lesson to his readers) that the inspector isn't a real inspector because the reader has seen the moral inconsequence and the consequences of moral scum like Mr and Mrs Birling. He now - in the 1910's that is for sure a very provoking thesis - knows that the high society isn't better than the poor people. The inspector was just the author's tool to make the Birlings' behaviour a bit logical.
Which person in the play best represents Priestley's view ? State that view.
I think the person who is representing Priestley's view best is Sheila because she says who the author seems to want to make clear to the reader: they are at least morally guilty for Eva Smith's death if not legally. Different from most of the other members of the family she understands her responsibility and does not try to make her innocent afterwards. She makes clear to the others that she has abused her position as a member of high society to make the fashion shop owner discharge Eva Smith. She tries to explain to the others that they are responsible, too. That is the author's intention and this is made obvious by Sheila.
