A powerful technique used by J. B. Priestly is historically centred dramatic irony. The play was set in 1912, whereas it was released in 1945; a lot happened in those 33 years. The unsinkable ship had sunk, a revolution in union strikes had occurred and two cataclysmic world wars had taken place. The impact on the world was catastrophic: England was never the same. Social-economic separation had almost disintegrated; women were becoming more and more commensurate due to the war-effort and England’s population had begun to respect each other for their distinctive contribution to the country during times of agitation.
Mr Birling makes a triumphant speech in which he declares the eminence rise of England. At the beginning of the disquisition, he describes the world as “developing so fast that it’ll make war impossible.” However, we know that following events were antagonistically different. “Titanic – she sails next week … and unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable.” Is also a confliction to the true story due to its unfortunate colliding with an iceberg. Birling is confident in saying there will be no war in his near future, “let’s say in 1940 … by that time you’ll be living in a world that’ll have forgotten … all these silly little war scares.” He almost makes a mockery out of the possibility of a war. From 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945, two World Wars shook the foundations of the world we live in. Mr Birling was incorrect in his statements, not once, but on several occasions.
The play begins with a page of stage directions informing us of the setting and atmosphere as well as telling us small pieces of information about the characters. The set displayed to the audience is only the dining room with its prominent dining table centred in the middle of the room. This effect makes it appear that the world is centred around them. A thought that corresponds to the upper-class society’s obsession with their own self-importance.
The first line immediately notifies us of their social status, “a fairly large suburban house, belonging to a prosperous manufacturer.” I think Priestly has done this to make his audience already judge the family due to the stereotypical labels on their class. The room is described to have “good solid furniture of the period” which suggests the family takes great pride of their belongings. However, the word solid almost creates a sense of blandness, which could potentially reflect on the family’s relationship. This idea is continued on the following line, “The general effect is substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy and homelike.” I think this conveys the early message of ‘money doesn’t buy happiness’.
Priestly uses characters in a very unique way. He describes each of them extremely vaguely in the opening stage directions. However instead of long descriptions, he has designed the dialogue to inform the audience of the character’s personalities, appearances, emotions as well as their priorities and ambitions throughout the duration of the play.
I believe that each and every person in the world has a wide variety of sides to him or her; they will change this side by selecting a specification (appearance, emotion, tone of voice and attitude) that they think is best suited in any given mood, situation or location. I think that Priestly shares this belief and therefore, used the idea in An Inspector Calls by making each character very different to eachother. Our minds immediately label people (with adjectives, e.g. lazy, ambitious, shy, outgoing, boring, excitable, caring, self-obsessed etc.) by their actions and speech. But despite people’s prominent labels, they are still made up of a little bit of each potential adjective within them that can be unlocked in alternative circumstances. I believe that Priestly has selected one prominent label and turned them into a character in his play. However, he has also given each character a secondary label (sometimes a third label) that will appear when the character is in an unusual and unsettling situation, in order to show the audience that people have different sides to them.
Arthur Birling is the head of the household; or at least he likes to think he is. He is very confident and always showing off. He hates criticism and he’s obsessed with his social status; he will do almost anything to raise it. At the beginning of the play, the family are celebrating Sheila and Gerald’s engagement and Birling enjoys long passages of dialogue in which he makes triumphant speeches. Gerald belongs to a family who are substantially high on the social status ladder as well as his father being a rival company to Birling’s. Arthur uses this to his advantage, “we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together – for lower costs and higher prices.” He isn’t concerned with his daughter’s feelings; he is just trying to turn the engagement into a financial and social gain for himself.
When the Inspector first arrives, Birling offers him a drink to ensure no trouble will arise in his direction, “Have a glass of port – or a little whisky?” Like usual, he shows off about is previous titles to let the Inspector know who he’s dealing with, “I was an alderman for years – and Lord mayor two years ago – and I’m still on the Bench.” When the Inspector first mentions Eva Smith, Birling isn’t very co-operative and just sees her as one of many labourers for his business, “Oh – that’s it, is it? Well, we’ve several hundred young women there.” He furthers his ignorant attitude when the Inspector questions him further and begins to turn aggressive, “Rubbish! If you don’t come down sharply on some of these people they’d soon be asking for the earth.”
When it becomes clear that Birling is being accused of wrongdoing, he becomes increasingly impatient and arrogant. He tries to intimidate the Inspector by informing him of his friendship with the Colonel, “Perhaps I ought to warn you that he’s an old friend of mine, and that I see him fairly frequently.” However, when Birling finds out that the Inspector didn’t just want to see him, but wanted to question the whole family, he cools down and even becomes apologetic, “Well, of course, if I’d known that earlier, I wouldn’t have called you officious and talked about reporting you.” Once again, Birling shows the audience that he is more worried about himself than his family. However, when the Inspector begins pressuring Birling’s family, he shows us his caring side; the side of him that wants to protect his family, “Why the devil do you want to go upsetting the child like that?”
When evidence comes to the family’s knowledge that the whole thing could have been a hoax, Birling supports every theory that comes to light which shows he hasn’t done anything wrong, “Gerald’s dead right. He could have used a different photograph each time and we’d be none the wiser.” He acts as if nothing as happened; as far as he’s concerned, he hasn’t done anything wrong, “Well, here’s to us, Come on, Sheila, don’t look like that. All over now.” However, at the end of the play, when the phone rings again, he is shocked and almost petrified of whats to come, “He puts the telephone down slowly and looks in a panic-stricken fashion at the others”
I believe that when the real Inspector came to question him, he would act similar to the way he acted to Inspector Goole. This time however, he wouldn’t leak out any information that related him to this girl, and would of tried to persuade his family to keep their mouths closed also. Mr. Birling isn’t the nicest character. His obsession with himself and arrogant attitude are two key reasons why I do not like him.
Sheila is the person who nearly everybody likes. She is the silly, happy and cheerful one, who is caring to others, tends to get on with almost everyone and is over-enthusiastic, “Oh – it’s wonderful! Look – Mummy – isn’t it a beauty? Oh- darling.” But she also wants things to suit her needs and will therefore speak up when she really doesn’t like something that affects her in someway, “I’d hate you to know all about port – like one of these purple-faced old men.”
Sheila is the second character to be investigated. Unlike her father, she confesses her wrongdoing without any trouble. However, the information that is discovered during the Inspector’s questioning reveals a different side to Sheila: a not-so-nice side.
When Sheila saw Eva Smith giggling at her when she was trying on a dress that didn’t look perfect on her, she immediately assumed that one of the workers (Eva) was making fun of her for it. This time she acted like her father by using her social status to threaten the shop in order to get Eva Smith sacked. Although she acted uncanny during this event, she admits her wrongdoing and says she was jealous of the girl, “But she was very pretty and looked as if she could take care of herself.” When she realises she was wrong, she accepts the blame, “It’s the only time I’ve ever done anything like that, and I’ll never, never do it again to anybody.” When the family believe the whole thing could have been a hoax, she still understands that she did something bad, “And don’t let’s start dodging and pretending now.”
After the ending, when the ‘second’ police inspector arrives, I believe that Sheila would still confess to everything and admit that she was partly to blame for the death of Eva Smith. She has learnt from her mistakes and will always think twice about acting harshly when put into similar situations. The good things about her overcome the bad points. Therefore, the audience empathises for her when she is upset.
Priestly designs the structure of the play in clever way. When the Inspector first arrives, we only expect Mr. Birling is involved with the girl. However, when the attention is turned on Sheila, we begin to think there could be more than meets the eye to this death. During her confession, we get a big clue that Gerald could be involved due to his reaction to the name Daisy Renton, “(startled) What?” Later on, a hint is dropped by the Inspector that suggests Mrs. Birling’s involvement, “(gravely) We’ll see, Mrs Birling” We then learn – at the end of Mrs. Birling’s story – that Eric is involved, after more hints dropped by the Inspector. Slowly but surely, after clever hints left by Priestly – spoken by the Inspector - we learn that all four Birlings and Gerald are involved with Eva Smith. We are then left guessing the reactions of the characters when the play dramatically finishes with the phone call from the police.
In the play, An Inspector Calls, J.B. Priestly hides several ideas, which can be interpreted in different ways. The most important message is the idea of learning from your mistakes. All five characters did something, which affected somebody because of their jealousy, self-importance, arrogance or annoyance. Another vital message is discovered through Mr. Birling. Everybody does things for their own benefits sometimes, even if it does affect somebody else in a negative way. The way Priestly used Birling will make the audience think twice when they are making a decision that could affect people substantially. The play should hopefully give everyone a wake up call. Where people – such as Mr. Birling – just see ‘several hundred woman’ as just a figure, we have to remember that they all have feelings and are all trying to live a life.