The gentleman whose engagement is being celebrated is Gerald Croft. Gerald is the son of a big rival of Arthur's, Sir George Croft. He is about thirty years old, older than Sheila so Mr and Mrs Croft treat him as more of an equal than her. We can see this by the way that Mr Birling confides in Gerald about his possible knighthood. He is well mannered and very self-confident but he too has moral flaws. Whether Inspector Goole was truthfully an inspector or not shouldn't have changed the fact that Gerald had committed a crime through his exploitation of Eva. Although he sets out with good intentions in the way that he saves Eva from Alderman Meggarty, his utilization of his social standing and economic power to use Eva is wrong. We can also see his lack of loyalty from the way he betrayed Sheila at such ease. The way that he begins the sequence of proceedings leading to the view that the inspector wasn't in fact an inspector shows that he acts on his suspicions. Gerald wasn't all bad though, he gave Eva more than any other character in the play and " had some affection for her and mad her happy for a time". He also didn't burden Eva with a child, as did Eric. He is much more concerned with legalities than moralities, as are Mr and Mrs Birling, in the way that he shares the business views of Mr Birling and feels Mr Birling's justification of the way he treated Eva is warranted. Gerald is also similar to Mr and Mrs Birling in his inability to change.
Sheila is a pretty girl in her early twenties and at the beginning she seems quite self-centred in the way that she loves the attention she is receiving because of her engagement. She appears to be shallow, taking her misfortune out on others by getting Eva sacked at Milwards because she smiled at the assistant and looked better in an outfit than Sheila did. She uses her position to bully the less fortunate, ordering the manager at Milwards, "if they don't get rid of that girl, I'd never go near the place again and I'd persuade mother to close our account with them." But, unlike Mr and Mrs Birling and Gerald, She is authentically sorry for her actions and doesn't share their moral faults. She has the potential to change. She shows this potential by the way she accepts that Gerald has cheated on her and respects him for admitting it, she realises the importance of honesty and gives him the opportunity to change. Sheila realises "these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people" and the fact that she comprehends things like that is why she is a better person than her parents and Gerald. Sheila begins to understand the values the inspector is trying to preach and how they are more logical than her family's principles. She can therefore comprehend that her mother is "beginning all wrong" and that Mrs Birling should "stop - stop!" whereas no one else can grasp this essential point. Sheila may have began as a brat, but the fact that she, and Eric, is "more impressionable" enables her to understand that one needs to learn from past errors and change. It is this ability to change that separates her, and Eric, from the other characters.
Eric is Sheila's younger brother, Mr and Mrs Birling's son. He is a very awkward character who is "not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive" his father who doesn't confide in him about his possible knighthood obviously doesn't trust him, he tells Gerald instead. This is an example of Mr Birling's blatant lack of warmth or endorsement of Eric. Another example of this lack of warmth is where Eric describes his dad as not being "the kind of father a chap could go to when he's in trouble". Eric is immature and as a result is irresponsible with little social sense. He has a distinct lack of self-control represented by the way that he forces Eva to let him in to her lodgings. He drinks far too much and seems to get extremely violent under the influence of alcohol. The effects get worse as he drinks more and more, shown by the increase in rudeness towards his parents as he drinks more and more. If this is the case than he must have been very violent towards Eva as he "was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty". But Eric has good intentions, when he steals money it is for a good purpose not for him to keep. His actions may not be justified, but his intentions are certainly reasonable. He also realises that his father's values are wrong and has the courage to reject them. Since his actions had greater consequences than other characters he feels a larger sense of guilt. He has this shame for his actions, realises he is in the wrong showing his willingness to change.
An Inspector Calls has been interpreted in different ways in the plays set today. For example in the National Theatre production in 1992 the play begins with the sound of sirens and then children appearing from under the stage. This is done as the play was written during world war two, and was first produced just after the war. The sirens are a clear symbol of bombing and the children signify the people coming out of hiding. The children also symbolise the class divisions suggesting the real need for community. They start off outside the house while the Birlings are inside, but the play ends with the Birlings all outside and one of the children in the house signifying socialism defeating capitalism and the break down of the division of the classes by the inspector.
The house is similar to a dolls house, When the house is reopened at the end Mr and Mrs Birling and Gerald go back to the house whereas Eric and Sheila don't, this shows that these tow younger characters their lesson and represent Priestley’s message getting across. Mr and Mrs Birling and Gerald are willing to go back to their old ways and not alter, but Eric and Sheila change and aren't prepared to go back to their old ways. This also shows the separation of generations where the young go to the wings of the stage and at one point even the curtain separates them from each other. Their phone is the phone box outside. When the phone rings they thus have to go out into the streets to answer it. This is a brilliant affect by the producer showing their need to go out to the streets. There is one point when there are people on set staring at the Birlings as if accusing them showing the fact that what they have done is not looked upon kindly or fondly.
Moving on, when the inspector turns out to be a hoax this affects Arthur and Sheila in different ways. Arthur is all gleeful because this means that his reputation is safe and that the scandal wont get out into the public. Sheila on the other hand has a different view on the happenings that went on that day. Although the inspector was a hoax and the girl wasn't dead all the things that everyone did to her really happened. Sheila was trying to make everyone see that. She is really angry that her parents are just going to go on the way they always have and she says, "So nothing really happened. So there's nothing to be sorry for, nothing to learn. We can all go on behaving just as we did". Sheila doesn't like this and she lets them know how she feels. After this the family learn that a girl has just died after swallowing disinfectant and they all stare guiltily and dumbfounded at each other.
Priestley uses the inspector's constant interrogation in order to develop the plot. The fact that through this questioning the audience, as well as the characters in the play move from ignorance to knowledge proves the effectiveness of this interrogation. The plot is also developed by the fluidity of the action, and how everything fits into place. He uses the dramatic unities of time and place very successfully, this is achieved by the whole play-taking place in that one location - the dining room and the events running incessantly throughout the play. These are examples of how the principle of the detective story is used to develop the plot of the play. Another example is the mood changes that are so effective in "An Inspector Calls", the atmosphere is so happy and the future seems so positive at the beginning of the play with the celebration of Sheila's engagement to Gerald; the mood gradually becomes more dull with it hitting a climax as the inspector delivers his departure speech and very bad things are predicted for the future. The use of this convention to develop the plot is also evident through the fact that reality is combined with the uncertainty of the inspector's and Eva's identities, which is a common occurrence in detective stories.
In the play the audience themselves experience a very anticipating and exciting emotional ‘ride’, which affects the audience by making them more involved and implicated into the play. Priestly does this very cleverly in the as we shall see. Firstly, Priestly draws the end to the first act in a very dramatic fashion. It ends when Gerald has been found out that he has had some sort of relationship involving Eva Smith. It shows the beginning of Gerald being drawn into the play and being at the centre of attention. The play ends with Inspector walking in to the conversation between Sheila and Gerald. The Inspector ends with a short but powerful ending, ‘Well?’. This is a very dramatic ending, as it is only one word. It brings excitement into the audience and the audience now know the Gerald has now been fixed into confession. It is just then the curtains fall down, it is just then the audience start asking themselves questions of what is happening and what might happen. This adds up the ‘speed’ to the emotional ‘ride’ as such.
At the start of Act Two the inspector again says, ‘Well?’, and then there’s a pause, which brings much more excitement and tension to the audience. Priestley here has used a methodical structure, which has helped him bring this effect brings many emotions to the audience.
At the end of Act Two, the tension has risen dramatically as Priestley has added much more excitement and anticipation into the audience. The Inspector has worked it out that Eric was in a relationship with Eva Smith, also known to him as Daisy Renton. Near to the end of the scene Mrs Birling talks about how the man behind the pregnancy of Eva Smith should be punished and take full responsibility for his actions. Sheila has realised that this man is her brother, Mrs Birling’s ignorance goes to the level of blaming the entire death of Eva Smith of the father of the child - "I blame the young man. He should be made an example of. If the girl’s death is due to anybody, it’s due to him." Unbeknownst to her, is that the father of the child, is her own child. When she finally realises that she has condemned her own grandchild to death, she shows signs of weakening. The speed at which she recovers after the inspector’s departure, really show her complete and utter ignorance at what has happened.
The inspector, who already knows who the young man is, encouraging Mrs Birling to carry on. By doing this he keeps repeating questions (repeats words and phrases of Mrs Birling, encouraging her to expand on her views). Mrs Birling relishes these opportunities and of course develops her views on how the young man should be dealt with. It is when the Inspector says,’ I'm waiting…To do my duty,’ it has come the audience’s mind that Eric is the young man behind Eva Smith’s pregnancy. Mr and Mrs Birling are shocked with this news. Sheila at the end, who tried to stop her mother, says ‘I begged you and begged you to stop.’
It is at this point the Inspector hold up his hand and Eric enters the room. The ending is shocking, abrupt and it is almost like a cliffhanger. Now the curtains fall quickly and the audience wait for a response from Eric in the new act.
At the end of Act Three, Birling seems not to have taken any of the lessons of the evening to heart. The demise of Eva Smith and the part each member of his family played in her death have not shaken his belief that "a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own…" and that "there's every excuse for what… (he and Mrs Birling)… did." In fact, he is more concerned with his own reputation than with Eva. "…who here will suffer…more than I will?" He says things that should have been said to him, "you don't realise yet all you've done...you don't seem to care about anything", yet when he says these things, he is of course talking not about Eva Smith, but about his own reputation and an upcoming public scandal. The attitudes of Mr and Mrs Birling, and to an extent Gerald, and their willingness to explain away the events of the evening to hoaxes and artfully crafted deception, all go towards the final plot twist - the inspector is returning to teach the Birlings their lesson again. This ties in with the idea that if you don't learn the lesson the first time, you will be taught it again, through "fire and blood and anguish".
The message of the play was particularly effective to the audiences of 1946. Priestley knew that the message of his play would reach the war-weary audiences of the era more effectively than it would reach the audiences of a different time. The "fire and blood and anguish" reference to the First and Second World Wars would be very influential to the audience. The setting of the play in 1912 allowed for predictions to be made by both Birling and Inspector Goole. The intended effect of the predictions was to make the audience see a glimpse of the kind of person the predictive character is. In the case of Birling, the audience would see him as a character whose opinion is not to be trusted, whereas the predictions made by the Inspector chill the audience and make them see that the lesson he speaks of has been re-taught through fire and blood and anguish twice already. The audiences had experienced the horrors of war and were not eager to experience them again, so they may think that if they followed JB Priestley's message, they would prevent yet another world war.
The play was set in 1912, and being set at this time, there was not only the opportunity for predictions, but also for a more drastic look at the relationship between the rich and the poor. The class gap of 1912 was much larger than that of 1946, and so was more noticeable to the audiences. With the upper class, we have mentalities like that of Sybil Birling, who would seem to think that all members of the lower classes are beneath her and her family. She say to Birling "Arthur, you're not supposed to say such things," when he compliments the cook (the cook being a member of the lower classes). This shows that she believes that the lower classes are there to serve, not to be thanked or complimented. This is a strange viewpoint for a "prominent member of the Brumley Women's Charity Organisation". With the lower classes however, we have Eva Smith, a young woman who is shown as the innocent victim of the thoughtless actions of the Birlings. This contrast is one of many in the play, set up to show one side to be better than the other. The Inspector against Birling, Eva Smith against Sybil Birling, Sheila and Eric at the end of the play against Arthur and Sybil, they all show examples of what Priestley viewed as the Right way against the Wrong way. The way the latter parties in each contrast I have mentioned act in a way such as to cause the audience to see them as in the wrong, making the other party correct. The other parties have views similar to Priestley, so Priestley was trying to get his message of community and socialism across to the audience through the actions of the characters.
Another of Priestley's messages seems to be that there is hope for the future. On seeing how they have affected Eva Smith, both Sheila and Eric act remorsefully. The character of Sheila is fairly caring at the beginning of the play, but as events unravel, and Sheila realises her guilt, her character develops from a fairly naive young girlish character to a more mature, understanding character. This change is so dramatic that to compare the Sheila who at the end of the play has taken to heart the Inspectors lessons ("I remember what he said, how he looked, and what he made me feel. Fire and blood and anguish."), with the Sheila who had a young girl fired from her job because of her own personal paranoia and who acted so differently earlier, you would think they were different people. This is similar to a comparison made between the drunken, playful Eric of Act 1 with the sober serious Eric at the end of Act 3 who has learned that his own mother played a major role in driving the woman bearing his child to suicide.
The results of the Inspectors visit as regards the younger generation are total metamorphoses of character. The older generation however don't see that they have done anything wrong. Mr and Mrs Birling are all too happy to dismiss the evening’s events as false once the chance appears that the Inspector may not have been a police Inspector. Their characters stay the same virtually from beginning to end, with only the short amount of time between Eric's part in the saga becoming known and the Inspector showing any waver in their determination that they were right. The senior Birlings are the examples of the people who will be taught through "Fire and blood and anguish". This is very different to the younger generation. "You seem to have made a great impression on this child Inspector" comments Birling, and is answered with the statement "We often do on the young ones. They're more impressionable." This implies that Priestley is trying to say that there is potential for change in the "young ones" which is not as evident in the older generation.
The Inspector makes Priestley’s aims clear largely. As his interactions with the characters go, Inspector Goole is mysterious. He has a way of making the characters confess to him, and to themselves, their role in Eva Smiths demise. He links the separate accounts together to form an approximate biography of Eva Smith from when she left the employment of Mr Birling up until she commits suicide. Inspector Goole has another use though - he acts as a social conscience of sorts. He acts as the voice of Priestley in the play, or the voice of Priestley's socialist views. "We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other." He points out that "we have to share something. If nothing else, we'll have to share our guilt," and that "Public men Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges" to which Birling replies, "…you weren't asked here to talk to me about my responsibilities." Contrary to what Arthur Birling believes, it is a very likely that the Inspector was sent to the Birlings to teach them about responsibility.
The ending, as which has been already pointed out, symbolises the fact that if you do not learn your lesson the first time, you will be taught it again and again. It symbolises that you can't run from your conscience, as the Birlings will find out. Priestley uses the dramatic twist of the Inspector returning at the end of the play to emphasis this point, and makes it more effective by placing it just as the characters are beginning to relax. It serves to 'prick' the consciences of both the characters and the audience.
At the end of reading the play, I was left feeling as if I would like to think I had learned from the example of the Birlings and the message it contained. As it is a play though, I would have liked to see it acted out. The ending is well crafted, leaving an open ending to add to the dramatic effect, but looking at it differently, there is not really another way to have ended the play after that plot twist other than an open ending where it was without ruining the play itself. I think the majority of people who have seen this play would have liked to think of themselves as an Eric or a Sheila.
The aim of Priestley when he wrote this play, I believe, was to make us think, to make us question our own characters and beliefs. He wasted to show us that we can change, and we can decide which views we side with. He wanted us to ask ourselves if we wanted to be a Sheila, an Eric or an Arthur. Or, were we in-between like Gerald. Priestley wanted the audience to learn from the mistakes of the Birlings. I think that Priestley wanted to make a difference; not a world changing difference, but a small difference in the way people think. Then, if you think of every person who coming out of the play gave some money to a beggar in the street, you would see that Priestley did make a difference. It would have changed people’s views on society, however small those changes would be, and so Priestley achieved his aims in writing the play using different dramatic techniques to sustain the audience interest and attention.
