What Is The Significance Of The Inspector In An Inspector Calls?

What Is The Significance Of The Inspector Structurally, Thematically, Linguistically And Contextually In Priestley’s An Inspector Calls? How Could An Actor/Director Portray His Role Successfully On Stage?

John Priestly first wrote An Inspector Calls in 1945, although it was not performed in England until 1 October 1946. The New Theatre in London hosted the performance by the Old Vic Company. The play is the story of an upper class family, living in the comforts of pre-WWI Britain. As they finish their dinner, a mysterious police officer (known only as the Inspector) enters and questions the family about the suicide of a young woman, breaking them down and changing their moral opinions. The focus of the play is this journey that the family under go from ignorance to knowledge, brought on by the Inspector’s presence. This essay will explore how big a part of the plot the Inspector is and how he could be portrayed in a production successfully.

Arguably one of the most important traits of the Inspector is his use of language. He uses his choice of words to change the atmosphere, the mood of the characters and the pace of the conversation. When the Inspector enters at the beginning of the play, he appears in no rush to question the characters or even explain why he is there. This annoys Birling, as he is curious why this mysterious policeman is visiting:

BIRLING: Well, what can I do for you? Some trouble about a warrant?

INSPECTOR: No, Mr Birling.

BIRLING: (after a pause, with a touch of impatience) Well, what is it then?

The Inspector uses the family’s fascination to ensure that he is always listened to and is in control. He is the only character in the play at this time that knows the purpose of his visit, and this complete knowledge of the case runs throughout the play, and has different effects on different characters.

The Inspector feels that everyone should feel a sense of responsibility for each other. He disapproves of the family members’ attempts to distance themselves from the girl and displays this when talking to Mrs Birling: “She came to you for help, at a time when no women could have needed it more. And you not only refused it yourself but saw to it that others refused it to.” The Inspector is trying to evoke sympathy for the girl by not only stating facts but also adding extra, emotive details such as “ when no women could have needed it more”.

The Inspector also, through his actions and possibly supernatural ways, creates a presence that makes the other characters listen to him without question. It says that when he enters for the first time that he creates a sense of “massiveness” and “purposefulness”. The Inspector even manages to do things that would be judged as completely unacceptable by the Birlings if anyone else were to do it, such as interrupting the head of the household: INSPECTOR: (cutting in smoothly) Just a minute Mr Birling.” The Inspector’s calm and composure creates a sense of authority about him and uses his presence ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The character of the Inspector not only changes the direction of conversation when he wants to, but also changes the tempo of it according to the attitude of the person he is interviewing. For example, when he is questioning Sheila, the Inspector only lightly prompts her to tell her story:

INSPECTOR: (cutting in) Never mind about that. You can settle that between you afterwards. What happened?

Through this short open-ended question, the Inspector provokes Sheila to confess to using her influence to ensure Eva Smith lost her job. With someone more tightly lipped, such as Mrs Birling, the Inspector uses lots of short questions, as she is unwilling to give an account of events:

INSPECTOR: She appealed to your organisation for help?

MRS B: Yes.

INSPECTOR: Not as Eva Smith?

MRS B: No. Nor as Daisy Renton.

INSPECTOR: As what then?

MRS B: First she called herself Mrs Birling--

By changing the velocity of the exchange, the Inspector not only adapts his questions to the suspect but even possibly shock them into a confession. With Sheila the Inspector is supportive, maybe even sympathetic, towards her as she is clearly the most sensitive to the death. As Sheila is already showing remorse for her actions, the Inspector isn’t unnecessarily cruel to her, although he is still concrete on the fact that what Sheila did was wrong. With Mrs Birling however, she appears not to regret her conduct or even feel sorrow for the girl’s death. The Inspector therefore changes his approach accordingly, asking her short questions and trying to get her to empathise with Eva Smith. When this fails, the Inspector then reveals Eva’s deserting lover to be Eric. The shock of this revelation completely destroys Mrs Birling’s mental barrier between her and Eva.

Although the play is set in 1912, Priestley wrote it in 1945. The Inspector’s attitude is that of many of the population in 1940. Most people had been affected by, if not WWI, then WWII and families such as the Birlings would have lost their wealth because of these wars and would need to rely upon their community throughout the bombings and rationing.. In fact, the play probably would not have been such a success if it were released at the time that it is set as the upper class snobbery displayed by the Birlings was very much true to most families before the war.

At the beginning of the play, Mr Birling is narrow-minded in his view that the upper classes are better than the lower classes and that a man only need care about himself and his immediate family. The Inspector however, believes that everyone should feel a sense of responsibility for one another or be “taught it in fire and blood and anguish” and so the stage is literally set for the events, secrets and betrayal to unfold.

Structurally, the Inspector goes about his work systematically, only questioning one character at a time. This helps the audience to follow the drama of the play without too many distractions (characters not important to the scene suddenly giving a long speech etc). As the Inspector comes to the end of revealing how a certain character is tied in with the story, he changes from having short lines (questions) to large blocks of speech, which is always a conclusion of how the said family member’s deeds link them to Eva and a summary of what has been learnt so far. This means that the end of each act always ends with a dramatic revelation.

Throughout the play the Inspector is very much in control of where the conversation is headed and also who is allowed to speak and for how long. How much control he exercises over line length is shown simply by comparing how well structured and organised the lines are during the Inspector’s visit and after the he leaves. While the Inspector is present the composition of text is as mentioned earlier with the rest of the group listening and cutting in with the occasional comment. But as soon as the Inspector leaves, anarchy descends. It seems everyone has an opinion and the structure changes from short to long lines and back again accordingly, with the different characters constantly interrupting one another.

In terms of acting and directing the part of the Inspector in An Inspector Calls, I think that a sense of mystery should always surround the Inspector, just as it’s meant to. Also, the possibility that the Inspector isn’t human or has some form of supernatural ability is important, although it shouldn’t be over exaggerated. At the same time, the audience must also be aware that the Inspector may just be a very well informed hoaxer. No one watching the play should ever be more certain of who the Inspector is more than the characters. If someone is certain about the identity of him then the production company, the actor and director have failed. The audience must always be left guessing. At one point the Inspector should appear supernatural (an uncannily timed entrance for example), whilst at another appear completely human.

The 1954 film version of An Inspector Calls is, I think, a perfect example of how to portray the Inspector incorrectly. When the Inspector first enters in the film, he emerges out of a dark corner of the room, unannounced and unnoticed by everyone until he steps forward. This could be forgivable were it not for how he acts later on. The Inspector shows no human trait, besides appearance, about him, not even sympathy for Sheila and Eric, which I feel, is a key part of the character. The Inspector’s exit is worse: He is left sitting in an office with only one door, which Mr Birling is guarding. When Birling realises that girl hasn’t died, he bursts in, only to find an empty room and no visible escape route. This means the audience goes away with a sense of closure, happy in the knowledge that the Inspector was some form of inexplicable supernatural being, instead of a feeling of uncertainty that ensures that that person will think about it after the end of the play.

In conclusion, the character of the Inspector is the most important of them all, even if the main focus is not on him but on the family. Without the Inspector, the transformation of the family’s attitudes would not take place, and this is also true of the sense of mystery created by the Inspector’s presence. Without the Inspector, the family would not begin to understand the central message of the play; that in order to survive and prosper, people must work together and help each other, not isolate themselves.

By Adam Carter