In the play a number of themes are explored:
Lies: The characters in the play lie to each other, to the Inspector and to themselves. For example Mr Birling denies ever having met Eva Smith
Love: Several kinds of love are depicted in the play, for example the husband and wife love shown by the Birlings.
Pride and status: The play also shows how true it is that pride comes before a fall. Especially the false pride shown by some of the characters.
Responsibility: The play points out the need for a sense of personal responsibility for every member of the society. Responsibility not only for individual actions but also for the way our actions affect others (collective responsibility).
The Inspector’s role in the play is a crucial one as he appears in the play to disapprove of the Birlings capitalist views. His role is to play the narrator. When he isn’t piecing Eva’s life story together through questions, he is narrating the gaps in her life through lectures. Goole brings her splintered life together into one cohesive story. The Inspector is also the catalyst for the night; he keeps the flow of the play running, by his intense questioning and lectures.
The Inspector is not at all an ordinary Inspector because he gives himself a moral duty, which makes him behave in certain ways that an ordinary Inspector would not do. He is more concerned with right and wrong than with what is legal. He is a moralist. He sternly tells Birling, for example, “it’s better to ask for the earth (as a worker might do) than to take it (which Birling does)”. He has a peculiar habit of looking hard at the person he addresses before actually speaking which could suggest that he sees through the person he is addressing and knows their secrets before they even say anything. Example: when responding to Gerald’s question about him not being able to see the photograph the Inspector replies (coolly, looking hard at him) “there might be.” Which also tells us that he is very intimidating. He is not afraid to contradict and be rude to his social superiors, powerful and influential men like Birling. In fact the Inspector is threatening Mr Birling in his tone of voice and saying how he’s a suspect in Eva Smith’s suicide. This is shown in act 3 PG 51 when the Inspector says to Mr Birling “ she wanted twenty-five shillings a week instead of twenty-two and sixpence. You made her pay a heavy price for that. And now she’ll make you pay a heavier price still”.
It looks like the Inspector is lecturing the family rather then interrogating them. For example when (act 1) Mr Birling says that him firing Eva Smith has got nothing to do with her suicide the Inspector says “what happened to her then may have determined what happened to her afterwards, and what happened to her afterwards may have driven her to suicide. A chain of events”. Whereas a normal Inspector would just take notes and not say anything irrelevant to his job. The Inspector is single minded in pursuing his investigation. He contracts the development of events: who will speak; and when; who may or may not leave; who will or will not see the photograph partly because he recognises that “otherwise, there’s a muddle”(pg 12). Since the inspector is showing the photograph one at a time to the characters it gives an impression to the audience that he might be switching photos around. For example he might be showing Mr Birling one photo and Sheila might be shown a completely different photo. Which raises questions in the audiences’ minds and causes tension. The Inspector neither changes nor develops his character, he alone is certain of the facts. He speaks with great moral authority, cutting short, interrupting and challenging people. He controls the situation throughout. He does this a lot in Sheila and Eric’s cases. For example (act 2 pg 23) Sheila is telling her part of the story and Gerald says something the Inspector quickly cuts in and says “ never mind about you”. He doesn’t give anyone a chance to say anything about him because he forces each character to say what he wants him or her to say. Another example of his authorative behaviour is during his conversation with Mr Birling about Eva Smith.
Birling: They wanted the rates raised so that they could average about twenty-five shillings a week. I refused, of corse.
Inspector: (interrogative) Why?
Birling: (surprised) Did you say why?
This suggests that the Inspector is questioning the Birling’s integrity and honesty. The Birlings are respected in society and being questioned in such a manner by the inspector is a clear indication that the Inspector repudiates their status in society. Mr Birling tells the Inspector that he was about to receive a knight hood from the King but the Inspector is unaffected by his achievements and continues to question the Birling’s integrity.
At the end of the play when it was confirmed that a dead girl had been brought into the infirmary, this gives the Inspector supernatural characteristics, as he seems to have predicted her death. It looks like the Inspector was here to re-enact what was about to come in the future and to show how easily each one of the Birlings could be accused of the suicide of Eva Smith.
The Inspector makes judgements about the characters, which the Birlings feel is unusual in a police Inspector. He seems to be more concerned with what is right than what is wrong, something very unusual for a police Inspector to do. For example when he says “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”. The Inspector makes the characters confess to things that the Birling’s would prefer were undisclosed. The Inspector punishes each character in the way that suits each one of the Birling’s and Gerald. Birling fears for his family’s reputation (Birling to Inspector) “What do you mean by saying that? You talk as if we were responsible”; Sheila feels shame for her selfishness;(Sheila says) “…(to Gerald) at least I’m trying to tell the truth. I expect you’ve done things you’re ashamed of”. Gerald has his affair revealed in front of Sheila;” I’m sorry, Sheila. But it was all over and done with last summer…” says Gerald. Mrs Birling blames her own son without her even knowing who the father of Eva Smith’s baby was. “I blame the young man who was the father of the child” She has her illusions about the responsibility of her family shattered by Eric and Eric is revealed before his lenient parents as a spoilt and an incapable young man. In each case the punishment is a consequence of the Birling’s own behaviour. The Inspector does not bring punishments from outside but instead very cleverly makes the characters punish each other, that’s why he was very organised in his interactions with the characters. He interviews each character/characters when he thinks the time is most appropriate, for example when Sheila and Gerald are interviewed together by the Inspector (Sheila said to Gerald) “…You and I aren’t the same people who sat down down to dinner here.” The consequences were that the engagement between Sheila and Gerald broke as Sheila returned the engagement ring back to Gerald.
The Inspector is a strange character he behaves differently from a real Inspector and also from the Birling’s. He is a very mysterious figure, as we have no information as to who he is and where he came from. His character is more of a mystery than Eva Smith’s. The entrance and exits of the Inspector to the play are also mysterious and timely. He enters the play in the middle of Mr Birling's speech about “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself” and leaves the play just after Mr and Mrs Birling pretended nothing happened and then they suddenly got a phone call from the infirmary saying a girl named Eva Smith has died and a Inspector will be around shortly.
Unlike the other characters he has no history with Eva, as he had never met Eva before apart from the time when he visited her in the infirmary after her death. The Inspector doesn’t seem to be of this world, let alone of the Brumley police department. This is a strong possibility because the Inspector, not once touched anything solid. When asked for a drink (pg 11) he refused. You can tell that the Inspector is not a member of the police force because Mr Birling says he knows most of the officers in Brumley and when asked ‘ do you get on with the chief constable’ the Inspector replies ‘ I don’t see much of him.’ Which reinforces the prediction that he is not a real Inspector but a hoax? The Inspector is omniscience- he knows everything about the family’s involvement with the girl, before the Birlings reveal their secrets. He constantly repeats, “I haven’t much time” which could suggest that is some kind of spirit whose time on earth is running out.
When the Inspector first enters the play Priestley describes the Inspector in terms of ‘massiveness, solidity and purposefulness’ symbolising the fact that he is all over the place, he sees, hears and smells anything anywhere. It symbolises the fact that he is an unstoppable force within the play. Priestley's description of the Inspector when he enters the play is describing him in terms of a Super-being and as a reference to god. The Inspector’s name Goole, also has tremendous significance, it is a homonym. Ghoul, another form of the word, has exactly the same sound but its meaning carries a great effect on the play as a Ghoul is a demon that eats dead corpses which could suggest that he ate Eva Smith and could account for the fact that he (the Inspector) knows everything about Eva without ever meeting her. A Ghoul is “an evil spirit” to Birling and his upper class peers as he (Inspector) comes to confront their conscience.
The Inspector affects Sheila and Eric, the younger generation, more then any other characters because that’s what priestly wanted, he wanted to show us that the young generation should/are learning from their own and the mistakes their parents made. Whilst the older members of the family, Arthur and Sybil Birling and Gerald Croft, are to rigid to change and remain as pompous and superior as ever, the younger generation, Eric and Sheila Birling, realize and accept their part in the death of Eva Smith.
Mr Birling responding to the Inspectors question I’ve told you all I know and it doesn’t seem to me very important.”
And
Sheila reacting to the comments made by the Inspector “I know I’m to blame and I’m desperately sorry
Here you can compare the different thoughts and views each generation has of society within the same class. It shows that the world has changed since the Birlings were thought and bought up to consider themselves superior than others.
In act three Eric says “and I say the girl’s dead and we all helped to kill her- and that’s what matters.”
This is Priestley´s way of saying that it is up to the younger generation of society to change because older people are a lot more resistant and attached to their lifestyle.
Eric’s character is quite predictable. Before the Inspector arrives he seems to be interested in his father’s business and considers his advice into consideration. But later on when the Inspector Finds out about his affair with Eva Smith, he gets anxious and scared and goes out of the room because he did not want the reputation of his family shattered by him in front of the Inspector. When he comes to tell the Inspector everything he criticises everything his father says.
The Inspector picks on Eric and Sheila so that they can feel guilty. For example (pg 45) the Inspector says to Sheila “then the next time you imagine it just remember that this girl was going to have a child.” And when Eric wanted to know what happened to Eva smith after he left her (pg 55) the Inspector calmly said “ she went to your mothers committee for help” but “ your mother refused her help.” Then Eric says, “ then you killed her (to Mrs Birling).”
I think the Inspector was very successful in touching on the weak and emotional sides of Sheila and Eric.
Priestley from the very beginning of the play shows us that the young generation are very different to that of their parents and in fact criticise the way society is being run by their elders. The older characters are too rigid to change but the younger ones are able to see their faults and accept what they have done is wrong. Which gets the older generation very frustrated because the young ones are interfering in their superior world and this does not at all suit them. Sheila is clearly contradicting the opinion of her parents, which leads Mrs Birling to remark to the Inspector ”You seem to be making a great impression on the child•. The Inspector‘s response, that ”we often make an impression on the young ones.
Birling: … She was a lively good-looking girl-country-bred, I fancy-and she’d been working in one of our machine shops for over a year. A good worker too. In fact, the foreman told me he was ready to promote her into what we call a leading operator-head of a small group of girls…
Eric: … and I don’t see why she should have been sacked just because she’d a bit more spirit than others. You said yourself she was a good worker…
This shows that there is inner conflict going on, which I think is bought about by the Inspector, he deliberately bought inner-conflict into the play because he wanted to show us that the elite can be withdrawn from their position in society.
And when the Inspector says, “… you refused her even the pitiable little bit of organised charity you had in your power to grant her. Remember what you did” Eric replies,”(unhappily) My god-I’m not likely to forget”
When Birling says to the Inspector that if Eva Smith did not like working at his company she could ”go and work somewhere else - it‘s a free country• This view is undermined when Eric points out that ”it isn‘t if you can‘t work somewhere else•.
Sheila is a very emotional girl who values honesty and is the first character that realises her mistake “(bitterly) I know. I had her turned out of her job. I started it.”
When the Inspector gives one of his moral speeches”… if they’re weren’t, the factories and warehouses, these girls wouldn’t know where to look for cheap labour…” to which Sheila replies “But these girls aren’t cheap labour-they’re people.”
Sheila says to her family members “…stop these silly pretences…” and “(laughs rather hysterically) why-you fool- he knows. Of course he knows. And I hate to think how much he knows that we don’t know yet. You’ll see. You’ll see.
This is very strange behaviour from an upper class citizen. Sheila actually recognises that Eva Smith was a human being and should therefore be treated as one. This shows that within the upper class they’re also divisions in their society.
It might be Sheila’s guilty conscience that makes her side with the Inspector. She had Eva fired out of her last job out of jealousy and status in society. She has learnt from her mistakes and that is what the Inspectors purpose was in the play.
Finally we could say the Inspector serves as a dramatic voice for Priestley. Priestley criticised the ignorance of the rich and those capitalist and nationalists (like Birling) who believed in “lower costs and higher prices”. When the Inspector gives his final speech about social responsibility “ we are all members of one body; we are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, they will be taught in fire, blood and anguish. It is a message of mutual responsibility.
He is representing the voice of Priestley's socialist thoughts. In this final speech, he is speaking as much to the audience as to the characters on stage. It is in this speech that all the themes of the play are put together and can be understood clearly. His words here were a warning to the audience of 1945, not to repeat the selfish mistakes that led to the ‘ fire, blood and anguish’ of the two world wars and the years between them and that “we have to share something. If nothing else, well have to share our guilt,” Priestley believed in community and if we don’t work together the disaster is inevitable. Priestley’s main aim in the play was to show what would happen if we didn’t work together as a community. The play is there to highlight the problems caused with social stratifications in society.
Priestley also uses dramatic tension to show us the character of the Inspector.
Priestley uses the dramatic unities of time and place very well, this is achieved by the whole play taking place in that one location-the dining room and the events running incessantly throughout the play. This makes the audience think more about the play and questions are raised such as, are they being held as prisoners, even though Eric and Gerald leave they have to return.
To create suspense in the play Priestley leaves the Inspectors character a mystery as to who or what he (Inspector) is. One way he goes about, achieving this is by leaving cliffhangers at the end of each act. So the audience will go away still remembering and talking about the play. That is what Priestley wanted for people to remember and reflect instead of forgetting and ignoring. The best example that proves this is that of the ending of act 3 just after the Inspector had left the stage:
BIRLING (pointing to ERIC and SHEILA) now look at the pair of them – the famous younger generation who know it all. And they can’t even take a joke-
The telephone rings sharply. There is a moment’s complete silence. BIRLING goes to answer it.
Yes? . . . Mr Birling speaking . . . What? – here-
But obviously the other person has rung off. He puts the phone down slowly and looks in a panic-stricken fashion at the others.
That was the police. A girl has just died – on her way to the Infirmary – after swallowing some disinfectant. And a police inspector is on his way here – to ask some – questions-
As they stare guiltily and dumbfounded, the curtain falls.
As soon as the Inspector enters it must be clear to the audience that he represents the first description of him (Inspector) massiveness, solidity and purposefulness.’ The Inspector by contrast to his character is dressed in a “Plain darkish suit of the period.” He would stand within a distance from Mr Birling so that he could stare hard at him and have eye contact and he will also have freedom of movement. The Inspector’s function may also be highlighted by the use of lightening in a theatre. Priestley's stage directions say that,” the lightening should be pink and intimate until the Inspector arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder.” This suggests that the respectability of the family is going to be stripped away and their secrets will be exposed. The moral message of the play, which the Inspector delivers, can also be shown in the set on stage. In his stage directions Priestley says, “ Producers… would be well advised to dispense with an ordinary realistic set”
If I was to direct that scene I would have the Inspector standing at the opposite side of the room as Mr Birling, he would be dressed in casual but smart clothes, standing up straight looking hard at Mr Birling. When he speaks he will speak in a slow and polite way but I will have him emphasize some words by making him speak in a deeper voice. The effect I hope to achieve out of this is to tell the audience that the Inspector is very serious in his work and moral duty. He will speak in a slow way so that it can be clearly understood by the characters and audience. He will be polite because that’s what he was preaching at the Birlings. He will speak in a deeper voice to outline the main parts of his speeches, the themes of the play. When it comes to the moral message of the play I would have the spotlight on the Inspector the room will suddenly turn dark and he will be standing up facing towards the window and then he will deliver his message. When he has finished he will take one good look at the characters and storm out of the room.
Since the Birlings were worried about appearances, the way they dressed and how their house was decorated I would have set the Birling house with” good solid furniture of the period. The general effect is substantial and heavily comfortable but not cosy and homelike.” All the Birlings and Gerald are in evening dresses of the period, the men in tails and white ties and not dinner jackets. The women wear long formal dresses. The Inspector will wear a suit but he will not be concerned with appearance and status. The Inspector would sit on the chair facing the opposite direction of the door, and look hard at Mr Birling. When he stands he will stand facing the doorway about 2 inches away from whom he is speaking to. When he is speaking to Eric or Sheila he will stand near them and then speak. All the action will take in one room to create suspense and that way the audience too follow the play, its like they are witnesses and they cannot leave until they have witnessed the whole scene/action.
To sum up, from the play we can see that when Birling preaches his ”every man for himself• philosophy he is very assured that he is right. The Inspector‘s questioning manages to make him change his mind slightly although he is still sure of what he believes in.
In short, it could be said that the Inspector acted as the voice of Priestly, speaking out and making public the views of a socialist. When you see a group of people on the streets standing beside a table inviting you to take a read of their literature, the way some socialists do, or preaching their religious philosophical believes you hope to walk past them unnoticed. Priestly chose the best way to present his concern and believe. He used his philosophical and abstract ideas and a very powerful device at that time, which was the theatre, to convey and outline his message of proactive unity and how societies should be formed. He resourcefully used his experience and his talent as a playwright to make sure his message was heard and understood, by the right audience. One wonders to themselves, was Priestley introducing a new system of running a government, which was to find its basis from communism. He believed that a person’s wealth should be taken away from them and be shared (in communism it is rationed) so that every one is equal in wealth.
The moral of “An Inspector calls” is that no matter what class we are, we are all human beings and therefore we are all equal in our claim for Human rights. Priestley’s biggest message was collective responsibility and that we must work together. Priestley didn’t want all the suffering he and countless others went through in the war to be worthless. He wanted the social system to change and its people to be more responsible for their actions. Priestley wrote this play to make his audience, question their own character and beliefs. He wanted to show us that the claim for superiority could lead to unseen and unheard disasters.
Priestley wanted to get this moral across, he wanted us to learn from the mistakes of the Birlings and that we should not shift the blame on to others.
I think Priestley did get his message across but unfortunately we will always have to bear witness the exceptional people such as the Birlings who never change.