“ I made her go to Morgan Terrace because I was sorry for her, and didn’t like the idea of her going back to the Palace bar”.
However, Gerald soon had to tell her she had to leave. Marriage was out of the question as they were of completely different classes, Gerald, the son of a titled family, and Eva, a working class girl. He found the idea of marriage as immoral as he realised that he didn’t love her as much as she loved him. So he dropped Eva from the flat, stealing from her the experiences of what it was like to have been happy, and taking it from her, leaving her with a broken heart and nowhere to stay. She had been given a small amount of money for her to be able to live on until the end of the year. This money ran out and she was left alone again.
Eric, Arthur Birling’s son, was next to be a part of Eva’s life. Eric had met her at the Palace Bar. We hear of Eric’s drinking problems and at the time of meeting Eva he was already drunk. Eva had got a little drunk as the drinks had settled on an empty stomach. After walking her home, he forced his way into her lodging and the laws of today could have prosecuted him for rape.
“Afterwards she [Eva] told me she didn’t want me to go in, but that – well, I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty – and I threatened to make a row. And that’s when it happened”.
After that night, they had met again two weeks later, and another meeting after that Eva had told him that she was going to have his baby. Eric suggested marriage but Eva knew he didn’t love her and was against it. He had used money taken from his Father’s company to keep Eva and the baby, but soon after Eva began to refuse the money once she found out it had been stolen and didn’t want to see Eric again. Again, Eva was now alone. She was now expecting a baby, she had no income and was hungry and barely had enough money to keep her lodging.
The final person to worsen the girl’s life was Sybil Birling, wife of Arthur, Mother of Sheila and Eric. Mrs.Birling was on the committee of the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation and had refused to help Eva. Firstly because Eva had given the name ‘Mrs.Birling’, something Mrs.Birling had found extremely impudent.
“Firstly she called herself Mrs.Birling. I think it was simply a piece of gross impertinence – quite deliberate – and naturally that was one of the things that prejudiced me against her case”.
However, Eva had only given it as it was the surname of her baby’s father, and so wanted the organisation to think she was married. But Mrs.Birling broke Eva down and was shocked to find she was expecting an illegitimate child. She listened to Eva’s claims and found them preposterous and subsequently turned her down from the charity’s assistance. This was the last event that cast misery over Eva’s life, and so she felt she was left with nowhere to turn, no chances of hope, and with this, she decided to end her own life, along with her unborn child’s.
To conclude this part of my essay, after looking at each of the character’s actions with which aided the suicide of Eva Smith, I found that none was responsible directly. All of them were accountable for her death – however – they had all been acting within the law and so were not liable for charges. This gives rise to the issue- that if society of that era allowed the Birling’s, and Gerald, to mistreat a person in such a way to drive them to suicide, then it must be society itself that is responsible for Eva’s death.
The society of the early 20th Century played as a major theme within the play. Society was also revealed to have been the indirect result of Eva’s death. With this in mind, I would now like to look at what society was like in both the time it was set –1912 – and the time it was written – 1940. I shall also be commenting on why the society of 1940 felt it needed to change.
In 1912, England was a very class-conscious society; it was often the case that the wealthier class shunned the poorer class. The idea of Gerald marrying Eva was dismissed instantly; his upper class piers would have rejected him if he were to go through with such a marriage.
At this time, there was no legislation to protect workers from being sacked and so they were dismissed at will. Eva landed herself into the same situation, and when she was dropped from her job at Mr.Birling’s factory she descended into poverty. This was the case with a lot of people dismissed needlessly. The unemployed would be left with little references and so it was difficult for the to find new places of work. Those left in poverty would be reduced to relying on others, as there were no form of benefits and so those providing for unemployed relatives were unfairly drained of finances.
Those who rented out flats and other places were in no way protected from being evicted at any given time, and so, being given little time to organize a new place to live, a few ex-tenants may have to endure a rough life until they found somewhere new to live. Eva herself had almost landed herself into eviction. She had let Eric force himself upon her as to not create a disturbance.
At this time, there was no affordable health service and so that meant that only those belonging to the upper classes were able to afford medical treatment. Those that were unable to pay for the treatment they so desperately needed had to depend on the unreliable flow of charity money. Eva’s last resort was to turn to Mrs.Birling’s charity organisation but had been cruelly turned down in her final attempt to survive. This further draws on just how of an unjust and prejudice society 1912 was.
England was also very much a sexist society. Working class women like Eva lacked the education they needed in order to expand their career opportunities. The lucky people that did go through schools often had to leave at 11 or twelve years old, as any further education was rare and expensive.
However, by the 1940’s, although there was not a whole lot of change, there was certainly a real sense of consciousness of the need for change. Realisation was brought about very much by the First World War. Millions of civilians were involved in the war and many of them were employed to aid with artillery and this brought about the mass employment of women. Rationing, in particular, brought all classes to the same level, thus introducing the great sense of camaraderie. People were learning to live at the same standards, it brought about the great sense of sharing, something that civilians wanted to continue The rationing made those of higher classes realise the unjustness of those living in worse conditions.
Evacuation involved hundreds of thousands of children being transported to the countryside. Lots of people were shocked to see the state of some of the children; lice infested with no conception of manners, and this brought up the question of benefits to upgrade those living in terrible conditions. Maybe even texts such as ‘An Inspector Calls’ helped the situation by exposing how the poor lived.
The bombing of the country scared everyone but yet this gave people a very much-shared sense of fear and felt safer in the knowledge that they indeed were not alone. Such situations encouraged social-class integration.
The Cinemas began showing short reels of footage that showed people how those at camps such as Auschwitz were treated. This shocked many viewers as it showed the inescapably blatant cruelty that was shown from one to another.
And so, as the 1940’s progressed, society entered the Welfare State. This establishment served help and assistance to everyone living in England from birth to their death. Council estates were erected and tenants were provided with cash benefits if they were approved to do so.
Government legislation was passed over workers to protect their jobs and those who became unemployed were provided with unemployment benefits. Free medical treatment was available to everyone and it came in the form of the National
Health Service. It was compulsory for all children to go through both primary and secondary education and state schools meant that education was free. This opened up many career opportunities to better learned young people and meant that England ultimately became a wealthier country. Social class became less prominent and many lower class people were helped to become working class people.
If a point as important as this is to be brought about effectively, the play must be put across in a powerful way. Therefore, I would now like to comment on just how Priestley managed to make ‘An Inspector Calls’ such an intriguing and successful play. Priestley’s play has been on the stage many times and has been shown in theatres almost every year since it was written. He used the play in order to portray certain issues and he succeeded in making it dramatically effective at the same time. In this final section of my piece I will be suggesting how he does this.
The play interests the audience with its genre. ‘An Inspector Calls’ is mainly a police mystery, yet more so with its semantic field of the supernatural. This theme in particular helps keep us in suspense and constant curiosity. The supernatural and police mysteries have been incorporated into many plays, films and books. Using such themes proves to be very successful and they still remain to be immensely popular today. For example the timeless classics by Agatha Christie are widely successful and also films such as ‘The Others’ and ‘The Gift’ deal with supernatural themes.
Another feature Priestley uses to interest the audience is with the setting. The play is relatively modern for the time in which it was written and so the audience of the era could very easily relate to the way in which the Birlings lived. The Birling family live in a middle-class suburban house, and in the play we see them partaking in a pleasant and happy family situation. The way in which Priestley uses a familiar situation helps us identify with the family and thus makes the play much more accessible to us, that which is a vital for making the opening of a play.
The opening serves as an important function of the play. The play opens during a family gathering in celebration of Sheila and Gerald’s engagement. Priestley used the opening in a very effective manner by introducing the characters by showing them in an ordinary situation. Not only will this show the audience the characters in a happy and neutral temperament, it makes the play very easily accessible as the audience can quickly identify with a happy, family environment, and we can use this to relate to our on home lives.
Another function used by Priestley to retain the interest of the audience is the ending. As the play draws to a close, the fate of the Birlings’ swaps and changes as several twists are introduced shortly after the departure of Inspector Goole. After the Inspector leaves the family, they are left panic stricken and Mr.Birling worries about his reputation. I felt quite satisfied at the justice brought about for the death of Eva, and glad that the family’s cruel behaviour would eventually be exposed. But then, the family do some detective work of their own and conclude that the inspector was not an inspector at all, and when they ring the hospital it is confirmed that no girl actually died. After hearing this, we may feel even more gladdened for the Birlings’ sake- that they can carry on their normal lives- that everything is okay and they aren’t bad people after all. But after we have calmed down and finally come to terms that it was all a light hearted joke, another call comes in that informs Mr.Birling of the death of a young girl and the imminent call of an inspector. After learning this final and chilling twist, we may feel very empathetic towards the Birlings’ having to go through the scrutiny of the new inspector, to relive all of the events that they would so much prefer to forget. Priestley uses the ending very much as an emotional roller coaster, each twist heightening our interest, wanting us to carry on watching intently right up to the very last line when we are left wondering whether or not the Inspector was some supernatural form.
Priestley ensures a clear structure in order to prevent us getting confused and consequently losing interest in the play. The structure is surprisingly straightforward in areas where it could have been potentially confusing. The play rolls forward in a relatively chronological order to ensure that everyone in the audience knows what is happening from the beginning through till the end. The inspector interviews each of the characters in the order with which they encountered Eva. However, as the inspector comes to the enquiry of the last two characters, he unexpectedly turns to Mrs.Birling before Eric. Priestley swaps round the inquiries of these two characters intentionally that so we can use Mrs.Birling’s evidence to conclude that Eric was indeed the Father of Eva’s child. This grips us as we have just listened to Mrs.Birling landing Eric right in it, calling him ‘silly and wild’ and finally commenting with:
‘I blame the young man who was the father of the child. He should be made an example of. If the girl’s death is due to anybody, then it’s due to him’
Priestley uses such a rearranging to build up suspense, furthermore so we can figure that Eric brought about the girl’s death before the other characters guess. Moreover, we can anticipate the family’s reaction to the revelation and also we can experience how Mrs.Birling reacts to her son’s behaviour that we have just witnessed her deem shameful.
Priestley uses the mood in order to create an intriguing atmosphere. Throughout the play the writer cleverly switches the moods around in order to play with our emotions. The play starts off in a happy state – a joyous and celebratory occasion. Then the joy is destroyed by the arrival of the inspector. During the inspector’s visit, the mood dips between fear and surprise. However, Priestley keeps the feel of suspense strong and constant; the feeling of the increasing tension eventually explodes at the very end of the play when we discover the eerie visit of the inspector to be in fact a premonition of Eva Smith’s suicide. The end of the play leaves us with a lot to think about- puzzled and curious as to whom the inspector actually was.
Relationships and character pose as a great focal point in the play. In a way, Priestley tries to make each of the characters a certain way with which we can all seem to relate. For example, there is Sheila, the spoilt and jealous ‘daddy’s girl’ with whom used her Father’s status to excuse Eva from Milwards. Moreover, one might be able to relate to Mr.Birling’s financial fixation, or maybe Mrs.Birling’s superior attitude and power towards others. In this play there is someone with whom we can identify ourselves. We may be able to identify with age or gender; those of the older generation may be able to see themselves as either of the Birling parents, whereas the younger audience might empathise with Sheila and Eric. I think it was intriguing how we never actually saw Eva despite her having played a central role in the play. I think this is quite advantageous as the audience is left to picture their own poor victimised Eva.
The inspector seems very much believable at the beginning of the play, but after a while some of us may start to suspect that he might not be a genuine officer. Although his name only with hindsight poses an immediate suspicion, the name ‘Goole’ holds the same phonetics as the supernatural and malevolent spirit name ‘ghoul’ that may suggest that all along it was a spirit teaching the Birlings’ and Gerald a chilling lesson. The inspector in fact seems to know everything, whereas any normal inspection would involve ignorant probing at the suspects thought to be involved. Such strange and suspicious aspects of Inspector Goole evoke interest within the audience and make us intrigued with him. We may also notice after a while that Goole does not speak like an ordinary inspector at all, rather more like a priest, or a philosopher:
“But just remember this. One Eva Smith has gone- but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes, their fears. We don’t live alone, we are members of one body”
After such a philosophical speech, one might start to wonder whether this inspector is just enjoying teaching them a lesson on how to treat others.
Another aspect used by the playwright is the language. The language is modern English and therefore is very straightforward and simple to understand, maybe even makes it easier for us to relate to as it’s a familiar language to that of which we use today. However there is some old fashioned early 20th Century colloquial speech, for example, the term ‘squiffy’ as used by Eric with which he described himself when he had been drunk.
One of the more cleverly subtle techniques J.B Priestley used whilst writing his play was to have it set around thirty years apart from the current society in which he was living. Priestley subtly touched on the fact that, if all the characters were in fact acting within the law, then ultimately society was to blame for Eva’s suicide. This way, he was able to scrutinize the society of the 20th Century without leaving the audience feeling offended.
I have very much enjoyed seeing, reading and writing about J.B Priestley’s timeless classic ‘An Inspector Calls’. It has been interesting to be able to look closely at all the hidden factors of how Priestley made the play so powerful and gripping.
