Aside from Priestley’s basic, but well executed and very noticeable, use of conflict to engage his audience - there are several other simple ways through which he adds to the power and emotional intensity of his drama, simply through effective use of language.
Firstly, Priestley makes great use of dramatic irony. This will always provide the audience with a different perspective than that of the characters, and should make the play more intriguing to watch. An Inspector Calls’ dramatic irony covers both the actual plot itself – for example Mrs Birling’s failure to realise that the man she is condemning is her own son – and takes into account real-world events, through Mr Birling’s unfortunate predictions of the future – very ironic to an audience that has already lived through these times. For example, ‘I say there isn’t a chance of war’ – a statement set two years before ‘The War To End All Wars’ began.
Secondly, a very ‘powerful’ factor is that Priestley has created a play that, at times, an audience might be shocked by. The Inspector’s frequent descriptions of the suffering and agony of Eva Smiths life – and the fact she was going to have a baby – are not pleasant to listen to. Neither is the simply uncaring attitude of Mr and Mrs Birling. Priestley involves us in his play through sheer horror. Linked to this is the fact that An Inspector Calls is an emotionally rich play - none of the characters manage to stay totally calm. Passionate, choking condemnations, like Eric’s; ‘you killed her – and the child she’d have had to – my child – your own grandchild – you killed them both – damn you, damn you-’ might also function well as a shock tactic. Furthermore, there is the simple fact that strong emotion on the part of the actors should also inspire strong emotion in an audience.
Another technique is simply the emotive language that Priestley has used. For example, The Inspector’s final speech is undeniably powerful. It is largely this way because of the language that has been used, aided of course by the actor’s dramatic skills. The speech contains many resonant words and images: ‘millions and millions and millions’ is a phrase used to drum home the concept of exactly how many people like Eva Smith there are in this world – whilst, ‘their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives’ paints an emphatically powerful picture of the Inspector’s (and Priestley’s) ideas of interdependence. Finally, the triad, ‘fire and blood and anguish,’ sounds a dire warning, containing very powerful, and resonant, phrases – whilst of course also being a metaphor for the First World War, and possibly also the Russian Revolution (which might be even more relevant as it involved the Russian peasantry rising up and taking their revenge upon their upper class rulers – playing on the classist theme of Priestley’s play.) Thus, because of these connotations, these words should be even more powerful for Priestley’s audiences, having an even greater effect on them as they would have lived through – and possibly fought in – the events themselves. This speech is also effective for the way it balances, and directly contradicts, Birling’s speech made just before the Inspector first arrives – perhaps symbolising how the situation has changed over the time the Inspector was investigating.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is Priestley’s typical use of suspense from the start. He brings us in explaining nothing; an audience will first wonder ‘why the celebration?’ Then, beneath the happy, contented outward appearance of the diners there are certain irregularities - hinting at problems undermining the simple engagement party. For example: ‘(Half serious, half playful) Yes – except for all last summer, when you never came near me…’ There are also Eric’s odd actions to be considered: ‘suddenly guffaws,’ ‘(Eagerly) Yes I remember – (But he checks himself.)’ Moreover, after these first ominous possibilities, the sudden arrival of the Inspector creates a whole host of new questions – most of which are painstaking unravelled throughout the rest of the play. In my opinion, Priestley’s use of suspense like this is very skilfully orchestrated to keep the audience engaged – and make them think. To add to this effect, he also makes frequent use of cliffhanger endings - for example: ‘The door slowly opens and the Inspector appears, looking steadily and searchingly at them’ - at the end of every act.
Furthermore, there is the simple fact that An Inspector Calls is intrinsically a ‘whodunit?’ And, as such, we want to know who was responsible for the death of Eva Smith – so we become engaged in the play, possibly think up our own theories, and make sure we follow it through to the end – in the hope that the mystery will be solved.
Finally, the very ambiguous way the play is ended is definitely thought-provoking. Yet another cliffhanger, it suddenly restores all the tension that the Birlings have just eased away from – after discovering that no girl had died and Goole was not a real police inspector. It leaves a whole range of possible explanations – but perhaps there is not meant to be an explanation? The ending seems to remove all sense of logic from the plot – and that it might be that the only way to interpret the play after this is as a metaphor – a didactic drama to portray social inequality. However, it seems to me that Priestley’s work will always be interpretable in many ways, particularly concerning the character of Inspector Goole.
At first, he seems to simply be a police inspector, although hints that he might be something more are there from the start – he is described as ‘disconcerting,’ and a ‘man of massiveness, solidarity and purposefulness.’ In my opinion, this statement could easily be an analogy for the ‘people united’ – a telltale sign of the true views of this ‘inspector,’ and perhaps an indication that he is more spiritual than real? This idea is backed up later in his investigations by the way he deals with the Birlings. He seems to be omniscient – indeed, Sheila remarks that ‘we never told him anything he didn’t already know’ – and he also seems remarkably good at controlling his inquiries; he ‘massively takes charge’ several times. There are also vaguely holy connotations in the sudden change to ‘brighter and harder’ lighting when the Inspector first walks in – driving away the pink intimacy of what was there before. It seems likely that the lighting change is meant to show how the Inspector seeks out and exposes all that is wrong with the family, removing the false sense of security and belief that everything is right – showing them reality. Or perhaps showing them their sins - it might be that is meant to be interpreted as ‘divine light.’ All in all, the nature of the Inspector can never be categorically pinned down; moreover it is thrown into even more confusion by the unfathomable ending. Is the Inspector merely a hoax? Near the end of the play he appears in a great hurry and stresses, ‘I haven’t much time.’ Does he know that the real inspector is shortly going to arrive? Alternatively, he could easily be spiritual – a ghost - the similarities between ‘Goole’ and ‘Ghoul’ point toward this possibility. He might also be the voice of God, of conscience or – most likely in my opinion – simply the voice of Priestley. Priestley may simply have created the Inspector as an uncertain, but critical, character - who is obviously of great moral integrity - as a mouthpiece to air his personal political views. (Priestley was brought up with socialist sympathies, had many socialist friends and helped set up the pro-socialist Common Wealth party in 1942.) Moreover, if the character could also be associated spiritually, with God, so much the better!
Critically, whatever the Inspector is – his views on responsibility (which I believe is the central theme of the play) and the interconnectedness of humanity are clear. He believes that everyone is responsible for each other. It is the impact of this belief on the various members of the Birling family that Priestley explores in his work, whilst on a different level it is merely an investigation into the death of a girl – Eva Smith.
Importantly, the investigations of the inspector – as well as looking into to the cause of Eva Smith’s suicide – also manages to dig out all the family tension and problems – and bring them to the surface, shattering the rose-tinted illusion of content, happy relationships. These rifts in family harmony are largely caused by the different effects the Inspector has on different members of the family. The two ‘children’ (although both are in their twenties, but are treated as children by their parents) seem to become persuaded by the Inspector’s views on responsibility – they know that they, their parents and Gerald have all done wrong, and they understand that they must change. Indeed, the Inspector himself states that ‘we often do [make a great impression] on the young ones.’ This is yet another unexplained statement that could mean almost anything. To continue, it is Sheila who becomes most attuned to the inspector - ‘looking at him wonderingly’ and attempting to explain him and what he does to the other members of her family. Moreover, for Sheila at least, the Inspector’s investigations enable her, to her shock, to find out what life is really like for the lower classes, and how employers like her father really treat them. As she exclaims: ‘They’re not cheap labour, they’re people!’ She and Eric also seem genuinely sorry for what they did to the girl.
By contrast, Mr and Mrs Birling are never really repentant for their parts in the destruction of Eva’s life, whilst the Inspector was still among them - and after he goes they quickly lose sight of the original purpose of the Inspector’s visit and turn instead to social and family matters. Eventually they manage to make light of the whole affair and truly seem to believe that his investigations meant nothing – Mr Birling dismissing him as a ‘Socialist or some sort of crank’ - much to the frustration of Sheila and Eric: ‘Its you two that are being childish, trying not to face the facts.’ Importantly, Mr and Mrs Birling provide characters for the audience to strongly dislike. They do not seem to care for the lives of people ‘beneath them’ at all – in fact, Mr Birling does not seem to care for anyone as much as he cares for his possible knighthood.
He might also be disliked because of his dramatically ironic statements at the start of the play. The sinking of the Titanic, the two world wars and the economic recession they caused – leading to the Great Depression – would probably all be sore points for an audience at that time, especially to hear someone disregard the likelihood of these events occurring in such a righteous way.
Indeed, An Inspector Calls would be particularly powerful and thought provoking for an audience seeing it at the time it first ran. By 1945, when the play was first performed – in Moscow - the world had altered hugely from the era the play was set – 1912. People would really be able to relate to what life used to be like in a way we cannot today. Firstly, since 1912, the two world wars had hugely reduced class distinctions - and the division of wealth between classes. For the same reason, women had earned a far more valued place in society – they were no longer either wives or ‘cheap labour.’ Importantly, in 1912, these rigid class and gender boundaries seemed to ensure that nothing would change, as Birling predicted. However, by 1945 there was a great desire for social change. Immediately after World War 2, Labour's Clement Attlee won a landslide victory over the Liberal Winston Churchill. I believe this change is actually represented in the play – through the way the general mood and, more importantly, through the way the attitudes of the younger generation of Birlings change. Interestingly, if – as Priestley states – Gerald and Shelia were in their early twenties in 1912, by 1945 they would be in their late 50s – and could really act as a symbol for comparable members of the audience to compare themselves, and their own changes, to. Consequently, all that had happened, and changed, since the time the play was set would have been thrown into sharp relief by An Inspector Calls, really making people think about how their world had advanced – and how, as Priestley wished, yet more could be done.
Today, I believe the play could still be effective and powerful – if perhaps not quite in the same way. In my opinion, rather than the play’s meaning referring to social injustice and a need to break down class barriers, today it could be interpreted internationally. A need to break down racial barriers, so that – in theory – everyone is responsible for everyone else, across the entire world.
In conclusion, I believe that Priestley very successfully makes An Inspector Calls a powerful and thought-provoking text, both through skilful use of several dramatic effects and also the way he brings in the context of the two eras – 1912, when the play was set and 1945, when it was first produced. Furthermore, it is certainly a very ‘solid’ play, with very clear moral and political views – which are ‘taught’ to the audience through the play (perhaps a reason why the play had to be both ‘powerful’ and ‘thought provoking – so that Priestley got his message across) this effect makes An Inspector Calls a ‘didactic’ text, a function it fulfils very effectively.
Bibliography:
