Birling: (thunderstruck) My God! But – look here—
Mrs B.: (agitated) I don’t believe it. I won’t believe it . . .
Sheila: Mother – I begged you and begged you to stop—
Act Two
The quote taken from the end of act two shows how the inspector has managed to build up a significant amount of tension to form this climax at the end of the act. This use of climax at the end of an act is similar to the ‘whodunit’ style of having a ‘cliff-hanger’ to end a section on. But the use of climax does not just end at that point, it will continue straight into the next act. These climaxes are what you would call controlled climaxes, because the usage of them is to deliberately create the climax, rather than a gradual build up. It could be seen that the climaxes were used deliberately to create the effect of a ‘whodunit’ due to their specific places in the play.
The way in which these climaxes are created can also be attributed to the fact that the play is set in one room, and each act is in real time. This can be seen by the way in which when characters leave the room, the scene does not follow them out. And also that at the end of the act, the stage directions tells us that all the characters remain where they are until the next act. This is very similar to the way most ‘whodunits’ are set. Although ‘whodunits’ are usually set over a span of time and may involve flashbacks, the general point of action is in one single place throughout.
However, one of the main things you would not find in a ‘whodunit’ is that the characters change over the course of the play. The character that has changed the most at the end of this play would possibly be Eric. An example of this could be that at the start of the play, his behavior is passive, and he reluctantly accepts his father’s ideas.
“By Jove, yes. And as you were saying, dad, a man has to look after himself—”
Eric, Act One
That quote was taken from just after the inspector arrives and he has been listening to the advice his father has been giving him. Eric’s obsequious behavior does not last for long, as when the inspector unleashes his revelations, Eric’s character changes completely.
“(laughing) Oh – for God’s sake! What does it matter now whether they give you a knighthood or not?” Eric, Act Three
Another character that changes significantly is Sheila. At the beginning she is very excited about her engagement and is pleased with everything that is happening to her. She is ashamed by her past and how she managed to get the girl removed from her job at Milwards.
“(miserably) So I’m really responsible?” Sheila, Act One
She is very disappointed about this turn of events and this quite notably affects her character. The rest of the play has her character feeling upset and apart from at the very end of the play, her character does not become any happier.
Some of the characters have progressed from a state of ignorance to their surroundings to a state of knowledge. Most notably is Mr Birling. His character changes from a state of not knowing what the effect of his actions were to a state where he would rather not know what the action’s effect was. The progression is well noted throughout the acts.
“Rubbish! If you don’t come down sharply on some of these people, they’d soon be asking for the earth.” Birling, Act One
This quote shows us how he is completely oblivious of how this minor occurrence could possibly have caused the death of the girl.
“Possibly. But you weren’t asked to come here to talk to me about my responsibilities.”
Birling, Act Two
We see in this quote that he is starting to realise what the inspector is telling him about how his actions fit into the death of the girl, but he still does not believe what he is being told.
“(unhappily) Look, Inspector – I’d give thousands – yes, thousands—”
Birling, Act Three
And finally, realising the knowledge he has gained, he gives in and decides to plead with the inspector for his mercy in this case. But this can also apply to the audience. For in this quest for justice (lead by the Inspector), the audience is just as much in the dark about the greater scheme of things as the characters. The facts are left clearly out in the open and obvious to realise, but they are not indicated until the character has suitably progressed forwards towards knowledge for it to be realised. It could even be seen that the play is a modern version of the theme of a Morality play, in which the characters commit various actions, to lead to a consequence that ultimately changes them forever. The morality would be seen that they should have taken pity on the girl and not to shut themselves off from each other, inside the family. And the moral could quite easily be observed from their reactions to this turn of events. Even straight from the moment the inspector announces his purpose for being there.
The conclusion of the play is one of a more mystical element than the conventional detective thriller, in that the inspector usually catches the culprit and then it ends. At the end of a conventional ‘whodunit’, the main character indicates the one who has committed the offence. Then they are either apprehended by the authorities, are shunned by the rest of the group, or break down for all the offences they have committed and the punishment they expect to receive. In this play, the end is much more unconventional than others are. The character of the inspector turns out to be some form of ghost or prophecy of what is to come, leaving the characters in complete disarray.
“And a police inspector is on his way here – to ask some – questions—”
Birling, Act Three
The inspector turns out to have very little resemblance to a conventional inspector. The methods he uses to extract information, would, in conventional standards, be only used for some sort of reprimand on the person. Not only that, but the fact that the inspector was never there, even though they all interacted with him is what shocks the characters the most at the end. In the build up to the phone-call, the characters go through many different reasons as to why the inspector could not possibly be a real inspector, but to no avail. I think that the playwright has done this to add the final element of mystery to the plot. The character of the inspector is well defined as a justice keeper, and throughout the play it seems there is something slightly odd about the way he behaves towards some of the most prominent people in the city. The meaning of why the inspector was not supposedly there only further adds the element that perhaps their own guilt and responsibility finally overtook them and manifested into the inspector.
There are elements of the play, which follow the conventional ‘whodunit’, but there is a much more serious meaning to this play. The meaning is that no matter what the circumstances, they all contributed to the death of the girl, and regardless of any arguments, they are all guilty. Conventionally in a ‘whodunit’, only one person would be found to be guilty of the act, and the rest would all be completely innocent, if only due to the fact they were not truthful. The main purpose of a ‘whodunit’ would most probably be to give the audience an interesting insight into the deepest secrets of a set of characters, and to watch their progression and the gradual picking away at a few or all of the culprits carefully laid plans. Audiences generally find this type of situation not only complex, but also interesting to see how the characters are put together and what makes them do the things they do. I feel that the purpose of this play was to highlight the fact that regardless of the amount of covering over you do, if you are guilty of contributing to something, you are guilty of the crime just as much as everyone else. This could possibly be a comment on the fact that it was written during the war, which was a time when many people could commit dire crimes and yet only one person would be blamed. The audience would probably feel that the play shows how justice can be served to all those responsible for the disgraceful act of allowing this girl to commit suicide, and that they were all just as guilty. I feel that “An Inspector Calls” is very far from a conventional ‘whodunit’, in that the depth of the characters stories, and the intricacy of them all is something that ‘whodunit’s simply do not require. The things like the character of the inspector being some form of manifestation of guilt is what would probably be the deciding factor. And regardless of the play including elements of a ‘whodunit’, the way in which the characters develop in the play, and the main factor that they are all guilty, would make it very much more than a conventional ‘whodunit’.
