"An Inspector Calls Is A Play" By Jb Priestley

It is set in 1912 but was written in 1945, just months after the end of World War II. It was no coincidence however, that Priestley chose to write the play at this time, it was indeed his deliberate action to publish it at such a vulnerable time. England was currently undergoing a period of great social and political change. And as many people had been affected by the war and the nation in need of drastic renovation, most people were leaning towards the introduction of a more socialist government in hope that it would draw a finer line between the extremely wealthy and the poor.

However, much of the middle and upper classes still remained faithful to the ideals of capitalism, whereas Priestley, himself coming from a modest background, also favoured the ideals of socialism, many of which are presented in the play. Priestleys’ political views had also been very much influenced by major incidents that had occurred throughout his life. Born in 1894, he would have himself been a witness to both world wars, which would have had a great impact on his social outlook.

The depression of the 1930s would also have changed his views or shed new light on how he believed society should operate.

After the Wall Street crash in 1929, millions of Americans were in desperate need of financial help from the government. However, the current government, under Herbert Hoover, disapproved of such involvement in its’ citizens’ lives. His capitalist ideal of ‘rugged individualism’ encouraged the belief of ‘every man for himself’.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Plays

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Of course this had worked fine throughout the boom of the 1920s where people did not necessitate government aid, but now as people were starving and being evicted from their homes, rugged individualism was doomed for failure.

However, when FDR Roosevelt was elected in 1929, major improvements were made within the space of a year. FDR believed in having a closer relationship with his people, he believed in everybody having more of a collective responsibility. Billions of dollars were spent on setting up major projects including numerous agencies which each dealt with separate areas of unemployment. These attempts to resuscitate America worked, unemployment fell steadily down and America gradually returned to more or less how it had been in the early 1920s.

Having lived through such times would have caused Priestley to take mental note of such significant events, the depression would only have strengthened his belief in socialism and collective responsibility. The play therefore, was written primarily as a vehicle for Priestley’s social comment, and as the election of 1945 was steadily approaching, he chose to publish it at this time in an attempt to influence people’s ideas. The novel was written in the form of a play in order to convey this political message to the desired audience.

During the period that the play was written, the theatre was mostly frequented by the upper and middle classes, and so this would seemingly be the most direct way of putting such a message across. However, Priestley had to be very careful about how he went about this. If the audience realised that they were in fact being lectured, the play would not prove to be very popular and become unsuccessful in achieving its objective. Priestley therefore disguised his message in the form of a play about a middle class man and his family.

The curtain opens on the dining room of a fairly large suburban house. This setting is constant throughout and is only altered in terms of light. The family is celebrating Sheila’s engagement to Gerald, Mr Birling’s daughter and business competitor. The lighting at first is soft and pink, and the furniture both cosy and typical of the period. This familiar atmosphere would instantly put the audience at ease with what they are seeing, it would have been a familiar scene with which most of the audience could relate and feel comfortable with.

Priestley used this technique specifically as a way of putting the audiences guard down, in order for them to fully absorb the social message that arises later in the play. In other words, the audience is now more susceptible to Priestleys’ message. The first character we are presented with is Mr Birling, we are told in the opening stage directions that he is a rather portentous man, and indeed his speeches would seem to reflect that. He states very briefly how glad he is about the engagement and then moves on to a speech about how Sheila and Gerald are marrying at a time of steadily increasing prosperity.

We soon begin to realise that Mr Birling is a very opinionated man, but also begin to wonder how worthwhile his opinions actually are: ‘ … You’ll hear some people say wars inevitable, and to that I say – fiddlesticks! The Germans don’t want war. Nobody wants war… ‘ His speeches give us an impression of a pompous, dogmatic man who only seems to value his own opinion: ‘The titanic – she sails next week – forty six thousand eight hundred tons… -New York in five days – and every luxury – and unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable. ‘

Of course these quotes would be very ironic for the audience as they all know that both the sinking of the titanic and war did in fact occur; this is known as dramatic irony. Other statements also seem to suggest that Mr Birling simply sees the marriage as a way of becoming socially mobile: ‘Your father and I have been business rivals for some time now – though Crofts Limited are both older and bigger than Birling and Company – and now you’ve brought us together, and perhaps we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing, but working together, for lower costs and igher prices.

‘ Not only do Birling’s speeches make us realise how arrogant and futile his opinions are, but they also reveal that he is in fact a staunch capitalist; he does try to justify his opinions but also entirely neglects the fact that not everybody has equal opportunities in life. He ignores the fact that not everybody can work hard to achieve to success, as not everybody has the privilege of an education or even a job to work hard in: ‘ You’d think that everybody had to look after everybody, as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive – community and all that nonsense. ‘

Priestley uses an interesting device in this quote, he actually paradoxes himself as a way of challenging the middle class values; ‘the way some of these cranks talk these days… ‘ He also mentions other authors prior to himself who had very similar values to him: ‘ We can’t let these Bernard Shaws and HG Wellses do all the talking. We hard- headed practical businessmen must say something sometime. ‘ At this point, conveniently in the middle of one of Birlings’ capitalist speeches, an inspector intrudes on the evenings’ celebrations. The lights become harder and brighter at his entrance, as a way of signifying a powerful presence.

However, this could also be criticised for making the audience feel uncomfortable with the inspectors presence, possibly making them more resistant or reluctant to accept his message. The inspector in the play is a powerful, or rather omniscient figure who is used as a vehicle to promote the authorial viewpoint. And although most of the audience will at present not be aware that they are in fact being openly criticised or challenged, some may have picked it up when Mr Birling, an obvious representation of the upper classes, was being ridiculed in his speeches.

The Inspector arrives at the scene concerning the suicide of a young girl called Eva Smith; who died earlier that evening after drinking a large dose of strong disinfectant in an act of suicide. And although Mr Birling is reluctant to answer questions on such an occasion, the inspector’s persistence and immunity to Birling’s hints of his friendship to Chief Colonel Roberts force him to undergo an interview with the inspector. After questioning, it is revealed that Mr Birling did in fact know Eva Smith, she had been a worker at his factory before he fired her two years ago.

When Birling is asked why, he admits that she was a good worker, but he was forced to sack her because she had had the audacity to ask for higher wages. He is at this point confronted by his own son, Eric, who thinks that his father was wrong for sacking Eva Smith simply because she had more charisma than the others; ‘ Why shouldn’t she try for higher wages? We try for the highest possible prices… You said yourself she was a good worker. ‘ What Priestley was trying to convey here, was his belief that the younger generation offered more optimism to the ideas of socialism, and that social views in society were beginning to change.

This is further reinforced when we meet Sheila, Mr Birling’s daughter. Mr Birling however, continues to completely deny any responsibility on Eva Smith’s suicide, stating that he had sacked her nearly two years ago, and that he could therefore have nothing to do with the suicide whatsoever. The inspector however, seems to disagree: ‘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. ‘ At this point Sheila enters, completely oblivious to the inspector’s arrival.

When told of her father’s actions however, she agrees with Eric and the inspector, and seems to sympathise greatly with the death of the poor girl: ‘But these girls aren’t cheap labour, they’re people. ‘ Sheila gives the impression of a caring, compassionate young girl, but in retrospective irony, the audience will soon realise how improper her words are. After some persuasion from the inspector, Mr Birling allows his daughter to be questioned. The inspector had previously mentioned that after having been fired from Birling and Co.

Eva Smith was out of work for two months, and having no parents or home to go back to, she lived in lodgings with the little money she had saved from working at the factory. It so happened however that she had a wonderful stroke of luck and found a job at Milwards, a popular and somewhat prestigious fashion store of the time. However, after about a couple of months, just as she felt that she was settling down nicely, they told her she had to go. It was admitted that it had nothing to do with how Eva was working, but that a customer had made a complaint and so she would have to leave.

Upon hearing this Sheila becomes uneasy and asks what the girl looked like, the inspector moves nearer towards a light and shows her a photograph of Eva, at which Sheila gives a little cry and rushes out of the room. When later Sheila is confronted with her actions, amidst repentant pleas she admits that she complained to the manager of Milwards because she had been jealous of Eva: ‘ The dress suited her, she was the right type for it. She was a very pretty girl too… and that didn’t make it any better.

When I tried the thing on I knew it was ll wrong, I caught sight of this girl smiling at Miss Francis – as if to say, ‘ doesn’t she look awful’ – and I was absolutely furious. ‘ While Priestley still thought that the younger generation provided greater hope for the ideas of socialism, this shows how he felt anyone could fall victim to hypocrisy, and how it would be very easy, however sorry afterwards, for anyone born into such wealth to succumb to the uncontrollable flaws of human nature. The play at this point seems to be that of a straightforward, detective thriller.

As each of the character’s involvement with Eva Smith is eventually revealed, the structure of the play seems to evolve into one of a ‘whodunit’, as each person unravels a piece of Eva Smith’s history. The next person to be confronted is Gerald Croft. When it is announced that Eva Smith later changed her name to Daisy Renton he is startled and it becomes quite obvious that he has heard that name before, however he remains silent while the inspector leaves the room. Sheila senses however that something is wrong and forces Gerald into confession.

He, or rather Sheila, who unravels the situation herself, reveals that he was in fact having an affair with Daisy for almost six months. Gerald tries to persuade Sheila into keeping this information from the inspector, but in something of a fit of hysteria she points out that he already knows. The omniscient inspector, even through detailed questioning, has not actually discovered anything that he didn’t already know. In fact he never actually directly accuses anyone, but somehow, in a somewhat intimidating manner and a ‘ disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person he addresses’, he is driving them all into confession: 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. ‘ Gerald eventually admits his Affair with Daisy, but claims that his initial intentions were good. He explains that after having met her in a bar and discovering that she had no place to live, he offered her some money and temporary stay in an empty friend’s house. When the inspector asks him if she eventually became his mistress however, he admits: ‘ Yes. I suppose it was inevitable. She was young, pretty and warm-hearted – and intensely grateful. ‘

The act ends when Gerald confesses his affair with Eva Smith to Sheila. Priestley does this deliberately to heighten the audiences’ suspense with this use of climaxes, always ensuring that they are left with a cliff-hanger at the end of each act. The audiences’ interest is sustained not only by the progressive revelation of each person’s involvement with the suicide, but also the desire to find out who, primarily, was responsible for Eva Smith’s death. After Gerald’s confession, the inspector turns to Mrs Birling. At first she too is extremely reluctant to answer any questions, and also denies recognising the photograph of Eva Smith.

But the inspector, in his omniscience, makes Mrs Birling realise that there is no use in denying recognition. The inspector makes her admit that she did in fact know this girl, and that she had refused her help two weeks ago when she had pleaded to her. (She was at the time chair of the Brumley women’s charity organisation. ) When asked why, Mrs Birling calmly and unemotionally claims that she did not believe the girls’ story, and that she also was instantly prejudiced against her as she had enough impudence to give herself the name Birling.

It is also revealed that Daisy Renton was in fact pregnant, and even though Mrs Birling was perfectly aware of this, not only did she refuse her help, but she also saw to it that others refused it too. Furthermore she recounts that she couldn’t believe the girl’s story because Daisy had mentioned refusing money from the father of the child as it was stolen, and admittingly, Mrs Birling states that she found this very hard to believe: ‘As if a girl of that sort would refuse money’.

This comment would seem to insinuate that the working classes have no morals, and would jump at any opportunity, however drastic, for money. However harsh her actions may have been though, Mrs Birling continues to vehemently deny any responsibility for Daisy Renton’s death. She has no trouble however, in shifting the blame onto her own husband: ‘ And remember before you start accusing me of anything again that it wasn’t I who turned her out of her employment, which probably began it all’. The inspector then asks Mrs Birling whom she really believes the chief culprit is in the whole ordeal.

First, she mentions the girl herself, but when asked to specify, she claims that if Daisy’s story was true, and the father truly was an immature drunk, then he should be the one to accept the entire blame. Not only does she say that she believes he is the chief culprit, but also makes sure to mention him having to be dealt with very severely. And despite pleas from Sheila for her mother to stop, Mrs Birling says this quite calmly, perfectly unaware that this person is of course, her own son: ‘ Mother I begged and begged you to stop…  But surely… I mean… it’s ridiculous… I don’t believe it, I won’t believe it. ”

The curtain opens with Eric entering the room as the others simply stare at him. He seems genuinely distressed and his attitude to the accusations would seem to resemble Sheila’s. Eric’s confession turns out to be the most shocking, as not only do we find out that he is the father of the child, but also that he is a heavy drinker and that he had to even resort to stealing money from his own father. He claims to have met Eva at a bar, where he started talking to her and then they both ended up drunk by the time they had to leave.

He remembers little after that, but recounts meeting her again a fortnight later. Once again he drank, but moderately, and so this time remembers going back to her house and making love. After finding out that Daisy was pregnant however, Eric offered to marry her, but she refused, saying that he was speaking out of duty, not of love. Eric however, still felt inclined to give her money until she found a job, and insisted that she accept fifty pounds: ‘”And where did you get fifty pounds from?”… I got it – from the office’ ‘… You mean – you stole the money? ‘ It is at this point that the play reveals it’s second form – that of a morality play. The inspector’s final speech claims that while Arthur Birling may have started the whole ordeal, each and everybody in that room was responsible for Eva Smith’s suicide.

And while it is too late to save Eva, as he claims: ‘There are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, hopes and fears, their suffering and chance, all intertwined with our lives… And I tell you that the time will come soon when, if men will ot learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. ‘ Priestley’s last comment here would seem to be a reference to world war one, which occurred two years after the play was set. It is important to remember that while these are just characters in a fictional play, Priestley intended each one of them to represent a microcosm of society. Mr Birling is the rather selfish middle class businessman, but who is also seen as quite a laughable or pathetic figure whose opinions are not taken seriously by the audience.

Mrs Birling represents the emotionally cold upper class woman who doesn’t show the slightest bit of remorse for having turned away a pregnant woman for help, apart from when of-course she discovers she’s had a part to play in the death of her own grand-son. Gerald is the young, carefree, well-off businessman who is primarily concerned with his having a good time. And finally, Eric and Sheila both represent the rather hypocritical but altogether more compassionate younger generation.

Indeed, when it is eventually discovered that the inspector was not actually an inspector at all, and that no girl had actually committed suicide that day, Sheila and Eric are the only two who still show remorse for their actions: ‘ Everything we said had happened really had happened. If it didn’t end tragically then that’s lucky for us. But it might have done… whoever that inspector was, it was anything but a joke. You began to learn something. And now you’ve stopped. You’re ready to go in the same old way. ‘

While Eric and Sheila are still aware of the consequences their actions may have led to, the rest of the family breathe a sigh of relief and talk rather amusedly about the supposed hoax. However, the play ends in a rather unpredictable fashion. Just as Mr Birling is laughing at Eric and Sheila for ‘not being able to take a joke’, the phone rings sharply, he answers it, and then turns round 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 coming round – to ask some questions – As they stare guiltily and dumbfounded, the curtain falls’ By closing the play in such a way, Priestley has turned the ending itself into a dramatic device. The audience will now leave the theatre wondering what the ending actually meant. Was the inspector a realistic, straightforward police inspector? Was he a hoaxer? Or did he, in his omniscience, represent something supernatural? All these questions are deliberately left unanswered by Priestly so that the audience will leave thinking about the play, and then hopefully, about the message it conveyed.