An Inspector Calls Essay Example

An Inspector Calls Essay Example An Inspector Calls Essay An Inspector Calls Essay Essay Topic: Literature An Inspector Calls is a murder mystery written in the form of a play set in 1912 and is written by J. B. Priestly. It revolves around one family of a high social status the Birlings. The play begins with the family celebrating the engagement of their daughter, Sheila, to a man called Gerald Croft. Their celebration is interrupted by a call from an Inspector, making inquiries about a young girl called Eva Smith who has just died from swallowing a large amount of disinfectant. The Inspector then begins to question each member of the family to uncover their part in Evas death. Priestly uses each character, including the Inspector, to teach the audience very important life lessons both individual and collective responsibility. An Inspector Calls has been called a modern day morality play because Priestly uses his characters to represent the many different people in the world and tries to bring them all together in a family unit to teach them a very important lesson. The lessons learnt can be applied to everyones daily life, regardless of their status/situation and the lesson is one of moral values. This lesson is learnt through the Inspector and Priestly reinforces his main message through the layout and language of the play e. g. the dramatic irony, plain irony and varied characters making sure that everyone can identify to at least one and perhaps learn a lesson from them. Priestlys main theme of the play is that we are all responsible for each other and we all have to think about our actions and what effect they will have on others. This is shown mainly through the parts that each family member play in the death of Eva Smith. Although not entirely to blame, each family member in some way contributed to her death. Even Gerald, one who is not yet in this family, was entwined in a web of immoral behaviour and deceit. Priestly uses each member of the family to represent characters in society. It is in this way that he attempts to enforce the message of responsibility because one is able to identify with at least one character or see it from their point of view. He chooses a family of high social status to bring about another important theme high social status does not necessarily equal good moral and ethical values. The Birlings represent one such family. Mr Birling is used to represent an upper class head of the family, whose main philosophy on life is that a man has to mind his own business and look after himself. The very fact that Birling believes one must look after himself is in complete contrast with the theme of the play collective responsibility. Priestly uses this contrast to teach Birling a lesson and to show the audience how wrong he is which will in turn prove the latter theory. Birling is also particularly preoccupied with social status. He is very conscious of the fact that people have an opinion of him and his family and that social status equals respect within the community. Any threat to his and his familys reputation must be quickly dealt with and covered up. This is shown clearly from his statement Ive got to cover this up as soon as I can in reference to the fact that it has emerged that his son, Eric, has stolen a considerable amount of money form his account. This is also in some way connected to another one of Priestlys themes social status does not equal good morals Eric stealing money, especially from his father. Also, when it is revealed that Mrs Birling too played a part in Evas part, a part that was cruel and malicious, Mr Birling does not seem to even acknowledge what she did was wrong in the slightest. His only words on the matter are, when this comes out at the inquest it isnt going to do us much good. The Press might easily take it up The part in which Birling played in Evas death is the fact that, after a dispute over wages (Eva and various other girls working in the factory wanted a small yet significant pay rise), Birling fired her leaving her penniless and homeless. Birling refuses to accept any responsibility in Evas death because he is not able to see how his firing her could in any way cause her death. The Inspector answers with the following, 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. This statement sums up all of the familys involvement in her death they were all responsible in part and all contributed to her suicide. Upon hearing this Birling adds some more philosophy Still I cant accept responsibility. If we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody wed had anything to do with, it would be very awkward. The last part of his philosophy, it would be very awkward wouldnt it, shows that not only can he not see how he contributed to her death (evident from the whole of his speech) but he finds it quite difficult to take responsibility for anything. He is simply not bothered in what happens to others. This shows how difficult it has become for him to accept those of lower status than himself (he thinks of Eva as just another girl who comes under the heading of cheap labour whom he is able to exploit). Even after the rest of the family is questioned and it becomes clear that his sacking of Eva did play, however small, some part in her death, he is unable to accept responsibility. The Inspector later questions Sheila and it emerges that she too played a part in Evas death. After two months of desperation, without work and unable to buy food or pay for accommodation, Eva changed her name to Daisy Renton and managed to acquire a position in a shop called Millwards. Her run of bad luck did not end here. She then got fired from this shop because Sheila got her fired. Sheila was shopping with her mother in Millwards where Daisy worked and, against the advice of her mother and the assistant, tried on a dress, which did not suit her. Sheila thought that she caught sight of the assistant and Daisy smiling at each other in the mirror as if to say doesnt she look awful. Sheila was very embarrassed by this but what made it worse was the fact that when Eva held the dress up to herself it suited her very well. Sheila also says she was very pretty too with big dark eyes which didnt make it any better. This proves that Sheila was very jealous of Daisy, and in her rage she went to tell the manager that if they didnt get rid of the girl, Id never go near the place again and Id persuade mother to close the account with them. Daisy therefore lost her job on account of Sheilas jealousy and anger. This is an example used by Priestly to demonstrate another theme. He is beginning to show that people who are of higher social status, e. g. the Birlings, are far more influential than those of a lower social class but this is not necessarily a good thing. Sheila used her high status to get Eva fired but Eva did not deserve it. The Inspector comments on this with the statement, You used the power you had, as the daughter of as good customer and a man well known in the town, to punish this girl just because she made you feel like that. Sheila later concedes and feels extremely guilty about the fact that she did indeed contribute to Evas death. Erics character is used by Priestly to show that people of a high social status do not necessarily have the correct morals. Erics part in Evas death is in some ways more prominent than either Sheilas or Mr Birlings. After being fired from Millwards, Eva, with no other choice, seemingly acquired the position as a prostitute. When it is mentioned later, in the presence of Mrs Birling, that Alderman Heggarty, someone who is thought of as being of high social class was seen at the Palace Bar, Mrs Birling is very shocked perhaps suggesting that it is not a very respectable place so why would a seemingly respectable man be seen there? Eric refers to Eva as not being the usual sort with reference to the people that went to the Palace Bar. He says that he supposes she didnt know what else to do, implying already that Eva was in such a desperate situation possibly caused by Mr Birling, Sheila and Gerald. Eric is considerably drunk at the bar (something which were learn from Sheila is not uncommon) and later that evening, after buying her several drinks, sleeps with Eva. He returns to the Palace Bar on another occasion and again sleeps with Eva. He refers to her as a good sport but not someone whom he truly cared for. He treated Eva as an object. Eva later found out that she was pregnant and told Eric about it. Eric proposed marriage but Eva refused on the grounds that she knew that Eric did not really care for here. Eva had no job and did not know what she was going to do. Eric insisted on giving her money, which he stole from his father, and eventually Eva refused to take anymore after she found out it was stolen. They never saw each other again. Eric is used also as a contrast with Eva. Priestly depicts two people, both from different backgrounds and of very different social status, and both with very different morals. One expects the person from a high social status to have very good morals and to be an upstanding citizen. It is in fact the opposite in this situation. Eric gets drunk a lot and frequents places, which are deemed inappropriate to those of high social status (see Mrs Birlings comment above). He presumably sleeps with many women whom he does not care about and, although his intentions were good, steals from his father. Eva on the other hand, someone of a low social status, is the one who has the better morals. As soon as she finds out that Eric stole the money she refuses to take anymore. Unlike many girls in her situation she tries to make the best of her lot, she tries to get help. This proves that you cant trust what is on the surface and it proves Priestlys idea that status does not equal morals. Eva seeks help from the Brumley Womens Charity Organisation, a charity set up to help the unemployed, homeless or ill. Money was given to deserving causes. Mrs Birling is the chair of the charity. Charities such as the BWCO had to be set up because at that time in Britain (1912) people had no Welfare State to rely on as they do today. Theses charities were the only help available. Mrs Birling was approached by Eva who asked her for help because she was homeless, penniless and pregnant. Mrs Birling refused. She was annoyed at Evas refusal to tell the name of the father (who happened to be Mrs Birlings son, Eric) and at her gross impertinence which was quite deliberate. Eva called herself Mrs Birling. Mrs Birling admits that it was her influence that got Evas case refused. Mrs Birling simply did not like her impertinence or manner. She says that she is not ashamed of her behaviour and does not feel that she has done anything wrong. This is surely not true as she hid the fact that she knew Eva and only admitting knowing her after much pressure from Sheila. Mrs Birling is used to again show that people of a high social status do not necessarily have the correct morals, and like, Sheila, used her influence to get Evas case refused. Although they both contributed to Evas death in similar ways, Sheila is quick to admit she is wrong and feels extremely guilty whereas Mrs Birling feels absolutely no compassion or remorse. She states, she was claiming elaborate fine feelings and scruples that were simply absurd in a girl in her positions and I dont suppose for a moment that we can understand why the girl committed suicide. Girl of that class Both the endings of these two statements show that Mrs Birling has absolutely no compassion and is simply not bothered with those of a lower class. When asked by the Inspector who she blamed, she says not only the girl but also the father. Mrs Birling is very naive and acts quite idiotically as she implicates Eric. Sheila and the Inspector both realise this, clear from where Sheila begs her mother to stop. Mrs Birling does not realise that by the way she is talking she is getting her son into more and more trouble. This is one of various occasions where Priestly uses dramatic irony. We, the audience, realise the full impact of Mrs Birlings speech and how she is unknowingly convicting her own son. Dramatic Impact is used at the end of Mrs Birlings speech, at the end of Act Two, which ends with Eric entering the house and both the Inspector and Sheila, as well as Mrs Birling, looking apprehensively towards the door as Sheila begs her mother to keep quiet. Later on, after the departure of the inspector, Mrs Birling claims that she was not fooled by the inspector and did not succumb to his ability to draw out information, which is a blatant lie. The Birlings son, Eric, is used by Priestly to show two main themes of An Inspector Calls. Eric shows, through sleeping with Eva because she was a good sport and through stealing money, that people of a high social class do not necessarily have the better morals. We can also see from the different morals of Eva and Eric she not accepting stolen money that a lower social class does not equal worse morals and visa versa (according to Mrs Birling and public opinion Eva have worse morals) and Eva has in fact got better morals than Eric! It also shows how dysfunctional the Birling family actually is: a family with such a high social status and an abundance of wealth does not equal good family life. Mr and Mrs Birling were totally oblivious to Erics drinking problem as well as his social exploits. Eric could not even go to his father for help in his time of trouble. When Mr Birling asks him why he did not come to him for help he replies, Because youre not the kind of father a chap could go to when hes in trouble thats why. He also says to his mother, You dont understand anything. You never did. You never even tried. Priestly uses dramatic tension in this part of the play to show just how separate the family is. We even see Mrs Birling displaying some signs of distress, something quite unusual for her. Eric, nearly at breaking point, accuses Mrs Birling of killing Eva and killing her own grandchild. Mrs Birling cannot bear to hear this and tells Eric, in her desperation, that she did not know, she didnt understand. This is perhaps why towards the end of the play we can see a clear divide between the children and the parents. Mr and Mrs Birling have a problem facing up to their responsibility and cannot bear to hear they were wrong. This can be seen from the way in which Mr and Mrs Birling try to silence Eric and especially Sheila when they talk about assigning blame and guilt. Eric is used in conjunction with Sheila to show a further theme of the play how opinions of the young and old can also be incorrect. After the inspector leaves, the audience is left to see who will actually take heed of his warnings and listen to his very important message. It is, in fact, Eric and Sheila, not Mr and Mrs Birling who learn a lesson. They are shocked at their parents blatant disregard of the blame for Evas death. Immediately after the departure of the Inspector, Eric has an argument with his parents. Mr Birling is furious with Eric because he has caused a public scandal and therefore most probably ruined his chances of a knighthood. He is not annoyed with Eric over his treatment of Eva; after all that has gone on his social status is still his main priority. Eric replies by saying that the knighthood is not important and that he too is ashamed of his parents. Mr Birling says that there is every excuse for what both your mother and I did. Sheila cannot believe this response. She intervenes and says that she knows she behaved badly and she is ashamed of it but now her parents are acting as if nothing has happened. This shows Sheilas maturity and her willingness to learn from what occurred. It is quite clear that neither Mr nor Mrs Birling has taken a lesson from what has gone on. In fact Mr Birling says nothing muc h has happened. How can he not realise that he was to blame in some way for Evas death and see that it is his jaded outlook on life that has caused it? This not only shows the moral difference between the children and the parents but a distinct difference between young and old. It would normally have been thought that the older generation would learn more and not the children but this shows it is the opposite and that perhaps hope for the future rests on the younger generation. The Inspector is one of the most important characters in the play, with regards to conveying the message of both individual and collective responsibility. His role is to examine what really goes on behind the apparent respectability of the middle/high class prosperity; behind the fai de they are uncaring and corrupt. The Inspector can be seen as either a figment of the familys imagination, perhaps a culmination of all of their fears combined (social disgrace, the assignation of blame), hence the name Goole a play on the word ghoul, meaning ghost or phantom. He is there to test their conscience, or as someone, who although is not a real inspector, is there to show them that they are acting in an irresponsible and immoral way. Either way, the inspector is able to cunningly entice all of the information from the other characters, which is necessary to implicate them in the death of Eva Smith. From the moment the Inspector entered the Birling house the atmosphere changed he creates an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness he speaks carefully, weightily, and has a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person he addressed before actually speaking. The Inspector is used by Priestly to represent the voice of conscience in us all. He strikes the Birlings individually and is also connected with the mystery of time recurrence Time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future and time future contained in past. This quote by T. S Eliot is prominent in the play itself and is demonstrated by the Inspector who shows that all of our actions whether in the past or in present time in some way help to shape our future or in fact our present. The actions of all of the Birling family, actions which took place in the past time, have now contributed to their future the Inspector coming, the possible realisation that they have done something wrong, the social implications. The Inspector has as much of an impact on the audience as he does on the Birlings themselves. This is especially with regards to his final speech before he leaves the Birlings. He has just shown each character that they were in some way to blame for the death of Eva Smith and now, before leaving, makes a final speech, which incorporates all of the lessons they should have learnt. In his speech the Inspector mentions each of the characters in turn, redefining their role in the death. He seems to be less harsh towards Sheila perhaps because of her evident shame and despair at what she has done. The last part of the Inspectors final speech is formidable and forbidding. A lot of repetition is used to reinforce the message that we are all responsible for each other regardless of social class/status. He says quite clearly that although one Eva Smith has gone there are millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We dont live alone. We are 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 it in fire and blood and anguish. This last sentence is in reference to First World War, which Priestly experienced. The Inspectors message is a symbol of the general need for society to avoid being too satisfied and unaware of other peoples hardships and to act against future disaster e. g. WW1, brought on by arrogance, greed and indifference towards others. After this dramatic speech, perhaps the most dramatic in the play, the Inspector leaves the Birling house. The audience are left with a sense of fear and realisation at what the Inspector has just said and also with suspense to see whether the characters have learnt their lesson. It is clear immediately after the Inspector leaves that Mr and Mrs Birling have missed the whole point of the Inspectors visit. They are still preoccupied with social status: Mr Birling comments to Eric that theyll be a public scandal. Sheila is quick to assign blame to herself showing that she has taken on board what the Inspector has said. Eric launches into an attack on both his parents saying that they are as much to blame as anyone, and he too is ashamed of his own behaviour. Soon there is heated tension this heated tension within the household that shows both a clear divide between parents and children, perhaps the difference between young and old and the ability to accept change and that they have done something wrong. It also shows that with all of the revelations everything has changed relationships have been turned upside down and the children feel that it is not necessary to show such a great respect for their parents anymore. Instead of focusing on the tragedy, they blame each other. Although the children do accept what they have done wrong, the tendency to assign blame shows that they have not fully understood what needs to be changed. This is especially prominent with Eric.