NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... t criticise any of them either, but turns all of the blame onto the unidentified man: the father of Eva's child. She very happily says that the man should be 'dealt with very severely' and made to 'confess in public his responsibility, ' oblivious to what most of the audience would have realised; that Eric was the father. This is another example of irony. She believes that the man must be someone who is working-class and has not been brought up properly because he was a drunk and guilty of theft. Eric seems to see the Inspector as the strong father figure that is missing from his life.
He said that Birling was 'not the kind of father a chap could go to when he's in trouble's o he is obviously not close to him. When his father talks about his 'public - school - and - Varsity life', Eric seems embarrassed and says to Birling 'Well, we don't need to tell the Inspector anything about that, do we?' Eric is just as quick as Sheila to give the Socialist alternatives to what Birling was saying about the workers, and tells him that he would 'have let her stay. ' Eric is slow in telling his story and he only answers the questions that he is asked and he only gives away a little information at a time. This shows that he is reluctant for the others to know about his problems. The Inspector is fairly gentle when he questions Eric because he is clearly very upset and guilt-ridden.
The Inspector notices this even though Birling does not and when he asks for a drink, he allows him one with the explanation that 'He needs a drink now just to see him through. ' The Birling parents represent the older people who follow the dated Edwardian ideas. Arthur Birling is a rich businessman who thinks very highly of himself, even though he is often wrong. Arthur's family respect him and listen intently to his ideas that 'there isn't a chance of war' and the Titanic is 'unsinkable. ' As the play was written in 1947 and set in 1912, this is an example of dramatic irony and the audience would know that Arthur was very wrong in his opinions and might even think him to be stupid. When he says 'the way some of these cranks talk and write now, you'd think everybody has to look after everybody else', he explicitly says that he is strongly Capitalist and is narrow minded. Priestley wanted the audience to have a low opinion of Birling because he was discouraging his Capitalist politics and trying to show people like Birling to be at fault.
Each of the Birling's and Gerald have done things to Eva that were wrong. However, Sheila and Eric are very regretful and seem to have learnt from their mistakes and immediately become more likeable and seem less at fault. The Inspector implies that the Birling parents and Gerald Croft are the ones more at fault because their Edwardian ideas about class and Capitalism do not change. Priestley and the Inspector think that 'Public men... have responsibilities as well as privileges' which suggests that Priestley thinks that those who forget their responsibilities also cause social problems. Mrs.
Birling makes more references to class than Birling. It is possible that Arthur is slightly embarrassed by the fact that his wife is his 'social superior. ' This is apparent near the beginning of the play when Birling compliments his own meal and Mrs. Birling tells him that he is 'not supposed to say such things. ' The Inspector says in his final speech 'We are responsible for each other... if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught in fire and blood and anguish. ' This is an implication that he is criticising those who do not learn, not those who have acted that way in the past. Therefore, Priestley and the Inspector think that the people at fault are those that employ and hold on to thoughts that one should think only of oneself. After the Inspector leaves, the characters begin to speculate whether or not he was a real Police Inspector.
Each of them believe his manner to have been inappropriate. Birling points out fairly early on in the play that he is 'officious', but the audience are unlikely to actually strongly question his identity simply because they are not given time to because the action is constant throughout the play, with many twists and revelations. Although the audience and the characters realise towards the end of the play that he definitely was not a real Police Inspector, Priestley does not explain who or what he was. Even the most observant of watchers or readers is likely to find no clues as to what the Inspector could have been, so Priestley's aim was to leave this matter a complete mystery.
This tactic could have been to ensure that his viewers continued to think about the story and hence would also have to think about the issues of Socialism and this is something which he was desperate to do. Although nobody could ever know for sure what the Inspector was, there have been many theories. One is that he had travelled from the future to avenge Eva Smith. People may have thought this because the Inspector knew before it happened that the girl would drink disinfectant and kill herself. The Inspector does get justice for Eva in a way because he makes the family feel worse than any real Inspector could. The Inspector called himself 'Goole, ' which could be a pun on the word 'ghoul' which is defined as 'a person interested in morbid or disgusting things. ' This could be considered true of the Inspector if he was indeed a person from another time who investigated different peoples' deaths.
In terms of Priestley conveying his message that we are 'members of one body', it is unimportant whether or not the Inspector was real nor if there was one girl or several girls. That is likely to be clear to those who watch the play as they will realise that the important issue is that the family and society has been told what could happen when they disregard the need to think of others, but some of the characters in the play forget what they have been taught because the Inspector was not real and they are not going to be involved in a public scandal. Because the Birling parents and Gerald end the play as oblivious to the needs of others as they began it, they are shown to be small-minded. It is only Sheila and Eric who learn from their experience and realise that him not being an Inspector changes nothing because the 'girl's still dead'. When Sheila says 'he inspected us all right's he shows maturity which is not reflected in her parents. I think the mystery surrounding the Inspector makes a big difference to the story because it gives it a distinguishing feature that would have been missing if this twist was not included.
The play is written in a style whereby there are twists and revelations whenever the story gets comfortable for the watcher; Priestley wants there to be changes in the pace of the play and in the story so that the audience's concentration will not decline. This could happen because there are no changes to the setting of the play and there are not many characters or subplots. Priestley may have also included the twist because makes the tale more interesting and this would encourage more people to go and watch it. By leaving questions unanswered, Priestley is inviting his audience to think about the play.
Because the Inspector was not real does not make any difference to the guilt that the characters and society as a whole should be feeling at the end of the play. People who watch the play should still learn a lesson from it. We expect all of the characters to admit to their faults and to learn from what the Inspector teaches them because we have been conditioned to look for the well-worn formula whereby bad characters convert to good characters because a third character has helped them to recognise their flaws. This formula is most recognisable in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Surprisingly, this is not the case in An Inspector Calls. After the Inspector is found to have been a fake, the Birling parents and Gerald remain unaffected by the night's events.
Sheila points out that Birling doesn't 'seem to have learnt anything. ' Once they realise that there will be 'no scandal' They try to turn a blind eye to the problems that have been identified. They ignore Eric's drinking problem and make little further mention of the fact that he stole a great deal of money from the family business. They ignore these problems because they are only interested in how they will look to other people. If nobody knows about their problems, they need not address them.
This is proven when Birling says that there is a 'difference between a lot of stuff like this coming out in private and a downright public scandal. ' When Birling says to Sheila 'you'd better ask Gerald for that ring you gave back to him', he again shows that he is happy to forget what has happened because he is ignoring the fact that Gerald had still had an affair with another woman whilst he was in a strong relationship with Sheila. Mrs. Birling makes several comments to prove that she agrees with her husband, such as saying that once her children had slept off their tiredness 'they " ll be as amused as we are. ' Gerald is just as bad as Mr. and Mrs.
Birling because he says 'Everything's all right now' which proves that he believes that the Inspector not being real negates the fact that he has been unfaithful. Sheila proves herself intelligent throughout the play. She is quick to notice that the Inspector knows an awful lot about the family. We know that she notices his great knowledge because just after she is questioned about how she lost the girl her job at Milwards, she says: 'I hate to think how much he knows that we don't know yet. 's he has changed her attitude about how to treat people and is disgusted that her parents have not done the same: 'it's you two who are being childish - trying not to face the facts. ' Eric behaves much the same as Sheila. He seems to have respect for her because he does not directly argue with his parents about the way they are acting but instead supports Sheila in what she says by saying 'Sheila's right, ' and 'I agree with Sheila. ' He and Sheila are both there to give us hope for the future; the younger generation have better attitudes and can improve society. As the Inspector said, children are 'more impressionable. ' The Inspector leaves the family and the audience feeling awkward because he uses a lot of emotive language such as...
and he speaks with real passion. In this speech he, and therefore Priestley, try to make people understand just how serious problems can get when we do not realise that 'We are responsible for each other. ' This speech gives an opposite message to that which Birling gave whereby he said that 'a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own. ' It was at that point where the Inspector entered, as if to prove him wrong. In his speech, the Inspector makes reference to the forthcoming war with the idea that if people do not learn that 'We are members of one body... then they will be taught in fire and blood and anguish. ' This is a very powerful statement and it would seem that the Inspector is implying that the war was sent to punish people for not working together, and at the same time forcing them to do so. The war did break down barriers between classes and people had to all work for the country, not for personal gain, so what the Inspector spoke of was accurate. I think Priestley used the idea of war to convey his message because it was a major issue when the play was written and everyone would have suffered from it and would care greatly about it.
The play finishes with a telephone call from the police saying that 'A girl has just died... after swallowing some disinfectant' and a real Inspector will question the family. This is an unexpected twist. The fake Inspector was there to punish them on a moral level and to try and make them feel guilty enough to change their behaviour. This was accomplished with Eric and Sheila, but not with the others. The only thing that they would be affected by was a 'public scandal, ' and the real Inspector would ensure that that is what they would get.
Without this twist, it would seem that the Birling parents and Gerald would escape unpunished. One must conclude that the Inspector's main purpose is to teach. In the context of the play, he told the characters what had happened to a particular girl because they had each been guilty of selfishness. In regards to the whole of society, he voiced Priestley's opinions that we cannot make any progress if we do not work together. In my opinion, those watching or reading the play today would not gain as much from the story in regards to the moral teachings because most have now accepted the advantages of Socialism over Capitalism and so do not have as much to learn on the arguments of this issue as the audiences of 1947. In regards to the question of what the Inspector actually was, I personally feel that there is not enough evidence given for even a strong, fact-supported theory to be produced to answer the question, let alone an infallible answer.
Free research essays on topics related to: inspector, end of the play, play was written, sheila, birling
Research essay sample on Play Was Written End Of The Play
