An Inspector Calls, John Boyton Essay Example

centered on the Birling family, a well-regarded group. During a pleasant gathering with Sheila and Gerald, 'Inspector Goole' disrupts the event by sharing a shocking revelation: "Two hours prior, a young woman had passed away in the infirmary. She had been admitted after ingesting an excessive amount of disinfectant." The individuals present have varying reactions to this disturbing news.

As the play progresses, the superficial appearances of each character start to reveal hidden depths. The inspector interrogates each one about their involvement in Eva Smith's tragic suicide, attempting to make them feel guilty and responsible. Some characters display guilt and remorse, while others brush off the death entirely. In Act III, Birling claims that the inspector was not real, but Sheila counters that he definitely inspected them.

In my assignment, I need to discuss the impact of the inspector on three characters in the play. While Birling is relieved that the inspector was not a real inspector, Sheila points out that he still inspected them. Despite being a hoax, the inspector compelled them to confess their involvement in Eva Smith's death and realize their responsibilities. He evoked guilt and remorse in them. In the play, the inspector represents our conscience and Eva's spirit. He assumes the role of an avenging angel who punishes the irresponsible and sinful individuals who have caused her life to be cut short.

The character 'Goole' in the play has a name that resembles 'ghoul' - a supernatural entity that preys on humans. He serves as a means for Priestly to convey both moral and practical arguments, and is not simply a conduit, but a significant and influential figure. He prompts

the viewers to scrutinize their own political beliefs, motives, and persuasions, and recognize their communal obligation. Along with being a narrator, the inspector also functions as a unifying force in the play, connecting disparate events into a single cohesive life story.

Acting as a father confessor, the character encourages each person to recognize their responsibility for Eva's suicide, urging them to repent rather than seeking forgiveness or punishment. He serves as an inner voice of conscience, highlighting the correlation between rising privileges and commensurate social obligations.

Although he fulfills the traditional role of a policeman by carefully questioning and piecing together evidence with shrewd insight to uncover the truth, Inspector Goole carries a deeper symbolic significance in Priestley's play. He serves as a social commentator, philosopher, judge, and jury, prompting the audience to reflect upon their own lives beyond those of the play's characters. In examining this play, the first character to be reviewed is Mr. Birling.

Arthur Birling is a middle-aged and rather imposing man with a weighty appearance, who is described as being a tough-minded businessman. Though his manners are fairly relaxed, his speech is somewhat provincial. He holds a high opinion of himself in society due to his prosperous ownership of a factory, local magistracy, and past role as Lord Mayor of Brumley. While he believes himself to be reasonable, his top priority is profit and he pays his workers the prevailing rate in order to keep labor expenses low. Complacency is one of his most notable qualities.

Although he is prosperous and believes that this will continue as the economy improves, Mr. Birling's success has come at the expense of others. He dismissed Eva from

her job for requesting a modest pay increase and plans to work with Croft's limited for greater profits despite the negative impact on others. Mr. Birling always wants to be the center of attention and believe he knows what is best. When Sheila receives an engagement ring from Gerald, Mr. Birling diverts attention to himself by discussing the technological advances of the Titanic and denying any possibility of it sinking. Dramatic irony is present in this play as Mr. Birling's illusions contrast with reality regarding the Titanic and war.

The play was written before the war but released afterwards. This served to inform the audience that Birling's views on the war and Titanic were incorrect. Priestly intended for this to be amusing and to demonstrate Birling's foolishness. Birling's interruptions contradict his supposed concern and responsibility for his family, as evidenced by his statement "A man has to look after himself and his own." He frequently boasts about his own significance.

In an effort to uphold his family's reputation in society, Birling encourages them to take actions that will boost their status, without considering his daughter's true feelings about her marriage to Gerald. Birling sees the union as an opportunity to unite his company with Crofts Ltd, almost like a business deal. When the inspector arrives, Birling's initial confidence quickly fades. At first he and Gerald joke about the inspector's visit, but Birling's reliance on his high status and connections is soon revealed. He discusses his community involvement and familiarity with the Brumley police officers.

The speaker explains that he has been an alderman for many years, held the position of Lord Mayor two years ago, and currently serves

on the bench, which has given him a close relationship with the Brumley police officers. By sharing this information, he hopes to prevent the inspector from being too harsh if he discovers any wrongdoing by him. However, the inspector remains unaffected and simply requests information. Nonetheless, Birling becomes defensive after learning of Eva Smith's death and her connection to him. Birling attempts to justify his actions by citing his refusal to grant Eva's request for a wage increase as an example.

Birling was taken aback by the inspector's questioning and seemed offended by the tone of his interrogation. He repeatedly reminded the inspector of his elevated social status and the people he knew, but the inspector was not impressed. Birling grew impatient with the questioning and even threatened to report the inspector. He did not appreciate being challenged or accused of exploiting cheap labor. Like others in his class, Birling believed that workers were there to do a job, and it was not his duty to ensure their well-being.

According to his beliefs, he treated his workers fairly by paying them the average wages. Eva was receiving "twenty two and six," which was relatively higher than a bricklayer's laborer earning eighteen shillings a week, or a police constable earning twenty-seven shillings per week in 1910. He perceived that by these standards, he wasn't paying his workers less than they deserved. He felt responsible for minimizing labor costs and eliminating any employee dissatisfaction.

Despite being able to afford a pay rise, Birling refuses to pay certain employees more than the "going rate" in his factory. This causes some workers to ask for a pay increase, but Birling adamantly

refuses. Additionally, he terminates one of the "strike pack" members, Eva Smith, even though he could afford to give her a raise. As a result, Birling is accused of instigating the chain of events that led to Eva Smith's suicide. However, he denies any responsibility.

Despite knowing the answers to the inspector's questions about his family, the inspector tries to protect his reputation by feigning innocence. Upon the inspector's departure, Birling desires a return to the status quo and cannot comprehend Eric and Sheila's belief that there is a lesson to be learned. Birling is relieved and triumphant when he believes that the scandal has been averted and all is well. He maintains until the end that "there's every excuse for what your mother and I did- it just turned out unfortunately, that's all". Birling demonstrates a lack of concern and does not take responsibility for Eva Smith's death.

Despite learning of the suicide, he remains steadfast in his morals and shows a strong sense of stubbornness. Had he not discovered that the inspector was a fraud, he may have reconsidered his values. However, upon learning the truth, he easily reverts to his old ways. He believes that if the inspector was not real, his careless and insensitive behavior would remain concealed. Additionally, I will now shift my focus to Sheila's character. Following her dismissal from Birlings, Eva was unemployed for two months until eventually securing a job as a sales assistant at Milwards clothing store.

Sheila played a part in Eva's dismissal from Milwards. Despite being a valued customer, Sheila utilized her status to lodge a complaint against Eva. This was because Eva laughed at her

while she was trying on a dress, which irked Sheila even more because Eva looked better in the same dress.

Sheila had a strong hostility towards Eva's beauty and "couldn't be sorry for her" as a result. From the start of the play, it is evident that Sheila lacked empathy for others as she acted insensitive towards Eva's unemployment at Milwards. Her behavior showcased selfishness and a sense of self-importance. Sheila exploited her societal status to dismiss Eva from her job, thus feeling superior; however, she experiences overwhelming guilt after learning she contributed to Eva Smith's death.

Sheila expressed remorse for her impulsive action and vowed to never repeat it, acknowledging that it was a unique incident. Eva's second dismissal had a more severe impact on her, causing her to become reliant on others. Although Sheila contributed to this decline, her regret lessens our inclination to hold her responsible.

It was right for the inspector to inform Sheila that she was only partly to blame due to her youthfulness, as she tended to accept her wrongdoing and consequences. Therefore, the inspector urged her to remain and hear what he had to say so that she will not shoulder all the blame. Sheila quickly understands the inspector's intentions and cautions her family members not to lie about their involvement in Eva Smith's death, knowing that the inspector will reveal the truth. She realizes that hiding facts from him is pointless and tries to accelerate the questioning to address their faults. Furthermore, she advises her mother not to admit her responsibilities right away. Although Sheila recognizes the enigma surrounding the inspector, she cannot grasp that her parents learned

nothing from the event. Even after the inspector's departure and when they discover that he was a trick, Sheila cannot accept her own misconduct.

Although Sheila has changed and matured significantly prior to the inspector's visit, the rest of the characters - Mr. and Mrs. Birling and Gerald - seem not to have learned anything. This is evident from their behavior and contrasts with Sheila's phenomenal character development throughout the play. She has transformed from a young, naive child who looked up to her parents to someone who can now tell her father exactly what she thinks of him and his actions. However, one character points out that Mr. and Mrs. Birling and Gerald are still pretending that nothing much has happened, despite their lack of personal growth.

Despite the discovery that the inspector is a fraud, Sheila still holds a great deal of admiration for him. "If all that has been revealed tonight is true, it doesn't matter who compelled us to confess," she asserts, revealing her strong moral convictions. After the inspector leaves, she assumes his role and confronts the other characters about their actions. Finally, we turn our attention to Eric, who is initially presented as a frail, solitary figure and Sheila's younger sibling.

The protagonist is treated like a child by his father and Gerald. Daisy returns to the palace bar shortly after Gerald ends their relationship, where Eric meets her. She considers returning to prostitution to support herself. Despite being intoxicated, Eric demands to go home with her and threatens to cause a scene if she denies him. They have intercourse once and repeat it two or three more

times. Daisy later learns she is pregnant but declines Eric's marriage proposal because he does not love her.

Though both Gerald and Eric have engaged in intimate relationships with Daisy, Gerald held genuine feelings for her and took care of her for a certain period, while Eric treated her as if she was an object, using her merely for the sake of a foolish night of drinking. As soon as Eric encounters the inspector waiting to interrogate him, he becomes tense and uneasy. Before the interrogation commences, he implores the inspector to allow him to have a drink, which indicates that Eric may have a propensity for alcoholism. Furthermore, this highlights his sense of discomfort and unease. He perceives the situation as awkward and starts exhibiting signs of stress and nervousness, making him rely on the consumption of alcohol.

Eric's viewpoint is finally heard in the play, despite typically being ignored. He is largely responsible for Eva's downfall by impregnating her and putting her in a terrible position. Although he expressed regret and offered financial assistance, it was too late. Eric is surprised by his family's connections when they are revealed, but the inspector causes him to feel even more remorseful for his actions and question his mother's behavior. Despite learning the inspector was a fake, Eric has gained empathy for those in lower social classes and has grown from his mistakes.

Priestly employs various dramatic devices to sustain the audience's engagement in the play, including the portrayal of the inspector. The inspector's presence tragically divides the family beyond repair. Priestly effectively builds suspense by introducing the inspector as a 'mysterious inspector,' leaving the audience to ponder

his identity throughout the play. The question of the inspector's identity continues to plague the audience until the very end, leaving it up to their imaginations. Additionally, Priestly utilizes other dramatic techniques such as uncertainty surrounding the photo, which may or may not be consistent for all characters, and weaving a unified narrative, referred to as a "chain of events," throughout the setting of the play.

The initial setting of the play is in a dining room featuring rose-coloured lighting that creates a romantic and joyful atmosphere. However, as soon as the inspector makes an entrance, the lighting abruptly changes to a brighter and harsher one, possibly symbolising the awakening of truth and the need to face reality for the Birling family. The play concludes with a warning about the dire consequences of arrogance and a failure to learn from mistakes, as expressed in the final paragraph. Furthermore, the second-to-last part succinctly sums up each character's behaviour throughout the play.

During the play, Sheila demonstrated her maturity and willingness to learn from her mistakes, while also exhibiting guilt. She displayed her caring and thoughtful nature, as well as her intelligence and realism, both during and after the inspector's visit. Eric tended to follow his sister's lead, who emerged as a powerful character with strong moral beliefs that conflicted with those of the older generation, including Mr. and Mrs. Birling and Gerald. Unfortunately, these older characters behaved irresponsibly, immaturely, and insensibly towards the end of the play.

In 1945, Priestly wrote a play to demonstrate to a mostly middle class audience that the working class were equally affected by the death and destruction of World War II.

The interwar period was marked by unemployment, strikes, and depression. Priestly believed that greater social responsibility for the welfare of others could improve the current situation. Therefore, we must acknowledge our mistakes and use them as learning opportunities.

Priestly's play reflects the idea that time is a malleable construct. Events appear to not yet have occurred and characters still have the opportunity to alter their deeds. This reflects the notion of the second chance offered by the Second World War. The older Birlings represent those who failed to learn from the First World War, while the younger generation of Sheila and Eric possess the possibility to learn and transform. Priestly aims to demonstrate society's shortcomings during this period of history.