Hi again,
Here's the doc I gave you today (in case you lose it, or 'file' it somewhere):
Priestley’s methods
·
The style is that of a ‘well-made
play’. That means:
1. progression
from ignorance to understanding
2. real time,
one setting, one storyline
The effect
is that it feels like you are watching
real life unfold in real time. That is, until Priestley breaks the conventions of the well-made play at the end.
·
Genre-wise, it seems like it is going to be a detective thriller – ‘a whodunit’. However, it develops into
something more like a morality play.
Medieval morality plays sought to teach the audience about the need for
goodness and the temptations of evil. They featured unrealistic, characters who
embody generic character types (eg. Everyman) and personifications (eg. the
Seven Deadly Sins).
·
The initial stage
directions are worth exploring. It is through these that Priestley sets up
our initial impressions of the Birlings. For instance, the phrase 'comfortable,
but not cosy and homelike' is the first suggestion we get that we are seeing an
awkward, unnatural facade of perfect
family life. The reference to the lighting, which goes from 'pink and intimate'
to harsh and bright symbolises the light
of truth. There will be nowhere for the Birlings to hide.
·
The stage directions
also reveal a lot about the characters. Sheila is initially full of mock aggressiveness and half serious and half playful. She
initially seems incapable of being serious except when she’s thinking of
herself (possessively). She’s giddy and immature, having led a very
sheltered and easy life up until now. The Inspector has a sense of massiveness about him and cuts in massively on several occasions,
dominating the stage. Indeed, he stage
manages the proceedings for Priestley. He could even be said to be
Priestley himself.
·
Dramatic
irony
is used heavily, especially to undermine Mr Birling. The effect is easily
achieved as the play is set in 1912, but the audience are watching in 1946 or
after. So the Titanic reference and war references have a great impact in
revealing Birling's complacency. This makes it quick and easy to position his audience against Mr and
Mrs Birling from the early stages of the play. Later ist becomes more subtle:
eg. Mrs B is the chairwoman of a charity! She condemns her own son!
·
Characterisation: Priestley sets up his characters to show contrasts.
·
The younger Birlings are dynamic
characters who experience change. They're believable humans with faults and
redeeming features. Eric and Sheila are like us in many ways - too concerned
with our own problems to see the big picture, but basically good. They just
need a wake-up call, which is what Priestley is trying to give us. Sheila in
particular acts as our representative on
the stage. She reacts with horror as we should, and she realises what's
really going on as we do. Her words make sure that we keep up (eg. when she
tells Mrs B to stop blaming the father of the child for everything.)
·
The older Birlings are static
characters. They're less believable as human beings; in fact, they seem to
be used by Priestley to encapsulate ideas (Mr B = Capitalism; Mrs B = inherited
wealth + status). They're almost caricatures.
Priestley uses dramatic irony to undermine them, and he makes sure we dislike
them from the start.
·
The two generations create a dichotomy
between the selfish attitudes of Edwardian Britain and the social
conscience of the post-war generation. Capitalism
vs socialism. In this way, Priestley's play contains hope for the future -
beyond the 'fire and blood and anguish'.
·
The Inspector is an unusual character. He is moralistic and seems
to be more focused on teaching the Birlings a lesson than uncovering the truth
about Eva Smith. For instance, he says they can 'divide the responsibility
between them after' he's gone. He represents socialism in the play. Perhaps
Priestley uses him as his own mouthpiece
- it certainly seems that way at the end - allowing him to go back in time to point the finger of blame at those he saw as
being responsible for everything that went wrong.
·
The play makes use of dramatic, cliffhanger endings at the end of each
act. These pauses give the audience time to reflect on their own actions. This
is also what happens at the end - Priestley delivers his final message, then
leaves everything open for us to interpret for ourselves. It's not really about
Eva at all, or the Birlings; it's about the 'millions and millions' of Evas,
and us.
·
Priestley builds lots of tension. From whether Birling knows about port or not, to the
Croft's absence, to Eric's behaviour and to the talk of what happened last
summer - there's clearly more to these relationships than initially meets the
eye. The general feeling is that appearances
and reality are very different things. This is highlighted by the Alderman
Meggarty conversation later.
·
The sounds
of doors knocking and slamming, as well as ringing telephones also help to create tension. Each time, they
mark a change in direction or
emphasis. When Eric goes out, we know he is involved too. When the phone rings
at the end, we only hear half a conversation, but it is clear from Birling's
face that something is wrong. This final phone call is a great way of stalling the narrative and maximising the
tension.
·
Some observations about language. Sheila’s language changes as she matures. Mrs B’s
language is snobbish (‘trifle impertinent’). Mr Birling uses euphemism (‘Horrid
business’) to avoid the grim reality of the situation; ignorance is bliss for him. The Inspector is plain speaking and
direct. He is an outsider in the social hierarchy and is not affected by it.
But uses emotive language and metaphors to describe society (‘We are members of
one body’).
·
The Inspector's final lines have the feel
of a rhetorical speech. It has
repetition, use of 'we', and the metaphor of 'fire and blood and anguish'. Is
he referring to war, or hell? Priestley is being intentionally ambiguous because he wants us to think. This speech
feels like it is directed at us.
·
Afterwards, Priestley's play comes full circle. The older Birlings return
to their old, self-satisfied and complacent ways. They drink and feel confident
about the future. Then... an Inspector calls! This circular structure forces us to ponder our own behaviour. We have
to accept that the message is not about the Birlings - Priestley wants us to write our own ending. The circular structure
suggests that if we don't change our ways, we're doomed to make the same
mistakes as the Birlings.
·
The twist at the end is made all the more effective
because of Priestley's use of the conventions
of the well-made play. We expect a neat ending, but we don't get it. We
expect realism, but we are left pondering whether Goole really was a ghoul.
Some interpretations to
consider: which do you agree with?
·
Priestley = the Inspector. A socialist time-traveller from the
future trying to show the Edwardians where they went wrong. Also, a stage
manager.
·
Inspector = ghoul. An ‘undead’ spirit that feeds off the dead. Is
the Inspector feeding off Eva in order to change attitudes? Does this make her
a sacrificial victim – a martyr like the suffragette Emily Davison?
·
Inspector = angelic spirit. Perhaps like in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, he offers the
Birlings one last chance at redemption? This would fit with the religious
connotations of ‘fire and blood and anguish’ (hell).
·
The modern morality play. We (and Sheila and Eric) are Everyman. They
will take the country forward to a brighter future once they’ve learnt their
lesson. They are the generation that will vote for socialism in 1945. The
Birlings collectively are the Seven Deadly Sins. The Inspector shows us the
need for righteousness/responsibility.
·
Mr Birling = Capitalism. The worthy working-class boy done good –
who then forgets his roots?
·
Mrs Birling = inherited wealth (old money). The upper-middle class
snob who can’t relate to those below her (even her own husband gets lectured
about how to behave). Gerald also fits in here. A nice(ish) guy, but he has too
much to lose from change.
Thanks for reading,
Mr M
