Priestley's methods and message

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